Archive for July, 2006

and now some time for conspiranoia

Monday, July 31st, 2006

I once went to a “9/11 Truth” meeting, one Sunday when I noticed its existence at the public library. I can’t say too much about it, except I vaguely recognized the man addressing the meeting — which in this case, at least when I was in that room, meant simply showing the Alex Jones film — though I didn’t know from where or for what. He probably pops up on Cable Access from time to time, I figure. Maybe I saw him elsewhere and there and everywhere. I don’t know. Also, I was fairly certain Clyde Lewis was going to pop in. He did. Later I would see a small bit of discussion on Portland Indymedia that Clyde Lewis hampers the cause, what, you can’t have someone who doubts that men landed on the moon at such an event.

Not saying I’m giving the conspiracy theory of the federal government committing the 9/11 crimes any credence (I do not. I repeat: I do not. And I repeat again: I do not.), but I am going to say this regarding this page: The argument made here against the conspiracy theory is one I don’t believe has much merit. To wit.

2. Since Dylan’s arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true, and we’ve established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn’t the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What’s a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?

Whatever reason it may be that the government supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy, it must have been worth it to them to cause so much suffering and loss of life. So if there’s any truth to this, then you can bet your ass that the government wouldn’t let a couple of pecker-neck chumps with a couple of Macs and too much time on their hands jeopardise their entire operation by letting this stupid video float around on the Internet. I can picture you morons emailing me now: “BUT MADOX, MAYBE DYLAN POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT HAD A CHANCE TO REMOVE IT LOL.” Yeah, too bad this rebuttal is inconsistent with the premise of Dylan’s shit-festival of a movie: that the WTC was brought down “in a carefully planned and controlled demolition … and it was pulled off with military precision.” Now we’re expected to believe that the same government that was able to commit the largest terrorist operation in history–with military precision no less–is suddenly too incompetent to sniff out and shut down a little website set up by some college losers within days, if not minutes of its creation?

I win. There is no conspiracy. Eat my shit, losers.

The question comes up in this scenario. Why would they need to kill him? No. I want an answer to the question of why they would need to kill him. Does the Leviathan Government fear him? Why would they fear him? Has he lead the public to a critical mass that is, beyond exposing the “9/11 Truth”, actually doing something that would knock off and do something about the Conspiratorials in our midst — the man with the cigar at the desk whose face is not seen talking to the guy with frizzy hair and a striped shirt in the crude cartoons seen at that website?

Actually I saw the same argument made against Alex Jones with his Bilderberg flirtation. My answer to that concern is here: they are mocking him.

Such is the power of The Octupus.

Moving along from that, the next argument holds more credence, and indeed at that “9/11 Truth” meeting drives us into the razor edge of troubles. Simply put, they overshoot their wad by doing that oragami trick with the 20 dollar bill, a bar trick remarkable for its unremarkableness. Or that Illuminati is something else, you say?

A minor point from Thomas Friedman

Sunday, July 30th, 2006

Something popped out at me, something ultimately insignificant to the larger context of the story, in Thomas Friedman’s editorial on Middle East a’happenings. That is this observation.

There is nothing that you can’t do to someone in the Middle East today, and there is no leader or movement – no Nelson Mandela and no million-mom march – coming out of this region, or into this region, to put a stop to the madness.

There is no Million Mom March in the Middle East? What the Middle East needs is a Million Mom March? No offense to the three quarters of moms who marched on Washington in 1999 for gun control laws, and the diminishing number in years since, but what, precisely did they accomplish, and whatever their accomplishments were, how precisely would it be a pancrea for the situation in the Middle East? If it’s simply a matter of Friedman suggesting that ordinary people taking to the streets and protesting, why specify the “Million Mom March”? Is it just that they are uncontroversial enough? Say, for instance the war protests before the Iraq War were opposed by Friedman himself and apt to be easily caricaturized, but a Million Moms — even if it’s them taking a stance in the hot-button issue of Guns — why, everybody loves mom!

At least the other one, Nelson Mandela, I can hum to.

50 percent of Americans

Saturday, July 29th, 2006

So, apparently, 50 percent of Americans believe that we have discovered the weapons of the mass of the destruction, an increase from the roughly a third that believed such a thing. It is probably just as well. The majority of Americans also probably believe that Saddam Hussein did not allow the inspectors in — that being a more balf-faced told lie while the former is just something that’s been ruminated by various Republican politicos lately.

Thus I heard, clicking past that radio station, John Gibson proclaiming “50 percent of Americans believe that we have found Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons. And you know what? Those 50 percent are RIGHT!! Are you with that 50 percent? Call in!”

And I heard the Rush Limbaugh ad with the excerpt from the show regarding Rick Santorum and Representative Pete Hoekstra’s fact-finding search with a “They are going to say that this is meaningless, that the weapons were from before 1991, and lack any power. That’s what they’re going to say. Who cares? Because we have found them.”

Incidentally, that is Exactly what they‘re going to say, and that is exactly what they said. I believe the exchange went “There is more danger in your kitchen cabinet than in these weapons” with the odd response from a Representative of “You’re claiming I possess weapons of mass destruction in my kitchen cabinet??”

Stats R Us

Friday, July 28th, 2006

abraham lincoln s speech with words four score and seven years ago how many years was he perferring to


doc hastings gay


elmo ymca liberal gay

Weird. Is “gay” taking the place of “Skull and Bones” in terms of searching individuals?

are nuclear weapons a meanace to the human race or a good way of keeping world peace


conservative republican reviews on michael parenti

Oh, they don’t like him.

anotated readings on ob cases


libertarian nationalist socialist green party website review

It seemed to be a parody. And then somehow it ceased to be a parody, as the message board was populated by people who took it seriously, and it seemed to go under “New Management”. The parody material was kind of amusing, actually.

is nora donaldson taking over for chris matthews


reality television proposal

Strand a bunch of people on Mars and see if they can survive. For season two, make it a group of washed out celebrities.

george bush burning cow effigy. masonic party homosexuality

I’ve got nothing.

cheney skis in jeans bumper sticker

Why would you want a bumper sticker that says “Cheney Skiis in Jeans”? Am I missing something here and dense somehow?

douglas macarthur horseback destroys tent city

Yes. Bonus Army March. Douglas MacArthur lead the military against them. Thank you Herbert Hoover!

larouche yelled


ned lamont secret society

Are you organizing a secret fan club or something?

vandegraaff ball for sale

Not available on ebay right now. Why do you want your hair sticking up?

snuffy italian mafia 1943 rochester ny

Seems strangely specific. Snuffy. Italian Mafia. 1943. Rochester, NY. Toss together to make a different whole greater than its part.

hanford deaths january 2006

Don’t believe so.

sermon message on kicking against the prick

It is difficult to kick against the prick, but you must kick against the prick in order to find salvation in Jesus.

model pat in abercrombie and fitch

Undoubtedly with an unidentifible connection with any piece of clothing you might buy.

i do not want to touch his ass arnold schwarzenegger

From Red Heat (1988), during the end of the Cold War where you could create buddy-films with a Soviet archtype and an American.

al gore african tribal miscue

I look this up, and my first guess is that this is the Republican blogger response to the information that Bush did not know the difference between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds before invading Iraq. But then I type “”s for Al Gore and see that that entry isn’t what it looked like initially. Sorry, I can’t help you.

9/11 hoax debunker

Sure, why not?

joe namath underworld connections three iii

I don’t understand the “three”, and even if I did the “iii” seems kind of redundant. At least “Joe Namath Underworld Connections” makes sense. He was on Richard Nixon’s enemies list.

negro skull and bones member

Not until recently.

why does npr keep referring to her as valerie plume?

Spell-checker isn’t working.

rush limbaugh israel armageddon revelation

Rush Limbaugh is mentioned in the Book of Revelations?

i am not buddha

Neither am I.

what happened to teh ku klux klan in the 1920 s

They became huge.

rogers arkansas sex whores

Yes. Clinton. And his drug smuggling days in Arkansas.

justin kuralt

Charles’s nephew, apparently.

what senator did vice president cheney yell a swear word at when he thought his microphone was off?

I don’t think it was that scenario, but it was Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy he said “Go fuck yourself” to. He called a New York Times reporter an “asshole” with the mic on, though.

vampires giving cash to human

Really? Where?

skulls bones gore


erotic radio show frequency

Sounds like a gimmick.

Steele is the culprit. Well, Duh.

Thursday, July 27th, 2006

When I saw that an anonymous “Senate candidate” in a “high profile race” made various comments about the current failings of the Republican Party, that the “R for Republican next to his name was like a ‘scarlet letter'” and that if this race comes down to Republican versus Democrat he will lose, I noted it, thought that there was about a 75 percent chance it was said by Michael Steele — Maryland’s Republican Senate candidate, and then moved on through my blog scannings and saw, several posts later, that, yes indeedy, it was said by Michael Steele.

It’s a sham, I guess. He wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration and the Republican congress while not publically clamouring for attention. Or it’s an act of stupidity. Or maybe he’s idiotic enough to think he wouldn’t be discovered with that relative ease that he was discovered with.

Obviously it wasn’t a current Senator, most likely an open seat, and it’s hard to fathom someone from Tennessee crying out about the situation. So we have: Mark Kennedy of Minnesota. Tom Kean, Jr of New Jersey. Michael Steele of Maryland. And in Steele’s case, he has to be aware of that even if such a thing as the Internet didn’t exist with myriad bloggers speculating and dissecting these three away, paring it down to him — it’s not exactly a Deep Throat operation — hard to pin down that guy — or even that “Primary Colors” asshole from 1996 — which the 24 hour media rather methodically wound its way to Klein as the culprit in relative simplicity.

Steele is supposed to be the harbringer of the Republican black plurality, doubling the number of black Republicans will spell the death of the Democratic Party, you see. Maybe had he been able to run in 2002. I doubt in 2004.

I hear said that 2006 is a bit like 1994, in that it’s not a good idea to campaign as an experienced Incumbant of the Majority Party, except that unlike in 1994 it’s not a good idea to campaign on a “I Know nothing about this government business” policy (ala Michael Huntington’s campaign), what with Katrina and Bush’s general incompetence showing the way to politicians who know stuff.

The Lieberman Redux

Wednesday, July 26th, 2006

The Daily Howler pointed out what I pointed out regarding Lieberman’s part in Clinton’s impeachment. Except this assessment is off a bit.

Joseph Lieberman’s speech really did serve as a marker, whether he was at the front of the train by design or simply noticed it and jumped in front of it. He may or may not have “saved Clinton’s presidency” (as the New Republic now firmly believes, and I suggested in that blog look back, and I don’t really have a firm stand on, but try this anyway), by churning through that thin line in public opinion that I awkwardly described here. The question there is simply, what would it have taken for the Democratic Party to pick up those handful of seats in the midterm elections?

All of that aside, the most interesting Democratic politician in the Impeachment storyline was Russ Feingold, and I repeat something from The New Republic I posted previously.

Maybe the ultimate Feingold heresy came during the 1998-1999 Clinton impeachment fight. When Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia offered a resolution to dismiss the charges against the president, every Democrat voted for the resolution but one: Feingold. Again, the issue was process. Feingold argued that Republicans deserved a chance to make their case and put it to a vote and that the Byrd resolution would “in appearance, and in fact, improperly short-circuit this trial” and “call the fairness of the process into question.” The vote was a disaster among his Democratic constituents, according to the Wisconsin Democratic Party chairwoman, who told The Washington Post: “We’re getting a lot of very upset people calling. … Elderly people crying, other people yelling. … They’re just mad as hell.” Feingold ultimately voted against impeachment. But watching him explain his interim vote promises to amuse. One adviser to a potential 2008 rival said he could envision cutting a “Feingold favored impeachment” ad.

And, if you continue on that blog post, yes, I suspect that Russ Feingold was referenced unnamed in Christopher Hitchen’s book regarding a Democrat who hesitated on whether to vote to impeach or not.

As it were, I ponder Lieberman’s final push, which is to wrap himself in Clinton as snuggly in possible. I have a sneaky suspicion that there’s a 50-50 chance this will work. And the cycle of dead-end politicians will continue.

Rock and Roll Part Two

Wednesday, July 26th, 2006

This past weekend, I watched two dogs chase each other. It was comical, one dog being large and the other tiny. Which is to say it was amusing to see the large dog sniff the tiny dog’s butt.

It occurs to me that regardless of the language they’re speaking, that Sherman and Norman would both very much enjoy sniffing each other’s butts, which in human parlance would be viewed as a homosexual activity (for someone named Norman and Sherman), even though I think the reason for doing so is about the same: they enjoy the smell.