• Home
  • Baldy's Bombast
  • Blondie's Bluster
  • Vinny Ravioli
  • Cool Stuff
    • Baldy's Anagrams
    • Asses of Evil
    • Music
    • Pics
    • Hope? Change? Ha!
    • Way Funny
    • Creepy
  • Previous Shows
    • 2012 May
  • About/Contact

Word to haters: At least hate for the right reason

4/5/2012

6 Comments

 
I don't put much stock in what Van Jones says. Actually, that's not true. I don't put any stock in what Van Jones says. So it doesn't bother me at all that in a recent speech at a rally in Los Angeles, he said about libertarians:

“They say they’re Patriots but they hate everybody in America who looks like us. They say they love America but they hate the people, the brown folk, the gays, the lesbians, the people with piercings. Ya know: Ya’ll.”

Here's how much Van Jones knows about me: Nothing.

I know a lot about me, and I know this: I don't hate anyone.

The two people I come closest to hating are Eric Dove and my younger brother, John. That's because in the summer of 1979, in an American Legion baseball game, I was four outs away from pitching a perfect game when Dove muffed an easy play at first base. So much for the perfect game. Then, the opposing coach, his team trailing 4-0, called a hit-and-freakin'-run (which reminds me, I very nearly hate the opposing coach, too). My brother, who was playing second base for the first time in a long while, broke to cover the bag way too soon, and the batter rolled a lazy grounder right past where my brother should have been. So much for the no-hitter. Those would be the only two baserunners that day. Thanks, guys.

If I can refrain from hating Eric Dove and my brother, I can refrain from hating anyone.

But I seriously digress.

I have no idea what Van Jones is talking about. Then again, neither does he. I know a lot of people who consider themselves libertarians, and they are among the most caring, generous, honorable, charitable people I have ever known. I am pretty sure they don't hate anyone.

Collectivists like Jones do not understand that libertarians see individuals, not groups or classes. As libertarians say: Individuals are the ultimate minority.

Jones can't possibly know what is in my heart, yet he would presume to declare passionately that he does. Word to Jones: As the police captain says to Nick Nolte's character in 48 Hours, "Just because you say it with conviction, it don't mean $#!+ to me!"

But Jones is not alone, of course, in being tragically wrong about others. Probably all of us at one time or another have judged others on what they think, or worse, what we think they think, rather than what they do. I have definitely been guilty of that.

If someone is honorable and charitable, rescues homeless animals, escorts the elderly across the street, volunteers with kids, and generally plays well with others, who am I to judge that person for being a Keynesian, or a Commie, or whatever? And if I do those things, who is anyone to judge me for, say, being a libertarian?

Word to libertarians and conservatives: Some of the people I admire most are hard-core lefties. They think what they think. Fine. But they do some really good things, and for those good things, I admire them and applaud them.

I got an email a while ago from someone I haven't spoken to in thirty years. He had seen a posting of mine in which I said one of my favorite quotes is, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it ..."

His bizarre response: "You scare me."

Really? I haven't committed an act of aggression since fourth grade (sorry about putting the tack on your chair in music class, Linda L.), but the president my long-lost friend supports has attacked several countries that did not attack us and pose no threat to us, killing untold numbers of innocent civilians. And I scare this guy? Give me a break.

If we are going to judge others on their political philosophies, or any philosophies for that matter, instead of on their actions, we may as well give up now and admit that those who have been dividing us all these years have indeed finally conquered us.

6 Comments

Theft, fraud, slut-talk, guns, and a drug-addled gas bag

3/24/2012

1 Comment

 
Ron Paul makes the case that we, the regular Joes and Janes, you know, the market, would impose stricter regulations on financial institutions than the government ever could, if we were given the chance. Of course, we're not given the chance, because the statists in the feral government have taken it upon themselves to do the regulating. They have also done a fine job convincing us that if we didn't have the feral government's regulations, all hell would break lose in the financial system. As if it hasn't.

The truth is that the feral government, rather than ensuring sound financial practices, legalizes fraudulent practices (fractional-reserve banking) and massive theft (bailouts).

Would we, the regular Joes and Janes, allow banks to lend what they do not have? That is, would we allow them to create money out of thin air and lend it at interest? Of course we wouldn't, for the simple reason it's fraud.

Would we, the market, allow the banks to engage in this fraudulent behavior, knowing that booms and busts are inevitable, as is the occasional catastrophic crash? Not likely. Would we, to postpone or disguise the catastrophic crash, hand over hundreds of billions to the banksters who caused it? Do I even have to answer that?

Instead of being protected from bankster fraud and theft, we have their fraud and theft forced upon us by the feral government.

Imagine if banksters could lend only what they had. Imagine if they could not poof money into existence and would be prosecuted for fraud if they tried. Imagine if forcefully taking from the people to give to banksters was considered theft, instead of a bailout.

We don't need the feral government to regulate the banks. We just need them to stop legalizing fraud and theft, and leave the regulating to us. After all, in these matters, society is a much stricter disciplinarian than the government is.

The recent Limbaugh-Slut brouhaha is an example of that. Who got Rush to apologize? Who got some of his sponsors to get skittish? Not the government. The government can't tell Rush not to be distasteful or demeaning, but the market can. Society can. We can.

Who got Don Imus suspended then fired? Not the government.

I'm not saying Limbaugh and Imus deserved the treatment they got. I am merely pointing out that market forces — societal forces — can be swifter and harsher than anything the feral government can come up with.

The feral government can't tell my neighbor he can't keep a gun in his house. But imagine if — right or wrong — ten out of ten of his daughter's friends said they weren't allowed to go to his daughter's birthday sleepover because of the gun in the house. Do you think he might consider getting the gun out of the house for one night? Right or wrong, some people would consider doing that. Because of government firearm regulations? No, because of market forces. Societal forces. Stronger forces.

Limbaugh has, as we all do, every right to be stupid or disrespectful or whatever. And the people who are offended have every right to protest and boycott and try to get him off the air if they feel like it. Those who aren't offended, and even those who are, have every right to continue listening. Or not.

But imagine if everyone were forced to listen to Rush Limbaugh, just as everyone is forced to participate in our corrupt money system. He would be even more distasteful, more demeaning. Sure, the FCC would continue to prohibit what it prohibits, but no doubt Imus would have even more reason to call Limbaugh "a fat, pill-popping loser" and a "drug-addled gas bag."

Unfortunately, too many of us are fooled into thinking that the feral government is protecting us from the banksters, instead of protecting the banksters from us. Let us use real money, and we'll handle the regulating.


1 Comment

Random musings from Sick Bay

3/14/2012

0 Comments

 
SICK BAY -- I'm sick, dammit. But I haven't written anything for a month, so, sick or not, here are a few random musings:

Sorry, cat
Yes, I'm sick. But I'm doing better than my cat, who lost a fight to a vet with a scalpel yesterday morning and ended up testicleless. So, compared to him, I got no complaints. Sorry, Teddy.

Bad-movie review
I just watched Rambo IV, one of the best of Stallone's bad movies. I am less of a person for having watched it, but at least I am not my cat. I watched it for free on YouTube. It was over-priced. Spoiler alert: People get shot.

I am reminded of "Bad Movie Night" when I was in grad school a thousand years ago. It was free to get in, but you had to pay if you wanted to leave before the last movie ended. They showed three or four really bad movies. I got out for free.

Still just a dream
My daughter will be graduating from college in a couple months, a full two years early. Unless she completely messes up between now and then, she will graduate with highest honors and with a 4.0 GPA in her major (English) and in her minor (history). She has her sights set on a PhD and will probably have it by dinner time at the rate she's going.

I brag about her a lot, unapologetically. Sorry about that.

She recently completed an application for grad school. The application, of course, asked for her race. She, of course, refused to answer. Actually, there was one race-based question she was required to answer: "Do you consider yourself hispanic?" She answered no. She probably could have gotten away with answering yes, and probably received some advantages as a result. Not that she's hispanic. She's not. But why not say she considers herself hispanic? Seriously, why not?

Thankfully, the other race-based questions were optional.

It seems to me that in a right-side-up, non-insane world, the feral —that is, federal — government would immediately order schools that get feral funding to stop asking questions about race. Then again, we live in an upside-down, insane world, so the feral government, instead of putting a stop to race-based questions, insist that schools ask them.

This is very bizarre indeed, considering that in this country, there is only one American we honor with his own national holiday, and he had a dream that future generations would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Still just a dream, nearly half a century later.

0 Comments

Yes, we have no Ron Paul. Oops.

2/16/2012

0 Comments

 
So, earlier this week the Albany Herald ran an article about early voting for the Georgia Republican primary. It ran photos of four candidates: Mitt Gingrich, Newt Romney, Rick (“Belongs In A”) Sanitorium, and, um . . . Barack Obama (?). Huh? No Ron Paul?
Picture
Yes, we have no Ron Paul.

I had half a mind to call the Herald, but I already knew how the conversation would go:

Them: “Albany Herald.”

Me: “Is Harold there?”

Them: “This is the Herald.”

Me: “So, Harold, why did you leave out a picture of Ron Paul in your article about the Republican primary? You managed to include everyone else, and even throw in Obama.”

Them: “Oh, that. It was an honest mistake.”

Me: “Ah, yes. An honest mistake that just happened to exclude Ron Paul.”

Them: "As Rick Perry would say: 'Oops.' ”

And that would be that. So I didn’t bother calling.

And of course the “honest mistake” line would be a lie. I’m not that stupid.

Mistakes like that don’t just happen. Someone made it happen.

Even my high school newspaper never made that kind of a screw up, even when I tried to screw things up. Twice during my senior year I tried to slip something in, and both times the mistake police (or rather, prank police) caught me right before going to press.

This was when we literally cut-and-pasted the pages together. Think X-ACTO knives, glass cutting boards, and paste.

Once, a photo of me pitching was on the back page of the paper. I found a stray jet-black scrap that looked like a huge mustache and pasted it onto my 17-year-old mug. Then I crossed my fingers and hoped no one would notice. This was a big mustache. Bigger than Cesar Geronimo’s in 1982:
Picture
Unfortunately, a diligent editor spotted the 'stache, and my lame prank attempt was foiled.

I tried again a few weeks later. And this time, there was no way I would be caught. Buried inside the paper was a listing of all the seniors and what they planned to do after high school. A typical listing was something like, "Susie Smith, University of Oregon."

In Portland, there is a Cleveland High School (I went to Wilson High School). Back in the day, their nickname was the Indians. Also, our sports teams played at the AAA high-school level. So . . .

I found one scrap that said "Cleveland Indians" and one that said "AAA," and by the time I was done, my post-high-school plans said, "Tom Kowitz, Cleveland Indians AAA."

Like I said, there was no way I could get caught. The list had nearly 500 names, in maybe 7-point type. This was going to be awesome.

Except some freakazoid of an editor, a high-school kid with no sense of humor and no soul, caught it.

And I'm to believe that somehow the editors at the Albany Herald can't catch a huge and obvious mistake on page one above the fold?

Ain't buyin' it.
0 Comments

Time out from tyranny

2/7/2012

0 Comments

 
February 7, 2012

You'll find plenty of awful news all over the place, including elsewhere on this web site. But this Baldy's Bombast isn't about the police state / surveillance state or the inevitable financial catastrophe.

This is about baseball.

Why baseball? Because I need to take a time out from tyranny, and baseball is one of the better ways to clear one's head. If you don't care for baseball, try the Baldy's Bombast page for previous posts.

So, anyway . . .

I was four years old in the summer of 1965, six weeks from starting kindergarten. My parents loaded our old station wagon with themselves and their six kids, and we hit the highway, from Portland to L.A., almost a thousand miles away.

Anaheim, actually. Disneyland.

The only thing I remember about Disneyland was riding the Matterhorn. Who puts a four-year-old on the Matterhorn? To this day, riding the Matterhorn was the scariest event of my life. Seriously. Hey, I was four.

Some time during that trip, we went to Dodger Stadium to catch a game between the Astros and the Dodgers. I remember a few snippets, like where we sat. I don't remember anything about the game, but my dad told me years ago that Sandy Koufax pitched for the Dodgers that day. That was cool, but I never really gave it another thought.

Until . . .

Until, through the miracle of the Internet, I found that game's box score and play-by-play. And I discovered that what happened that day, July 20, 1965, was rarer than what happened on that same date four years later. After all, there were several subsequent Apollo missions, but what happened at Dodger Stadium that day might well have never happened since, and certainly will never happen from here on.

The score was 2-2 with two out in the bottom of the ninth, bases empty. The Astros pitcher was Ron Taylor, who was on in relief of Mike Cuellar. Cuellar, of course, would go on to win the Cy Young Award with Baltimore four years later.

Other players of note that game for the Astros were Rusty Staub, Jim "The Toy Cannon" Wynn, and Joe Morgan, who finished second in Rookie of the Year balloting that season and went on to a Hall of Fame career. By the way, Wynn stole 43 bases in 47 attempts that season. Rickey Henderson never had that high of a success rate. Neither did Lou Brock, Willie Wilson, Vince Coleman, Maury Wills or Tim Raines (except one year when he was 13-for-13).

Notable Dodgers were Maury Wills, Wes Parker ("The Rifleman"), and Jim Lefebvre (that season's Rookie of the Year and future big-league manager).

So, back to the game.

Taylor walked Jim Gilliam. Then he walked Lefebvre. Koufax was due up. Remember, the score was 2-2 in the bottom of the ninth.

Now, Koufax was a lousy hitter, even for a pitcher. One of the worst things you can say about a player is that he could not hit his weight. In his career, Koufax didn't hit even half his weight. He tipped the scales at 210 pounds and hit .097 lifetime. Oh-ninety-seven.

In his first three at-bats this game, Koufax had struck out once and grounded into two double plays. Certainly, manager Walter Alston would send in a pinch-hitter. Alston knew a thing or two about baseball. He won four World Series and was inducted into the Hall of Fame as a manager in 1983. Alston would definitely send in a pinch-hitter.

But he didn't.

He let Koufax hit. Koufax was, after all, in the midst of perhaps the most dominant four-year run a pitcher has ever had in this galaxy, if not the universe. But still. The Dodgers were playing for keeps. They had won six in a row and were in first place by two and a half games over the Reds, with whom they had been tied just three days earlier. Plus, Koufax threw left and batted right, which meant his pitching arm was exposed during every at-bat.

Earth to Alston: You just don't have Koufax hit here.

But he did.

And that's the thing we'll never see again. No way, no how, no chance will we ever see an anemic-hitting starting pitcher bat for himself with two out in the bottom of the ninth, score tied, winning run on second. Never ever ever.

But I saw it through my four-year-old eyes.

Koufax singled to left, scoring Lefebvre. Dodgers win, 3-2.
0 Comments

Enigmatic synchronicity, indeed

1/31/2012

0 Comments

 
This is a cool story involving beer, sangria, [—censored —], guitars, an epic faceplant, and enigmatic synchronicity.

It begins in the WGSO studio, right there in the Booth of Truth, after our January 25 show. Our engineer, Rudy Dixon, told us about a new show on WGSO called "The Flip Side of the Coin," hosted by Gerard Rodrigues, Monday afternoons at five.

Rudy said that Gerard talks about a lot of the same issues we talk about on "Baldy and The Blonde."

Gerard, evidently, is brilliant.

Fast forward to last Saturday evening. A friend of mine called and said he met someone he would like to introduce me to. Some guy, get this, with a new show on WGSO called "The Flip Side of the Coin." As my friend tells the story, before he told Gerard that he knows yours truly, Gerard told my friend that he likes the "Baldy and The Blonde" show  and wants to meet the hosts.

As I said, Gerard is brilliant.

     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    He should have come up plenty bloody with a
    busted face and a smashed guitar, but man and
    guitar arose like a Phoenix, unscathed, if not
    from the ashes, then from a slick linoleum floor.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So that was cool, but it gets better.

My friend also invited me to go with him to some guy's house to drink beer and play some music. That is, the other guys would drink beer and jam on their guitars while I drank beer. I accepted, despite the conspicuous and unfortunate absence of Scotch.

At some point, someone broke out some cheap sangria. A little later, a couple guys disappeared outside for a few minutes, during which time, I am pretty sure, they [—censored —] some [—censored —].

It was around this time I learned one of life's valuable lessons. I learned this: Beer, sangria, [—censored —], flip-flops, and unfamiliar stairs do not mix. At least not well.

This was cool: One of the musicians, while carrying an expensive guitar, attempted to negotiate said unfamiliar stairs while wearing flip-flops, shortly after partaking of said beer, sangria, and [—censored —]. And he executed the greatest faceplant of all time that did not result in serious injury or property damage. How he escaped tragedy, I have no idea. He should have come up plenty bloody with a busted face and a smashed guitar, but man and guitar arose like a Phoenix, unscathed, if not from the ashes, then from a slick linoleum floor.

Oh, the miracles of cheap alcohol and [—censored —].

Toward the end of the evening, more than two hours after I promised myself I absolutely, positively would leave, my drunk friend mentioned that I host a radio show. This intrigued the other drunks, who asked me what the show is about. When I told them what topics we cover, the girlfriend of one of the drunks said, " So you're like the Flip Side of the Coin."

Again?

"Oh, yeah," I told her. "But he's on Mondays at five. We're Wednesdays at five. Same station, though."

Blank look, followed by confused look. So I went on: "You know, the show: 'The Flip Side of the Coin.'"

And here's what she said (I swear): "I don't know what show you're talking about. I just made that up."

Enigmatic synchronicity, indeed.
0 Comments

South Carolina: The state that Newt too much

1/24/2012

0 Comments

 
South Carolina Republicans have spoken, and it's Newt they want.

Nice pick, if you think about it. While many of Gingrich's Republican competitors have shown themselves to be serial flip-floppers, Gingrich has been consistent on at least one issue: marry, cheat, divorce, marry the mistress, cheat, divorce, marry the mistress.

Newt has not confessed to cheating on wife number three. Yet. Maybe he's given up cheating. If so, the most likely explanation is not that he has flip-flopped and become honorable, but rather that he fears wife number three would behead him, ala Goldfinger's henchman Oddjob, with that freaky thing on her head that sort of resembles hair.

Some would argue that Republicans have given up the moral high ground and can no longer bash Bill Clinton for his affairs, foreign and domestic. But those people are wrong, of course, because while Clinton cheated on one hundred percent of his wives, Gingrich has cheated on only sixty-seven percent of his. Officially, that is.

Republicans who are considering future runs for the White House should right away begin focusing on the Gingrich formula of marry, cheat, divorce, etc. After all, Newt didn't build up his impressive collection of wives, mistresses and ex-wives overnight. Phil Lander in 2016, anyone?

Then there's the issue of Gingrich's age and health. If Gingrich were to be elected, he would be a few months shy of seventy at the time of the inauguration, making him the second-oldest to reach the White House. Why no questions about his age? We hear plenty of questions about Ron Paul's age (he's about eight years older than Gingrich), but Paul exercises regularly and is physically fit. Gingrigh probably hasn't laced up athletic shoes since he first started chasing after mistresses in the mid-1960's, which, it is rumored, is the last time he could see his feet while showering (to those who just threw up their mouths, I apologize).

President Kennedy, according to legend, once infamously declared to a crowd in West Berlin that he was a jelly donut. Now, I did not know Jack Kennedy, and Jack Kennedy was not a friend of mine, but this much I know: Jack Kennedy was no jelly donut.

Gingrich is.

Gingrich and Paul are perfect examples of Baldy's Law, which states that for each of the Republican candidates for president, w + x = c, where w equals number of current wives, x equals number of ex-wives, and c equals number of chins.

Why does this soft, doughy, overweight, 68-year-old jelly donut get a pass from a silent media when it comes to his age and health? Do we really want a president who looks like a cross between Julia Child and Paula Deen? How is it that marry, cheat, divorce, marry the mistress, cheat, divorce, marry the mistress has become the formula for success? Perhaps the corporate media are partial to his foreign policy, which advocates that the U.S. commit acts of terrorism in Iran and lie about it, followed by full-on war if necessary.

Gingrich recently recommended "maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable." And if our acts of terrorism don't have the desired effect, "you have to take whatever steps are necessary to break (Iran's) capacity to have a nuclear weapon."

Is it a coincidence that "South Carolina" is an anagram for "Iran Holocaust"?
0 Comments

LA GOP robs us of a chance to dump a plate of spaghetti on Newt, or something like that

1/17/2012

0 Comments

 


Here's a joke:

As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his cell phone rang. Answering, he heard his wife's voice urgently warning him, "Herman, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on the interstate. Please be careful!"

"Hell," said Herman, "It's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!"

The Louisiana Republican Party is Herman.

While other states jockey to be among the first to hold their primary or caucus, Louisiana, which has  a primary and a caucus, is racing toward the end of the line. What's the importance of being an early-voting state? I'll answer that question with a question: If Iowa and New Hampshire voted  say, in late April, after three-fourths of the states had voted, would you pay any attention to the results? Also, late-voting states practically disenfranchise their voters if one of the candidates has secured a majority of delegates to the national convention.

The candidates pay a lot more attention to early-voting states, too. In Iowa and New Hampshire, it's common for candidates to mingle face-to-face with regular Joe and Jane voters at local diners. This has many advantages for Joe and Jane. Imagine having the opportunity to dump a plate of spaghetti on Gingrich or Santorum.

In 2008, the Louisiana Republican caucus was held January 22, seventh in the nation. Not bad, seventh.

In 2012, some of the early states got a little antsy and moved up so as to be even earlier. Not Louisiana, though. Remember, Louisiana is Herman. Here's what the geniuses in the Louisiana Republican Party just announced: The 2012 Louisiana Republican caucus will be held April 28, putting Louisiana thirty-seventh in the nation. Not so good, thirty-seventh.

So, Super Tuesday is March 6. The Louisiana Republican primary is March 24. The caucus is five weeks after that.

Nice job, Herman.

0 Comments

Congress votes the republic out of existence

12/16/2011

0 Comments

 
There seems to be some disagreement over whether the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely. A simple reading of the bill answers that question. The answer is yes.

How do I know? I did something members of Congress never do: I read the entire bill. That's right. HR 1540 is 1,150 pages long (1,844 with attachments), and I read the whole thing. I also did something members of Congress always do: I lied. Of course I didn't read the entire bill. I'm not that pathetic.

But I did read sections 1021 and 1022 of the bill, the sections that will hasten the death of the republic. Why did I focus on those sections? Because an aide for Congressman Steve Scalise, who represents [sic] me in Louisiana's first congressional district, told me sections 1021 and 1022 contain language stating that U.S. citizens are exempt and cannot be detained by the military. Uh, except Mr. Congressional Aide is wrong.

He first directed me to section 1022, subsection (b)(1), on page 657. Here's what it says:

"(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.--
      (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Got that? The requirement to detain a person in military custody does not extend to citizens of the United States. But the option to detain U.S. citizens in military custody is very much alive.

Section 1022, subsection (a)(1) mandates that everyone who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by Public Law 107–40 (an unconstitutional law) must be detained by the Armed Forces, with exceptions for U.S. citizens, some lawful resident aliens, and others whose detention by the Armed Forces could pose a national security risk. For those lucky dogs who fall under the exceptions, detention by the Armed forces is not required, but neither is it prohibited. (Also, using private paramilitary forces to detain United States citizens appears not to be prohibited, either.)

When I pointed this out to Mr. Congressional Aide, he proceeded to tell me that section 1021, subsection (e), on page 655, would certainly alleviate my concerns.

Not quite.

Here's that passage: "(e) AUTHORITIES.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

Read that again. Notice what is not to be affected: "existing law or authorities"! If the intention was that this bill would not affect protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, it would say so. But it doesn't say that. It says "existing law or authorities" shall not be affected.

I told all of this to Mr. Congressional Aide. I asked him whether he knows anything about existing law or authorities. I asked him whether he has ever heard of the case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I asked him whether he is aware that the president has claimed (and used) the authority to order the killing of U.S. citizens without charging them with a crime, or producing witnesses or evidence, or providing them with a speedy trial before a jury. I asked Mr. Congressional Aide whether he realized that that is existing law and authority. I told him that the last thing we need is a bill that affirms existing law and authority, and what we really need is a bill that overturns them.

Mr. Congressional Aide remained silent. Apparently that's a right they haven't taken away yet. After a while he directed me to section 1021, subsection (b), page 654. Ah, yes. The "Covered Persons" portion of the bill. First, it's frighteningly broad (i.e., "including any person who has committed a belligerent act . . ."). Second, it presumes that the government knows who the guilty parties are without there being a trial. This is really, really bad stuff. And to think Mr. Congressional Aide thought it would satisfy my concerns.

And now for the punch line.

After I voiced my concerns about the "Covered Persons" section to Mr. Congressional Aide, he told me, I assume with a straight face, to read a one-minute colloquy that took place on the floor of the House prior to the vote. Seriously. Try this on the guy waterboarding you: "Uh, excuse me, but didn't you read the freakin' colloquy?"

Here is the colloquy. We can all rest easy now.

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Louisiana. (Mr. LANDRY).
Mr. LANDRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MCKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to fulfill my constitutional duty of ensuring that the liberties and freedoms are protected of the men and women that this bill authorizes to fight for. The protections bestowed on U.S. citizens are the ones that I am concerned with the most. The question now upon us is whether or not the NDAA impacts the rights of a U.S. citizen to receive due process to challenge the legality of detention by the executive before an article III court.
Mr. MCKEON. This conference report does no such thing. It in no way affects the rights of U.S. citizens. [But that's bad! We want a bill that affects, as in restores, the rights of U.S. citizens -- TK]
Mr. LANDRY. My concern is that when the writ is suspended, the government is entirely free of judicial oversight. So do we agree that no section of the NDAA purports to suspend the writ of habeas corpus?
Mr. MCKEON. I agree completely.
Mr. LANDRY. Do you agree that, as the Supreme Court has held, ‘‘a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of our citizens’’?
Mr. MCKEON. I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MCKEON. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. LANDRY. Will the chairman assure me that together we will work with the committee to further clarify the language contained in this bill in order to ensure that the clear and precise language which protects the constitutional rights of American citizens is protected?
Mr. MCKEON. I do, and I will be happy to work with you to that end.
Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MCKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
0 Comments

Ten years later: Can we finally get a real investigation?

9/11/2011

0 Comments

 
Ten years after the attacks of 9/11, and many questions remain unanswered.

A reminder to those who say the conspiracy theories have been debunked:  You can debunk theories, but you cannot debunk questions. You can ignore them, but you cannot debunk them, and the "The 9/11 Commission Report" seems to ignore more questions than it answers.

For purposes of this article, I will point out only a few anomalies and unanswered questions. Sadly, there are many, many others.

But first, ask yourself these questions:

Do you know that the commission's Chairman and Vice-Chairman are convinced that they were "set up to fail"; or that the commissioners believed they were lied to by the Pentagon, NORAD, the CIA, and the Whitehouse?

Does it matter to you that "The 9/11 Commission Report" does not mention any physical evidence or eye-witness testimony regarding the crash sites; or that it does not mention the collapse of WTC 7, which housed New York City's Emergency Command Center? What kind of official report is that?

Does it matter to you that the official report ignores eye-witness testimony of two New York City government officials who were in WTC 7 the morning of 9/11 and reported explosions inside the building? Or that it also ignores the statement to the FBI by a woman in Shanksville, Pennsylvania who reported seeing, only a few feet away, what may have been be a missile at the time Flight 93 was there?

Can you swallow then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's story that he did not learn of the plane crashes in New York until more than twenty minutes after the second plane had hit?

Can you swallow the tale told by then-acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers that he did not learn of the plane crashes in New York until about thirty-five minutes after the second plane had hit?

Does it matter to you that the official report by FEMA of the collapse of WTC 7, the third building to come down on 9/11, suggests that fires brought the building down, but then admits that "[t]he specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"? Is that answer acceptable? Is it even an answer to blame the collapse on fires, then say you don't know how the fires caused the collapse and that your hypothesis "has only a low probability of occurrence"?

Does it matter to you that the official report of the collapse of WTC 7 by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) admits that the building fell at free-fall speed for more than two seconds? Does that mean anything to you? Do you know that only controlled demolition could have caused this?

Is it acceptable that the official report fails to mention the presence of molten steel and fires estimated at 1,500 °F under the debris at the World Trade Center nearly six weeks after 9/11? What could account for that? Do you think a comprehensive investigation should mention it?

Official report pathetically deficient
Two critical aspects to any investigation are physical evidence and eye-witness testimony, and "The 9/11 Commission Report" is pathetically deficient in both areas. In fact, one can make a strong case for a new investigation by considering only the deficiencies of the official report.

The body of "The 9/11 Commission Report" consists of 428 pages.

Here's how many pages are devoted to what happened on board the planes that morning:  about 20.

Number of pages devoted to eye-witness testimony of people at the crash sites: 0.

Number of pages devoted to the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center: 0.

Number of pages devoted to an examination of the physical evidence of the wreckage of the planes: 0.

Number of pages devoted to an examination of the physical evidence of the wreckage of the buildings: 0.

Twenty pages.

The government's official report of perhaps the worst crime in the nation's history devotes twenty pages to the crime, eye-witness testimony, and physical evidence.

I've written term papers longer than that, the night before they were due.

If that doesn't convince you a new investigation is warranted, there's this: Thomas Kean (Commission Chairman) and Lee Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) have both said they believe the commission was "set up to fail."

Then there's this: According to The Washington Post, the commissioners so strongly believed that they had been lied to by the Pentagon that they met in secret and "debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation." The commissioners ultimately compromised and turned the matter over to inspectors within the Department of Defense and Department of Transportation (as if that would go anywhere).

Or how about this . . .  The Washington Post quoted Kean as saying, "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Then there's the final sentence of "The 9/11 Commission Report": "We look forward to a national debate on the merits of what we have recommended, and we will participate vigorously in that debate."

So if the commissioners are no longer comfortable with their report, and they encourage a "national debate," is it really crazy to ask for a second opinion?

Bush did nothing, Rumsfeld and Myers knew nothing
One thing an independent investigation might do is explain the failure of our national defense. Some very key players did a whole lot of nothing that morning.

George W. Bush, President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief
This guy sat — infamously, tragically and stupidly— in a first-grade classroom for several minutes after learning that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, because he "didn't want to rattle the kids" and "wanted to project a sense of calm." Hey, W, you could have calmly excused yourself, left the room, and assessed whether more attacks were coming. And, W, in case you haven't heard yet, more attacks were coming. But you chose to hang out at the school for a while, deliver a speech (that likely rattled the children), then drive away without taking any action. And a few minutes after you left the school, the Pentagon was hit.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld was in a meeting at the Pentagon that morning. He says he didn't learn that the World Trade Center had been hit until fifteen minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Simple math tells us that Rummy somehow was oblivious to the attacks in New York until about 9:25. I was in an '89 Volvo with a radio that only halfway worked, and I knew about it a few minutes after it happened, probably some time between 9:06 and 9:08. To think that I and most of the country learned about the crashes in New York several minutes before the Defense Secretary did is preposterous. But, believe it or not, Rumsfeld was way ahead of Richard Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Richard Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Poor General Myers was probably the last person in the United States between ages 11 and 111 to learn of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center. According to his own account, he didn't hear about it until at least thirty minutes after I did in my '89 Volvo. I know what you're thinking: "Give the guy a break. He must have been hunting moose in the Yukon or something." Uh, no. He was at the U.S. Capitol, where the cell-phone service is pretty good and they have landlines.

So we have the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the absolute top of the military command structure, utterly clueless that the Pentagon was in danger. That's absurd, especially given the testimony of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who said that he and others in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center received status updates every few minutes about a plane that was heading toward the Pentagon. I can be gullible and stupid, but I'm not that gullible and stupid. Someone's got some splainin' to do.

Official report does not mention the collapse of WTC 7
Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47-story giant that took up an entire city block, was the third building to come down on September 11. It was not hit by a plane, of course, yet at 5:20 p.m., it fell at nearly free-fall speed into its own footprint (and for much of its fall it did indeed fall at free-fall speed; see below). But even though WTC 7 was where New York City's Emergency Command Center was located (on the 23rd floor), and even though a significant portion of the official report was devoted to the city's response to the emergency, the commissioners did not even mention the collapse of WTC 7.

FEMA report on WTC 7 blames fires but can't explain why
Knowing it had to come up with an explanation for the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, FEMA pinned the blame on fires, but then undid their own work with this admission: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Presumably, the authors did not mean for this to be a joke.

NIST admits WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed (controlled demolition only explanation)
The commission's failure to mention the fall of WTC 7 is nowhere near as damning as the final report published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). For years, people who understand this sort of thing much better than I do pointed out to NIST that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed, without resistance, for a significant portion of its collapse. And for several years, NIST's response was that WTC 7 could not possibly have fallen at free-fall speed. After all, the only way a building can fall at free-fall speed is if all of its support fails simultaneously, which requires a controlled demolition. And in the case of WTC 7, we know that didn't happen.

There was one teensy, weensy problem for NIST. WTC 7 did indeed fall at free-fall speed for much of its fall, and even NIST finally had to admit it. From NIST's final report:

"This free-fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft)," and lasted for 2.25 seconds.

Not surprisingly, NIST did not explain how WTC 7 could have fallen at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds. As I mentioned before, I don't know much about these things, but even I know that a building can come down at free-fall speed only if all resistance has been eliminated simultaneously, which can be achieved only through controlled demolition.

As of this writing, 1,548 architects and engineers have signed a petition demanding "a truly independent investigation with subpoena power."

Zero independent architects and engineers have signed onto the notion that fires can cause a building to collapse at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds.

Molten steel present at WTC site weeks after 9/11
I don't know much about the temperature at which steel weakens or melts, but when a New York firefighter says , "You'd get down below [the debris at the WTC site] and see molten steel running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava," then not investigating further is foolish.

Here's what John Gross, one of NIST's lead investigators, had to say about molten steel under the rubble at the WTC: "I know of absolutely nobody, and no eyewitness who has said [there is molten steel], and nobody who has produced it. Now, I was on the site.  I was on the steel yards. So, I can't, I don't know that that's so.  Steel melts at about 2,600 °F.  I think it's probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperature in a fire."

Now, when a firefighter talks about "molten steel running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry," and one of NIST's lead investigators says, “Steel melts at about 2,600 °F. I think it's probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperature in a fire," then failure to investigate the fireman's claim is unacceptable. Yet NIST turned a blind eye, and so did the 9/11 Commission.

Eye-witnesses contradict the official story
Several eye-witnesses have made astounding statements, and until these are investigated by some sort of independent body, why should any of us trust our own opinions more than we trust theirs? Following are partial accounts of three eye witnesses.

Susan McIlwain claims that on the morning of 9/11, in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, she saw a small, white, low-flying thing (but not a plane), "no wider than [her] van" pass directly above her van below treetop level, then rise, bank, and crash at the time we have been told that United Airlines Flight 93 crashed there.

Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department in New York City, was called to the Emergency Command Center at the 23rd floor of WTC 7 after the North Tower was hit by "a small Cessna." When he arrived on the 23rd floor, he "noticed that everybody was gone" and had left behind hot coffee and "half-eaten sandwiches." He then "called several individuals, [and] one individual told me . . . to leave and leave right away."

Jennings and Michael Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York (see his account, below), realized they were the only people there and needed to get out immediately. They "went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, and when [they] reached . . . the 6th floor . . . there was an explosion, and the landing gave way."

Jennings and Hess made their way back up to the 8th floor, where they were stranded until firefighters rescued them later that morning. Jennings stated, "All this time, I'm hearing explosions." When Jennings got back to the lobby, he did not recognize where he was because "the lobby was totally destroyed." He and Hess were led out of the building through a "makeshift hole," and Jennings said a police officer told them, "We got reports of more explosions, so you have to run." 

Some might suggest that what Jennings thought were explosions were actually the towers falling. However, Jennings is clear on that point, saying, “When we made it back to the 8th floor (after hearing the explosion at the 6th floor) . . .  both buildings were still standing.”

Jennings told his account to the 9/11 Commission, who, of course, left if out of the official report.

Michael Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, was with Jennings in WTC 7 the morning of 9/11. Here is what he told a television reporter on the afternoon of 9/11: “I was up in the Emergency Management Center on the 23rd floor, and when all the power went out in the building, another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor, where there was an explosion, and we were trapped on the 8th floor with smoke, thick smoke, for about an hour and a half.”

Does anyone who has actually read the official report still support it?
Call me crazy, but when the commissioners producing the official report no longer trust their own work; when eye witnesses report explosions and other anomalies that contradict the official version; when a building inexplicably collapses into its own footprint, and especially when part of the collapse is at free-fall speed; when many architects, engineers, physicists, pilots, and firefighters see the need for an independent investigation . . .

Yes, call me crazy, but given all that, the controversial position is to be satisfied with the official conspiracy theory.

0 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    Baldy's Bombast

    Picture

    Archives

    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed


© Copyright Baldy and The Blonde 2010, 2011 - All Rights Reserved. NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the 'fair use' provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for 'fair use' non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.