http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/nf2004101_0937_db009.htm
Saturday, October 02, 2004
9/30 Situation Analysis by Kroll Inc. (PDF)
http://www.krollworldwide.com/library/merm/MERM_09_30_2004.pdf
Says that it's likely that Iraq Jan. elections will be postponed.
Says that it's likely that Iraq Jan. elections will be postponed.
Friday, October 01, 2004
UAL Refuses to View Proof Flight 175 Did Not Hit WTC
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/september2004/300904refusestoview.htm
Not saying I agree with any conclusions, but interesting background info.
Not saying I agree with any conclusions, but interesting background info.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Palme ex-suspect dies in hospital
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3701210.stm
This story kinda out of left field, but this assassination seemed to be fishy.
This story kinda out of left field, but this assassination seemed to be fishy.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Jonathan Stein: The Idiot Bush Supporter of the Day!
Donkey Farm: A Democrat Story
Jonathan M. Stein
Monday, Sept. 27, 2004 While George Orwell’s classic novel "1984" is a treatise on how totalitarian regimes maintain control over their populations, "Animal Farm: A Fairy Story" is essentially an essay on how totalitarian regimes acquire and ascend to power.
The contention here isn’t necessarily that Democrats endeavor to establish a totalitarian regime in America; the contention is that the methods and tactics John Kerry and the Democrats are using in their quest to ascend to power are strikingly similar to those outlined by Orwell.
Story Continues Below
"Animal Farm" centers around a revolt on Manor Farm, set in England. Furious over the conditions on Manor Farm and the way the human farmer, Mr. Jones, treated the animals, the animals staged a rebellion and ejected Jones and his men from the farm.
The triumphant animals renamed Manor Farm “Animal Farm.” However, the more intelligent animals, the pigs, quickly discovered that they could use their superior intellect to manipulate and dominate the less-intelligent animals, who didn’t understand what was happening until it was too late.
Eventually, the pigs, led by a pig named Napoleon, took control of the farm and established a regime far worse than that of Jones. In the end, fittingly, the pigs restored the farm’s original human name, Manor Farm.
Directly after the initial rebellion, the animals established “Seven Commandments” for the animals to live by. The first two were 1) whatever goes upon two legs (i.e., man) is an enemy and 2) whatever goes upon four legs (i.e., animals) ... is a friend.
When the least intelligent of the animals, the sheep, had trouble grasping this concept, the pigs discovered that they could convey their propaganda more effectively by distilling the more complex concepts into oversimplified slogans. So Squealer, effectively the pigs’ minister of propaganda, taught the sheep a simple platitude: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” The sheep ran around all day bleating this slogan.
When I hear John Kerry say, in his stump speech, “W stands for wrong,” all I hear is “Four legs good, two legs bad.” When I watched leftists running around New York during the convention with signs that said “Bush lied,” all I thought was “Four legs good, two legs bad.” It seems the Democrats have found their flock of sheep.
One pig, Snowball, was expelled from the farm after a vociferous disagreement with Napoleon – Orwell’s allusion to Trotsky. Soon thereafter, the pigs would blame any disaster or mishap that occurred on Snowball, making him the ethereal scapegoat – an inscrutable, phantasmal mastermind. If the windmill was destroyed, it was Snowball’s fault; if eggs were stolen from the hen house, it was Snowball’s fault; if there was any act of sabotage on the farm, it was Snowball’s fault, etc.
If the Democrats are caught passing forged documents to CBS, it’s Karl Rove’s fault; if Vietnam veterans oppose and expose John Kerry in a television ad, it’s Karl Rove’s fault; if the Democrats can’t get their message out ... It’s Karl Rove’s fault. Karl Rove has effectively become Snowball.
Anytime Napoleon or the other pigs felt that the animals on the farm were starting to catch on and wise up to what was truly happening on the farm, the pigs would resort to their ace in the hole: scare tactics. If the pigs’ dictates were not followed, warned Napoleon, farmer Jones would come back! As baseless as this threat was, it always successfully scared the other animals into compliance. They would do anything so long as Jones would not return.
The Democrats have mastered this tactic: If you don’t vote for John Kerry, you won’t have health insurance; if you don’t vote for John Kerry, you won’t have Social Security; if you don’t vote for John Kerry, the draft will come back. If you don’t vote for John Kerry, Jones will come back!
As the pigs acquired more and more power, they took on more and more human characteristics, until they eventually were even walking on two legs. To get away with this, of course, they had to modify the original “Seven Commandments,” while convincing the other animals that the commandments had not, in fact, been modified at all.
To help achieve this end, this deception, the pigs taught the sheep a new slogan: “Four legs good, two legs better!” In the end, the pigs had but one commandment: All Animals are equal, but some Animals are more equal than others. This, in a nutshell, seems to be the contemporary maxim of the Democrats.
Jonathan M. Stein
Monday, Sept. 27, 2004 While George Orwell’s classic novel "1984" is a treatise on how totalitarian regimes maintain control over their populations, "Animal Farm: A Fairy Story" is essentially an essay on how totalitarian regimes acquire and ascend to power.
The contention here isn’t necessarily that Democrats endeavor to establish a totalitarian regime in America; the contention is that the methods and tactics John Kerry and the Democrats are using in their quest to ascend to power are strikingly similar to those outlined by Orwell.
Story Continues Below
"Animal Farm" centers around a revolt on Manor Farm, set in England. Furious over the conditions on Manor Farm and the way the human farmer, Mr. Jones, treated the animals, the animals staged a rebellion and ejected Jones and his men from the farm.
The triumphant animals renamed Manor Farm “Animal Farm.” However, the more intelligent animals, the pigs, quickly discovered that they could use their superior intellect to manipulate and dominate the less-intelligent animals, who didn’t understand what was happening until it was too late.
Eventually, the pigs, led by a pig named Napoleon, took control of the farm and established a regime far worse than that of Jones. In the end, fittingly, the pigs restored the farm’s original human name, Manor Farm.
Directly after the initial rebellion, the animals established “Seven Commandments” for the animals to live by. The first two were 1) whatever goes upon two legs (i.e., man) is an enemy and 2) whatever goes upon four legs (i.e., animals) ... is a friend.
When the least intelligent of the animals, the sheep, had trouble grasping this concept, the pigs discovered that they could convey their propaganda more effectively by distilling the more complex concepts into oversimplified slogans. So Squealer, effectively the pigs’ minister of propaganda, taught the sheep a simple platitude: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” The sheep ran around all day bleating this slogan.
When I hear John Kerry say, in his stump speech, “W stands for wrong,” all I hear is “Four legs good, two legs bad.” When I watched leftists running around New York during the convention with signs that said “Bush lied,” all I thought was “Four legs good, two legs bad.” It seems the Democrats have found their flock of sheep.
One pig, Snowball, was expelled from the farm after a vociferous disagreement with Napoleon – Orwell’s allusion to Trotsky. Soon thereafter, the pigs would blame any disaster or mishap that occurred on Snowball, making him the ethereal scapegoat – an inscrutable, phantasmal mastermind. If the windmill was destroyed, it was Snowball’s fault; if eggs were stolen from the hen house, it was Snowball’s fault; if there was any act of sabotage on the farm, it was Snowball’s fault, etc.
If the Democrats are caught passing forged documents to CBS, it’s Karl Rove’s fault; if Vietnam veterans oppose and expose John Kerry in a television ad, it’s Karl Rove’s fault; if the Democrats can’t get their message out ... It’s Karl Rove’s fault. Karl Rove has effectively become Snowball.
Anytime Napoleon or the other pigs felt that the animals on the farm were starting to catch on and wise up to what was truly happening on the farm, the pigs would resort to their ace in the hole: scare tactics. If the pigs’ dictates were not followed, warned Napoleon, farmer Jones would come back! As baseless as this threat was, it always successfully scared the other animals into compliance. They would do anything so long as Jones would not return.
The Democrats have mastered this tactic: If you don’t vote for John Kerry, you won’t have health insurance; if you don’t vote for John Kerry, you won’t have Social Security; if you don’t vote for John Kerry, the draft will come back. If you don’t vote for John Kerry, Jones will come back!
As the pigs acquired more and more power, they took on more and more human characteristics, until they eventually were even walking on two legs. To get away with this, of course, they had to modify the original “Seven Commandments,” while convincing the other animals that the commandments had not, in fact, been modified at all.
To help achieve this end, this deception, the pigs taught the sheep a new slogan: “Four legs good, two legs better!” In the end, the pigs had but one commandment: All Animals are equal, but some Animals are more equal than others. This, in a nutshell, seems to be the contemporary maxim of the Democrats.
Audit Finds FBI Has Large Translation Backlog
NewsMax.com WiresMonday, Sept. 27, 2004 WASHINGTON – The FBI has a backlog of hundreds of thousands of hours of untranslated audio recordings from terrorism and espionage investigations, despite large increases in money and personnel for translations since the 2001 terror attacks, a Justice Department audit released Monday said.In addition, the audit by Glenn A. Fine, the agency's inspector general, found that more than one-third of al-Qaida intercepts authorized by a secret federal court were not reviewed within 12 hours of collection as required by FBI Director Robert Mueller.
"Our audit highlighted the significant challenges facing the FBI to ensure that translation of key information is performed timely and accurately," Fine said.
The audit was completed in July in classified form. The version released Monday was edited to remove sections classified as "secret" by the FBI.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, more than 123,000 hours of audio in languages associated with terrorism still had not been reviewed as of April 2004, the audit found. In addition, more than 370,000 hours of audio associated with counterintelligence had not been reviewed.
This backlog existed even though the FBI's language services funding had increased from $21.5 million in fiscal 2001 to about $70 million in fiscal 2004. The number of linguists has risen from 883 to 1,214 over that period.
The FBI also is not meeting Mueller's requirement that all al-Qaida communications collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act be reviewed within 12 hours of interception. During April 2004, the audit found, 36 percent of such communications were not even received at FBI headquarters within 12 hours.
The audit found that the FBI still lacks the necessary language personnel to do all the needed translation work and that limitations in its technology, especially in computer storage capacity, also cause problems that lead to backlogs.
The audit made 18 recommendations for the FBI, many of which have already been implemented, Fine said. FBI officials told auditors they are hiring linguists as quickly as possible.
"The FBI appears to be taking steps to address these issues, which are critical components of the FBI's counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts," Fine said.
© 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
"Our audit highlighted the significant challenges facing the FBI to ensure that translation of key information is performed timely and accurately," Fine said.
The audit was completed in July in classified form. The version released Monday was edited to remove sections classified as "secret" by the FBI.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, more than 123,000 hours of audio in languages associated with terrorism still had not been reviewed as of April 2004, the audit found. In addition, more than 370,000 hours of audio associated with counterintelligence had not been reviewed.
This backlog existed even though the FBI's language services funding had increased from $21.5 million in fiscal 2001 to about $70 million in fiscal 2004. The number of linguists has risen from 883 to 1,214 over that period.
The FBI also is not meeting Mueller's requirement that all al-Qaida communications collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act be reviewed within 12 hours of interception. During April 2004, the audit found, 36 percent of such communications were not even received at FBI headquarters within 12 hours.
The audit found that the FBI still lacks the necessary language personnel to do all the needed translation work and that limitations in its technology, especially in computer storage capacity, also cause problems that lead to backlogs.
The audit made 18 recommendations for the FBI, many of which have already been implemented, Fine said. FBI officials told auditors they are hiring linguists as quickly as possible.
"The FBI appears to be taking steps to address these issues, which are critical components of the FBI's counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts," Fine said.
© 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Monday, September 27, 2004
Hostage in Iraq: Five days in Hell
http://www.espritdecorps.ca/new_page_243.htm
Author was on NPR's The Connection on 9/27.
Is Bush's plan to kill all of these people?
Author was on NPR's The Connection on 9/27.
Is Bush's plan to kill all of these people?
Sunday, September 26, 2004
D R Griffin: Response to the "Creepy" posting by Angie
Subject: [WarOnFreedom] Griffin's Reality Check on "Creepy Sides of the Movement"
September 13, 2004
Dear Angie,
A couple of people recently sent me your piece, "The Creepy Sides of the 911Truth Movement."Being short on time, I will respond only to your theory and your paragraphabout me and my associates.I gather that you do not put me in the category of those who do not "reallywant the 911 truth exposed." I am thankful for that. You put me merely inthe category of those who do want it exposed but NOT "for 'good' reasons."That is, I evidently "want it exposed" but am still "a bad guy."I must confess that, in the eyes of God, I am probably indeed a pretty bad guy. But I was somewhat surprised by the reasons you gave for warning really pure 9/11 truth-seekers to be wary of me. One of your reasons appears to be that both I and Richard Falk, the authorof the Foreword to my book, are "one world government aficionados." It is certainly true that I am in favor of global democracy and have been workingon a rather big book on this topic for many years. But I was surprised thatyou would assume that there is something "creepy" to what I have in mind without looking at my arguments and the particular form of "worldgovernment" that I advocate. Since you and I had corresponded some time back, if I correctly recall, I am puzzled why you, given your obvious concern for truth, did not write to find out exactly what my views arebefore suggesting, in a public document, that they are somehow involved in amassive conspiracy.I might add here that I too have wondered why US officials would haveapparently made it so evident that they did it. I have my own thoughts aboutthis, but am not certain enough about them to go public with them. Withregard to your own view, it is certainly possible. But it seems to me veryimprobable. However, even if you yourself consider your own theory highlyprobable, I think you should be cautious about simply assuming that there issome close correlation between it and The Truth. And you should, I wouldsuggest, be especially careful about then quickly concluding that anythingthat possibly might be part of this Big Picture of What Is Really Going On,which you have constructed, is indeed part of it. I would suggest that youshould be more cautions still about next, without even checking the truth ofvarious things you have read or heard, suggesting these connections to theworld. This is exactly the kind of approach that has given "conspiracytheorists" a bad name.In any case, to look at the issues you raise: In finding the idea of globalgovernment of any sort dangerous, you are certainly endorsing theconventional view. But if you are interested, I would be happy to send yousome writings in which I try to show why this conventional view needs to berethought. Of course, I don't know exactly why you find the very idea of global government creepy. (I have a list of 10 reasons that have commonly been given for opposing it.) But what I have in mind is a system in whichthe main decisions about the future of the planet would not be made by atiny elite group in a nation with around 4 percent of the world'spopulation. On my own creep-o-meter, this present system of globalgovernance gets extremely high marks. I believe that if we are in favor ofdemocracy as the best way to govern a country, we should be in favor ofdemocracy for human civilization as a whole.Indeed, if I were so inclined, I could weave a conspiracy theory in which,because you oppose my solution, you are covertly working for those who wantto keep the US government in control of the planet. You can see how easy andseductive this logic can be:(1) X (the present system of global governance) is the real problem.(2) Angie is denying that X is the real problem.(3) In fact, Angie is criticizing people who see that X is the real problem.(4) Therefore, Angie must be an infiltrator in our movement, working onbehalf of those who are promoting X.I myself would like to see a decline of this kind of thinking in the 9/11Truth Movement and an increase in work that focuses on exposing theperpetrators. For one thing, if we each insist that we will not work withothers if we know or even suspect that their motives, their convictionsabout 9/11, and their worldviews are not the same as our own, we will nothave a movement.In any case, to turn to the more particular issues you raise in relation tome and my associates, by way of suggesting that we are playing roles in yourown version of What Is Really Going On:Richard's work helped get me started thinking about global democracy, but hehas, in spite of my prodding, not been advocating the idea of globaldemocracy in what I call the strong sense (the sense in which Einsteinadvocated it). You say that you find "one world gov't. advocates creepy." Iam surprised that you would move from the perception that certain peoplehold ideas you disagree with to the conclusion that the people themselvesare creepy. But since Richard is not advocating one world government, youneed to restrict your conclusion to me alone. More generally, in any case,Richard is about the last person to whom I would apply the adjective"creepy."With regard to your specific statements. As to the Council of ForeignRelations, Richard became a member in about 1969, he says, and has "remaineda member despite a variety of misgivings." Although he was between tripswhen I caught up with him to ask him about this, I can imagine he hasremained a member with the thought of perhaps having some positiveinfluence. His field is International Law, and he is well known for tryingto introduce normative concerns into international politics. He has thereby opposed "political science" insofar as it seeks to leave out all normative(i.e. moral) considerations. He has also been an opponent of "politicalrealism," at least the sort that maintains that power is all that counts andshould count in international relations. One example of his trying to havean influence on CFR was what he describes as "a huge fight with DavidRockefeller over the appointment of William Bundy as editor of ForeignAffairs." With regard to your statement that Richard "has worked on newworld order projects for the CFR, like the World Order Models Project," hereports: "I did have a marginal relationship to the 1980s Project, which wastrying to project a set of future conditions in world affairs, and washeaded by Princeton colleague, Richard Ullman. It was a rather benignundertaking, and had nothing to do with the world order models project."You ask: "What the hell is one to make of a CFR member wanting to expose9-11?" You seem to have a very simple view of human motivations andbelongings, as if you could draw some inference from Richard's membership inCFR--which is one of literally dozens of organizations to which he belongsand probably one of the least important in his life--and his motivation forexposing the truth about 9/11. He wants to do the latter because he hasalways worked to expose the truth about important things, and because,through reading my manuscript, he came to believe that the official storyabout 9/11 was false. To come out publicly with his support for thealternative view took courage on his part, because he had previously arguedthat the US government's response in Afghanistan was correct--that it couldbe considered a "just response" (or could have been if the principles ofjust-war theory had been followed). This is the issue that he and I mostdisagreed about. But my point now is that Richard had the courage to say, bywriting the Foreword to my book, that he had been wrong.It would be hard, furthermore, to find many people who have worked longerand harder on behalf of good causes around the world. Because of this, Ifound your slurs against him the most offensive part of your essay. Tosuggest that Richard does not really want the truth exposed, or that he isdoing this for some nefarious reason, is simply inexcusable. Perhaps JohnGray will forgive you, but I confess that I will have difficulty.I am, furthermore, puzzled as to what research you did for your informationabout John Cobb. He was formerly my professor and then my colleague at theClaremont School of Theology and in the Department of Religious Studies atClaremont Graduate University, where he taught from the late 1950s until heretired 15 years ago. His wife will surely be somewhat amused to find thathe had been moonlighting as the "senior economist for the World Bank."I first thought you must have gotten him confused with Herman Daly, but thenI see that you mention Herman as well. Herman actually did work for theWorld Bank, but he--as long the leading advocate of green, sustainable,steady-state economics--could never have been the senior economist at theWorld Bank. I frankly don't know what connection he has had with the Club ofRome, but he obviously shares at least some of the concerns of what isprobably the most well-known book associated with the Club, The Limits toGrowth. But if you would read Herman's writings, you could disabuse yourselfof the suspicion that he would knowingly be involved with any of thenefarious schemes that you suggest are promoted by the Club. I can also tellyou that I have thus far been unable to interest Herman in my ideas aboutglobal democracy.Incidentally, you seem to think that "global governance" is simply a synonymfor "global government." But they may be very different. Those who use thelanguage of "global governance" often speak of "governance withoutgovernment." I suspect that this is the Club of Rome position. Whether thatposition is coherent is another question, but if you want to speakaccurately about these matters, you need to understand the difference.Although John is not an economist by training or profession, he did, withHerman's help, teach himself a lot about economics, and the two of themco-authored a book--For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy towardCommunity, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future--which I would commendto your attention. I don't think you will find it one bit creepy. (Indeed,they explicitly wrote against World Government, evidently having in mind thescary version of it that you share. In the meantime, John's position hasmoved closer to mine, but Herman's, as far as I know, has not.)John also wrote a book called The Earthist Challenge to Economism: ATheological Critique of the World Bank. But, alas, even that did not get himinvited to become the Bank's senior economist.He has, however, long been considered one of the best progressivetheologians in the world, and he has been passionately concerned about thefuture of the earth since he awoke to the ecological crisis in the late1960s. He is, in fact, known as the first philosopher as well as the firsttheologian to write a book reflecting this concern. His little book, Is ItToo Late? A Theology of Ecology, is still considered sufficiently relevantto be reissued. He has in the meantime written many books and article andgiven countless speeches on the need to change course before we destroyourselves and much of the rest of the life of the planet. I can assure youthat the purity of his motives probably rivals that of your own.Besides my association with these individuals, the next mark against me inyour book is evidently the fact that after Cobb and I founded the Center forProcess Studies, it "received support from the Rockefeller Foundation." Hadyou written to ask about this, I would have gladly given you more specificinformation: Our first conference, held in the summer of 1974, broughttogether a number of distinguished scientists and philosophers to discussproblems in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution and to consider analternative to it. It took place at the Rockefeller Foundation's Study andConference Center at Bellagio, Italy. The arrangement is that if they acceptyour application and you can pay the way for all the conferees to get there,they give you room, board, and a meeting place for 3 or 4 days. That hasbeen the extent of our center's support from the Rockefeller Foundation.Cobb and I acknowledge this support in the Preface of the resulting book,Mind in Nature: Essays on the Interface of Science and Philosophy.Incidentally, I personally, as an individual scholar, went back to Bellagioin 1992, where my wife and I stayed for about 5 weeks. It was there, infact, that I first developed the conviction that if the world's globalproblems are to be solved, we need to move from the present globalstructure--technically known as global anarchy--to global democracy. Thispast year I applied to return, with the hope of finishing a book that Istarted the day after 9/11. But this time my application was denied. PerhapsI was foolish to reveal my topic: global democracy as the only, or at leastthe best, way to overcome US imperialism (certainly better than the standardapproach, which would be for the other nations to combine forces against us,which would probably be a route to global nuclear war).You also say that I have "some unusual ideas about how humanity should thinkabout God." Should I infer from this that you think the usual ideas--thoseof traditional theism--have been good enough? Compared to traditionaltheism, in any case, my ideas are indeed "unusual." But I am a member of themovement known as "process theology," and one of the complaints leveledagainst it by some of its opponents is that it has become "the establishmentview." That is, to be sure, a great exaggeration. But it suggests that amonginformed people, the kind of ideas I advocate are no longer consideredunusual. They have in particular been endorsed by many feminist theologians.You could get a brief overview in a book entitled Process Theology, whichCobb and I co-authored in 1977. Some of my reasons for preferring this viewto traditional theism are explained in my 1976 book, God, Power, and Evil,and my 1991 book, Evil Revisited. For a feminist process theologian, see thewritings of Catherine Keller. You also seem to think that there is something perverse about thefact that I advocate "some type of mysticism." You evidently are not muchconcerned with exactly which type. But you apparently assume that it is somereactionary type, since you say that I apparently want us "to revert" to it.But there are, of course, many different types of mysticism--or, to be moreprecise, types of positions that are sometimes labeled "mysticism," whetherby their advocates or their detractors. But since you appear to be interested in this part of my position,let me say that I do indeed endorse "mysticism," if that term is used in thedescriptive sense to mean that there is a Holy Reality with which we aredirectly connected. According to my epistemology, it is through this direct(nonsensory) connection that we are aware of the normative status of Truthand Justice and sometimes even become committed to having those abstractvalues actualized. (I explain this in a recent book, Reenchantment withoutSupernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion.) I also endorse mysticismas a practice, understood as the attempt consciously to cultivate thisconnection, so that our motivations and actions will be attuned to the goodof the whole rather than to our own selfish good or to the good of only someportion of the whole, as in fascism and other forms of exclusivisticnationalism. With regard to my religious and theological writings, I am glad your referred interested readers to the little interview with me that In Context published back in 1990. But of course we can never assume that we have received an adequate account of a person's views on complex issues from a brief interview. And my philosophical and theological views are hardly a secret, but have been published in many other books, beyond the ones already mentioned (most of which can be found on Amazon.com). Some people probablywonder, indeed, if I have an unpublished thought. In any case, given your evident concern for truth and purity of motive, I assumed that you would like to have these clarifications, so that in the future any statements you might wish to make about me and my views can bemore accurate. I was tempted to say something about the slurs you made against other people. But because of limits of time and knowledge, I will not. I do hope, however, that you will consider the possibility that what you have said and insinuated about them may be as ill-informed as what you have said and insinuated about me and my associates. In closing, let me add that I am sure that you mean well. I would never question your motives. But I do find the kind of approach you took in this particular essay unhelpful. For one thing, you probably will cause several people in the movement to waste time responding. I at the moment, for example, am trying to finish up a book on the 9/11 Commission Report, so every hour is precious. And yet I have now wasted over an hour responding to your ill-informed allegations and innuendoes. I, of course, did not need to respond. I usually simply ignore such stuff. But I have observed how false allegations, if not corrected, often quickly become accepted as established fact. I also noticed that someone in the movement whose opinion I respect spoke favorably of your piece. So I took the time. But I hope not to need todo this again.
Yours truly,
David Griffin
September 13, 2004
Dear Angie,
A couple of people recently sent me your piece, "The Creepy Sides of the 911Truth Movement."Being short on time, I will respond only to your theory and your paragraphabout me and my associates.I gather that you do not put me in the category of those who do not "reallywant the 911 truth exposed." I am thankful for that. You put me merely inthe category of those who do want it exposed but NOT "for 'good' reasons."That is, I evidently "want it exposed" but am still "a bad guy."I must confess that, in the eyes of God, I am probably indeed a pretty bad guy. But I was somewhat surprised by the reasons you gave for warning really pure 9/11 truth-seekers to be wary of me. One of your reasons appears to be that both I and Richard Falk, the authorof the Foreword to my book, are "one world government aficionados." It is certainly true that I am in favor of global democracy and have been workingon a rather big book on this topic for many years. But I was surprised thatyou would assume that there is something "creepy" to what I have in mind without looking at my arguments and the particular form of "worldgovernment" that I advocate. Since you and I had corresponded some time back, if I correctly recall, I am puzzled why you, given your obvious concern for truth, did not write to find out exactly what my views arebefore suggesting, in a public document, that they are somehow involved in amassive conspiracy.I might add here that I too have wondered why US officials would haveapparently made it so evident that they did it. I have my own thoughts aboutthis, but am not certain enough about them to go public with them. Withregard to your own view, it is certainly possible. But it seems to me veryimprobable. However, even if you yourself consider your own theory highlyprobable, I think you should be cautious about simply assuming that there issome close correlation between it and The Truth. And you should, I wouldsuggest, be especially careful about then quickly concluding that anythingthat possibly might be part of this Big Picture of What Is Really Going On,which you have constructed, is indeed part of it. I would suggest that youshould be more cautions still about next, without even checking the truth ofvarious things you have read or heard, suggesting these connections to theworld. This is exactly the kind of approach that has given "conspiracytheorists" a bad name.In any case, to look at the issues you raise: In finding the idea of globalgovernment of any sort dangerous, you are certainly endorsing theconventional view. But if you are interested, I would be happy to send yousome writings in which I try to show why this conventional view needs to berethought. Of course, I don't know exactly why you find the very idea of global government creepy. (I have a list of 10 reasons that have commonly been given for opposing it.) But what I have in mind is a system in whichthe main decisions about the future of the planet would not be made by atiny elite group in a nation with around 4 percent of the world'spopulation. On my own creep-o-meter, this present system of globalgovernance gets extremely high marks. I believe that if we are in favor ofdemocracy as the best way to govern a country, we should be in favor ofdemocracy for human civilization as a whole.Indeed, if I were so inclined, I could weave a conspiracy theory in which,because you oppose my solution, you are covertly working for those who wantto keep the US government in control of the planet. You can see how easy andseductive this logic can be:(1) X (the present system of global governance) is the real problem.(2) Angie is denying that X is the real problem.(3) In fact, Angie is criticizing people who see that X is the real problem.(4) Therefore, Angie must be an infiltrator in our movement, working onbehalf of those who are promoting X.I myself would like to see a decline of this kind of thinking in the 9/11Truth Movement and an increase in work that focuses on exposing theperpetrators. For one thing, if we each insist that we will not work withothers if we know or even suspect that their motives, their convictionsabout 9/11, and their worldviews are not the same as our own, we will nothave a movement.In any case, to turn to the more particular issues you raise in relation tome and my associates, by way of suggesting that we are playing roles in yourown version of What Is Really Going On:Richard's work helped get me started thinking about global democracy, but hehas, in spite of my prodding, not been advocating the idea of globaldemocracy in what I call the strong sense (the sense in which Einsteinadvocated it). You say that you find "one world gov't. advocates creepy." Iam surprised that you would move from the perception that certain peoplehold ideas you disagree with to the conclusion that the people themselvesare creepy. But since Richard is not advocating one world government, youneed to restrict your conclusion to me alone. More generally, in any case,Richard is about the last person to whom I would apply the adjective"creepy."With regard to your specific statements. As to the Council of ForeignRelations, Richard became a member in about 1969, he says, and has "remaineda member despite a variety of misgivings." Although he was between tripswhen I caught up with him to ask him about this, I can imagine he hasremained a member with the thought of perhaps having some positiveinfluence. His field is International Law, and he is well known for tryingto introduce normative concerns into international politics. He has thereby opposed "political science" insofar as it seeks to leave out all normative(i.e. moral) considerations. He has also been an opponent of "politicalrealism," at least the sort that maintains that power is all that counts andshould count in international relations. One example of his trying to havean influence on CFR was what he describes as "a huge fight with DavidRockefeller over the appointment of William Bundy as editor of ForeignAffairs." With regard to your statement that Richard "has worked on newworld order projects for the CFR, like the World Order Models Project," hereports: "I did have a marginal relationship to the 1980s Project, which wastrying to project a set of future conditions in world affairs, and washeaded by Princeton colleague, Richard Ullman. It was a rather benignundertaking, and had nothing to do with the world order models project."You ask: "What the hell is one to make of a CFR member wanting to expose9-11?" You seem to have a very simple view of human motivations andbelongings, as if you could draw some inference from Richard's membership inCFR--which is one of literally dozens of organizations to which he belongsand probably one of the least important in his life--and his motivation forexposing the truth about 9/11. He wants to do the latter because he hasalways worked to expose the truth about important things, and because,through reading my manuscript, he came to believe that the official storyabout 9/11 was false. To come out publicly with his support for thealternative view took courage on his part, because he had previously arguedthat the US government's response in Afghanistan was correct--that it couldbe considered a "just response" (or could have been if the principles ofjust-war theory had been followed). This is the issue that he and I mostdisagreed about. But my point now is that Richard had the courage to say, bywriting the Foreword to my book, that he had been wrong.It would be hard, furthermore, to find many people who have worked longerand harder on behalf of good causes around the world. Because of this, Ifound your slurs against him the most offensive part of your essay. Tosuggest that Richard does not really want the truth exposed, or that he isdoing this for some nefarious reason, is simply inexcusable. Perhaps JohnGray will forgive you, but I confess that I will have difficulty.I am, furthermore, puzzled as to what research you did for your informationabout John Cobb. He was formerly my professor and then my colleague at theClaremont School of Theology and in the Department of Religious Studies atClaremont Graduate University, where he taught from the late 1950s until heretired 15 years ago. His wife will surely be somewhat amused to find thathe had been moonlighting as the "senior economist for the World Bank."I first thought you must have gotten him confused with Herman Daly, but thenI see that you mention Herman as well. Herman actually did work for theWorld Bank, but he--as long the leading advocate of green, sustainable,steady-state economics--could never have been the senior economist at theWorld Bank. I frankly don't know what connection he has had with the Club ofRome, but he obviously shares at least some of the concerns of what isprobably the most well-known book associated with the Club, The Limits toGrowth. But if you would read Herman's writings, you could disabuse yourselfof the suspicion that he would knowingly be involved with any of thenefarious schemes that you suggest are promoted by the Club. I can also tellyou that I have thus far been unable to interest Herman in my ideas aboutglobal democracy.Incidentally, you seem to think that "global governance" is simply a synonymfor "global government." But they may be very different. Those who use thelanguage of "global governance" often speak of "governance withoutgovernment." I suspect that this is the Club of Rome position. Whether thatposition is coherent is another question, but if you want to speakaccurately about these matters, you need to understand the difference.Although John is not an economist by training or profession, he did, withHerman's help, teach himself a lot about economics, and the two of themco-authored a book--For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy towardCommunity, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future--which I would commendto your attention. I don't think you will find it one bit creepy. (Indeed,they explicitly wrote against World Government, evidently having in mind thescary version of it that you share. In the meantime, John's position hasmoved closer to mine, but Herman's, as far as I know, has not.)John also wrote a book called The Earthist Challenge to Economism: ATheological Critique of the World Bank. But, alas, even that did not get himinvited to become the Bank's senior economist.He has, however, long been considered one of the best progressivetheologians in the world, and he has been passionately concerned about thefuture of the earth since he awoke to the ecological crisis in the late1960s. He is, in fact, known as the first philosopher as well as the firsttheologian to write a book reflecting this concern. His little book, Is ItToo Late? A Theology of Ecology, is still considered sufficiently relevantto be reissued. He has in the meantime written many books and article andgiven countless speeches on the need to change course before we destroyourselves and much of the rest of the life of the planet. I can assure youthat the purity of his motives probably rivals that of your own.Besides my association with these individuals, the next mark against me inyour book is evidently the fact that after Cobb and I founded the Center forProcess Studies, it "received support from the Rockefeller Foundation." Hadyou written to ask about this, I would have gladly given you more specificinformation: Our first conference, held in the summer of 1974, broughttogether a number of distinguished scientists and philosophers to discussproblems in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution and to consider analternative to it. It took place at the Rockefeller Foundation's Study andConference Center at Bellagio, Italy. The arrangement is that if they acceptyour application and you can pay the way for all the conferees to get there,they give you room, board, and a meeting place for 3 or 4 days. That hasbeen the extent of our center's support from the Rockefeller Foundation.Cobb and I acknowledge this support in the Preface of the resulting book,Mind in Nature: Essays on the Interface of Science and Philosophy.Incidentally, I personally, as an individual scholar, went back to Bellagioin 1992, where my wife and I stayed for about 5 weeks. It was there, infact, that I first developed the conviction that if the world's globalproblems are to be solved, we need to move from the present globalstructure--technically known as global anarchy--to global democracy. Thispast year I applied to return, with the hope of finishing a book that Istarted the day after 9/11. But this time my application was denied. PerhapsI was foolish to reveal my topic: global democracy as the only, or at leastthe best, way to overcome US imperialism (certainly better than the standardapproach, which would be for the other nations to combine forces against us,which would probably be a route to global nuclear war).You also say that I have "some unusual ideas about how humanity should thinkabout God." Should I infer from this that you think the usual ideas--thoseof traditional theism--have been good enough? Compared to traditionaltheism, in any case, my ideas are indeed "unusual." But I am a member of themovement known as "process theology," and one of the complaints leveledagainst it by some of its opponents is that it has become "the establishmentview." That is, to be sure, a great exaggeration. But it suggests that amonginformed people, the kind of ideas I advocate are no longer consideredunusual. They have in particular been endorsed by many feminist theologians.You could get a brief overview in a book entitled Process Theology, whichCobb and I co-authored in 1977. Some of my reasons for preferring this viewto traditional theism are explained in my 1976 book, God, Power, and Evil,and my 1991 book, Evil Revisited. For a feminist process theologian, see thewritings of Catherine Keller. You also seem to think that there is something perverse about thefact that I advocate "some type of mysticism." You evidently are not muchconcerned with exactly which type. But you apparently assume that it is somereactionary type, since you say that I apparently want us "to revert" to it.But there are, of course, many different types of mysticism--or, to be moreprecise, types of positions that are sometimes labeled "mysticism," whetherby their advocates or their detractors. But since you appear to be interested in this part of my position,let me say that I do indeed endorse "mysticism," if that term is used in thedescriptive sense to mean that there is a Holy Reality with which we aredirectly connected. According to my epistemology, it is through this direct(nonsensory) connection that we are aware of the normative status of Truthand Justice and sometimes even become committed to having those abstractvalues actualized. (I explain this in a recent book, Reenchantment withoutSupernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion.) I also endorse mysticismas a practice, understood as the attempt consciously to cultivate thisconnection, so that our motivations and actions will be attuned to the goodof the whole rather than to our own selfish good or to the good of only someportion of the whole, as in fascism and other forms of exclusivisticnationalism. With regard to my religious and theological writings, I am glad your referred interested readers to the little interview with me that In Context published back in 1990. But of course we can never assume that we have received an adequate account of a person's views on complex issues from a brief interview. And my philosophical and theological views are hardly a secret, but have been published in many other books, beyond the ones already mentioned (most of which can be found on Amazon.com). Some people probablywonder, indeed, if I have an unpublished thought. In any case, given your evident concern for truth and purity of motive, I assumed that you would like to have these clarifications, so that in the future any statements you might wish to make about me and my views can bemore accurate. I was tempted to say something about the slurs you made against other people. But because of limits of time and knowledge, I will not. I do hope, however, that you will consider the possibility that what you have said and insinuated about them may be as ill-informed as what you have said and insinuated about me and my associates. In closing, let me add that I am sure that you mean well. I would never question your motives. But I do find the kind of approach you took in this particular essay unhelpful. For one thing, you probably will cause several people in the movement to waste time responding. I at the moment, for example, am trying to finish up a book on the 9/11 Commission Report, so every hour is precious. And yet I have now wasted over an hour responding to your ill-informed allegations and innuendoes. I, of course, did not need to respond. I usually simply ignore such stuff. But I have observed how false allegations, if not corrected, often quickly become accepted as established fact. I also noticed that someone in the movement whose opinion I respect spoke favorably of your piece. So I took the time. But I hope not to need todo this again.
Yours truly,
David Griffin
Homeland Security's Info: Miles from Nowhere
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6099899/site/newsweek/
Rather than a no-fly list, why don't we have a "fly list". Ashcroft and Bush could put people's names on the list that are allowed to fly.
Rather than a no-fly list, why don't we have a "fly list". Ashcroft and Bush could put people's names on the list that are allowed to fly.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
Friday, September 24, 2004
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Divine retribution?
http://18minutegap.com/archives/001956.html
This is too funny. After you click the link, scroll down for the map.
This is too funny. After you click the link, scroll down for the map.
The Former Cat Stevens Gets Plane Diverted
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/plane_diverted
Thank God for GWB, Thank God for Tom Ridge, Thank God for Homeland Security!
No Peace Train for you, USA
Thank God for GWB, Thank God for Tom Ridge, Thank God for Homeland Security!
No Peace Train for you, USA
KE04: Someone's Been Reading The Art of War or Something.
http://www.wonkette.com/archives/ke04-someones-been-reading-the-art-of-war-or-something-021692.php
Wonkette may have started drinking early today. Still a interesting post.
Wonkette may have started drinking early today. Still a interesting post.
The Unfeeling President
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0920-13.htm
In addition, based on the political polls, there must be a large contingent of unfeeling citizens too.
In addition, based on the political polls, there must be a large contingent of unfeeling citizens too.
Why Americans Back the War
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0921-01.htm
words on paper (pixels on the computer screen): how many other reader's stomach's turn as they read this, absorb, and face up to the American record of murderous acts.
Makes me think about Billy Joel song: "We didn't start the fire."
If one doesn't take a biblical prospective, who did start the fire? Testosterone? Empire? Tribalism?
Makes me think about "Lord of the Flies"
Separately, another quesiton: "Is it moral to pay taxes to this Regime"?
words on paper (pixels on the computer screen): how many other reader's stomach's turn as they read this, absorb, and face up to the American record of murderous acts.
Makes me think about Billy Joel song: "We didn't start the fire."
If one doesn't take a biblical prospective, who did start the fire? Testosterone? Empire? Tribalism?
Makes me think about "Lord of the Flies"
Separately, another quesiton: "Is it moral to pay taxes to this Regime"?
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Kerry’s Kefiyyah : Joan Swirsky
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/9/20/93512.shtml
Zell Miller, Rush, Ann C., AND Ms. Swirsky: hatemongering at its best!
Zell Miller, Rush, Ann C., AND Ms. Swirsky: hatemongering at its best!
John Kerry: Speech at New York University
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html
Talks about fighting terrorism.
Is it true that too many people look at John Kerry and see Lurch, and the game's over no matter when the content of the debate is?
Talks about fighting terrorism.
Is it true that too many people look at John Kerry and see Lurch, and the game's over no matter when the content of the debate is?
Monday, September 20, 2004
Molly Ivins, Terrorism in Russia, David Brooks the Dunderhead
AUSTIN, Texas -- You open the paper and read the news from Iraq these days, and all you can say is, "Damn, damn, damn." I'm flat out of ideas about how we can fix this, but I maybe see a couple of wrong roads we should give a miss. I was much struck by a column last week by David Brooks in The New York Times written in an understandable rage against the perpetrators of the school massacre at Beslan, Russia. Condemning the perpetrators of Beslan with all the vigor at his command -- hyperbole is impossible -- leads Brooks to an unfortunate conclusion. Brooks particularly blames the American media, which he argues are "averting their eyes" and being "quick to divert their attention away from the core horror of this act" by paying attention to what he regards as irrelevant: the grievance that served as a justification or pretext for these terrorists' act of evil. In other words, he is so exercised at the utter, unmitigated evil of the terrorists, he thinks history is irrelevant. History does not excuse terrorism, but it sure as hell is relevant, if for no other reason than you have to understand an enemy in order to combat him. Of course we should pay attention to what shaped the Chechen terrorists -- since when is learning about terrorists or trying to understand what motivates them the same as condoning them or their actions? In the case of Chechnya, the history is so grim it draws dramatic attention to precisely how a cult of death can start. Chechnya has a long, bitter history of fighting Russia going back at least two centuries. Those of you who have been paying attention know that after World War II, Stalin deported almost the entire nation of Chechnya to Siberia and dumped most of them off in frozen fields with nothing. So most adult Chechens were born in Siberia. Because of the Chechens' desire for independence, two hideous wars followed, one under President Yeltsin and one under President Putin. Most of us remember the mind-numbingly desolate photos of Grozny, the capital, after the surrender -- beyond Dresden. That's how Chechen terrorism was born. Desire for independence is not something this country normally condemns. Brooks blames the terrorism on the "death cult thriving at the fringes of the Muslim world." At least in the case of the Chechens, that's akin to blaming Catholicism for the IRA. On a larger plane, Brooks thinks we refuse to recognize the absolute evil of the Beslan terrorists because it "undermines our faith in the essential goodness of human beings." Speak for yourself, Brooks. Seems to me the one thing that does not change through history is human nature. Theologians and philosophers will continue to debate human nature. I've always liked an observation about politics made by an old West Texas rancher: "I feel like I'm about equal parts good and bad. There's just not may people appealin' to the good in me." I think we're all capable of evil under extreme circumstances. I do know that most humans are kinder and better people when they are healthy, well-fed, raised by loving people in a secure environment and taught it is wrong to kill. But that doesn't change human nature. One trouble with defining terrorism as absolute evil is, as the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Second, we appear to be stuck -- permanently stuck -- with war of unequal forces, since no country is dumb enough to declare war on the United States. So we need to learn every thing we can about how to fight these people effectively. Third, defining "terrorist" or any "other" as an absolute, irrational evil gives us a spurious and intoxicating sense of self-righteousness. We become the simon-pure contrast, thus missing any chance to consider if correcting or just changing our own conduct would be effective. One of the things I know about human nature is that in order to kill strangers face to face -- or, God forbid, their children -- you have to either be very afraid or convince yourself that your enemy is completely evil, other, non-human. People seem far more capable of killing other people if they can't see them, which is probably why war has gotten nastier as the technology has gotten better. We have killed an estimated 12,000-14,000 Iraqis since "mission accomplished" and are bombing Fallujah today. For all I know, in some future I cannot envision, this will turn out to be the right thing to have done. Peace and democracy will flourish in Iraq, and we will all bow down to the great wisdom of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. But so far, no good. According to both opinion polls in Iraq and in the larger Arab world, our invasion of Iraq has increased hatred of the United States and fanned terrorism. Ignorance and condemnation are not a strategy for dealing with that. To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)