At the Central Baptist Church in Marshall, Texas, where I was baptized in the faith, we believed in a free church in a free state. I still do. My spiritual forbears did not take kindly to living under theocrats who embraced religious liberty for themselves but denied it to others. “Forced worship stinks in God’s nostrils,” thundered the dissenter Roger Williams… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (758)whit,
I would rather have 1% of a 16 inch pie than 20% of a dime-sized cupcake.
I’ll say it one more time. The history of economic systems in the 20th century clearly shows free-market systems far surpassing command systems.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 30, 2005 at 7:44 PM whit,
I don’t suppose you could give me a Reader’s Digest version? I don’t think I can finish all that in just a couple days.
Basic scientific and mathematically principle: The more concise the theory, the more elegant the explanation, the more likely the truth.
I believe someone by the name of Occam devised a Razor like that….
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 30, 2005 at 7:48 PM lb,
“His argument here is to show that the US does not have a monopoly on morality.”
If that is Rabbit’s argument, then I agree. I would appreciate it if you could quote my words that say we do have a monopoly. I will happily eat them.
But not having a monopoly does not mean we have none.
There is nothing immoral about putting up your dukes when someone takes a shot at you. Rabbit has consistently stated that America has no right.
And that I strenuously disagree.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 30, 2005 at 8:01 PM Jay, I don’t know what videos you watched, but the ones I watched show great explosion when the buildings collapsed. With 100 micron-fine dust from pulverized concrete being spewed more than 500 away from the buildings. Fire and passive collapsing would cause neither the explosion effect or the flour-fine dust. The dust cloud from the North Tower grew to 5 times the volume of the building within 30 seconds of the start of the collapse. The expansion of the dust cloud has been estimated to be 100 times greater than should have caused by each towers gravitational potential energy. Building 7, undamaged by Twin Towers debris, and with only two small areas of fire on the 7th and 12th floors minutes before it fell, collapsed into its own tidy footprint at a near free-fall speed, leaving the building adjacent to it totally unscathed. Its center collapsed ahead of its perimeter and streamers of smoked emerged from its facade… both characteristic of controlled demolition. It was the first structural steel building EVER to have the cause of its collapse attributed to fire alone. Previously-molten steel was found 7 levels below the ground at the towers and #7. Temperatures exceeding 2800 F would have been needed to produce such melting… temps not caused by the combustion of jet fuel. ETC.
Posted by ljwhit on Sep 30, 2005 at 8:21 PM “Those same intercepts clearly show Japan was digging in for a final victory or death struggle”
Not at all. They reported a patriotic and rhetorical call for the civilian population of Japan to dig in for a death struggle. There was real credible intel that neither military command nor the civilian population, had the logistical capacity to do so.
To hang your argument on the possible meanings of the word probable is weak. The conditionality is the careful diction of the reviewer and not the book. It would be good if you actually read it before making specious and sophomoric rhetorical third-hand arguments.
Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 30, 2005 at 8:23 PM Jay, if Rabbit hits me on the backside with a stick, am I then justified in smashing in your scull with a baseball bat?
Posted by ljwhit on Sep 30, 2005 at 8:25 PM “If that is Rabbit’s argument, then I agree. I would appreciate it if you could quote my words that say we do have a monopoly. I will happily eat them.”
You were arguing that ” ljwhit (not GhostRabbit) used the A-bomb reference to argue against the morality of American actions in the Middle East after 9/11”, this is the argument I am questioning, not that you made any claim of exclusive US moral righteousness. Why are you so unwilling to keep to the point? Why the diversion? You’re obviously not stupid, but deviousness exudes from your words like stink from a fresh turd.
Posted by luminous beauty on Sep 30, 2005 at 8:45 PM As I remember it from my readings, the “condition” that the Japanese (who were cleary ready to surrender) were negotiating was that the Emperor be kept as the figurehead leader of the country… since he was also recognized as the nation’s religious leader.
‘And the U.S. had no problem making this concession… AFTER they had dropped their Atomic bombs.
Posted by ljwhit on Sep 30, 2005 at 8:46 PM whit,
My first reaction to your data. Controlled demolitions wouldn’t cause great explosions; Concrete will create great explosions and pulverize to a fine dust when suddenly compacted under great pressure (30-60 stories of weight would do it); 500 feet out is not that far given that the towers were over 1000 feet tall (I could probably spit that far from that high - ok, maybe not, but how far out is deep left field from third base?); it was the first structural building to ever been hit by a fully loaded large commerical jet liner; explosions are more percussive than thermal and would be more likely to cause structurally damage and pulverize steel, not turn it into pools of molten steel.
But, I’ll research it… Be nice if you could provide authoritative sources for me to start with, that’d be great. Web sites that advocate weather machines were used to create tsunamis; books that are written to sensationalize and make lots of money, are not.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 30, 2005 at 8:53 PM J, as far as the economics thing goes… you seem to be a one-trick pony. Knowing that the elephant’s truck is like a big snake doesn’t tell you everything about elephants.
Anyway, I’m hardly suggesting that we do worst than we are doing… not at all. I just think WE COULD DO BETTER for the common good, the greater good, the nation, you know… THE PEOPLE… functional democracy… all that dribble.
Posted by ljwhit on Sep 30, 2005 at 8:55 PM lb,
Thank you for the backhanded compliment. Please understand I am fighting a multi-front war here. It is not deviousness; it is just there are at least four different points flying about to keep track of.
But, “not that you made any claim of exclusive US moral righteousness”.
ummm, I think we need another dictionary check here. Or maybe I misunderstood you when you used the word “monopoly”.
www.dictionary.com says,
monopoly. Exclusive possession or control.
Now, I am not trying to be argumentative here. But when the points keep shifting, it is hard to keep track of.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 30, 2005 at 9:01 PM whit,
What’s wrong with a one-trick pony?
If F = ma yesterday, today, tomorrow and forever, does that mean it is not relevant?
Can we do better? Yes, oh God yes! But not with the same ol’ tired Animal Farm logic that has been proven wrong, over and over and over again.
Churchill once said (I can’t remember if I used this yet, but if I did, then you’ll understand that I really like this) democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that we have tried thus far.
I feel the same way about free-market economies.
I am not a utopianist. I do not throw out the baby with the bath water, at least not until someone comes up with something better. Should we abandon democracy because, for example, all the fears of our Founding Fathers about factional politics have been realized, beyond their wildest nightmares? When you come up with something better, yes.
Until then, no.
One-trick pony time. Yes, your pony has a point. There is an unequal distribution of wealth, and it’d be great to level it out. But time for my pony ride. 20th century. free-market vs command economies.
Give me a viable solution that is better and has not already been demonstrated to not work, and I’ll play the band as we march down Main Street together.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 30, 2005 at 9:12 PM lb,
“There was real credible intel that neither military command nor the civilian population, had the logistical capacity to do so.”
Please connect the dots for me. Just because someone tells someone else they can’t do it, how does that necessarily require that they will be listened to.
If all it took was logistic capacity to wage war, we’d have the military sciences down to, well, a science. The Jews at Masada didn’t have a chance in hell, only a prayer. How come they didn’t give up.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 30, 2005 at 9:16 PM whit,
“Jay, if Rabbit hits me on the backside with a stick, am I then justified in smashing in your scull with a baseball bat?”
No, of course not. But you are assuming that I accept the notion that al Qaeda wasn’t the one wielding the Rabbit’s stick.
Sorry, but your gonna need a better sales pitch to convince me 9/11 was domestic terrorism perpetuated by Bush, Inc.
Posted by Jay Cline on Sep 30, 2005 at 9:19 PM Jay
When Luminous Beauty writes : ” an unerring habit of avoidance ” she is correct.
Deliberately diversionary would be a phrase I would use since I like the alliteration.
Jay writes : ” My gut reaction to your observations is that the first two, without knowing more detail, could very easily be and, in the absence of any substantive evidence, very probably is coincidence “
Coincidence? Maybe and maybe not. I think not. Jay, you brought up Ockhams’s Razor. In other words, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.
For detailed substantive evidence try typing ” 9/11 insider trading ” and ” 9/11 war games ” into a search engine. Pick and choose your own sources for confirmation.
Ijwhit was kind enough to provide the outline of the controlled demolition theory. Again, type ” 9/11 WTC controlled demolition ” into a search engine. Lots of sources to choose from.
Posted by David in Canada on Sep 30, 2005 at 9:28 PM Jay, I don’t believe those particular stats were ever provided by you in this thread. Perhaps they are more compatible to the stats you had mentioned. I have yet to find a source that seems fully authoritative on the matter, and don’t have the skills to interpret raw stats on my own. I have learned that part of the problem is that reliable stat info on the wealth/holding of the ‘stratospheric elite’ at the top end is quite scarce. So it remains somewhat of a mystery. ‘But then I wouldn’t think they would want to have the curtain pulled open to cast any more light their little game.
Posted by ljwhit on Sep 30, 2005 at 9:31 PM J, it was the country of Iraq we visited our “shock and awe” upon… you do understand that don’t you?
9-11 >>>>>> Al Qaeda ^^^^^?
9-11 >>>>>> Iraq ???????????????????
Al Qaeda >>>>> has substantial and historical verified ties to the various U.S. agencies CIA etal, the Pakistani SSI (Pak branch of CIA), Saudi Arabia, and so on…
Ties to Iraq are stabs in the dark and have no comparable substance. Why have we not followed the tracks that are clearest?
Odd isn’t it, J, that the head of the Pakistani SSI (can’t recall the name), who was the primary interfacer with Al Qaeda and terrorists in the region, just happened to come to the U.S. for secret consultations with intelligence/military/admin just two days before 9-11, leaving just a couple of days after. There is some reasonable evidence that this same man wired $100,000 to Mo Atta two weeks before 9-11. When this info began to leak, Mr. SSI quietly resigned and faded into his very comfortable woodwork. This particular curious thread was never inquired into by the 9-11 Ommission.
Posted by ljwhit on Sep 30, 2005 at 9:58 PM Regarding the books I mentioned relating to 9-11, I should correct myself on one point.
The book “ON BULLSHIT” is really just on bullshit… but it would be a useful and, oddly, very intellectual read.
J, the other books are quite serious works that raise important issue and questions and give loads of well-referenced information related to the pivotal issue we are discussing here. Only someone with lock-jaw of the mind and no sense of honesty could give these books a fair read and not find much there to ponder. Jay, this is about exploring for reality… converging on the best available approximation of the truth. At this point in time there is nothing available, that I know of, that is fully conclusive certainly not the sorry white-wash given us by the 9-11 Ommission). There is no true gain for any of us in getting stuck on some righteous position and being inflexible onto death. Deadness there. ‘Let’s not just cherry-pick or distort our intelligence like the neocons did.Speaking of distorting intelligence: Did you know that one of Saddam’s ex-son-in-laws was an intel assest for the neocons? Of course, you did. He testified that Saddam had been developing this and developing that, etc… WMD… ‘And those transcripts were put out for public consumption, helping to whip things up. The Rest of the Story: It was later discovered that, in the very same intel transcripts, later on this guy describes how he personally oversaw the destruction of all that he had described. This part of what he had to say was kept secret. How’s that for cherry-picking?
Posted by ljwhit on Sep 30, 2005 at 10:24 PM “The War on Freedom” by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
“The New Pearl Harbor” by David Ray Griffin
“Inside Job” by Jim Marrs
“CROSSING THE RUBICON” by Michael Ruppert
Posted by ljwhit on Sep 30, 2005 at 10:31 PM J,
No need to pull out the dictionary. I meant the same thing with both phrases. Mere repetition bores me. And your thick-headedness requires substantial repetition. The problem is comprehension on your part. Here is the sentence I wrote one more time.
You were arguing that “ ljwhit (not GhostRabbit) used the A-bomb reference to argue against the morality of American actions in the Middle East after 9/11”; this is the argument I am questioning, not that you made any claim of exclusive US moral righteousness.
Read this sentence again, carefully. Go back and read the original post. It may help. Let me know when you think you get it.
Sorry you’re so confused, but it isn’t like everybody is in the same room, yelling at you. One point at a time. Focus.
You write;
” Please connect the dots for me.” Blah, blah, blah.
I’m not your research assistant. Read the book. Read several. Speculating from ignorance does not count for much. Especially if you want to cast doubt on a fact’s validity. Specificity is all-important.
” If all it took was logistic capacity to wage war, we’d have the military sciences down to, well, a science. The Jews at Masada didn’t have a chance in hell, only a prayer. How come they didn’t give up?”
The Jews at Masada did give up. They all committed suicide. Not only did they lose the siege, they lost their faith in God. So they didn’t even have a prayer, did they?
I wouldn’t presume to think that logistics is all that is required to wage a war. However, without it, no matter how you slice it, your duck is fucked.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 1:17 AM Well dear ones, what did the Rabbit tell you about this one?
The Rabbit who is seldom rabid, tries to be polite and loves all life, said this one is not worthy. In the world that this one would have for us, he would long since be gone.
Jay would bring us to a point where any of us could just take a gun and blow off his idiot head. What would be the harm in that? Short sharp and sweet. With the sort of tactical skills and vision for things, including reality, he would be a sitting duck in such a world.
That is the thing you Idiot NEO-CON stooges have not even thought about yet. The fact that free thinking decent and balanced people, independant thinking people will be the most successful and likely to triumph the tougher things get.
Get used to defeat Jay. You have a lifetime of it ahead of you. Rabbit has seen how little chance there is for even well intentioned and somewhat reasoned people like WTH to “get well”. The fact is by comparison you have no chance at all. Rabbit has to admit that it was this reason why he went straight on the attack with this lame brain. Why bother? let’s just give it it a good belting with the heaviest stick in the box and throw it on the garbage heap again..
You nice and clever ones have been painting the most excellent canvas of reason and Rabbit will stick to biting this one.
. Sorry Liz, who is a very sweet girl and Rabbit is sad to show his angry self. Has Liz never seen a really angry Rabbit? When they bite and growl and even bark? If you haven’t you would never believe it possible, if you have it will have been a memorable experience I’m sure.
Rabbits are gentle and love even funny snails and ants. The Rabbit does not even hold a grudge against the fox who kills and it’s him as the cycle of life intended…............This does not mean Rabbit has to never defend himself, his loved ones or his IDEALS…..........Nothing is more single minded in the pursuit of goals than a Rabbit…...............You may have to look away from time to time dear Liz, the Rabbit will keep it clean, but this just means clean cuts with the Sword at this point…...........................Christopher Robins Rabbit, with a Sword and shield…............and a very determined stare…..............today.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 1, 2005 at 2:16 AM J says: Churchill once said (I can’t remember if I used this yet, but if I did, then you’ll understand that I really like this) democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that we have tried thus far.
Churchill… hmmmm.
U.S. Congressman Sol Bloom, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, said in 1926 that Mussolini “will be a great thing not only for Italy but for all of us if he succeeds.” WINSTON CHRUCHILL wrote (to M. we might guess) in 1927 that “If I had been an Italian I am sure I would have been entirely with you” and “would have donned the Fascist black shirt.” The American Ambassador to Italy, Richard Washburn Child, was so impressed with “corporatism” that he wrote in the preface to Mussolini’s 1928 autobiography that “it may be shrewdly forecast that no man will exhibit dimensions of permanent greatness equal to Mussolini. . . . The Duce is now the greatest figure of this sphere and time.” As late as 1940, CHURCHILL was still describing Mussolini as “a great man.”See… you have a tradition to uphold, J.
The way I see it, J, you ARE an idealist. You keep talking to me about some ideal model that you think is proven the best, and you assumed that I am necessarily talking about some totally opposite thing. No… J, the actuality does not match up to your ideal. What I am trying to address most of all are those factors that are corrupting and undermining and distorting the way the model, ideally, should function. We do not have a real free market, or a truly functioning democracy.I’m still guessing that you are among those who have a big ego investment in the Social Darwinism point of view because you’ve probably “paid your dues” and done quite well for yourself. You are therefore superior, a winner, etc. and wouldn’t want to see anyone “undeserving” get anything at all for less… or something like that. ‘And of course you would want to justify and legitimize everything you did to get where you are.
I’m not really making any judgements here. I’m just taking some guesses at psychological dynamics. True, tho… you don’t strike me as having a freely generous nature (freely meaning giving without expecting ‘something’ in return… as in, what’s-in-it-for-me).
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 2:45 AM Damn Rabbit lost half his post, bad electrons, bad….
........Oh well
. There is a Janitor who was the last person to leave WTC 1, and who was nationally reecognised for saving hundreds of lives. He came to work late that morning and was by chance in the basement on the morning arriving at work when he and others in the office felt an huge explosion and the walls and floor cracked. Then a technician who had been working in a lift shaft came running up from the next level screaming that there had been a massive explosion in the basement, and he was badly burnt and injured from the blast. The Janitor, helped this man to safety and as they were getting up to go, theynheard another explosion from the stories above…................that was the first airliner hitting them…..............This story is backed up by twenty-seven witnesses including the man he rescued from the lift door.
. Many firemen swear they heard explosions during the whole affair and there are recordings of some of their communications with their colleauges inside the WTCs. These communications show the fires were under control, also they indicate that explosions, consistent with cutter charges as described.
. The Firemen have been sworn to non-disclosure agreements and the recordings of all the 2-ways have been confiscated by the FBI. So have all the video footage which would shine the most crucial light on some of the more radical theories around. The footage the government is WITHOLDING would proove or utterly destroy many of the “Alternative Theories” abounding.
..
Why would they do that JAY?
..
JAY if you wish to question anything Rabbit has presented as a FACT, you may do so, but then you will be expected to read the sources offerred...
Above all you mindless prick, try and get one thing into your thick skull…......It was long since pointed out that all the sources I was posting were via. PRISON PLANET.
.....You are the epitomy of an illiterate Internet user if you are unable to comprehend that a link is not defined by what is it’s URL, and even Rabbit who can’t html knows this much.
... As I said the first time it is for my convenience I am going after all these easy things via Prison Planet’s archives.
...try looking them up you stupid troll they are anything from BBC to CNN and Reuters, AP. Lots of your favorites provide information which can be used, so long as one is discerning and we are.
....You will have to check the sources and they are linked to others as necessary.
...........
If Rabbit felt like it he could get any of his facts sourced just by googling but why do that when Rabbit already knows where the things are stored.
...
Prove something if you can Jay, or question something if you can Jay. If all you can do is spruik for your cause and make an idiot of yourself in front of multiple witnesses, then do that too. The record of your stupidity will stand for all to enjoy even after as your various delusions fail even you over the days and weeks and months ahead.
..
The whole tower of DREAMS and LIES is Rotten and Weak. It is crumbling under your feet Jay.
. Nasty Rabbit sometimes gets a grim satisfaction knowing that no amount of your delusional antics or faith based rantings will save you from the truth in the end.
..
Where once you could have been glad for that truth as it freed you, you have irrevocably placed yourself in a position where the truth has become your enemy, and you the enemy of truth.
..
That to a humble Rabbit does not sound like an enviable place in which to abide.
..
Suck eggs sunshine, when the day comes and you are sitting among the ashes of your dreams…..with your eyes open and nobody to blame but yourself, think about Rabbit who will be sitting somewhere safe and cosy with his little family having long since seen and prepared for the storm..
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 1, 2005 at 5:10 AM The post that went missing included a description of what Rabbit as a Bang Bunny knows about building demolitions. Also what he deduces from watching the available video footage of all three buildings collapse.
...
To anyone with the right clues the cutter charges are very obvious and the classic demolition patterns of ALL THREE collapses are unmistakeable.
...
The most crucial thing Rabbit would offer to the discussion about what can be deduced from the actual video footage which is from many sources and readily available, all show what we are looking for, if we look for it.
..
The dust and debris, even other effects of shock waves are clearly visible as they precede the point of collapse all the way to the ground. They are to be seen about thirty stories below the point of collapse, not explainable that many stories below by any air displacement. Anyicipate that one from anyone who is thinking. Not thirty stories and not evenly as these seem. Bang…. Bang…. Bang
..
You can take the actual videos and watch them beside actual videos of Skyscraper demolitions, you will not be able to pick the difference.
...
No other skyscraper ever collapsed despite the fact that jetliners have flown into them and some have burned at three times the temperature and for days, without collapsing.
..
The WTCs were actually far better able to withstand such thigs than most, they had been designed to take up to at least three simulataneous jetliner strikes. Bet you did not know that JAY? It is all only seconds away if you want.
..
Now what Rabbit thinks is the clincher on the whole deal is a bit of science, called Gravity. Shall just post this, to make sure electrons will let Rabbit, before saying the next, because this was said in much more detail and yet was slurped once.
..
Fears maybe the WATCHERS in the swamp might have nicked it and are poring over the details now. Too many things said about bangs maybe.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 1, 2005 at 5:32 AM More Grist for the Mill, J. #1
The Real Threat of Fascism
by Paul Bigioni
Observing political and economic discourse in North America since the 1970’s leads to an inescapable conclusion: the vast bulk of legislative activity favors the interests of large commercial enterprises. Big business is very well off, and successive Canadian and U.S. governments, of whatever political stripe, have made this their primary objective for at least the last 25 years. Digging deeper into twentieth century history, one finds this steadfast focus on the well-being of big business in other times and places. The exaltation of big business at the expense of the citizen was a central characteristic of government policy in Germany and Italy in the years before those countries were chewed to bits and spat out by fascism. Fascist dictatorships were borne to power in each of these countries by big business, and they served the interests of big business with remarkable ferocity. These facts have been lost to the popular consciousness in North America. Fascism could therefore return to us, and we will not even recognize it. Indeed, Huey Long, one of America’s most brilliant and most corrupt politicians, was once asked if America would ever see fascism. His answer was, “Yes, but we will call it anti-fascism”.By exploring the disturbing parallels between our own time and the era of overt fascism, I am confident that we can avoid the same hideous mistakes. At present, we live in a constitutional democracy. The tools necessary to protect ourselves from fascism remain in the hands of the citizen. All the same, I believe that North America is on a fascist trajectory. We must recognize this threat for what it is, and we must change course. I propose to identify the core economic elements of fascism. In doing so, I will show that present-day political fashions are leading us down the path already trodden by Italy and Germany.
Consider the words of Thurman Arnold, head of the Anti-trust Section of the U.S. Department of Justice in 1939:
“Germany, of course, has developed within 15 years from an industrial autocracy into a dictatorship. Most people are under the impression that the power of Hitler was the result of his demagogic blandishments and appeals to the mob… Actually, Hitler holds his power through the final and inevitable development of the uncontrolled tendency to combine in restraint of trade.”
Arnold made his point even more clearly in a 1939 address to the American Bar Association:
“Germany presents the logical end of the process of cartelization. From 1923 to 1935 cartelization grew in Germany until finally that nation was so organized that everyone had to belong either to a squad, a regiment or a brigade in order to survive. The names given to these squads, regiments or brigades were cartels, trade associations, unions and trusts. Such a distribution system could not adjust its prices. It needed a general with quasi-military authority who could order the workers to work and the mills to produce. Hitler named himself that general. Had it not been Hitler it would have been someone else.”
I suspect that to most readers, Thurman Arnold’s words are bewildering. Most people today are quite certain that they know what fascism is. When I ask people to define fascism, they typically tell me what it was, the assumption being that it no longer exists. I have asked this question on numerous occasions, and the usual answer contains references to dictatorship and racism which trail off into muttering when the respondent realizes that he or she knows almost nothing about fascism’s political and economic characteristics.
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:03 AM The Real Threat of Fascism #2
Before the rise of fascism, Germany and Italy were liberal democracies. Fascism did not swoop down on these nations as if from another planet. To the contrary, fascist dictatorship was the end result of political and economic processes which these nations underwent while they were still democratic. In both these countries, economic power became so utterly concentrated that the bulk of all economic activity fell under the control of a handful of men. Economic power, when sufficiently vast, becomes by its very nature political power. The political power of big business supported fascism in Italy and Germany.Business tightened its grip on the state in both Italy and Germany by means of intricate webs of cartels and business associations. These associations exercised a very high degree of control over the businesses of their members. They frequently controlled pricing, supply and the licensing of patented technology. These associations were private, but were entirely legal. Neither Germany nor Italy had effective antitrust laws, and the proliferation of business associations was generally encouraged by government. This was an era eerily like our own, insofar as economists and businessmen constantly clamored for self-regulation in business. By the mid 1920’s, however, self-regulation had become self-imposed regimentation. By means of monopoly and cartel, the businessmen had wrought for themselves a “command and control” economy which effectively replaced the free market. The business associations of Italy and Germany at this time are perhaps history’s most perfect illustration of Adam Smith’s famous dictum: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”.
How could the German government not be influenced by Fritz Thyssen, the man who controlled most of Germany’s coal production? How could it ignore the demands of the great I.G. Farben industrial trust, controlling as it did most of that nation’s chemical production? Indeed, the German nation was bent to the will of these powerful industrial interests. Hitler attended to reduction of certain taxes applicable to large businesses, while simultaneously increasing the same taxes as they related to small business. Previous decrees establishing price ceilings were repealed such that the cost of living for the average family was increased. Hitler’s economic policies hastened the destruction of Germany’s middle class by decimating small business. Ironically, Hitler pandered to the middle class and they provided some of his most enthusiastically violent supporters. The fact that he did this while simultaneously destroying them was a terrible achievement of Nazi propaganda.
Hitler also destroyed organized labor by making strikes illegal. Notwithstanding the socialist terms in which he appealed to the masses, Hitler’s labor policy was the dream come true of the industrial cartels that supported him. Nazi law gave total control over wages and working conditions to the employer. Compulsory (slave) labor was the crowning achievement of Nazi labor relations. Along with millions of people, organized labor died in the concentration camps. The camps were not only the most depraved of all human achievements, they were a part and parcel of Nazi economic policy. Hitler’s untermenschen, largely Jews, Poles and Russians, supplied slave labor to German industry. Surely this was a capitalist bonanza. In another bitter irony, the gates over many of the camps bore a sign that read “Urbeit Macht Frei” – “work shall set you free”. I do not know if this was black humor or propaganda, but it is emblematic of the deception that lies at the heart of fascism.
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:04 AM The Real Threat of Fascism #3
The same economic reality existed in Italy between the two world wars. In that country, nearly all industrial activity was owned or controlled by a few corporate giants, F.I.A.T. and the Ansaldo shipping concern being the chief examples. Land ownership in Italy was also highly concentrated and jealously guarded. Vast tracts of farmland were owned by a few latifundisti. The actual farming was carried out by a landless peasantry who were locked into a role essentially the same as that of the share cropper of the U.S. deep south. As in Germany, the few owners of the nation’s capital assets had immense influence over government. As a young man, Mussolini had been a strident socialist, and he, like Hitler, used socialist language to lure the people to fascism. Mussolini spoke of a “corporate” society wherein the energy of the people would not be wasted on class struggle. The entire economy was to be divided into industry specific “corporazioni”, bodies composed of both labor and management representatives. The corporazioni would resolve all labor/management disputes, and if they failed to do so, the fascist state would intervene. Unfortunately, as in Germany, there laid at the heart of this plan a swindle. The corporazioni, to the extent that they were actually put in place, were controlled by the employers. Together with Mussolini’s ban on strikes, these measures reduced the Italian laborer to the status of peasant.Mussolini the one-time socialist went on to abolish the inheritance tax, a measure which favored the wealthy. He decreed a series of massive subsidies to Italy’s largest industrial businesses and repeatedly ordered wage reductions. Italy’s poor were forced to subsidize the wealthy. In real terms, wages and living standards for the average Italian dropped precipitously under fascism.
Even this brief historical sketch shows how fascism did the bidding of big business. The fact that Hitler called his party the “National Socialist Party” did not change the reactionary nature of his policies. The connection between the fascist dictatorships and monopoly capital was obvious to the US Department of Justice in 1939. As of 2005, however, it is all but forgotten.
It is always dangerous to forget the lessons of history. It is particularly perilous to forget about the economic origins of fascism in our modern era of deregulation. Most Western liberal democracies are currently held in the thrall of what some call market fundamentalism. Few nowadays question the flawed assumption that state intervention in the marketplace is inherently bad. As in Italy and Germany in the 20’s and 30’s, business associations clamor for more deregulation and deeper tax cuts. The gradual erosion of antitrust legislation, especially in the United States, has encouraged consolidation in many sectors of the economy by way of mergers and acquisitions. The North American economy has become more monopolistic than at any time in the post-WWII period. Fewer, larger competitors dominate all economic activity, and their political will is expressed with the millions of dollars they spend lobbying politicians and funding policy formulation in the many right-wing institutes which now limit public discourse to the question of how best to serve the interests of business. The consolidation of the economy, and the resulting perversion of public policy are themselves fascistic. I am quite certain, however, that President Clinton was not worrying about fascism when he repealed federal antitrust laws that had been enacted in the 1930’s. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives is similarly unworried about fascism when it lobbies the Canadian government to water down our Federal Competition Act. (The Competition Act regulates monopolies, among other things, and itself represents a watering down of Canada’s previous antitrust laws. It was essentially written by industry and handed to the Mulroney Government to be enacted.)
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:07 AM The Real Threat of Fascism #4
At present, monopolies are regulated on purely economic grounds to ensure the efficient allocation of goods. If we are to protect ourselves from the growing political influence of big business, then our antitrust laws must be reconceived in a way which recognizes the political danger of monopolistic conditions. Antitrust laws do not just protect the marketplace, they protect democracy.
Our collective forgetfulness about the economic nature of fascism is also dangerous at a more philosophical level. As contradictory as it may seem, fascist dictatorship was made possible because of the flawed notion of freedom which held sway during the era of laissez-faire capitalism in the early twentieth century. It was the liberals of that era that clamored for unfettered personal and economic freedom, no matter what the cost to society. Such untrammeled freedom is not suitable to civilized humans. It is the freedom of the jungle. In other words, the strong have more of it than the weak. It is a notion of freedom which is inherently violent, because it is enjoyed at the expense of others. Such a notion of freedom legitimizes each and every increase in the wealth and power of those who are already powerful, regardless of the misery that will be suffered by others as a result. The use of the state to limit such “freedom” was denounced by the laissez-faire liberals of the early twentieth century. The use of the state to protect such “freedom” was fascism. Just as monopoly is the ruin of the free market, fascism is the ultimate degradation of liberal capitalism.
In the postwar period, this flawed notion of freedom has been perpetuated by the neo-liberal school of thought. The neo-liberals denounce any regulation of the marketplace. In so doing, they mimic the posture of big business in the pre-fascist period. Under the sway of neo-liberalism, Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and George W. Bush have decimated labor and exalted capital. (At present, only 7.8 per cent of workers in the U.S. private sector are unionized – about the same percentage as in the early 1900’s.) Neo-liberals call relentlessly for tax cuts which, in a previously progressive system, disproportionately favor the wealthy. Regarding the distribution of wealth, the neo-liberals have nothing to say. In the result, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As in Weimar Germany, the function of the state is being reduced to that of a steward for the interests of the moneyed elite. All that would be required now for a more rapid descent into fascism are a few reasons for the average person to forget that he is being ripped off. The racist hatred of Arabs, fundamentalist Christianity or an illusory sense of perpetual war may well be taking the place of Hitler’s hatred for communists and Jews.
Neo-liberal intellectuals often recognize the need for violence to protect what they regard as freedom. Thomas Freidman of the New York Times has written enthusiastically that “the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist”, and that “McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U.S. Air Force F-15…”. As in pre-fascist Germany and Italy, the laissez-faire businessmen call for the state to do their bidding even as they insist that the state should stay out of the marketplace. Put plainly, neo-liberals advocate the use of the state’s military force for the sake of private gain. Their view of the state’s role in society is identical to that of the businessmen and intellectuals who supported Hitler and Mussolini. There is no fear of the big state here. There is only the desire to wield its power. Neo-liberalism is thus fertile soil for fascism to grow again into an outright threat to our democracy.
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:10 AM The Real Threat of Fascism #5
Having said that fascism is the result of a flawed notion of freedom, I respectfully suggest that we must reexamine what we mean when we throw around the word “freedom”. We must conceive of freedom in a more enlightened way. Indeed, it was the thinkers of the Enlightenment that imagined a balanced and civilized freedom which did not impinge upon the freedom of one’s neighbor. Put in the simplest terms, my right to life means that you must give up your freedom to kill me. This may seem terribly obvious to decent people. Unfortunately, in our neo-liberal era, this civilized sense of freedom has, like the dangers of fascism, been all but forgotten.
Paul Bigioni – paul@bigionilaw.com – is a lawyer practicing in Markham, Ontario, Canada. He is a commentator on trade and political issues. This article is drawn from his work on a book about the persistence of fascism.
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:11 AM Nein, whit. I’m no more a religious nutcase than I am a conspiracy wingnut.
Sorry to disappoint anyone’s preconceived stereotypes.
(I have not yet had a chance to read the articles on fascism. I have been busy with the following. But I will get to them now.)
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:35 AM (damn! only 4000 characters allowed. Give me a minute)
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:36 AM David,
(9/11 conspiracy)
The only two things I have been avoiding is jumping to conclusions and staying out of fur fights. I have been successful with the first, not so good at the second.
We must be looking at different ducks.
(from Wikipedia.org)
“Occam’s Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says
Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.
For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine’s tracks. According to Occam’s Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.”
What is the probability of being hit by lightning? If you get hit by lightning, do you assume a conspiracy by the electric company using top secret lightning machines because you sent your last electric bill three days late last month?
Assuming a conspiracy when a low probability event occurs, such as a spike in put options, requires greater assumptions than acknowledging that even low probability events, such as rolling box cars, or getting struck by lightning when you didn’t pay your electric bill, will happen. Somewhere, sometime. This does not make the conspiracy theory automatically wrong. Conspiracies do exist. For example, RICO racketeering laws depend upon proving it. But you need corroborative evidence to refute the probability, like dice shavings under the feet of the dice shooter or the smoking lightning generator.
Ditto with the war games.
Ditto with WTC collapse (conditionally, of course. I have not yet had the time to research whit’s data to see if all claims are accurate).
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:36 AM whit,
(distribution of wealth debate)
I quoted those stats here:
Posted by Jay Cline on September 29, 2005 at 12:19 AM
(page two of the postings)
Actually, the top 1% of the population has 1/3 the wealth. And the top 20% has 80%.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so111/stratification/in ncome&wealth;.htm
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050
As far as Churchill and el Duce, you really need to reread your history. As you read Churchill’s references about el Duce, have a dictionary handy to explain these three words, sarcasm, irony, pragmatism. Oh, and British wit. Churchill was a consummate democrat, and a Brit with a tremendous sense of wit, who has been consistently described as the lone voice in the wilderness rallying against the tyrannies of fascism, long before anyone else did.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:38 AM whit,
(justification of Iraq War debate)
Was Saddam directly involved with al Qaeda in 9/11? Probably not.
Did Saddam knowingly provide the kind of financial support toward 9/11 or a 9/11-type attack on par with quasi-official Saudi resources? Probably not.
Did Saddam knowingly provide direct logistic support for 9/11 preparations like Iran? Possible but not currently known with certainty.
Did Saddam provide rear echelon support after Afghanistan like Pakistani intelligence services and certain Pakistani tribes? (sorry, trick question - we never gave him the chance)
Did Saddam support terrorist groups? Absolutely. Not just during the time frame in question (late 90s to 9/11), but since at least the early 70s. Abu Nidal, the Osama of the last 30 years of the 20th century, was well acquainted with Saddam. Nidal served as Yasser Arafat’s Fatah representative to Baghdad in 1970. After three years of conducting terrorist campaigns including 1972 Black September massacre at the Munich Olympics, Arafat sent a couple deputies to reason with Nidal because even Arafat was troubled by the repercussions of Nidal’s terrorism. Saddam sent them packing, claiming responsibility and said Nidal was just carrying out Saddam’s orders.
Nidal continued to work closely with Saddam, and, in 1985, with Libyan leader Muammar Kaddafi. Saddam gave Nidal refuge in 1999 when Nidal became too hot to handle for the Libyans. Saddam (allegedly) had Nidal killed in 2002, in the wake of 9/11 passions, when Nidal was too hot for even Saddam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal
The linkage between Bin Laden and Saddam in the 90s, as reported by Czech intelligence, has already been referenced by me earlier.
So, where am I going with this?
Attacking Iraq the second time was not strictly about al Qaeda. I never said it was. Bush never said it was. The neo-cons never said it was.
After 9/11, Bush declared War on Terrorism, not al Qaeda.
Bush made it abundantly clear that from the American perspective of the war, there would be no fence sitting. You either supported the war on terror or you were against it. I know that the Democrats and late-night talk show hosts (and George Lucas) had a field day ridiculing this, but so what? That was the explicit war objective clearly laid out by the Commander-in-Chief himself. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, all were explicitly put on notice. The Pakistani President and the Saudi Crown Prince were likewise given a choice, namely, choose sides and choose wisely. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia made one choice, three made the other choice. Syria is still trying to play both sides against the middle.
Attacking Iraq first was a sound military and political decision. From an international perspective, the deck of cards was already stacked against Saddam. He arrogantly invaded Kuwait and got his butt kicked. For twelve years, he ignored and sidestepped one UN resolution after another. His previous use of WMD against his own citizens and his obstinate behavior towards the UN inspectors charged with verifying his (non)compliance with the surrender agreement was just gravy. Choosing Iraq as the second target in the War on Terrorism was a no-brainer.
Ok, I realize that to many this sounds like “ducking the issue”. Yes, if the war was strictly cast as a war against al Qaeda, I have no doubt Saddam would still be in power. But the War on Terrorism is a war on terrorism (God, I sound like a bloody dictionary!)
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:38 AM lb,
(international law enforcement and national sovereignty)
“You’re argument implies that the US is the cop and Iran is the criminal. You are certainly not arguing the reverse, are you? The truth is they are sovereign nations. The analogy is not apt. It is apples and oranges.”
No, I disagree. Sovereignty is not sacrosanct. Iran’s democracy has been hijacked by thugs. The only sovereignty they can claim is one of possession by threat of physical harm. How can America justify taking police-like action against a sovereignty with that kind of undemocratic foundation? Because their actions are morally wrong and because the actions of these thugs in the world of international terrorism threatens our interests.
The Jews at Masada did give up. They all committed suicide.
Or, as the Japanese would say, they would become Kamikaze, the Divine Wind that would sweep the Americans from the Pacific Ocean. Yeah, that sounds like the surrender of a defeated people.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:39 AM All,
Look. We are not going to see eye to eye on this. That’s fine. I’ve made my viewpoints clear. The war on terrorism is just, Iraq was a legitimate part of it. I have seen no authoritative evidence to believe that 9/11 was not committed by al Qaeda. Nor have I seen any good argument why Saddam and the Iranian mullahs should not be held culpable and accountable for aiding and abetting terrorists as they used them for their own proxies. I see nothing immoral about fighting the good fight. And I just can’t be convinced of conspiracy theories that are proved on secret evidence. I am not an idealist who believes I am always right and everyone should heed me.
All I can do is point out discrepancies and explain my point of view.
Sorry that you have not been able to convert me.
I am not quitting the debate. If someone says something that I feel needs a response, I will.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:40 AM Apologies, folks, for the huge postings. I didn’t trust that Jay would check out the article if just referred to it.
I respect all of you that are participating in this, perhaps, foolishness. I keep telling myself, “Go get a life”, but I have one. Yet… I have gotten engaged, maybe hooked, here… for the while anyway.
I must say that I really appreciate the thought and work that I’ve seen put into this deliberation. ‘Some very impressive performances.
I kinda flounder around… but I’m a newbie to this kind of engagement. Sorry, if I’ve bummed anyone out… even you, Jay.
The human condition: We all can only operate according to the level of our development and understanding. Real evil derives, perhaps, from forsaking and denying what we do understand and realize for some baser motive or agenda… the selling out of one’s soul.
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 6:43 AM Did Saddam support terrorist groups? Absolutely… according to Jay.
Did the U.S. support terrorist groups? Undeniably, you bet your ass. Reseach THAT question, Jay.
Here you go again, J, with the double standards… whatever we do is justified. Remember at all the discussion of hypocrisy?
By your logic (taking away the double standard) the 9-11 attack WAS justified.
Honestly, Jay, how can the “was on terrorism” be anything but an absolute farce when the U.S. government is the biggest terrorist organization on the planet. If Bush the Torturer put a bullet in his own head, then I’d say he was making some progress.
Please consider reading the books I suggested, Jay, they are very pertinent to all of this. You need to develop a respect for and discernment for the concepts of “validity” and “reliability” in regards to the legitimacy of information. Everyone here has been trying to drive this point home to you: references… sources. Issues, too, of logic and integrity. Why pretend that this is an argument (in the positive sense of the word) and a debate, when you maintain an attitude of “Well, this is my story, and I’m sticking to it.”
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 7:06 AM whit,
Here you go again, J, with the double standards… whatever we do is justified. Remember at all the discussion of hypocrisy?
No, whit, I never said that either. I am not the one generalizing. Just because I say our response to 9/11 was justified does not imply in anyway that I believe everything we do is justified.
You did see my response to your rather sarcastic Gott mit Uns?, didn’t you?
Therein lies the hypocrisy I was alluding to.
Anyone making such grand sweeping generalization sees the world in black and white. And despite allegations to the contrary, I don’t.
Whit, when you are ready to drop your sweeping generalizations you have made of me, stereotypes based strictly on my defense of free markets and our 9/11 response, maybe some of this testosterone you are expelling will die down and we can have an honest debate.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 7:21 AM whit,
While I don’t agree the situation is as dire as Mr. Bigioni portrays, I certainly am not a fan of corporatism. Corporatism, or oligarchy or monopoly, is not the same as free-market theory. In fact, they are very much opposite. I fully support the anti-trust laws that brought down Rockerfeller, Gates, etc.
(you did understand my reference to, and comments about, Churchill’s quote about democracy, no?)
As Bigioni says, “Neither Germany nor Italy had effective antitrust laws, and the proliferation of business associations was generally encouraged by government.”, but his very next sentence is a little exaggerated, “This was an era eerily like our own. We do have anti-trust laws and they are still strong today. They slowed Gates down and proposed mergers are still being denied today.
(note: there are two recently proposed mergers in the telecom industry that I would strongly encourage everyone who fears corporatism to oppose and make your voice loud. See my comments at http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/2005/09/mergers-promote-competitionan.html - thanks, whit for the promo opportunity on that!)
However, this settles nothing regarding our honest difference on economic systems, does it? Unless one equates free-markets as inherently and inevitably creating the dangerous preconditions for a rise to fascism. But I didn’t get that from Bigioni’s writing. He does allude to my Churchillian comments on the imperfect nature of the system yet in place, though.
I don’t get this: At present, monopolies are regulated on purely economic grounds to ensure the efficient allocation of goods. If we are to protect ourselves from the growing political influence of big business, then our antitrust laws must be reconceived in a way which recognizes the political danger of monopolistic conditions. Antitrust laws do not just protect the marketplace, they protect democracy.
But, we do have anti-trust laws?? So, at present, monopolies are regulated on legal and economic grounds. Big contradiction there. And the point of the current anti-trust laws is they do recognize the danger of monopolies. That is their reason for existence!
Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and George W. Bush have decimated labor and exalted capital. (At present, only 7.8 per cent of workers in the U.S. private sector are unionized – about the same percentage as in the early 1900’s.)
Gimme a break! Unions have done it to themselves (watch out! another promo!)
http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/2005/09/disunionthe-changing-face-of-unions.h html
and anyone that quotes Thomas Friedman loses points in my book. ‘nother promo.
http://gadflychronicles.blogspot.com/2005/09/911-and-h-katrinabookending-bushs.h html
But I do generally agree with Bigioni. I would dispute that fascism was strictly a product of flawed freedoms, though the danger is certainly there. Fascism has been around since the first bully ever threatened his brother with bodily harm.
So, what does this have to do with the distribution of wealth argument and the superiority of free-markets over command economies? Fascist Germany and Italy and Japan, by the way, were command economies, regardless of how they got there.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 7:22 AM To all,
A little not-so-preemptive strike.
If you are sincere in your belief that I am ducking questions, if you are sincere that you want me to respond to your assertions, please drop the personal insults and start formulating coherent paragraphs of at least a 7th grade level…
That is why I do not respond to (or even read) bunnies’ comments. lb is next on my boycott list.
I can get better poetry from Uyghur poets imprisoned in Chinese jails.
Actually, that isn’t fair. There is some extraordinary poetry coming from that part of the world.
You really gotta read this:
http://www.rfa.org/english/uyghur/2005/06/27/wild_pigeon/
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 7:35 AM Jay
Wealth: ‘like I said, not quite the same, but more compatible. ‘And there is nothing really exact about these estimates.
Jay rants: “IRAN’s democracy was hijacked by thugs!” You are referring, I suppose, to the crushing of democratic government of the popular Prime Minister, Mossadegh, in 1953 by the CIA, so that U.S. and British oil companies could regain control over the oil resources of the Iranian people (do any possible similaries occur to anyone here?).
‘And what a fascist pimp we put into power to replace him. The Shah’s father, the old shah, who had been displaced by democracy, was an avowed big fan of… (you guessed it perhaps) Adolf Hitler. You’re hanging with the right crowd here, Jay. Such a hypocritter.
‘And what do you think is happening to U.S. democracy, Jay?
Sovereignty is not sacrosanct… might makes right… we can fuck with anyone we want… how are they gonna stop us… we are the king of the world… blah, blah, blah,...
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 7:42 AM Help….Rabbit has problems. ....................second time he tried to post the info which is Rabbit’s own contribution to 911 bag theory, involves pretty compelling FACT, as yet overlooked by people thinks Rabbit. ...........................This time everything went into meltdown. ....................Rabbit’s admittedly ‘bit’ wonky computer crashed even quicker than the WTC’s, free fall which is what it is about…..............................
.
To those who know what Rabbit means. note that this may be a co-incidence, but don’t think so…......this is not the only time Rabbit has seen a certain pattern…..........
..................
..
Not sure how we will go now but Rabbit will try again to pen the words which someone does not want posted.
. WHIT you are a very shiny mind and Rabbit is glad to make your aquaintance. It seems like JAY may be a Shill or at least a superior type of Troll, he will mostly avoid anything important Rabbit says and just call Rabbit, hurtful names like BUNNY FACE. .........OOh that is so mean, BUNNY FACE…..Poor rabbit.
. This is why Rabbit shall address his thoughts of worth to those who can think and care to. .....It will become necessary to Wack the Moron on occassion and Rabbit shall do his duty in this regard, be sure. But the fact is he as a Troll or Shill will fear the Rabbit and will not be able to look Rabbit in the eye. To do so he would have to deal directly with the questions put to him, which he cannot, because Rabbit does not give him room to lie and maneuver. He will throw rocks desperately at Rabbit who will dodge them with ease and a happy face. all the while Rabbit will Wack the Moron, sometimes for fun, sometimes out of obligation, inevitably such a stupid one will hit its own head many times upon the Rabbit’s Stick without Rabbit doing anything to help it.
...
So to Whit and Liz and david and any who can think, the next Rabbit post is mostly for you, since Jay is too scared to even acknowledge Rabbit.
..........Bewar the Shill, it bears the mark. see it’s massively long rants with no substance, smoke and mirrors, making it look like a debate exists where there is none, do you not see its antics people?
..
It has occurred to Rabbit how often we all get involved in dealing with these Morons like Jay and all his other clones. How often we all end up taking over the wacking or indulging in wacking the Troll or Shill as a group and in doing so often miss sharing some of the more important stuff we could give each other. Instead of repeating the same basic FACTS which we have all long since established, and have moved on from. We never get to move on when we must keep teaching the ONE TIMES TABLES to the Willfully Ignorant like JAY, SCORP and Wolf to name a few recent ones. BTW the Vampire and Ramjet SHILLS still infest the DU thread, they have set up permanent home there it would seem.next to come will be Bunny Bang Theory,....If the Electrons allow it.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 1, 2005 at 7:45 AM My god did we see that?
..
The Troll can post a source when it means nothing but an attempt at wit?
. ..What a pathetic little hypocrite you are JAY.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 1, 2005 at 7:47 AM Whit you need not apologise to anyone, you are cherant, reasoned and articulate. You make valid points and back them up with sources especially if challenged on anything.
....
It is not Whit who needs to apologise...
Just take note as much of the tactics of the Troll as anything he manages to say. Notice how much he ducks and dances and how much energy he will devote to saying absolutely nothing. Except repeating his opinions as if his mere utterance gives them the the force of universal law.
..
Rabbit is going to hit YOU with a BIGGER fact than you have ever imagined JAY and it is going to prove that at least one part of the OFFICIAL THEORY of WTC’s was false….
Not that proof means anything to a man such as your self who can turn the course of rivers on command.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 1, 2005 at 7:56 AM No doubt, Jay, that civil and respectful is better… no doubt. But honesty and fair-play should go along with that. In all due respect, altho some little shift in attitute appears in the making, I have to say, not as a put down but just what’s so for me, that I haven’t really felt that you have operated with a very high level of honesty, integrity, and open-mindedness. It has really frustrated me. I have mixed feelings about it looking like everyone is ganging up on you, but you have managed to piss almost everyone off… ‘And I don’t think it is only about differences of perspective. Certainly there has been good reason for you to be pissed off and offended, too. Maybe we should all go back to the drawing board. This thing has run very far afield. If you interested in checking out some info not in your little box about 9-11, you might investigate the books I suggested… if you have the time for that kind of reading. It’s not blog stuff… a little more serious and thorough and comprehensively organized.
I’ve gotta get some sleep.
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 8:10 AM By the Way JAY Blogs are not generally considered sources!
. What was the poetry you were “not getting” around here? Rabbit missed the poems. Nobody else mentioned poems thinks Rabbit. You seem to see a lot of things others don’t.Still Rabbit tries to post the Bunny Bang Theory, but a third computer crash, seems to happen when these words are in the post.
. ................D*MOLITI*N….............EX*LOS*VE…................WT TC
..
Weirding Rabbit out and frustrating too.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 1, 2005 at 8:21 AM The strange collapse of WTC 7 has never been reported ANYWHERE in the mainstream media. If these suggestions are true then the implications are massive.
Steel Not Seen As Factor in WTC Collapse: Early tests on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators said Wednesday.
WTC 7: First large building ever to collapse from fire alone (no debris impact)
The Firefighters’ Tapes - Tapes reveal that fires were under control not raging infernos: A lot of the portions of the tapes have been classified. This portion lasts an hour and thirteen minutes, we have highlighted the interesting parts below with full transcripts.
Where’s the inferno? The reason given for the collapse of the twin towers is floor trusses at the aircraft impact level failed due to an inferno generated by aircraft fuel which turned the impacted floors into an 800ºC furnace capable of casting aluminum and glazing pottery.
Experts says explosives brought down the towers - then strangely changes his mind days later: Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.
More Photographs Unearthed to Suggest Bombs in the Twin Towers
An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks (bombs in the towers)
Unasked Questions about bombs in the World Trade Center on September 11 2001: One (or more) eyewitness reported hearing a series of at least about “five” explosions in at least one of the buildings just before it came down.
Eyewitness Reports Persist Of Bombs At WTC Collapse: Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media.
Eyewitnesses tell of horror - “I heard the bomb”
Full horror of WTC attack on FBI tape - “Then comes a longer and much louder explosion.”
New York Firefighters’ Final Words Fuel Burning Questions About 9-11: Evidence that could debunk the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center is being kept secret by the Department of Justice on a flimsy pretext.
WTC 7 Professional Demolition Footage (be patient while this GIF image downloads)
ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC: Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.
Rescue Fireman Louie Cacchioli - “We think there was bombs set in the building”: I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.
Unexplained 9-11 Explosion at WTC Complex: Despite the fact that the horrible events of Sept. 11 occurred in broad daylight and were widely photographed, significant aspects of the attacks have been completely suppressed by a media blackout.
. .Still will add Bunny Bang Theory, but above is a sample of headers which can be traced back to sources by going to the source here.
.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 1, 2005 at 9:58 AM Remember any “New chum internet users” the fact that the source begins at PRISON PLANET which is but a News Source, bit right wing attitudes for this Hopper, but each to his or hers. The fact remains it is a site which mostly collates credible news and apart from clearly defined comment (Defined as only comment or opinion) is wholly credible as a source of news. The fact remains that whether or not you find them credible, for any NEW CHUMS, is beside the point, for Mr Jones will merely point the way and you will find the Facts reffered to as being there. Then come back and tell us you have seen the link. Tell us it is only the opinion of one expert in the field or you may go for the more sophisticated attack, true or otherwise on the witness’ credentials….It has all been done, you are not the first troll to come this way….You need only follow the script, we know it as well as you…..............it tells you what to say and think…............just try and show a bit of imagination, pretend you have sources and link to porn sites or something in hopes nobody will check them since you never check their sources..but try and get your game up.
. . http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#bombsJAY
. JAY, get a bit of sophistication into your arguments, don’t just keep doing the snarling dog in the corner, that was Wolf’s way. Then merely dropping the God references yet retaining the same faith based screeching and pretences at dignity while slutting your mind for thrills.
. Go and do a few hours research before you come back and display your empty cupboards again.
. .
The best place to begin is at the source above.
. You have had a hint that Rabbit and maybe others may be using the one source for source links, maybe it would help your cause to check out our background info. You will be able to pick from any of the categories you feel we may be lagging in and CHECK our sources. You may find that at the end of it is a Porn site or something and you can ACTUALLY enjoy getting to kick someone’s ass for real, ACTUALLY PROVING they are full of shit about some point they may be trying to prove..
. .Dude I may only be a Rabbit but I can tell you that it sure as hell is a lot easier than trying to just insult people and mouth off hoping to score some points that way.
. Since you can’t actually hit anyone or shoot them, and since anything you say is recorded and can be used against one, it pays to be wise with the word.
. .On right wing type sites, your sort of antics can score all sorts of points. But where logic and reason prevail, where open minded meets facts, you are but a little Baa Lamb with such crude tools..
Try our way, you might score a point here and there, but best of all people who are used to being nice to each other and like to, will be nice to you, even if we still think you are full of shit.
. .Ask WTH (whom Rabbit hopes sees you here, ....look at it WTH, even though you agree with him do you want to be his friend?) Rabbit is quite pleasant to WTH him these days having once been less than nice, shall we say.., and this despite still usually thinking WTH is full of shit..
.. this is because he has engaged his brain and frankly he can make a lot better fist of the argument you wish you could.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 1, 2005 at 9:59 AM whit,
No, I was referring to the mullahs who, after the 1979 revolution, use secret police to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run from elected office.
What kind of democracy do you have when one political party has that authority? You have a one party democracy.
And if I had ever expressed admiration for the Shah, then I would absolutely be a hypocrit.
Might does not make right. That is why sovereignty that was grabbed by force of arms is not necessarily legit. Therefore not sacred. The modern notion of sacred sovereignty was based on 19th century pragmatism. I won’t take you out if you don’t take me out.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 12:57 PM whit,
I do apologize for some of the earlier heavy handed sarcasm. Going with the whit-less snark was probably the most egregious. I had great difficulty with the onslaught from Rabbit. David was a splash of cold water and I have attempted to be more civil.
I believe I have been honest and forthright characterizing my opinions as opinions. But it is difficult when I get repeatedly blindsided by assignments to my beliefs that I never made (Gott mit Uns and “hanging” with the Shah are the most recent ones).
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 1:10 PM whit,
However, I will not do other people’s homework. If someone has a point to make, then make it. I believe it to be very disingenuous to make a conclusion and then substantiate it by sending all those who disagree to volumes of books or google references and other resources.
All that does is shut the debate down.
I appreciate the technical info you did provide on 9/11. I have not yet had a chance to investigate. But (no sarcasm intended here) an accurate bibliographical reference to that specific data would be appreciated.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 1:19 PM whit,
I hope no offense was taken by the last couple posts. None was intended…
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 1:21 PM correction:
to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run <u>for</u> elected office.
not,
to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run from elected office.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 1, 2005 at 1:23 PM What an honor to make Jay Cline’s boycott list.
This is AOK with me. I’m getting bored pointing out the logical errors and superficial interpretations of fact in his ‘arguments’. Watching him spin and twist, distort and and deny has been amusing, but it is getting redundant.
- For everyone’s edification, I will post here a remarkable essay by a hero of the right:
-Why I Am Not a Conservative
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek
In The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960)“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.” - Lord Acton
1. At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty,[1] those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as “conservative,” it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.
Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called “liberalism” was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves “liberals.” I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term “liberal” in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:05 PM Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a “brake on the vehicle of progress,”[3] I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. In fact, he differs much more from the collectivist radical of today than does the conservative. While the last generally holds merely a mild and moderate version of the prejudices of his time, the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists.
2. The picture generally given of the relative position of the three parties does more to obscure than to elucidate their true relations. They are usually represented as different positions on a line, with the socialists on the left, the conservatives on the right, and the liberals somewhere in the middle. Nothing could be more misleading. If we want a diagram, it would be more appropriate to arrange them in a triangle with the conservatives occupying one corner, with the socialists pulling toward the second and the liberals toward the third. But, as the socialists have for a long time been able to pull harder, the conservatives have tended to follow the socialist rather than the liberal direction and have adopted at appropriate intervals of time those ideas made respectable by radical propaganda. It has been regularly the conservatives who have compromised with socialism and stolen its thunder. Advocates of the Middle Way[4] with no goal of their own, conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes - with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.
The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies. Since the development during the last decades has been generally in a socialist direction, it may seem that both conservatives and liberals have been mainly intent on retarding that movement. But the main point about liberalism is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still. Though today the contrary impression may sometimes be caused by the fact that there was a time when liberalism was more widely accepted and some of its objectives closer to being achieved, it has never been a backward-looking doctrine. There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalism did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. Liberalism is not averse to evolution and change; and where spontaneous change has been smothered by government control, it wants a great deal of change of policy. So far as much of current governmental action is concerned, there is in the present world very little reason for the liberal to wish to preserve things as they are. It would seem to the liberal, indeed, that what is most urgently needed in most parts of the world is a thorough sweeping away of the obstacles to free growth.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:11 PM This difference between liberalism and conservatism must not be obscured by the fact that in the United States it is still possible to defend individual liberty by defending long-established institutions. To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because they are long established or because they are American but because they correspond to the ideals which he cherishes.
3. Before I consider the main points on which the liberal attitude is sharply opposed to the conservative one, I ought to stress that there is much that the liberal might with advantage have learned from the work of some conservative thinkers. To their loving and reverential study of the value of grown institutions we owe (at least outside the field of economics) some profound insights which are real contributions to our understanding of a free society. However reactionary in politics such figures as Coleridge, Bonald, De Maistre, Justus Möser, or Donoso Cortès may have been, they did show an understanding of the meaning of spontaneously grown institutions such as language, law, morals, and conventions that anticipated modern scientific approaches and from which the liberals might have profited. But the admiration of the conservatives for free growth generally applies only to the past. They typically lack the courage to welcome the same undesigned change from which new tools of human endeavors will emerge.
This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such,[5] while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about. It is, indeed, part of the liberal attitude to assume that, especially in the economic field, the self-regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments to new conditions, although no one can foretell how they will do this in a particular instance. There is perhaps no single factor contributing so much to people’s frequent reluctance to let the market work as their inability to conceive how some necessary balance, between demand and supply, between exports and imports, or the like, will be brought about without deliberate control. The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change “orderly.”
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:19 PM This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:23 PM Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.
When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.
It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:24 PM In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power.[8] The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.
Admittedly, it was only when power came into the hands of the majority that further limitations of the power of government was thought unnecessary. In this sense democracy and unlimited government are connected. But it is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should not learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government. At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the antidemocratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:26 PM That the conservative opposition to too much government control is not a matter of principle but is concerned with the particular aims of government is clearly shown in the economic sphere. Conservatives usually oppose collectivist and directivist measures in the industrial field, and here the liberals will often find allies in them. But at the same time conservatives are usually protectionists and have frequently supported socialist measures in agriculture. Indeed, though the restrictions which exist today in industry and commerce are mainly the result of socialist views, the equally important restrictions in agriculture were usually introduced by conservatives at an even earlier date. And in their efforts to discredit free enterprise many conservative leaders have vied with the socialists.[9]
4. I have already referred to the differences between conservatism and liberalism in the purely intellectual field, but I must return to them because the characteristic conservative attitude here not only is a serious weakness of conservatism but tends to harm any cause which allies itself with it. Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.
The difference shows itself most clearly in the different attitudes of the two traditions to the advance of knowledge. Though the liberal certainly does not regard all change as progress, he does regard the advance of knowledge as one of the chief aims of human effort and expects from it the gradual solution of such problems and difficulties as we can hope to solve. Without preferring the new merely because it is new, the liberal is aware that it is of the essence of human achievement that it produces something new; and he is prepared to come to terms with new knowledge, whether he likes its immediate effects or not.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:29 PM Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called “mechanistic” explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.
Connected with the conservative distrust if the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one’s self with new ideas merely deprives one of the power of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our compatriots.
A great deal more might be said about the close connection between conservatism and nationalism, but I shall not dwell on this point because it might be felt that my personal position makes me unable to sympathize with any form of nationalism. I will merely add that it is this nationalistic bias which frequently provides the bridge from conservatism to collectivism: to think in terms of “our” industry or resource is only a short step away from demanding that these national assets be directed in the national interest. But in this respect the Continental liberalism which derives from the French Revolution is little better than conservatism. I need hardly say that nationalism of this sort is something very different from patriotism and that an aversion to nationalism is fully compatible with a deep attachment to national traditions. But the fact that I prefer and feel reverence for some of the traditions of my society need not be the cause of hostility to what is strange and different.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:30 PM Only at first foes it seem paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to “civilize” other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of “socialists of the chair,” but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed: “the Jingoes and the Social Reformers have gotten together; and have formed a political party, which threatened to capture the Government and use it for their program of Caesaristic paternalism, a danger which now seems to have been averted only by the other parties having adopted their program in a somewhat milder degree and form.”[11]
5. There is one respect, however, in which there is justification for saying that the liberal occupies a position midway between the socialist and the conservative: he is as far from the crude rationalism of the socialist, who wants to reconstruct all social institutions according to a pattern prescribed by his individual reason, as from the mysticism to which the conservative so frequently has to resort. What I have described as the liberal position shares with conservatism a distrust of reason to the extent that the liberal is very much aware that we do not know all the answers and that he is not sure that the answers he has are certainly the rights ones or even that we can find all the answers. He also does not disdain to seek assistance from whatever non-rational institutions or habits have proved their worth. The liberal differs from the conservative in his willingness to face this ignorance and to admit how little we know, without claiming the authority of supernatural forces of knowledge where his reason fails him. It has to be admitted that in some respects the liberal is fundamentally a skeptic[12] - but it seems to require a certain degree of diffidence to let others seek their happiness in their own fashion and to adhere consistently to that tolerance which is an essential characteristic of liberalism.
There is no reason why this need mean an absence of religious belief on the part of the liberal. Unlike the rationalism of the French Revolution, true liberalism has no quarrel with religion, and I can only deplore the militant and essentially illiberal antireligionism which animated so much of nineteenth-century Continental liberalism. That this is not essential to liberalism is clearly shown by its English ancestors, the Old Whigs, who, if anything, were much too closely allied with a particular religious belief. What distinguishes the liberal from the conservative here is that, however profound his own spiritual beliefs, he will never regard himself as entitled to impose them on others and that for him the spiritual and the temporal are different sphere which ought not to be confused.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:31 PM 6. What I have said should suffice to explain why I do not regard myself as a conservative. Many people will feel, however, that the position which emerges is hardly what they used to call “liberal.” I must, therefore, now face the question of whether this name is today the appropriate name for the party of liberty. I have already indicated that, though I have all my life described myself as a liberal, I have done so recently with increasing misgivings - not only because in the United States this term constantly gives rise to misunderstandings, but also because I have become more and more aware of the great gulf that exists between my position and the rationalistic Continental liberalism or even the English liberalism of the utilitarians.
If liberalism still meant what it meant to an English historian who in 1827 could speak of the revolution of 1688 as “the triumph of those principles which in the language of the present day are denominated liberal or constitutional” [13] or if one could still, with Lord Acton, speak of Burke, Macaulay, and Gladstone as the three greatest liberals, or if one could still, with Harold Laske, regard Tocqueville and Lord Acton as “the essential liberals of the nineteenth century,”[14] I should indeed be only too proud to describe myself by that name. But, much as I am tempted to call their liberalism true liberalism, I must recognize that the majority of Continental liberals stood for ideas to which these men were strongly opposed, and that they were led more by a desire to impose upon the world a preconceived rational pattern than to provide opportunity for free growth. The same is largely true of what has called itself Liberalism in England at least since the time of Lloyd George.
It is thus necessary to recognize that what I have called “liberalism” has little to do with any political movement that goes under that name today. It is also questionable whether the historical associations which that name carries today are conducive to the success of any movement. Whether in these circumstances one ought to make an effort to rescue the term from what one feels is its misuse is a question on which opinions may well differ. I myself feel more and more that to use it without long explanations causes too much confusion and that as a label it has become more of a ballast than a source of strength.
In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use “liberal” in the sense in which I have used it, the term “libertarian” has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:32 PM 7. We should remember, however, that when the ideals which I have been trying to restate first began to spread through the Western world, the party which represented them had a generally recognized name. It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe[15] and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.[16] Indeed, until the character of this tradition was altered by the accretions due to the French Revolution, with its totalitarian democracy and socialist leanings, “Whig” was the name by which the party of liberty was generally known.
The name died in the country of its birth partly because for a time the principles for which it stood were no longer distinctive of a particular party, and partly because the men who bore the name did not remain true to those principles. The Whig parties of the nineteenth century, in both Britain and the United States, finally brought discredit to the name among the radicals. But it is still true that, since liberalism took the place of Whiggism only after the movement for liberty had absorbed the crude and militant rationalism of the French Revolution, and since our task must largely be to free that tradition from the overrationalistic, nationalistic, and socialistic influences which have intruded into it, Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe. The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig - with the stress on the “old.”
To confess one’s self as an Old Whig does not mean, of course, that one wants to go back to where we were at the end of the seventeenth century. It has been one of the purposes of this book to show that the doctrines then first stated continued to grow and develop until about seventy or eighty years ago, even though they were no longer the chief aim of a distinct party. We have since learned much that should enable us to restate them in a more satisfactory and effective form. But, though they require restatement in the light of our present knowledge, the basic principles are still those of the Old Whigs. True, the later history of the party that bore that name has made some historians doubt where there was a distinct body of Whig principles; but I can but agree with Lord Acton that, though some of “the patriarchs of the doctrine were the most infamous of men, the notion of a higher law above municipal codes, with which Whiggism began, is the supreme achievement of Englishmen and their bequest to the nation”[17] - and, we may add, to the world. It is the doctrine which is at the basis of the common tradition of the Anglo-Saxon countries. It is the doctrine from which Continental liberalism took what is valuable in it. It is the doctrine on which the American system of government is based. In its pure form it is represented in the United States, not by the radicalism of Jefferson, nor by the conservatism of Hamilton or even of John Adams, but by the ideas of James Madison, the “father of the Constitution.”[18]
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:34 PM I do not know whether to revive that old name is practical politics. That to the mass of people, both in the Anglo-Saxon world and elsewhere, it is today probably a term without definite associations is perhaps more an advantage than a drawback. To those familiar with the history of ideas it is probably the only name that quite expresses what the tradition means. That, both for the genuine conservative and still more for the many socialists turned conservative, Whiggism is the name for their pet aversion shows a sound instinct on their part. It has been the name for the only set of ideals that has consistently opposed all arbitrary power.
8. It may well be asked whether the name really matters so much. In a country like the United States, which on the whole has free institutions and where, therefore, the defense of the existing is often a defense of freedom, it might not make so much difference if the defenders of freedom call themselves conservatives, although even here the association with the conservatives by disposition will often be embarrassing. Even when men approve of the same arrangements, it must be asked whether they approve of them because they exist or because they are desirable in themselves. The common resistance to the collectivist tide should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the belief in integral freedom is based on an essentially forward-looking attitude and not on any nostalgic longing for the past or a romantic admiration for what has been.
The need for a clear distinction is absolutely imperative, however, where, as is true in many parts of Europe, the conservatives have already accepted a large part of the collectivist creed - a creed that has governed policy for so long that many of its institutions have come to be accepted as a matter of course and have become a source of pride to “conservative” parties who created them.[19] Here the believer in freedom cannot but conflict with the conservative and take an essentially radical position, directed against popular prejudices, entrenched positions, and firmly established privileges. Follies and abuses are no better for having long been established principles of folly.
Though quieta non movere may at times be a wise maxim for the statesman it cannot satisfy the political philosopher. He may wish policy to proceed gingerly and not before public opinion is prepared to support it, but he cannot accept arrangements merely because current opinion sanctions them. In a world where the chief need is once more, as it was at the beginning of the nineteenth century, to free the process of spontaneous growth from the obstacles and encumbrances that human folly has erected, his hopes must rest on persuading and gaining the support of those who by disposition are “progressives,” those who, though they may now be seeking change in the wrong direction, are at least willing to examine critically the existing and to change it wherever necessary.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:36 PM I hope I have not misled the reader by occasionally speaking of “party” when I was thinking of groups of men defending a set of intellectual and moral principles. Party politics of any one country has not been the concern of this book. The question of how the principles I have tried to reconstruct by piecing together the broken fragments of a tradition can be translated into a program with mass appeal, the political philosopher must leave to “that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs.”[20] The task of the political philosopher can only be to influence public opinion, not to organize people for action. He will do so effectively only if he is not concerned with what is now politically possible but consistently defends the “general principles which are always the same.”[21] In this sense I doubt whether there can be such a thing as a conservative political philosophy. Conservatism may often be a useful practical maxim, but it does not give us any guiding principles which can influence long-range developments.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:37 PM Notes
The quotation at the head of the Postscript is taken from Acton, Hist. of Freedom, p. 1.
1. This has now been true for over a century, and as early as 1855 J. S. Mill could say (see my John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor [London and Chicago, 1951], p. 216) that “almost all the projects of social reformers of these days are really liberticide.”
2. B. Crick, “The Strange Quest for an American Conservatism,” Review of Politics, XVII (1955), 365, says rightly that “the normal American who calls himself ‘A Conservative’ is, in fact, a liberal.” It would appear that the reluctance of these conservatives to call themselves by the more appropriate name dates only from its abuse during the New Deal era.
3. The expression is that of R. G. Collingwood, The New Leviathan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942), p. 209.
4. Cf. the characteristic choice of this title for the programmatic book by the present British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, The Middle Way (London, 1938).
5. Cf. Lord Hugh Cecil, Conservatism (“Home University Library” [London, 1912], p. 9: “Natural Conservatism . . . is a disposition averse from change; and it springs partly from a distrust of the unknown.”
6. Cf. the revealing self-description of a conservative in K. Feiling, Sketches in Nineteenth Century Biography (London, 1930), p. 174: “Taken in bulk, the Right have a horror of ideas, for is not the practical man, in Disraeli’s words, ‘one who practices the blunders of his predecessors’? For long tracts of their history they have indiscriminately resisted improvement, and in claiming to reverence their ancestors often reduce opinion to aged individual prejudice. Their position becomes safer, but more complex, when we add that this Right wing is incessantly overtaking the Left; that it lives by repeated inoculation of liberal ideas, and thus suffers from a never-perfected state of compromise.”
7. I trust I shall be forgiven for repeating here the words in which on an earlier occasion I stated an important point: “The main merit of the individualism which [Adam Smith] and his contemporaries advocated is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid.” (Individualism and Economic Order [London and Chicago, 1948], p. 11).
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:39 PM 8. Cf. Lord Acton in Letters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone, ed. H. Paul (London, 1913), p. 73: “The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern. The law of liberty tends to abolish the reign of race over race, of faith over faith, of class over class.”
9. J. R. Hicks has rightly spoken in this connection of the “caricature drawn alike by the young Disraeli, by Marx and by Goebbels” (“The Pursuit of Economic Freedom,” What We Defend, ed. E. F. Jacob [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942], p. 96). On the role of the conservatives in this connection see also my Introduction to Capitalism and the Historians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954), pp. 19 ff.
10. Cf. J. S. Mill, On Liberty, ed. R. B. McCallum (Oxford, 1946), p. 83: “I am not aware that any community has a right to force another to be civilised.”
11. J. W. Burgess, The Reconciliation of Government with Liberty (New York, 1915), p. 380.
12. Cf. Learned Hand, The Spirit of Liberty, ed. I. Dilliard (New York, 1952), p. 190: “The Spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” See also Oliver Cromwell’s often quoted statement is his Letter to the Assembly of the Church of Scotland, August 3, 1650: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” It is significant that this should be the probably best-remembered saying of the only “dictator” in British history!
13. H. Hallam, Constitutional History (1827) (“Everyman” ed.), III, 90. It is often suggested that the term “liberal” derives from the early nineteenth-century Spanish party of the liberales. I am more inclined to believe that it derives from the use of that term by Adam Smith in such passages as W.o.N., II, 41: “the liberal system of free exportation and free importation” and p. 216: “allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice.”
14. Lord Acton in Letters to Mary Gladstone, p. 44. Cf. also his judgment of Tocqueville in Lectures on the French Revolution (London, 1910), p. 357: “Tocqueville was a Liberal of the purest breed - a Liberal and nothing else, deeply suspicious of democracy and its kindred, equality, centralisation, and utilitarianism.” Similarly in the Nineteenth Century, XXXIII (1892), 885. The statement by H. J. Laski occurs in “Alexis de Tocqueville and Democracy,” in The Social and Political Ideas of Some Representative Thinkers of the Victorian Age, ed. F. J. C. Hearnshaw (London, 1933), p. 100, where he says that “a case of unanswerable power could, I think, be made out for the view that he [Tocqueville] and Lord Acton were the essential liberals of the nineteenth century.”
15. As early as the beginning of the eighteenth century, an English observer could remark that he “scarce ever knew a foreigner settled in England, whether of Dutch, German, French, Italian, or Turkish growth, but became a Whig in a little time after his mixing with us” (quoted by G. H. Guttridge, English Whiggism and the American Revolution [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1942], p. 3).
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:40 PM 16. In the United States the nineteenth-century use of the term “Whig” has unfortunately obliterated the memory of the fact that in the eighteenth it stood for the principles which guided the revolution, gained independence, and shaped the Constitution. It was in Whig societies that the young James Madison and John Adams developed their political ideals (cf. E. M. Burns, James Madison [New Brunnswick, N.J.; Rutgers University Press, 1938], p. 4); it was Whig principles which, as Jefferson tells us, guided all the lawyers who constituted such a strong majority among the signers of the Declaration of Independence and among the members of the Constitutional Convention (see Writings of Thomas Jefferson [“Memorial ed.” (Washington, 1905)], XVI, 156). The profession of Whig principles was carried to such a point that even Washington’s soldiers were clad in the traditional “blue and buff” colors of the Whigs, which they shared with the Foxites in the British Parliament and which was preserved down to our days on the covers of the Edinburgh Review. If a socialist generation has made Whiggism its favorite target, this is all the more reason for the opponents of socialism to vindicate its name. It is today the only name which correctly desribes the beliefs of the Gladstonian liberals, of the men of the generation of Maitland, Acton, and Bryce, and the last generation for whom liberty rather than equality or democracy was the main goal.
17. Lord Acton, Lectures on Modern History (London, 1906), p. 218 (I have slightly rearranged Acton’s clauses to reproduce briefly the sense of his statement).
18. Cf. S. K. Padover in his Introduction to The Complete Madison (New York, 1953), p. 10: “In modern terminology, Madison would be labeled a middle-of-the-road liberal and Jefferson a radical.” This is true and important, though we must remember what E. S. Corwin (“James Madison: Layman, Publicist, and Exegete,” New York University Law Review, XXVII [1952], 285) has called Madison’s later “surrender to the overwhelming influence of Jefferson.”
19. Cf. the British Conservative party’s statement of policy, The Right Road for Britain (London, 1950), pp. 41-42, which claims, with considerable justification, that “this new conception [of the social services] was developed [by] the Coalition Government with a majority of Conservative Ministers and the full approval of the Conservative majority in the House of Commons . . . [We] set out the principle for the schemes of pensions, sickness and unemployment benefit, industrial injustices benefit and a national health scheme.”
20. A Smith, W.o.N., I, 432.
21. Ibid.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:40 PM I am sorry if I am hogging bandwidth here. I could have just posted a link, but I am bored with witless clucks like J. Cline. I by no means am in harmonious agreement with Hayek’s views; his narrow rejection of all things socialist or his backward looking and elitist effort to establish his position somewhere between liberalism and conservatism, etc. However, he does provide a remarkably clear insight into the mindset of the likes of the trolls who frequent here.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:52 PM By the way, Jay, tower #7 was never hit by an airplane.
I recommended the books in good faith. I don’t know what you mean in suggesting, I think, that somehow I want someone else to do my homework. Not at all, Jay, I’ve read the books. I want you to do your homework, and I’m trying to help. These books are the real deal… they are pertinent to all that you ramble about. This is no trick. I wouldn’t expect that you could read them in a day. But if you can be honest and would want explore the truth, then you must consider and investigate openly other perspectives. I am no longer a young man, and I have been around a few more blocks than most in terms of diversity of experience. Your perspectives are not new to me… this is the polluted water we all swim in. I have considered all this things in a deep and sincere way. Where I have come out, my take on things, was derived in an honest, open-minded way. I think it is you who is not willing to climb out of his self-serving little box and honestly explore what is outside of your comfort zone. That doesn’t mean taking a quick peek and then dismissing something as “over-the-top”... this is the way of arrogant assholes. Look at the world, Jay, at history… the path of human evolution has been led largely by those who were “over-the-top”. Much of what was over-the-top” or “outside of the box” is now made quite acceptable and common because it is closer to real. These books may be “out there” in comparison to the “unexamined” dominate ideology. They may be break new territory for many… and challenge comfortable illusions. ‘But they are very good attempt to examine, objectivity and with factual evidence, some of the most denied and hidden realities of our society.
In your own time… if you are not afraid of what ‘the truth’ might be, as opposed to your truth, I suggest you explore these books. Your reaction is predictable, but I think you could work through it a bit and at least come to realize that the elephant has more than a trunk. It’s just well resource, documented information, Jay, nothing final or absolute… but a good education and conducive to a broader and more diverse perspective. A help in using your higher centers to become less enthralled to narrow-minded conditioning.
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 1, 2005 at 4:53 PM Hi ... Catching up on the various threads. Back here now again.
Did some more reading on some of the more popular threads.
I am still new to these forums and am enjoying it. Understanding and learning so much. Thank you all.
Went back to the beginjning of this thread. My first post on this thread was a quote from Ghandi. Quoted him again (x2) and Jesus too.Here is another from Ghandi :
” The moment there is suspicion about a person’s motives, everything he does becomes tainted. ”
Still trying to fully understand how that relates to the interaction of opinions but I think it does. Just throwing it out there.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 1, 2005 at 11:33 PM And one from Jesus :
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” John 15:12
Just a reminder. Good advice.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 1, 2005 at 11:48 PM Jay writes : ” To all, A little not-so-preemptive strike. If you are sincere in your belief that I am ducking questions, if you are sincere that you want me to respond to your assertions, please drop the personal insults and start formulating coherent paragraphs of at least a 7th grade level. ” and (not necessarily in context to former) ” I hope no offense was taken by the last couple posts. None was intended. ”
Ijwhit writes : ” No doubt, Jay, that civil and respectful is better… no doubt. But honesty and fair-play should go along with that. In all due respect, altho some little shift in attitute appears in the making, I have to say, not as a put down but just what’s so for me, that I haven’t really felt that you have operated with a very high level of honesty, integrity, and open-mindedness. It has really frustrated me. I have mixed feelings about it looking like everyone is ganging up on you, but you have managed to piss almost everyone off… “
If everyone is sincere about these statements then let’s try to live up to them.Play nice.
Even if it is very serious.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 2, 2005 at 1:11 AM Jay
Back to Occam’s Razor as it relates to paranoid delusional conspiracy theories. I read the Wikipedia entry to refresh my memory (have seen it referenced many times before and understood it then too) before I commented to your orignal reference to it.
Here is some cut and paste from F. Heylighen ( whoever he is but his words work for me ) :” Occam’s Razor is a logical principle .. (that) states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the priciple of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam’s razor helps us to “shave off” those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Though the principle may seem rather trivial, it is essential for model building because of what is known as the “underdetermination of theories by data”. For a given set of observations or data, there is always an infinite number of possible models explaining those same data. This is because a model normally represents an infinite number of possible cases, of which the observed cases are only a finite subset. The non-observed cases are inferred by postulating general rules covering both actual and potential observations.
For example, through two data points in a diagram you can always draw a straight line, and induce that all further observations will lie on that line. However, you could also draw an infinite variety of the most complicated curves passing through those same two points, and these curves would fit the empirical data just as well. Only Occam’s razor would in this case guide you in choosing the “straight” (i.e. linear) relation as best candidate model. A similar reasoning can be made for n data points lying in any kind of distribution. “
Now, having said all of that ; infinite but, simple, best, possible, probable, actual, potential, etc. (sorry for generalizing).Off the cuff, the razor cuts both ways? One man’s _______ is another man’s _______ .? Subjectivity.
More from F. Heylighen :” If one starts with too complicated foundations for a theory that potentially encompasses the universe, the chances of getting any manageable model are very slim indeed. Moreover, the principle is sometimes the only remaining guideline when entering domains of such a high level of abstraction that no concrete tests or observations can decide between rival models. “
Having said that. Is it not possible and probable that evil men, knowing these principles (ie. Occam’s Razor), seeking to hide and/or disguise their motives and actions, would be sure to make the path to the truth so narrow, twisted and turning, emerging and dissappearing, so as to be almost impossible to find for those who seek it??
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 2, 2005 at 1:51 AM .. and one more thing.
On the theme of Ghandi and Jesus.
Johnny Cash said :
” .. don’t take your guns to town ”
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 2, 2005 at 2:19 AM David,
Do you mean using simpleness as a smokescreen? Perhaps, as in…
Duhhh? Who would’ve thunk it? Them thrar evil-doers did it. Jess cain’t stand freedom (the straight line). Why, look, there goes one a them terrorist! Opps, he got away. Boy, the sky’s gonna come down now… Whew, this is scary… and a lotta hard work… out at the ranch.
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 2, 2005 at 5:07 AM I’m having to go out of town for a few days, but I’ll try to check in a bit if I can. It’s interesting and a learning experience to see the different personalities and minds in operation. ‘And certainly, the issues and the information, are, I think, very important.
Getting real and searching after truth are two of the few thing that are truly worth doing, as they have much to do with determining the quality and richness (if not the worth$$$) of the experience we have between the womb and the tomb.
Be well, All. Hang in there.
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 2, 2005 at 5:26 AM ............................................................................. ..................................^^............................................ ............................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 2, 2005 at 7:09 AM Rabbit didn’t realise there were others here, just dropped down to put hi foot on the ground while in the middle of reading Luminous Beauty posting. Go and read the words whe has quoted, you monkeys, any who are not now dicussing the luminosity of those words, has not read them carefully and exalted in their magnificence. The author is a Conservative Heor or something, Rabbit forgets, will check that part later, but his words should be the biggining of all political education for any Americans or pseudo Americans like Oz and the Pommies.
....
....Rabbit Stamps his Angry foot, go and read slowly it is awesome…..............^^.......................
By the way Rabbit thinks Jay is achieving one thing and he seems happy with that, counting every line a victory. He wishes to be the centre of attention and keep any real exchange of ideas from happening. Rabbit proposes the ideas be exchanged despite Jay’s presence and Rabbit who actually loathed the thing from the start will endeavour to avoid engaging it in direct debate, since it shows a cowardly tendency to run away and hide behind others as much as it can. The trouble is the others keep getting so sick of the JAY, they get out of the way and give him a belt around the ear too…...He’s a worthless Troll. Rabbit is sorry to others for giving it prominence. The Jay is not worthy of attention, look at the rubbish it is posting…...half the time saying silly insults .......Bunny Face, Stands out in memory, am sure others have their favorites too. ...................
It may be a shill, in which case it has decided to play as one without a full deck of cards so to speak. It is still useless except as a diversion. Rabbit suggests we discuss the issues it has raised for they deserve more attention. We can discuss the Troll and throw it some meat every now and then, but not let it be the centre of attention, with its Snippy Snappy and ooh I’m sorry and then snippy snappy again. Rabbit is sorry to those who want nice debate, that is the point, we can use the troll and not let the troll use us. We can all whip it’s ass, it is obvious. Maybe Natalie from DU will soon come out of the radiocative cave and she will drown us in sources, if we are lucky and she can debate, although she mostly just employs more sophisticated stunts of avoidance too. But prettier than this one and more interesting anyway.
. Rabbit spits on Jay and ignores him while getting back to preparing a meal out of those same words, he will not forget, if he can read it. Maybe he has to ask others to read down the page to where he can safely avoid seeing Rabbit’s words to him they are so scary.
. For now Rabbit is reading The Luminosity ofNobel laureate F. A. Hayek
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 2, 2005 at 7:32 AM Above ..that is…
. ....The words from Luminous BeautyWe should stop posting just to correct a spelling error. Rabbit writes as quick as he likes but sometimes likes the mistakes better than the intended word. They are sometimes weird and sometimes interesting in themselves. Anybody knows heor..is hero..and that whe must be she. Don’t they? If a troll wants to play with such small things let it, we are interested with the ideas behind words, if there are any. Not how something is spelt or how grammatically correct it is. Rabbit likes to play with words it is a hobby of his. The intention is only to communicate more effectively…....
..
. We can both say to each other “You are a liar” but unless we are both liars, one of us is going to be hurt by that accusation and one of us is not.
. How well you call each other liars, will not matter in the overall scheme of things, what will is who has truth on his side.
. .So if Rabbit is a LIAR then allow him the pleasure of calling his accusers liars too it would not seem so much in the end.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 2, 2005 at 7:55 AM Be with those who help your being.
Don’t sit with indifferent people, whose breath
comes cold out of their mouths.
Not these visible forms, your work is deeper.A chunk of dirt thrown in the air breaks to pieces. If you don’t try to fly,
and so break yourself apart,
you will be broken open by death,
when it’s too late for all you could become.Leaves get yellow. The tree puts out FRESH ROOTS and makes them green. Why are you so content with a love that turns you yellow?
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 2, 2005 at 9:36 AM WHIT you chill the Rabbit’s soul, life’s one great mistake.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 2, 2005 at 11:46 AM Rabbit says: WHIT you chill the Rabbit’s soul, life’s one great mistake.
I’m not at all certain I get your drift… please explain what you mean/intend/refer to. If you thought that something, the Rumi poem?, was directed at you, then you are mistaken. Not for you. You I appreciate greatly.
Posted by ljwhit on Oct 2, 2005 at 12:02 PM Having not yet studied Hayek, I will comment that he does a remarkable job of expounded his viewpoint, in his own word, without extraneous references to other peoples works. A bibliography should be just that, a bibliography.
If I were to have any respect for Hayek, it would be that he is competent enough to make his own points.
As far as David’s straight line and infinite curved line and using smokescreens and subterfuge - yes, but to prove a conspiracy, you need more than the assertation that,
is it not possible and probable that evil men, knowing these principles (ie. Occam’s Razor), seeking to hide and/or disguise their motives and actions, would be sure to make the path to the truth so narrow, twisted and turning, emerging and dissappearing, so as to be almost impossible to find for those who seek it?
A logical argument must be that, logical. Using the above quote, you can “prove” anything.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 2, 2005 at 12:58 PM What is the troll saying? Thou shall not quote? Thou shall not provide references? Verily the Lord Troll has spoken. Obey the Troll or He shall take all his marbles (the few he has) and go home. O pity us.
- Technically, Occam’s Razor is a method of inference, not logic. The troll, who has repeatedly and overtly displayed his incompetence in logic, who cannot comprehend a compound complex sentence, who makes nonsense analogies like dogs make doo-doo, now rejects a perfectly reasonable hypothesis because it is not by itself conclusive. The droll troll.
- Friend Whit. Thank you for the taste of Persian wisdom. Regardless to whom you may have been directing it (water off a duck’s back, I’m afraid), Rumi meant it for every one, no? It’s so ironic that the Bushites think it their mission to bring civilization to Iraq and Iran. Here is one of my favorites that may have some small applicability:
- Sit down, be quiet, and listen.
You’re drunk, and we
Are at the roof’s edge.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 2, 2005 at 2:25 PM One of whit’s earlier posts mentioned molten steel on ground zero as evidence of a conspiracy, or at least that the official explanation is wrong. The conclusion of this, as I have been reading on some of the web sites previously referenced, is that because steel melts at temperatures between 2300-2800 F. and jet fuel burns in the combustion chamber of a jet engine at 1500 F, that this supports a controlled demolition theory of WTC.
Also, those that advocate a controlled demolition theory point out that these pools of molten steel were so hot, that they lasted for days, weeks.
I have a problem with this logic. If controlled demolitions produced the temperature needed to melt the steel, then they must have been 100 or 1000 times more powerful than any demolitions used in any other controlled demolition. Thermal energy is not merely temperature. A one-pound demolition package will generate the same temperature as 100 pounds. But demolitions on the scale of normal controlled demolitions have never created enough energy to create and sustain pools of molten steel, and certainly not the energy required to maintain a molten state for that length of period of time.
One possible explanation for such high temperatures is still the jet fuel. Aviation Kerosene Research at Caltech’s Explosion Dynamics Lab has published scientific papers on the propagation of the fireball that took down TWA 800 and they show that,
“The flame is a thin layer of intense chemical reaction in which the fuel vapor molecules and oxygen in the air combine to produce high temperature (3600 degree Fahrenheit) combustion products”
http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/EDL/projects/JetA/facts.html
Not only is 3600 F enough to soften the steel required by the official ‘buckling’ explanation of the WTC collapse, but is it more than enough to thoroughly melt the steel found at ground zero.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 2, 2005 at 4:05 PM Whit writes : ” David, Do you mean using simpleness as a smokescreen? “
Yes. People want to believe that our governments have our best interests at heart. Simple answers and slogans like “two legs bad, four legs bad” (enjoy the Animal Farm reference Jay) are very reassuring and serve as distractions too. The most obvious answers often overlook other possiblities.
Jay writes in reference to my “evil men hiding/disguising the truth ” conspiracy comment : ” A logical argument must be that, logical. Using the above quote, you can “prove” anything.”
Jay, as Luminous Beauty points out, it is ” inference, not logic ” that I am discussing here. Possibilities and probabilties, the things that an honest investigator will not dismiss but seek to find the truth or the lie. Proving is something the “official” investigation is entrusted with and sadly ” evil men “, and they do exist, seem to have the power to subvert, in an incredibly complex way, the quest for the truth.The truth may be out there but it is hidden behind so many lies and distractions that deciding between the truth and the lie can become an excercise in madness.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 2, 2005 at 8:05 PM History is full of examples where our leaders, religious and secular, have manipulated us. They may speak mostly truth but hide a lie in amongst the truth.
Sometimes lies are promoted (surreptitiously) as truth to later be shot down as falsehoods. This can serve many purposes.
Here is a post I made recently on the Radioactive Wounds of War thread , the analogy is there :” I have a question : I have read (maybe even in this thread) several news articles, after a recent plane crash in Ontario, Canada, which mention that depleted uranium is used as ballast(?) in the wings of some aircraft. Does the type of plane that (alledgedly) crashed into the Pentagon have depleted uranium on board? I could run a search on it but want to see if anyone else knows and/or has considered the possible implications. I don’t know what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. Sometimes I wonder if the missile theory isn’t dis/misinormation, created to poison the well, that will be debunked by the eventual release of more footage that will clearly show a plane crashing into the building. Then everyone can rest assured that they were being told the truth all along and sleep well at night that (all) the whacky conspiracy theories are delusional rantings. Am I crazy? To ask questions like this? Or is it healthy skepticism? “
MADNESS !?!? or not.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 2, 2005 at 8:24 PM Another slam dunk.
- “The flame is a thin layer of intense chemical reaction in which the fuel vapor molecules and oxygen in the air combine to produce high temperature (3600 degree Fahrenheit) combustion products”
- A thin layer, maybe an inch, on the surface of an explosively expanding volume of gas. That means any surface that comes in contact with that layer is only very, very briefly exposed to 3600 degree temps.
- As you said, Thermal energy is not the same as temperature.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 2, 2005 at 9:12 PM At full capacity, the planes that struck the WTC carried not 100,000 litres. Spread out across 4000 square meters, that thins out to a pool of jet
fuel 2.5 centimetres thick. Soaked into carpet (which would increase the surface area by at least several times, thus decreasing the thickness by an equal measure), that would be fairly thin indeed.
Also, petroleum fuels, when burning, only burn at the substrate just above the level of the liquid fuel, where the fuel and oxygen mix.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 2, 2005 at 10:11 PM The point is jet fuel can burn at significantly higher temperatures, sufficiently high enough to weaken the steel structure, thus not requiring more complex theories to explain.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 2, 2005 at 10:13 PM Correction:
truck the WTC carried not <u>quite</u> 100,000 litre
not
truck the WTC carried not 100,000 litre
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 2, 2005 at 10:15 PM Not many commercial carpets are near an inch thick. A pool of burning kerosene supp[ied by atmospheric oxygen at one bar, burns at ~850 F. It takes several atmospheres to get the temp. up to even jet engine levels.
If you look at the videos you’ll see much of the fuel vented away from the building in a massive fireball, heating only air. The billowing black smoke in the aftermath of the explosion indicates a reducing fire (meaning relatively starved for oxygen), hence even lower burning tempurature.
You’re point is exceedingly dull.
Posted by luminous beauty on Oct 2, 2005 at 11:31 PM Most commercial carpets average about 1/4 or 3/8 inch thick. Commercial undercushion, if it is there at all, as opposed to direct glue down installations which are more common for commercial applications, adds another 1/4 inch, if it is there at all. Building materials and furniture materials have fire ratings that are defined and mandated by law. In other words, they are made to not burn easily.
The large fireball explosion on impact burned up most of the fuel and was indeed an ” air ” explosion. The alleged ” slightly burned terrorist passport ” found in the wreckage ” , a candidate for a planted clue if there ever was one, supports the same in a twisted bit of paradoxical evidence.
Starved for oxygen and starved for credibility.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 3, 2005 at 12:13 AM Was the fire hot enough to melt steel or not hot enough to burn up a passport?
Can’t have it both ways I think. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 3, 2005 at 12:16 AM Sweet Beauty,
Yes… Rumi is for the pleasure and reflection of all. ‘Perhaps of greater value to some.
Your poem was quite good as well… a sobering reminder.
Posted by whit on Oct 3, 2005 at 12:39 AM Luminous Beauty writes :
“Sit down, be quiet, and listen.
You’re drunk, and we
Are at the roof’s edge. “
Words to stop the world on the eve of destruction, I think.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 3, 2005 at 1:00 AM Hi Whit, Rabbit just catching up, today. No problems Rabbit understood the intention of the poem as you posted. Didn’t mean to be cryptic, it was one of those commentsthat can sometimes slip out without thinking. Was actually more a comment to myslef, a melancholy moment of recognition. Sorry to have burdened the thread with something so innapropriate really.
. As for what it means, if Rabbit ever actually says it out loud to himself, I will be surprised. Nobody can live with NO regrets, Rabbit has only one and it is very old, could be fixed but the fixing would be the undoing so, moves on. Sorry Whit, who is Rabbit’s respected friend, did not mean to be so moved.
. But was…................................................^^.................... .........................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 5:16 AM Normally when Passenger Jet Aircraft fly into Buildings they do not actually burst into huge fireballs. That is a fact it is supported by history. For it to happen to one plane flying into a skscraper is unheard of I think. Rabbit does not mean there will not be a big bang and fuel tanks will be ruptured upon impact, there will be plenty of sparks, electrical and kinetic to ignite fires and one would expect to see the fuel, which will have spilled out and still gushing even catching fire. The fire would quickly spread across the surface of all exposed, spilled fuel. This would have resulted in a smaller fireball, back out through the entrance hole, and then a rapidly spreading fire which would have heated enough pockets of trapped fuel gas, (For The liquid never burns, first it must vaporise, become a gas) to cause a few secondary fireballs over the first half minute or more.
. The massive fireballs which punched out through several floors I think as well as all directions in the horizontal plane, seem to have had some substantial explosive trigger, way beyond what rupturing fuel tanks could have provided.
.
This will not make sense to anybody who knows all about explosions and crashes from watching movies…..................... To those of us who make those effects for the movies, it is the most basic thing in the world. Things blow up in the movies with lots of fire and smoke. Every time a plane or Car crashes it bursts into bright orange flame with lots of smoke. This is achieved by using old fashioned Gunpowder, and gasoline. The gunpowder gives a nice flash and lots of smoke, the gasoline makes it bigger and more impressive by far, but it needs a good blast of powder, to both disperse and ignite the whole thing across as broad a front as possible. This is necessary for effect and not least because of safety. You don’t as a rule want a lot of burning fuel lying around..
. Jet Fuel is not actually very good for flashy explosions because it is too slow to ignite as it happens and gives off a very pale flame.
. To cut this one short, it is obvious where it is going, there has been some sort of massive pyrotechnic effect involved here. Something was needed to make not one, but two planes burst into flames and smoke, instantaneously one after the other. Rabbit is not for a second saying a barrel ot two of gunpower was aboard the planes. A bomb or missile, but a fair sized one, would have dispersed and ignotiede the jet fuel in such a fashion, Rabbit could reproduce the effect no problem if he could have a plane and some of the right expl**ives. Nobody could do so just with a plane and a building. Not in a hundred tries, and not twice in a row. .
. Anybody who wishes to argue this, is welcome to try. You will be on Rabbit’s home turf so to speak. All this is being said, without sources and I shall provide these in due course, but for now, since this is Rabbit’s area of some knowledge, it is all off the top of his head.
. Rabbit has just realised that the first half of this post has gone again, it was posted but has been eaten, that is try number six for some of it. WTH IS GOING ON HERE?
. This shall post now and see if it goes.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 7:29 AM Well at least that one went in. Now the rest must be re-written. Seriously this is getting strange. Obviously Rabbit must watch the Dangerous words. If any ITT people reading, could you let us know if you have some sort of filters for any combinations of words, we know the bot decides to blank some random words for fear they might be #### or ####, in their slang meanings. Weird when it lets us say FUCK, and BUM and POO.
. Posting soon about the 911 FACTS Which Rabbit feels do the deed as far as polishing of the Theory that burning Jet fuel alone brought these buildings down.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 8:22 AM Did the passport ride the “train” down with the rest of the building, or did it get blown out at some point with the thousands of reams of paper before the building got that hot?
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 3, 2005 at 9:16 AM Or, presumably, if this was a passport of one of the terrorists, it would have been with the terrorist at the moment of impact. When the fuel tanks exploded and released the flood of fuel into the building, that flood would have gushed downward. The passport would have been at least a couple floors above the most intense heat.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 3, 2005 at 9:19 AM You don’t know much about fires or explosions little TROLL.
. You will be getting a lesson very shortly and should have had it already.
There are many problems with the official story of the alleged hijackers, way over and beyond the passport.
. Of the 19 alleged hijackers, fully seven are alive and well, never having been in the USA at the time, and definately innocent by virtue of being alive….....Does he get the connection wonders Rabbit?....Alive cannot be suicide bomber…..............^^.....................
. Now we shall look it up, but it would not surprise Rabbit if the One passport which was “allegedly” recovered by a police officer, when it landed at his feet, belongs to one of those seven. All of those seven men are still officially wanted for the deed. How wack is that? Has nobody told the FBI or whoever, that the guys are alive? The Troll has now been told, let us see what it does with the information. Of course we know, it is terrified of Rabbit and will ignore Rabbit, would somebody please ask it. We also know it has been told and shown sources which establish the living Seven. These included BBC, CNN Reuters and AP, Some of it’s favorite sources, no doubt.
. The passenger lists of the planes are conspicuously absent most of the names claimed as alleged hijackers too.
. Don’t do the Knee jerk they could have been under false ID’s, because stupid shill, you are claiming you have their passports. Or at least one.
. One passport does not expalin how nineteen names were known within a day or two, no matter how you spin it, Rabbit wonders what the TROLL would say if it was asked another question.
. HOW DID THE FBI FIND OUT ALL THOSE NAMES AS QUICKLY AS THEY DID?
. Maybe the passport had a list of names and the plan all writtten out?
. Maybe they left a car somewhere with some spare box cutter blades and a group photo?
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 10:08 AM Some of the Trolls earlier words Rabbit forgot to feed it.
“Bull. Most of the Iranian people are admirers of American Democracy.”
—-
No actually Troll, the Iranians were admirers of American democracy, like much of the world, up until about five years ago. Ask the Iranians, Rabbit knows a few are on the net shall we ask them?
—-
“Bull. Just because a man who would rob a bank believes he needs a gun, is no reason why we are obligated to provide him with one”
—-
You are not being to asked to give any guns to Bank robbers you dimwitted troll. You are being asked to get out of the way and let Iran enjoy the benefits of Nuclear Power just as they are entitled to under the treaties which they have been established to be in accordance with.
. All you Lying Dirty Little Grubs are doing is trying to bribe and threaten everybody to try and stop the Iraniansdoing what they have every right to. Isarel broke the Nuclear rules, Pakistan, and America has broken all Laws and Treaties of human rights or rules of warfare. YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY as a nation, your army is being smashed on a far shore and any experienced veterans will be useless, the DU will knock them all out of the game within a few short years. You can say what you like, it is happening now. Your economy is at the brink of destruction, total. The thing Americans most fear is upon you. Economic Armageddon.
. The Iranians are not robbing any banks you fool.The allegory was yours, Rabbit is sticking it back. If you wish, they are not threatening to rob any banks either.
—-Rabbit must digress next post.
.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 11:34 AM Noticed anybody the Chavez just dumped his US Reserves. Sold up and moved the lot to Europe.
The bank that is going to look like it was robbed very shortly is actually coming in the form of all these billions of American dollars that nobody suddenly feels very good about hanging onto. That is all Iraq did wrong, they were the first who were ironically given little choice but to sell their oil for Euros, or be completely at the mercy of the US.
. Iran saw this and so did Venezuala, obviously everyone did. The Europeans were pushing for it and why not? Many other nations, oil producing nations are on the brink too. Iraq was punishd for it’s “Attack” on the US. Iran is promising a new Oil burse next year, in EURO’s…..OH..OH. .
. The FACT is you Horrible little Troll that you are the Bank Robbers, and a bloody nasty bunch you are too..
Up until this time the USA has by defacto owned all the worlds oil, since it was only traded in US dollars. This gave them an enormous Economic advantage, everyone was forced to keep huge Cash reserves of US dollars for their energy needs. A ready source of Instant loans, for the USA who could afford to start pumping an infinite supply of DOLLARS into the world, know that everybody would have to keep them in good supply kept them out of circulation. the USA could “Recycle the petro-dollar” to regulate their economy. End a depression for example, it was done.
. This involved borrowing back some of this money and issuing gov’t bonds in return.
. ........
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 11:35 AM What if the USA was looking a bit shaky like now, and what if everybody decided that since they could use EUROs to buy OIL, they had no need of these very unhealthy looking bonds and the US dollars are definately not looking good in the medium let alone long term.
. Euros can be used to buy all those goods and services provided by a population of twice the USA, and about the same GDP. They are a bigger Customer for OIL than the USA which is better.
. You are not a very clever Troll, Rabbit winders if you can add up this little bunch of FACTS….They are FACTS… Real live gotcha by the balls..FACTS. .
. This is why the USA is now threatening Iran, and must attack, unless Iran backs away from the Euros and new burse idea. Which they won’t. Rabbit thinks the whole Nuclear argument might be the smokescreen. The real war is between USA and Europe. Too bad for the people on the front line but that is why venezuala is stepping into the firing line. Rabbit admires MR Chavez. He is a bit boisterous and Latin for Rabbit’s more refined attitudes, but he is quite a Bloke and I wish him and his nation the best.
. .Long live the courageous leaders of the World Revolution.
. Freedom from the dollar..
You have your weapons of mass destruction, the world has a way of putting the choker hold on the USA and since you are giving us no choice, it is to be expected it will be applied.
. Everyone knows the resultant economic collapse is going to make a mess for everybody, but in DIRECT CONTRAST to the USA all other Nations surveyed about whether they would rather survive a Nuclear War or Economic Collapse, said they would rather survive an economic collapse.
. That is the most incredible statistic Rabbit has seen for a while. Not that the USA would be the only exception to anything, but that anyone would prefer Nuclear War.
. .The tricky bit comes from the fact that the same country owns most of the Nuclear weapons
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 11:36 AM To put it in simple Troll language.
. .
You have what the world most fears, the world owns what you most fear…....If you convince enough of the world that you are berserk and are likely to bring our worst fears into reality….............guess what…....You are even more likely to see your worst fears materialise…........
. .Venezuala is no Bank Robber either Troll, the Bank is theirs and they are taking it back off the Bank Robbers. Iran is going to lead the Middle East in taking back it’s Bank and the sad part is that the real culprits, Bush and co, are going to be well covered, they can still sell their oil for EURO’s too.
. ..
...
..
. Who gets the point of that? The American Oil companies, all those multinationals who have bled all of the real assets the Gold and all out of the USA, they will just cruise fairly well into the Euro based market.
. So who loses? You do, my poor American friends, you do. With what will you buy Euro’s? The Dollar by then will be about like a Deutchmark in 1933.
. What will you buy with a currency which is worthless outside your own borders..
. What have you but a largely service based industry anymore?.Lots of generalisations, but no less valid for that.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 11:46 AM Nobody is going to want to go selling Oil for such a currency, that’s for sure…..Are you self sufficient?
. .Well maybe you are just going to have to go a plundering since fairness is not your way, but don’t come round telling us you are not a pirate..
. How easy would it have been to have shared a bit and accepted a bit more reasonable share of the pie?.
.You’ll never understand, and that is too bad, because it is not hard for me to understand you. But pity even can reach it’s limits and as a country, the USA no longer deserves pity.
The world has serious problems, which it has collectively brought upon itself, it is trying to come to terms with an imminent global disaster and far from helping thge USA is the major single contributing factor and is stubbornly in denial about it all..
.As if this was not enough, the same country has decided to take upon itself the role of “Ultimate Wolrd Sherriff” and have proceeded to commit a long list of atrocities in the process of thoroughly cocking up an illegal inavasion and destabilising an entire region.
. .
Thing thing is, yes the world has problems at the moment. We would like to be getting on with sorting out these problems but it is hard.
It is hard because a very BIG and VERY STUPID BULLY is running about playing a Giant Game of Cowboys and Indians. Almost Randomly nominating one or another unwitting nation as the new Indian, and the game runs on again.
. Well drongo the game is real and the adults have had enough, since you cannot sit down, shut up, and at least let us get on with the business of running OUR WORLD, you may have to be caught by the ear and given a damned good spanking, under the circumstances you should be glad we decline to take up your offer of a NUCLEAR DULE. It is unlikely given the present performance and state of the US military that it would be as “Slam Dunk” as some of you might suspect..
...................... Rabbit could be quite rude at this point but shall not.
. .
“Lies never hurt anyone but the teller. Truth is the only thing which can hurt another”
. .......................................by Rabbit
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 3, 2005 at 12:04 PM I think it’ far, far more likely that the events of 9/11 were caused by a group of brainwashed, hate-filled Islamic murderers almost simultaneously commandeering four ordinary U.S. airliners with full fuel tanks and sucessfully crashing them into three of their four intended targets.
An even more grieveous situation was avoided thanks to the bravery and initiative of a few ordinary Americans who attempted to take control back from the murders intending to crash their plane into the Capitol building.
There are many sources of information that address the let us just say “alternative theories” about 9/11. Here is one:
http://tinyurl.com/57ofq
Posted by Natalie on Oct 3, 2005 at 4:25 PM Natalie,
Good that you prefenced your statement with “I think”... at least that qualifies it as an opinion or preferred belief.
What we are really hoping to do here is to examine all of the “evidence” and resources that can be legitimately documented. The ongoing consideration here is that there is a good bit of apparently valid info out there suggests that the “official”, widely propagated and accepted explanation of what occurred (what you seemingly think)on 9-11 (and perhaps before and after) may be bogus to some significant degree.
Posted by whit on Oct 3, 2005 at 4:53 PM Wish I had more time to read and engage…. but I must away again.
Posted by whit on Oct 3, 2005 at 4:58 PM I’ve heard a lot of talk at this website about the “facts” which people know from their various pet sources.
Here is an example of why I doubt anyone’s ability to “know” anything form a media source.
The following is from a New York Times, an article today titled… “G.M. and a U.S. Agency See Pensions in Different Lights”
By its own calculations, GM claims that its pension plans are solvent, while according to the government’s calculations, it has a $31 billion deficit.
Both happen to be true—
because the methods for coming up with the calculations are different. The government bases its numbers on what GM would have to pay an insurance company to take over its promises, i.e., the so-called termination calculation. GM’s numbers are calculated as if it were still a going concern. In that way, GM can continue to make assumptions about the future, such as the rates of return on its pension investments, and how fast its costs will rise—whereas if its pension plans were terminated, it would have to deal with the stark reality of how things stand today.I guess things are “knowable” + or - $31billion.
Posted by whattheheck on Oct 3, 2005 at 9:25 PM whathteheck writes : ” I guess things are “knowable” + or - $31billion. “
Best laugh I had today, so far. Thank you for lightening things up a bit.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 3, 2005 at 10:21 PM Jay writes : ” Did the passport ride the “train” down with the rest of the building, or did it get blown out at some point with the thousands of reams of paper before the building got that hot? “
and
” Or, presumably, if this was a passport of one of the terrorists, it would have been with the terrorist at the moment of impact. When the fuel tanks exploded and released the flood of fuel into the building, that flood would have gushed downward. The passport would have been at least a couple floors above the most intense heat. ”
Jay, I don’t know.
When I wrote .. ” Was the fire hot enough to melt steel or not hot enough to burn up a passport? Can’t have it both ways I think. Sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me. ” .. I was being mostly facetious, maybe a little sarcastic?
Why would a terrorist, who assumed a stolen identity to be able to board a plane for the purpose of hijacking it, carry his real passport with him?
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 3, 2005 at 10:41 PM David,
I don’t know. Is it relevant?
I thought the issue was that the passport shouldn’t have even survived. My apologies for not understanding.
Posted by Jay Cline on Oct 3, 2005 at 10:48 PM Jay
No apologies necessary. My fault.
My point is : The questions are complex and raise more questions with complex answers if the answers are to be had at all. Sometimes the questions just go round and round.
Sometimes the answers are unavailable but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask the questions.
We build up these theories about what happened. Some are simple. Some are complex.
Remember Occam’s Razor ” Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler. “
What if the simpler theory is wrong?
Being simpler does not make it right.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 3, 2005 at 11:24 PM I would like to remind everyone of the admonition of our In These Times hosts as it regards posting comments.
Please be respectful in your comments ...
Respectful : Showing or marked by proper respect.Respect : To feel or show deferential regard for.
Deferential : Marked by or exhibiting deference.
Deference : Courteous respect.
Please be polite.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 3, 2005 at 11:37 PM David, withy respect, Rabbit and others on this site always extend respect and courtesy to others. We simply have the same dislike of Liars and people who clearly eaxist for no other reason than to push a line. If they cannot engage in honest debate, answer direct questions with direct answers. If they discard sources out of hand and provide little if anything to back up their own often illogical opinions. You know as well as anybody that some abuse, and references to lying are not unreasonable. The ITT moderators have been required to look at a number of threads in the course of Rabbit’s time here. Rabbit as well as others have been the target of false accusations against Rabbit and others.
. .The investigations exonerated Rabbit and others in their turns. They were checked thoroughly, the history of Unnatural Disaster and Racdiologicval Wounds of WAR show what happened.
. Now under the circumstances, I think a benchmark has been set. Thanks agains Natalie…
. The fact is that this site is an uncommonly reasonable and polite forum, by Internet standards. Check out WM if you want to see a bit of abuse and language. Still a good forum though..
. The trolls and Shills make a point of trying to annoy people to the point they get banned, if as it seems they are being backed into a corner by such people. they then combine their numbers and make a complaint about their tormentor.
. yet despite the very nice people who live here, the site is infested with at least a couple of SHILLS, who have been proven to be SHILLS, (Natalie is one) and two more TROLLS who may or may not be more than mere trolls.
. .Now Rabbit shall ask the Natalie, to address the points already made, which make what you “think” sound utterly ridiculous..
. .If any SHILL or TROLL asks the RABBIT anything the Rabbit always answer directly.
. .Neither the SHILL nor the TROLL have ever answered a single direct question from Rabbit with a single direct answer.
. .That is why anybody is entitled to be rude towards you.
. .
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 2:19 AM Rabbit, with equally great respect.
Sometimes the lack of respect and courtesy becomes the focus and distracts from the message.
Sometimes the people who need to hear the message most are made to turn away by disdain for their unbelief.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 4, 2005 at 2:36 AM Whoops…..Rabbit mistake…Last post SINGLE should read SIMPLE>
. .
Nice to see WTH here, do as asked WTH. Read the whole thread and be sure you know what is going on here. Rabbit does not want WTH to get caught in the cross-fire. Rabbit points out to WTH that Natalie is definately a SHILL and is the reason Rabbit first used WTH as a human sheild (sort of) when they SHILL Nat and her partner were trying to play dirty.
. WTH also got caught in the cross-fire another time by supporting someone without realising what actually that person was all about.
. .Make sure you at least apply the logic and honesty that Rabbit knows you alone of the Conservatives on this site have.
. That begins with checking sources given. All the sources Rabbit have given were merely via one news site, but they all link directly to their sources, so it is an ignoramus response to claim they are from any “unreliable source” without first investigating them. Now the fact is the media can be trusted to present cerrtian facts, but the details may need to be researched further. The fact of some mistakes does not vcancel out the whole report, that is obvious.
. However if someone presents something as a FACT and provides a source, you are expected to verify and investigate that source before calling it unreliable and or false. You can see nothing from a link, or a quick glance at the Cover Page.
.,
If having once checked that source you are not satified it illustrates the point for which it was given, you may query this. The other party may then offer an alternative source, or something else may eventuate. At least in this way a debate can prgress.
. .Rabbit has not had any of his sources properly queried and thus has not had need to offer more, but should anyone wish to make an actual obsservation of any source. Rabbit will certainly provide more and go to more trouble to ensure you cannot query them so easily a second time..
. Unless you can do this, you will always be seen as deliberately disseminating and dishonest.
. .See how the Natalie SHILL did just as Rabbit said she would, she loves jumping into holes the Rabbit digs for her.
. .She is a very funny Shill but a dark a gruesome Blood Sucker as we know. Troll and Shill combined, this should be a good game.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 2:39 AM continued from previous at 9:36 PM ...
Your own position may be right and theirs may be wrong but always remember they may have something to teach you.
Posted by David in Canada on Oct 4, 2005 at 2:49 AM Do you actually think Natalie, or Jay are going to “Learn” anything here David? Please, spare the Rabbit. The attacks should of course be kept controlled, and used to goad the Troll or Shill into doing what is required of it, rather than for mere personal gratification.
.
.Never respond in anger only. Count ten, Rabbit does. A carefully crafted goading which forces a Troll to confront an issue it is avoiding, is not the same as calling it an “Assgrabber” or an “Asshole” just because it is stupid and annoying.
. The topic of this thread is “Reckoning with the God Squad”
.........“Fundamentalist bullies cannot be appeased. they must be confronted.”.....
. .This is something thjat has remained the core of Rabbit’s contention on this thread.
. .If these people here are not Fundamentalists? What then are they? OK one is a Professional SHILL and the other is an IDIOT, but they are feeding the Fundamentalist cause, both sides of Fundamentalists as it happens.
. .Rabbit is not here to Appease” fundamentalists, he is here to CONFRONT them.
. .
Debate like decent people, or be treated like the lying sacks you then show yourselves to be.
. .
.........................................^^........................
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 2:50 AM Natalie has sp[outed an opinion in her first post which has so far recieved considerable treatment in earlier posts on this thread. On behalf of the other participants on this thread, Rabbit requests that Natalie show the respect of finding out what she is breaking into with such a gratutious opinion at this stage.
Then Natalie said:
. “An even more grievous situation was avoided thanks to the bravery and initiative of a few ordinary Americans who attempted to take control back from the murders intending to crash their plane into the Capitol building.”
. .
How do you know that Natalie?.
.Give us some sources which show us why you believe that, or it too will be ascribed to being nothing but an unfounded opinion.
. .
.....Anybody heard more about the possibility Barbara Olsen was arrested on a German border recently?..
. Rabbit shall look into it too.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 3:36 AM Rabbit asked:
“How do you know that Natalie?.”
“Of course the exact details of the battle for United 93 may never be fully known. What we do know is that those aboard the plane mounted a heroic effort to fight back and thwart the hijackers. Information pieced together from phone conversations, the cockpit voice recorder, and radio transmissions from Flight 93 reveal that the passengers and crew had devised a plan to revolt against the hijackers and began that revolt shortly before 10:00 a.m.”
“Based on information passengers and crew provided to friends and family, it is believed that at least two people had been stabbed and lay either dead or injured on the cabin floor. Many who have listened to the cockpit voice recorder, including myself, also surmise that a female flight attendant, who may have been held hostage in the cockpit, fought back against the hijackers and was subsequently murdered. As the plane raced towards Washington, the passengers and crew raced towards the cockpit and began their courageous battle. The cockpit voice recorder contains heart-wrenching sounds of their efforts to break through the cockpit door. Voices of passengers and crew, while muffled and difficult to identify, could be discerned, as could the sounds of breaking glasses and plates. In my mind, as I listened to the cockpit voice recorder, I could see those brave individuals using the food service cart as a battering ram, trying with all their might to break through the door. At least one passenger was a pilot, another had training as an air traffic controller. Had the cockpit been retaken, it is entirely possible that these passengers could have brought Flight 93 to safety.”
http://www.house.gov/transportation/pbed/07-26-05/peterson.pdf
The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) is the largest airline pilot union in the world and represents 64,000 pilots who fly for 41 U.S. and Canadian airlines. Founded in 1931, the Association is chartered by the AFL-CIO and the Canadian Labour Congress. Known internationally as US-ALPA, it is a member of the International Federation of Air Line Pilot Associations.
http://tinyurl.com/ahtz4 (ALPA statement disagreeing with the decision to play cockpit recordings for family members)
Jeremy called from the plane, telling her that “bad men” were in control and that he and other passengers were planning to fight back.
“You’ve got to promise me you’re going to be happy,” he told her. “For Emmy to know how much I love her. And because whatever decisions you make in your life, no matter what, I’ll support you.”
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04334/418729.stm
Sixteen seconds later, a passenger yelled, “Roll it!” This appears to be distinct from “Let’s roll!”—the phrase made famous after Todd Beamer used it apparently to rally fellow passengers as he ended a call with a GTE Airfone operator.
At 10:01, Jarrah stopped the maneuvers and called out twice, “Allah is the greatest!” He asked his fellow hijacker again, “Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?” This time his colleague answered, “Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.”
Eighty-three seconds later, at 10:02:23, with sounds of the passenger assault still audible, the hijacker called out, “Pull it down! Pull it down!”
http://tinyurl.com/drd8h (Washington Post)
I did make an error, though. They were far from ordinary.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 4, 2005 at 6:58 AM Rabbit is seeing if you have got anything, by checking as always does, and will return. In the interests of not wasting space, as far as the Barbara Olson possibly being arrested, I cannot find anything which gives enough credence to it to be worth discussing at this point. This does not say Rabbit rules it out because it is not altogether unnexpected, the best that can be said about it was said here:
.
.“what a coincidence, isn’t it?that the sudden appearance of Barbara Olson, on the non-existent Polish-Austrian border,
happens at the same time that British troops disguised as terrorists are seized, then freed in
a gigantic debacle in Basra, Iraq?
link to www.globalresearch.ca
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/basraSAS.html
let’s forget about the fact that the British spy fiasco PROVES that agents provocateurs have
been blowing up “suicide bombs” in Iraq!!!!!
British and US complicity in fake terrorism is proven!!!!!
not to mention that the Pentagon SHUT DOWN questioning about Able Danger!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169991,00.html
so we have CLEAR KNOWLEDGE and complicity in PREVENTING the US Intelligence officers from
arresting Mohammad Atta!!!!
HOW LONG HAS THE STENCH OF TREASON BEEN SPUMING FROM EVERY ACTION OF BUSH-CHENEY???
And here is this “Tom Flocco” character talking about this ridiculous Olson crap. He is a
charlatan and should be horse-whipped.”
It will escape the notice of some how this post, including both Rabbit’s and the quoted show how Liberallly minded people are so much more open minded, able to consider new ideas and examine them critically.
. Frankly Nat Rabbit expects your post will be a collection of unsourced news stories and blogs but we shall see. Too bad you don’t have the decency to do the same for others. See what they are saying and check the sources with an open mind..
.To any who find Rabbit is being strangely agrressive to this sweet innocent “newcomer”, this “All American open minded girl, you are asked to bear in mind that Natalie is known to Rabbit, in fact he invited her here, to help prop up this pathetic faith based Troll, Jay….......
.......For to add a bit of sport to what was becoming a dismally predictable Troll bashing…......
. Back when I know what I’m talking about re Nat’s refresshingly logical and co-herant post. (Not looking at anyone, Jay)
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 7:54 AM The SHILL seems to have posted a link which sneakily makes you give it your Supervisor Password, be warned EVERYBODY.
Natalie’s first link makes Rabbit’s Content Advisor window come up and ask for Supervisor Password. Weird because all settings are highest for Rabbit’s.
The interesting thing Rabbit mentions is that there has been constant and regular hacking attacks on this computer and various attempts to get Rabbit’s passwords for this and other things.
. Maybe Rabbit is giving the Shill too much credit, but then guess what happens, a Government page comes up for a moment only then shuts down and says nothing happened, that page was not here. Go away, nothing to see here folks…OK you know what I mean. ..
. By all means check the first link anybody and tell us what you get, maybe my computer is weird. Thats the first link Nat, Good one, Babe.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 8:14 AM The Alpa source is a completely unverifiable statement. We cannot see who actually wrote it, nothing. We cannot verify that page in any way Nat, it is not connnected to any source, do you understand. It is a bland statement which is probably true in itself but “proves” nothing,
. Beyond that all it says is that the Voice recorder was played for families of victims “April 18 in Princeton, N.J., despite ALPA’s strenuous objections”, nothing about what was on the recordings. Zilch.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 8:36 AM The wholly emotional appeals made by Natalie based on the supposed quotes from people involved in an action which may or may not have occurred wholly fatuous. What do they tell us? Nothing that helps and nothing which matters until we have established the words actually were said and that they are of any consequence in any case.
. The reference of Natalie’s from which the fatuous quotes come, is actually not doing more than talk about LYz Glick’s Book deal.
. The interesting stuff comes when one begins to ask the ineviatble questions who is Lyz Glick and what exactly does her experience rate a mention. Then we run into the just as inevitable, in the case of 911, dicrepancies.
Some cutting and pasting here, but the source should be looked at the whole page is not long and raises some serious questions, just a start, on the alleged fight in the cabin.
. It is important that it is pointed out at this stage, that whether or not the planes were hijacked by any of the remaining 12 possible candidates is of no consequence in determining the involvement or otherwise of the US Gov’t in the attacks. In fact the case for their involvement “Very Much” includes many of the alleged Hijackers.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 9:26 AM Now the interesting thing about we are doing here is establishing facts and seeing where they take us. The following is an analysis of some of the facts being raised by the lovely Natalie.
. .“At 9:57, the passengers assault began. […] One of the callers ended her message as follows: “Everyone’s running up to first class. I’ve got to go. Bye.”
The cockpit voice recorder captured the sounds of the passenger assault muffled by the intervening cockpit door. […]In response, Jarrah immediately began to roll the airplane to the left and right, attempting to knock the passengers off balance. At 9:58:57, Jarrah told another hijacker in the cockpit to block the door. Jarrah continued to roll the airplane sharply left and right, but the assault continued. At 9:59:52, Jarrah changed tactics and pitched the nose of the airplane up and down to disrupt the assault. The recorder captured the sounds of loud thumps, crashes, shouts, and breaking glasses and plates. At 10:00:03, Jarrah stabilized the airplane…
[…] The sounds of the fighting continued outside the cockpit. Again, Jarrah pitched the nose of the cockpit up and down. At 10:00:26, a passenger in the background said, “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!” […] Jarrah stopped the violent manoeuvres at about 10:01:00 and said, “Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!” He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit, “Is that it? I mean shall we put it down?” to which the other replies, “Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.”
The passengers continued their assault and at 10:02:23, a hijacker said, “Pull it down! Pull it down!”
(p. 13f)
The Report states concerning the time of impact:“United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington D.C. The precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute. The 10:03:11 impact time is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidence from the Commission staff’s analysis of radar, flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmission”
(p. 30)
Surprisingly the Commission does not mention the seismic recording of 10:06:05 as impact time (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University). Stickdog has written an excellent essay on this (see: 9/11 Commission: There must be 93 ways to blow your cover) and his question is still unanswered: “So if a 757 slamming into the ground at 580 mph, creating a world’s record debris field and driving the remains of its passengers some 50 feet into the ground didn’t manage to register even the tiniest seismic blip—what happened in the same vicinity just three minutes later that DID cause a clear, noticeable, incontrovertible seismic spike?”.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 9:35 AM This is some more, I think it is interesting and like timelines needs to be considered in order…..................
“Another issue that the Commission does not raise is why no family member of the victims that were finally allowed to listen to the cockpit recording in April 2002 heard any indication that the hijackers decided to crash the plane. Neither any article nor Jere Longman’s book “Among the Heroes” (that is based on interviews with family members) mention even the slightest hint that something like this was audible on the recording. The Commission does not make any attempt to explain the contradiction between what the family members heard and the official version now.
But it was a find by woody box that might be the watertight proof that the official timeline simply cannot be true.Jere Longman based “Among the Heroes” on his interviews with family members. He quotes at length the conversation between Jeremy Glick and his wife Lyz:
Were they going to crash his plane into the World Trade Center? Jeremy wanted to know.
“No,” Lyz said, almost laughing. “They are not going there.”
Why? Jeremy asked.
One of the towers had just fallen.
“They knocked it down,” Lyz told him.
(p. 207)
The first Tower collapsed at 9:59:04 (Paul Thompson’s timeline). So obviously at this point of the conversation it is at least 9:59:15. According to the official timeline the battle at the cockpit was already taking place for two minutes and Jarrah had ordered to block the cockpit door.
Let’s see how the conversation between Jeremy and Lyz Glick continues:They were problem-solving. Lyz asked Jeremy about the United pilots. Were they alive? He didn’t know. Had the real pilots said anything to the passengers over the public address system? No.
Did the hijackers have any automatic weapons? Lyz asked. Even a former judo champion like Jeremy would be no match for guns.
No guns, Jeremy said. “They have knives.”
How could people have gotten on the plane with knives and a bomb? He wanted to know. And then he made a joke that was typical Jeremy. “We just had breakfast and we have our butter knives.”
He said that they were taking a vote. There were three other guys as big as him. Was that a good idea? What should they do?
(p. 216)
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 9:36 AM What is the time at this moment of the conversation? I believe it’s a conservative guess to say 10:00:30. At the very moment while Jeremy Glick is discussing with his wife what to do, according to the official timeline Jarrah had twice pitched the nose of the airplane up and down and a passenger said “In the cockpit. If we don’t we’ll die!”
Is it believable that Glick was staying behind? Is it believable that he does not mention Jarrah’s pitching of the airplane’s nose? Is it believable that he discusses attacking the hijackers without telling his wife that the other passengers are doing this for more than three minutes already?
But let us see how the conversation continues:
Lyz shook as she talked to her husband, but when she heard that the hijackers didn’t have guns, she thought Jeremy would be okay. He could get stabbed, or get his hand slice, but he might not even feel it in the adrenaline rush. Getting stabbed wouldn’t kill him. The only hope is if they take these people over and get control of the plane.
“I think you need to do it,” Lyz told Jeremy.
“Okay,” he said. “Stay on te phone, I’ll be right back.”
There was a sound of conviction in his voice. Not anger, but a sense of purpose. He wanted to get home to wife and daughter.
They were going to jump on the hijackers and attack them, Jeremy said.
(p.216f)
Ok. What is the time now? Again I would say that 10:01:15 is a conservative guess. Now is the moment that “they” have taken the decision to attack. But according to the official timeline the battle has reached it’s peak already and Jarrah is asking if he should crash the plane.
Do the two timelines really go together? Why doesn’t Glick who clearly has the intention to attack the hijackers stay back? Why does Lyz Glick not remark the noise of the battle? (Glick was seated in row 11)
Let’s see how the conversation continues:
Put a picture of me and the baby in your head, Lyz said to Jeremy.
He went away, and it sounded as if he were talking to people.
(p. 217)
To say it’s now 10:01:30 is still very conservative. But Glick doesn’t rush to the cockpit to join the other passengers in their ongoing battle. He talks to other people. This is very understandable if one is planning an attack but not if this attack is already underway since four and a half minute (according to the official timeline).Lyz Glick later recalls: I didn’t hear any screaming. I didn’t hear any noises. I didn’t hear any commotion.
(NBC 09/30/02)
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/msnbc090302.html
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 9:37 AM “Among the Heroes” continues:
“She couldn’t bear to listen and handed the phone to her father [Richard Makely]”
(p. 217)According to the official timeline there are only 30 – 40 seconds left before the hijackers will start to pull down the airplane. And about 70 – 90 seconds before the plane crashes. So what does Lyz’ father hear?
“There was no noise for several minutes. And then there were screams, so I said - well, they’re doing it. Another minute, it seemed like an eternity, but another minute, a minute and a half, and then there was another set of screams. It was muffled. Then there was nothing.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11314790&method=full<
(ABC, 09/15/01; NBC, 07/30/02)
His observation is confirmed by officials:
“According to law-enforcement sources (who were listening in on the conversation), there was silence on the line. Then screams. Then silence. Then screams. Then nothing.”
(Newsweek, 09/13/01) http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069645/So this proves that it was possible to hear background noise through the phone (this is not surprising as Glick was seated in row 11 and certainly the battle at the cockpit door wasn’t a very calm one). But it also proves that neither Makely nor a law-enforcement official ’t heared any signs of a battle at this moment neither when Glick left his phone! So how can there have been a battle already going on since four and a half minutes at least?
As the exact time of the collapse of the WTC is beyond doubt we can come to the conclusion now that either the official timeline or the account of Jeremy Glick’s phone call can’t be true.
So did Lyz Glick consciously or unconsciously not tell the accurate truth?
This is basically impossible for the following reasons:...
Sorry that was long but Rabbit feels it is useful if we are to look at the facts that Natalie has so far established, or not, and how they relate to the suggestion of an airliner which crashed after passengers overpowered some hijackers, as it is claimed.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 9:39 AM Here are the reasons Lyz Glick’s story is consciously or otherise not consistent with the “reported” facts.
.....
The New York state police patched into the phone call after Lyz Glicks’ mother had dialled 911. (p. 206). This was shortly after Glick called his wife (which happened around 9:30) (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/28/01)
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011028flt93mainstoryp7.asp
The State Police dispatcher is Robert Weingaertner (Times Union, 09/08/02) http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=57018&category=FRONTP PG&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=9/8/2002
“Captain Francis Christensen stood behind Weingaertner, firmly directing troopers who were flooding the dispatch room. Call Verizon and see if they can patch directly into Glick’s call. Contact the FBI. Call the Federal Aviation Administration”. (Times Union, 09/08/02)
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=57018&category=FRONTP PG&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=9/8/2002
“An emergency official arrived at the Makelys’ home in Windham and took the phone, telling Weingaertner they were there. The call was disconnected. The tape would later be turned over to the FBI.”
(Times Union, 09/08/02)
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=57018&category=FRONTP PG&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=9/8/2002It exists a tape and a transcript of the phone call.
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 09/13/01)
(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/20/01)
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetnat3p3.asp
On September 12, 2001 Lyz Glick and other recipients of the phone call were interviewed by the FBI. On April 22, 2004 Lyz Glick was questioned once again by the FBI. (9/11 Commission Report, p. 457)It is really hard to believe that Lyz Glick didn’t say the accurate truth and that the FBI and the Commission were too dumb to realize this although they had the recording and the transcript of the call in front of them.
Although the 9/11 Commission uses “Among the Heroes” as a source for their Report (e.g. p. 457) maybe the New York Times journalist Jere Longman was happy to invent the detail of the WTC collapse.
This again is refuted by the simple fact that Lyz Glick repeated this detail of the conversation with her husband several times:Ms. GLICK: He began to ask me, ‘Are they crashing planes into the World Trade Center?’ I guess one of the other passengers had spoken to his mother, I believe it might have been, and that message might have been relayed. So he asked that. And then I am watching on the big screen television in front of me the World Trade Centers collapsing.
(ABC, 09/18/01)
(NBC, 08/20/02] http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080114(Observer, 02.12.01)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,610355,00.html
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 9:42 AM OK this is the last, but it is some of the best.
. And in a documentary film called “Flight 93: A Reconstruction” aired in the UK in 2002 Lyz Glick confirms that she told Jeremy that the South Tower had fallen.
In her words “It was valuable information for him to have”.So if the account of Glick’s phone call then is accurate the only possible explanation is that the official timeline can’t be true. That Flight 93 didn’t crash at 10:03:11. Considering that Glick’s phone call more likely postpones the beginning of the attack by about three minutes it seems reasonable to assume an impact time of 10:06. And surprisingly this is also what the seismic recordings indicate.
Is there the possibility that the Commission simply didn’t work accurately enough.
Their explanation for the impact time is:“United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:03:11, 125 miles from Washington D.C. The precise crash time has been the subject of some dispute. The 10:03:11 impact time is supported by previous National Transportation Safety Board analysis and by evidence from the Commission staff’s analysis of radar, flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder, infrared satellite data, and air traffic control transmission”
(p. 30)
But how can the analysis of theses sources lead to a wrong impact time? It seems very reasonable to assume that the Commission most likely did a cover up. It’s seems simply a lie. As the government always insisted after 9/11 that the impact time was 10:03 and never dared to explain the difference with the seismic data it seems sensible to believe that the Commission changed the time favouring the wish of the government.
As far as I can see this might be the very first time that a lie of the Commission can be proven.
So the only question remains: Why has the Commission decided to cover up the last three minutes of Flight 93? Maybe the explanation is the same reason why the family members heard different things on the cockpit recording than the Commission and why the recordings are not publicly released…
. .
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=839
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 9:43 AM Rabbit,
I’ve also got a problem with In These Times, though it’s more technical than philosophical. It seems that links get mangled in one form or another, especially or maybe only if they take up more than one line in the entry box. This problem, and their insistence on closing spaces between paragraphs is extremely annoying. It use to be, long ago, that links were automatically made clickable on this comment board. I know there is a way to do it by using HTML, but I don’t know how. If I really was Natalie from CTG, I probably would.
The first link needs to be repaired….it should simply end in peterson.pdf, not peterson.p pdf
Of course the ALPA statement is connected to a source. The source is ALPA, as per the address. It’s a statement by the pilot’s union that they don’t think it’s wise to set a precedent in releasing such recordings….they want to protect their pilot’s privacy and the purity of the evidence therein. It’s not the opinion of any individual, it’s the collective opinion of the organization, comparable to an editorial from the New York Times endorsing John Kerry for President. It’s presented here by me as evidence that such recordings did indeed exist, and were played for family members. Subsequent links (and actually the first link) explore the content of the recordings.
Would you expect ALPA to print the content of the recordings in this statement when they object to any release of the recordings in the first place?
Posted by Natalie on Oct 4, 2005 at 9:43 AM In light of the above response, Rabbit feels justified in ignoring the last [tiny url] Natalie.
. Do let Rabbit know if it is important though, won’t you.
. Or prove how there is anything wrong with the reasoning regarding the events you raised, factually or otherwise, please.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 9:49 AM Natalie, .
Rabbit respectfully points out that he does not actually question the release or source to be honest, merely the fact that it cannot actually be navigated away from in any way or shown who it belongs to..
. The fact is evident from the following postings that Rabbit does not question any of the facts you have thus established.
. There may be a voice recording and certain people are claiming certain things, but now please give the rest of my reply attention.
. Meanwhile Rabbit shall try and look at the first one again. Frankly it is of no consequence to Rabbit, the security of his computer with nothing to hide anyway. But note the link worked it just went to a nasty Government thing. Exactly the sort of Shill trick a suspicious rabbit would expect.
. The site is fine Rabbit likes it. They are fair and they are brave. Basic is good. Keep it Forrest Gump. Coming from a Technician.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 10:06 AM Back in a couple of hours, Nat, Rabbit, has to catch up on a couple of things, close factory and home to dinner, but will look in later and hope you are being a nice girl and giving the Rabbit’s posts attention, long but VERY well documented, and precisely argued, “I THINK”.
. .
Rabbit is not closed minded Nat but nor is he a fool and you know this. If Rabbit is wrong about you in any way, it is your fault, you could have been a lot more honest at certain times…
. You threw the truce before, Would you accept the original terms now?
. To be able to be petted by a Bunny in between disagreeing? It is actually a chivalrous Rabbit and hates hurting a lady, even an Evil one.
. Sadly not
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 10:12 AM Once more on the ITT site, please do not infer that Rabbit has any “Philosophical” issue with ITT. All my postings show a pattern of increasing admiration and support for the site. They exonerated Rabbit when you and the Colonel ganged up and falsely accused Rabbit after all.
.Let us not be revisionists, thread history is the easiest to link to and Rabbit can HTML, is just too lazy, as it happens.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 10:21 AM My goodness you’re a busy bunny, your paws must be sore. I haven’t had time to analyze closely all you presented recently…..getting late here. This is what I wrote before I saw your latest two posts (ending 5:12 AM):
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree that there might be some discrepencies in the time line. How could there not be? As to the larger issue, I don’t see any significant evidence that the passengers didn’t stage a revolt. There’s several separate accounts (phone calls, recordings) that all point to that conclusion. There were many bitter Bush haters on the 9/11 commission. I don’t think any of them disagreed that a revolt was staged.
What are you trying to imply, exactly? It was shot down? If the Bush administration (or whoever) had gone to all the trouble to demolish the WTC with explosives, and send a missile into the Pentagon, why would they not want flt. 93 to complete its mission and take out the capitol building? That would REALLY set the stage for invadin’ folks.
Hmmm…..I wonder if Bill Moyers thinks a missile hit the pentagon.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 4, 2005 at 10:44 AM Hey, I thought you went to dinner!
Silly Rabbit
I didn’t mean to imply anything about whatever relationship you have with ITT. It just seemed you had some problems with them that were more philosophically based than technical. Wrong word, perhaps.
For the record, I have never corresponded with ITT in any way, other than publicly via the comment board.
If someone complained about you, it wasn’t me. Honestly!
G’day, G’nite, or whatever.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 4, 2005 at 10:58 AM Rabbit is not seeing any significant evidence that the official story is true on the important points and there are more questions than answers, usually because the Gov’t is hiding things.
. .
Rabbit feels there is a possibility it was shot down, yes, there is some things out there and they are speculative only, but like the above , they are speculated via dealing with facts and trying to make a logical inference,
. It is interesting you should ask “why would they not want flt. 93 to complete its mission and take out the capitol building” because Rabbit tends to a theory which means the White house was indeed the target, and there is significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that the stage was set for Marshall Law, and that the White House was expected to go up, boom..
. Do you want to go there?
. As this theory goes a certain General may have shot it down, against orders. Now it is a while but Rabbit remembers he has either archived it or will find it any way something about the authority to shoot down such planes in these situations as having been available to Generals on up until a month before 911, when it was changed to only be Rumsfeld, or something similar. Any query of this will be answered, it is posted thus to encourage any other to come forward and save Rabbit the work.(his paws do indeed hurt, thankyou for caring Natalie)
..
This is in itself the crux of the whole matter we are discussing, is it not.
. It is the “Larger Issue”.
. Correct a simple Rabbit if he is missing something, but this debate began because we disgreed about the government itself as having been either responsible directly or via indirectly for 911, and Rabbit will add the contention that this of itself absolutely cancels all other acts by the government since as having been lawful or well advised.
. .
As for the WTC demolitions they happened and Rabbit intends to prove it, it can be done. Rabbit is among other things a reasonable machine engineer, E*plo**sives/Pyrotechnician and welder. The combination gives a very different point of view to the average joe, but that makes it easy to prove a very simple analysis..
You are gonna love it thinks Rabbit. You will see the light and love Rabbit forever as having been the one who finally showed you the key to the truth about all the sad things that cannot be ignored anymore.
. ,.As for the last post,....... BULL.
Posted by GhostRabbit on Oct 4, 2005 at 11:11 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Bill Moyers
- Is the Fourth Estate a Fifth Column?
Corporate media colludes with democracy's demise - Bill Moyers Interviews Rev. Jeremiah Wright
- In Praise of Reporting Reality—And The Truth
- Reckoning with the God Squad
Fundamentalist bullies cannot be appeased. They must be confronted. - The Battle for PBS
- Blind Faith
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
