Nina Rhodes-Hughes, a 78-year old who was present at the assassination of Robert Kennedy, has come forth with some interesting information about that fateful day. She says there was a second gunman, and more bullets fired than the official count. She alleges that the FBI altered her original statements in a cover-up. Despite being an eye-witness, she was not called to testify at Sirhan Sirhan's trial.
There's of course some interesting circles to go around in here. Did she sit quiet until age 78 out of fear of persecution by the government that covered up her testimony? Or is the fallibility of the human mind responsible for her current statements and recollections? Either way, she's very brave for speaking up, and likely to take a lot of flack for it from people on every side of the angle.
She talks about the rhythm of the gunshots being memorable. Memory can be dangerously mutable, especially across decades. Hopefully she has old diary entries or similar corroboration that this isn't merely a recent perception of distant events. Well I know that it is terribly easy to be certain of a thing, have that thing influence your life forever after, yet leave precious little evidence that you ever were aware of the thing. If we neglect to write down or record those things we could never forget, it becomes difficult later to defend our perceptions about them later when some outsider challenges their validity. I hope she kept good notes.
There's certainly plenty of weird, often conflicting, evidence in the case. RFK's wounds suggest that he was shot from an entirely different angle than from where Sirhan Sirhan was standing. Sirhan's bizarre journals suggest either insanity or programming. The woman in the polka-dot dress shouting "we shot him!" as reported by multiple witnesses in the neighborhood. The police destroying evidence (2,000+ photographs, bullets and the ceiling tiles they were lodged in, etc) in their highest-profile murder investigation ever (destroyed because storage space was limited, they say), and then keeping their internal reports under lock and key for 20 years. This case abounds with surreal twists and dubious shenanigans.
Sirhan and his lawyers continue to argue that he was hypnotized into believing he'd killed Kennedy (prior to the crime). At the time, the American public knew nothing of the CIA's various mind-control experiments. Those programs have been leaked and acknowledged in the years since, and they cast a sinister shadow over a high-profile crime where the facts don't quite add up.
Police can be very selective when listening to witness accounts, and deciding what to follow up on. It's part of their job, but it also gives them a lot of power to stack the deck.
Late last year, I saw a man steal a bicycle. The police arrested a suspect a few days later, in a bust of some sort of bicycle theft ring if I understand correctly. I received a call from a detective, asking whether or not I'd be willing to look at a photo line-up, and whether or not I'd be able to identify the thief if I saw him again. Apparently I didn't seem confident enough in my ability to pick him out, because they never followed up. If I did identify him, my early lack of confidence would have made my testimony easy to undermine in cross-examination. If I failed to pick him out, or said that the suspect was not definitely not him, it would have made conviction very difficult. From the police's point of view, there was nothing to be gained by involving me further in the process.
Most would call that sort of thing just an officer being practical, but one could argue that it's the police selectively editing what evidence the jury hears to manipulate the results of the trial. I was witness to a low-value crime where the police feel no unusual pressure to get a conviction. I imagine the incentive to disregard conflicting testimony and witnesses who don't strengthen the case must be a lot stronger when you're dealing with something as major as the murder of a presidential candidate. Does that mean the RFK investigation crossed into something we'd more likely to view as a conspiracy by the LAPD and FBI were all the details known? Nina Rhodes-Hughes is in a far better position to answer that than I am.
Showing posts with label conspiracy theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conspiracy theory. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Save the Internet!
It's American Censorship Day. In honor of this holiday, I intended to [DELETED] a [DELETED] with a [FNORD] on my [DELETED].
PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.
Today, the government decides on whether or not there will even be an internet in the future. I strongly encourage all Americans to take a few moments today to email or call their Senators and Representatives and complain about SOPA and the Protect IP Act, two pieces of legislation that, if passed, will cripple the internet. Say goodbye to your social networks, your fan forums, and blogs even remotely like this one. If these laws pass, the RIAA will shut this site down because someone once posted the lyrics to "Freebird" in our comments. There won't even be space left on the net for hyperbole, over-reactions, or blatant misrepresentations of fact like my last sentence, because the technology industry will be too busy closing portals as it retreats from the lawsuits brought against them by the so-called entertainment industry. Seriously, Hollywood and big music are trying to take your internet away. The laws they are trying to pass will chill and censor online creativity and expression, while mostly failing to actually stop piracy. They are pushing for restrictive internet laws in the US that would mirror those that exist in regimes like China and Iran. Today is the day. Please take a few minutes to call or write your law-makers while it's still morning. Thank you.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Kennedy Tapes
Some long-secret recordings have surfaced in the past 48 hours, interview tapes made by Jackie Kennedy (and historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr) a few months after her husband's assassination. In them, she (allegedly) accused LBJ and a group of Texas businessmen of ordering the hit on JFK.
The tapes (supposedly) also include her talking about some affairs she had to get back at JFK for his affairs. So, naturally, the story is being picked up by various right-wing outlets that want to tarnish the image/memory of JFK to solidify their own political goals. At the same time, it notably isn't getting coverage in left-leaning media sources that don't want to point out Democrats would necessarily have been involved in such a conspiracy. Lots of muck-raking on one side, and an unfortunate silence from the other. The top four links spit up by a search engine were all pretty disgustingly slanted.
Not that it'd be any better if it were slanted the other way. It's just the conspiracy theorist inside me is very saddened that every article names one or more of her lovers, but none of them name any of the rich Texan businessmen that allegedly pulled the trigger. Get your priorities straight, people!
The best link I've found is the Daily Mail over in the UK: The article is still pretty trashy, but it's a lot better than anything else I've found on the net.
In a sad but predictable turn of events, ABC (currently in possession of the tapes) has this to say about them:
The tapes (supposedly) also include her talking about some affairs she had to get back at JFK for his affairs. So, naturally, the story is being picked up by various right-wing outlets that want to tarnish the image/memory of JFK to solidify their own political goals. At the same time, it notably isn't getting coverage in left-leaning media sources that don't want to point out Democrats would necessarily have been involved in such a conspiracy. Lots of muck-raking on one side, and an unfortunate silence from the other. The top four links spit up by a search engine were all pretty disgustingly slanted.
Not that it'd be any better if it were slanted the other way. It's just the conspiracy theorist inside me is very saddened that every article names one or more of her lovers, but none of them name any of the rich Texan businessmen that allegedly pulled the trigger. Get your priorities straight, people!
The best link I've found is the Daily Mail over in the UK: The article is still pretty trashy, but it's a lot better than anything else I've found on the net.
In a sad but predictable turn of events, ABC (currently in possession of the tapes) has this to say about them:
"The tabloid reports about the content of the tapes are totally erroneous. ABC News isn't releasing any content from those tapes until mid-September at which point it will be clear how off base these reports are. The actual content of the tapes provide unique and important insight into our recent past from one of the most fascinating and influential First Ladies in American history."I stomached right-wing propaganda sites for that? Man, do I feel foolish/abused...
Friday, May 13, 2011
Darth Vader's Birth Certificate
I just discovered a really funny, and kinda disturbing, website, done up to look like a news site. It's a little like The Onion, except narrower, geekier, and perhaps a little creepier. Good art. Very professional, and well worth reading for myriad laughs.
As you can see, it puts an interesting reflection on the recent death of Bin Laden. It's a little eerie just how easy it is to picture the Empire spinning Kenobi's death till it looks just like the recent news in our own world. And the site goes on from there making further parallels, going so far as to host several pages of fake/in-character comments from the public about Imperial politics, Vader's birth certificate, the lack of body, the various Star Wars tragedies being an inside job, etc. Really funny.
Obi-Wan Kenobi Is Dead, Vader Says
CORUSCANT — Obi-Wan Kenobi, the mastermind of some of the most devastating attacks on the Galactic Empire and the most hunted man in the galaxy, was killed in a firefight with Imperial forces near Alderaan, Darth Vader announced on Sunday.
In a late-night appearance in the East Room of the Imperial Palace, Lord Vader declared that “justice has been done” as he disclosed that agents of the Imperial Army and stormtroopers of the 501st Legion had finally cornered Kenobi, one of the leaders of the Jedi rebellion, who had eluded the Empire for nearly two decades. Imperial officials said Kenobi resisted and was cut down by Lord Vader's own lightsaber. He was later dumped out of an airlock.
...
Lord Vader has denied requests to present photographs of the body, describing them as "too gruesome" for the general public.
As you can see, it puts an interesting reflection on the recent death of Bin Laden. It's a little eerie just how easy it is to picture the Empire spinning Kenobi's death till it looks just like the recent news in our own world. And the site goes on from there making further parallels, going so far as to host several pages of fake/in-character comments from the public about Imperial politics, Vader's birth certificate, the lack of body, the various Star Wars tragedies being an inside job, etc. Really funny.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Netflix Jumps The Shark
So I'm at the Thrift Store the other day, and they have the second season of Alias on DVD. It's at a good price, but not a great price. Off the top of my head, I couldn't recall if I liked the second season. I remember the first season was brilliant, and the third season was painfully bad. But I couldn't remember when it started getting stupid. Rather than risk throwing money away on something I might regret buying, I decide to check my netflix ratings for the second season when I get home, and should it prove to be a worthy season, I'll swing back and pick it up.
Get home, log in to netflix, and attempt to look it up. I expected to see the five seasons rated individually. Instead, to my surprise and horror, they've consolidated all five seasons into one entry. They applied my rating from the first season to all that followed. I'm 100% certain I gave Season 3 a single miserable star, but now it's merged with Seasons 1, 2, 4 and 5, and the whole lot are rated with five stars. A quick glance about the site shows me that they've done similar mergings for nearly all TV series.
Honestly, I've been hoping that someday Netflix would allow further differentiation of ratings within a series, and instead they've reduced it. I've repeatedly wished over the years that they'd allow me to rate per disc or per episode of a show, and not have to generalize about entire seasons at once. Then when a new disk shows up, you could skip the episodes that all of fandom gave a one star rating. Just imagine how cool it would be to look at a list of all theTrek episodes, and be able to separate the dozen groundbreaking and mindbending sci-fi classics from the crappy Romulan Yahr invasion plotlines and the hundreds of mindless holodeck episodes just by how many stars the public gave each individual episode. That would be sweet... and so very very useful.
Instead, they've pushed the other way, making us give a single rating to an entire series. Given that the "jump the shark" phenomenon is so pervasive in series programming that there's even a catchy turn of phrase to describe it, it seems ridiculous that netflix would pretend it doesn't happen. Of all the series I've ever watched from beginning to end, only a precious handful didn't suffer from some sort of dip in quality after a certain point.
How could this simple truth escape Netflix, a company whose entire focus is on not just renting films but on compiling your ratings of them and using those ratings to suggest what other films you'll like. And they take the same amount of money from you regardless of how many films you watch in a month, so there's no conflicting financial incentive for them to make you watch crap. Giving you good recommendations and good customer service is in their obvious best interests. Failing to warn you that your new favorite show turns to crap after the star leaves in season four does them no good. What are they thinking?
Now I have to redo all my TV series ratings. Shall I rate Alias based on the taut and byzantine first season, the painfully predictable third season, or the regurgitated fifth? How do I reflect that The IT Crowd starts dry and slow for its first 5 or 6 episodes, but is worth muddling through for the incapacitatingly funny second season? Is there a way to note that LOST season 5 ends with one of the crowning moments of awesome in TV history, but season 6 ends with a let-down? How do you draw the hard lines where Ritchie Cunningham joins the army, the Great Gazoo lands in Bedrock, or when Sherman T. Potter replaces Henry Blake? More importantly, how can I trust a Netflix rating on a TV show ever again? Every series is now a potential mine field.
I'm a little annoyed at this, so I decided to send them a complaint email. Maybe it wasn't too late to reverse this change. I knew it would be hard to rally the Netflix fan base this time, because there's no longer any sort of netflix community. They eliminated all the social networking tools from the site a few years back, so you can't readily contact other netflix customers. I have no delusions about being a great leader or organizer, so I figured if I could at least send an email complaint to netflix itself, I'd be doing my part.
Complain once, and move on. Such complaints could actually work if enough people took part, because such complaints worked last time.
That was a couple years back, when they almost eliminated the "profiles" feature. The profiles function is what allows you to maintain multiple queues on one account, useful if the various members of your household have different tastes. They tried then to merge all the profiles into the main accounts, but backed off from it when the customer base rose up in complaint against the notion. Nobody wanted to have to re-rate hundreds of films, or have their account suddenly start recommending for the whole household a muddied mix of slasher films and Dora the Explorer.
So, I'd just drop a quick email and...
You ever try to email Netflix? It's impossible. Not just a little tricky, but completely impossible. It's amazing that a so thoroughly online company can have completely forsaken email and text-based communication. As it turns out, ever since shortly after the whole "profiles" rebellion, they've eliminated all incoming public email addresses. They replaced them with a 24-hour phone center. Which would be okay, I guess, if I didn't have spasmodic dysphonia and a pay-by-the-minute cellphone plan. So I searched a little online, because I figured they probably at least needed an email address for deaf people to contact them. As it turns out, no, the deaf community is up in arms about Netflix eliminating email, not training call center staff on how to take relay calls, and even not putting captions on most streaming content (including most films that have captions on the DVD).
What was I just saying about "good customer service" being "in their obvious best interests"? Netflix clearly doesn't agree.
Get home, log in to netflix, and attempt to look it up. I expected to see the five seasons rated individually. Instead, to my surprise and horror, they've consolidated all five seasons into one entry. They applied my rating from the first season to all that followed. I'm 100% certain I gave Season 3 a single miserable star, but now it's merged with Seasons 1, 2, 4 and 5, and the whole lot are rated with five stars. A quick glance about the site shows me that they've done similar mergings for nearly all TV series.
Honestly, I've been hoping that someday Netflix would allow further differentiation of ratings within a series, and instead they've reduced it. I've repeatedly wished over the years that they'd allow me to rate per disc or per episode of a show, and not have to generalize about entire seasons at once. Then when a new disk shows up, you could skip the episodes that all of fandom gave a one star rating. Just imagine how cool it would be to look at a list of all theTrek episodes, and be able to separate the dozen groundbreaking and mindbending sci-fi classics from the crappy Romulan Yahr invasion plotlines and the hundreds of mindless holodeck episodes just by how many stars the public gave each individual episode. That would be sweet... and so very very useful.
Instead, they've pushed the other way, making us give a single rating to an entire series. Given that the "jump the shark" phenomenon is so pervasive in series programming that there's even a catchy turn of phrase to describe it, it seems ridiculous that netflix would pretend it doesn't happen. Of all the series I've ever watched from beginning to end, only a precious handful didn't suffer from some sort of dip in quality after a certain point.
How could this simple truth escape Netflix, a company whose entire focus is on not just renting films but on compiling your ratings of them and using those ratings to suggest what other films you'll like. And they take the same amount of money from you regardless of how many films you watch in a month, so there's no conflicting financial incentive for them to make you watch crap. Giving you good recommendations and good customer service is in their obvious best interests. Failing to warn you that your new favorite show turns to crap after the star leaves in season four does them no good. What are they thinking?
Now I have to redo all my TV series ratings. Shall I rate Alias based on the taut and byzantine first season, the painfully predictable third season, or the regurgitated fifth? How do I reflect that The IT Crowd starts dry and slow for its first 5 or 6 episodes, but is worth muddling through for the incapacitatingly funny second season? Is there a way to note that LOST season 5 ends with one of the crowning moments of awesome in TV history, but season 6 ends with a let-down? How do you draw the hard lines where Ritchie Cunningham joins the army, the Great Gazoo lands in Bedrock, or when Sherman T. Potter replaces Henry Blake? More importantly, how can I trust a Netflix rating on a TV show ever again? Every series is now a potential mine field.
I'm a little annoyed at this, so I decided to send them a complaint email. Maybe it wasn't too late to reverse this change. I knew it would be hard to rally the Netflix fan base this time, because there's no longer any sort of netflix community. They eliminated all the social networking tools from the site a few years back, so you can't readily contact other netflix customers. I have no delusions about being a great leader or organizer, so I figured if I could at least send an email complaint to netflix itself, I'd be doing my part.
Complain once, and move on. Such complaints could actually work if enough people took part, because such complaints worked last time.
That was a couple years back, when they almost eliminated the "profiles" feature. The profiles function is what allows you to maintain multiple queues on one account, useful if the various members of your household have different tastes. They tried then to merge all the profiles into the main accounts, but backed off from it when the customer base rose up in complaint against the notion. Nobody wanted to have to re-rate hundreds of films, or have their account suddenly start recommending for the whole household a muddied mix of slasher films and Dora the Explorer.
So, I'd just drop a quick email and...
You ever try to email Netflix? It's impossible. Not just a little tricky, but completely impossible. It's amazing that a so thoroughly online company can have completely forsaken email and text-based communication. As it turns out, ever since shortly after the whole "profiles" rebellion, they've eliminated all incoming public email addresses. They replaced them with a 24-hour phone center. Which would be okay, I guess, if I didn't have spasmodic dysphonia and a pay-by-the-minute cellphone plan. So I searched a little online, because I figured they probably at least needed an email address for deaf people to contact them. As it turns out, no, the deaf community is up in arms about Netflix eliminating email, not training call center staff on how to take relay calls, and even not putting captions on most streaming content (including most films that have captions on the DVD).
What was I just saying about "good customer service" being "in their obvious best interests"? Netflix clearly doesn't agree.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Goodbye Cruel Internets
The FCC's new "net neutrality" rules are pretty much giving corporations the right to piss away, chop up, compartmentalize, and overcharge for the internet we all know and love.
I'd be all angry about it, except pretty much every company I do business with on the net has engaged in the big corporatist war against wikileaks. Amazon, Comcast and Paypal I expected to do the devil's dirty work, but Apple? Man, that sucks. I don't want to have to return my Mac and iPod in protest.
At this rate, I'll have personally boycotted every business and site on the net long before my ISP can take advantage of the new net non-neutrality rules to hose my internet access.
FCC approves controversial ‘Net Neutrality’ regulations
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/fcc-controversial-net-neutrality-rules/
...
Supporters of "Net Neutrality" have been disappointed by the proposed rules, saying they heavily favor the industry they are supposed to regulate.
I'd be all angry about it, except pretty much every company I do business with on the net has engaged in the big corporatist war against wikileaks. Amazon, Comcast and Paypal I expected to do the devil's dirty work, but Apple? Man, that sucks. I don't want to have to return my Mac and iPod in protest.
Apple attacks WikiLeaks, yanks iPhone app from app store
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/apple-attacks-wikileaks-yanks-iphone-app-app-store/
Only a few days after its release, the unofficial WikiLeaks iPhone application has been removed from Apple's App Store.
At this rate, I'll have personally boycotted every business and site on the net long before my ISP can take advantage of the new net non-neutrality rules to hose my internet access.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Creepy Conspiracy Revelations
A few interesting headlines and conspiratorial developments of late, all three of which came to my attention this morning as I read over my favorite news collection service, RAWstory.com
#1: All Our Diplomats Are Spies
International online whistleblowers WikiLeaks released a huge chunk of State Department documents. The documents include a troubling set of directives encouraging US diplomats to covertly gather DNA samples, fingerprints, passwords and credit card numbers of other nation's diplomats. Basically, turning a very large number of US diplomats into spies.
In response, the gov't is looking in to criminal charges against WikiLeaks, and some in Congress are calling for WikiLeaks to be classified as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" which would allow for severe penalties to any US citizen that offers them "material support" of any kind. That's a Constitutionally-alarming proposal, as it would empower the government to take strong actions against any US citizen that made any sort of donation or information sharing with the organization.
Links:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/clinton-ordered-diplomats-spy-un/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/wikileaks-chief/
#2: Saudi Arabia Funds Al-Qaeda
Anyone remember that part in Fahrenheit 9/11 where Michael Moore repeatedly draws connections between the Bushes and Saudis? Wherein he made the case that Saudi Arabia was likely behind al Qaeda's plots against us, but that because of business connections and friendships, the US Intelligence and Propaganda machines have politely looked away? I remember the political pundits and White House apologists saying it was patently false and unfair to make such connections. We were repeatedly told this was not a war about oil, and the Saudi's were definitely not getting any special treatment just because they happen to be rich.
This weekend, in the stack of State Department documents in this weekend's WikiLeaks release, comes this little gem in the New York Times:
Or, better yet, we could just immediately stop dropping bombs on other countries.
Links:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/shocker-admits-saudi-donors-chief-financiers-al-qaeda-leaked-cable/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1&hp
#3: Court Orders CIA To Come Clean About Mind-Control Implants
On an unrelated, but none-the-less conspiratorially-creepy-as-hell, there's a lawsuit currently going on where several military veterans are suing the CIA for implanting electrodes in their head for the purpose of remote control of their brain function and human behavior. If I'm reading the article right, the CIA is not denying having conducted such surgery, but is offering as it's defense that it only did this to prisoners, mental patients, and elderly shut-ins, not active duty military personnel. Isn't that creepy? A judge has just recently ruled that the CIA must provide the court with it's records concerning experiments conducted on thousands of soldiers in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Links:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/cia-allegedly-implanted-electrodes-brains-unsuspecting-soldiers/
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/17/31924.htm
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/cia_brain_experiments_pursued.html
#1: All Our Diplomats Are Spies
International online whistleblowers WikiLeaks released a huge chunk of State Department documents. The documents include a troubling set of directives encouraging US diplomats to covertly gather DNA samples, fingerprints, passwords and credit card numbers of other nation's diplomats. Basically, turning a very large number of US diplomats into spies.
In response, the gov't is looking in to criminal charges against WikiLeaks, and some in Congress are calling for WikiLeaks to be classified as a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" which would allow for severe penalties to any US citizen that offers them "material support" of any kind. That's a Constitutionally-alarming proposal, as it would empower the government to take strong actions against any US citizen that made any sort of donation or information sharing with the organization.
Links:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/clinton-ordered-diplomats-spy-un/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/wikileaks-chief/
#2: Saudi Arabia Funds Al-Qaeda
Anyone remember that part in Fahrenheit 9/11 where Michael Moore repeatedly draws connections between the Bushes and Saudis? Wherein he made the case that Saudi Arabia was likely behind al Qaeda's plots against us, but that because of business connections and friendships, the US Intelligence and Propaganda machines have politely looked away? I remember the political pundits and White House apologists saying it was patently false and unfair to make such connections. We were repeatedly told this was not a war about oil, and the Saudi's were definitely not getting any special treatment just because they happen to be rich.
This weekend, in the stack of State Department documents in this weekend's WikiLeaks release, comes this little gem in the New York Times:
"Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda."It would appear that Michael Moore may have gotten it right. Our government knows the Saudis are the main source of revenue to "the enemy", but yet we're not taking any major actions against Saudi Arabia. Seems like maybe all that activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and just over the border into Pakistan is a little misguided. As the saying goes, "follow the money!" Bombing poor people doesn't make us safer, it simply makes the rich richer. Bombing the rich? Well, the US hasn't given that a fair try since at least the 1940s.
Or, better yet, we could just immediately stop dropping bombs on other countries.
Links:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/shocker-admits-saudi-donors-chief-financiers-al-qaeda-leaked-cable/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1&hp
#3: Court Orders CIA To Come Clean About Mind-Control Implants
On an unrelated, but none-the-less conspiratorially-creepy-as-hell, there's a lawsuit currently going on where several military veterans are suing the CIA for implanting electrodes in their head for the purpose of remote control of their brain function and human behavior. If I'm reading the article right, the CIA is not denying having conducted such surgery, but is offering as it's defense that it only did this to prisoners, mental patients, and elderly shut-ins, not active duty military personnel. Isn't that creepy? A judge has just recently ruled that the CIA must provide the court with it's records concerning experiments conducted on thousands of soldiers in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Links:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/cia-allegedly-implanted-electrodes-brains-unsuspecting-soldiers/
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/17/31924.htm
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/11/cia_brain_experiments_pursued.html
Friday, November 19, 2010
2 cigars lit with $100 bills per day
This video from the floor of congress shows us what the rich will be doing with the big Republican-sponsored tax cuts for the rich, and then one modest proposal of what we could do instead with that same amount of money.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Acting against ACTA
ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is ostensibly supposed to cut down on illegal pirating of copyrighted materials. It's full of ridiculous baggage and demands, but the most alarming provision is the "three strikes and you're out" rule, where if someone is accused (not convicted) of three or more acts of copyright infringement, the international body can have that person banned from the internet for life.
That's pretty sick. I don't think I could live without the internet. Admittedly, it'd make me slightly more productive, but a lot more isolated and miserable in the process.
Read more at www.anti-acta.com. The most level-headed report I've read on it was here. He makes it sound a little less dire, but is still rightly concerned about it.
ACTA has been worked on, largely in secret (but with several big leaks), for the past two or three years, and unless people speak up against it on a large scale, it's likely to be completed and signed in the remaining months of 2010.
Here's an amusing video on the subject, by someone who's very good at angry ranting:
This one's less amusing, and a bit calmer:
International protests are planned for Sept 18 and Nov 5. There's a online petition to Stop ACTA. Annoying letters to various government personages and media editors probably wouldn't hurt either, if you've got a few minutes to spare to help ensure the internet doesn't go away any time soon.
That's pretty sick. I don't think I could live without the internet. Admittedly, it'd make me slightly more productive, but a lot more isolated and miserable in the process.
Read more at www.anti-acta.com. The most level-headed report I've read on it was here. He makes it sound a little less dire, but is still rightly concerned about it.
ACTA has been worked on, largely in secret (but with several big leaks), for the past two or three years, and unless people speak up against it on a large scale, it's likely to be completed and signed in the remaining months of 2010.
Here's an amusing video on the subject, by someone who's very good at angry ranting:
This one's less amusing, and a bit calmer:
International protests are planned for Sept 18 and Nov 5. There's a online petition to Stop ACTA. Annoying letters to various government personages and media editors probably wouldn't hurt either, if you've got a few minutes to spare to help ensure the internet doesn't go away any time soon.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Staggering Evidence of Voter Fraud in the US
This is a really under-reported story from earlier this summer. It documents obvious evidence that the Primaries in South Carolina were rigged and stolen. It should have made repeated national headlines, but I just heard about it today despite being 2 months old.
In South Carolina, the majority of votes are placed on electronic voting machines at the polling stations. Machines that have no transparency or safeguards, so you can't be certain that your vote was tabulated or reported accurately. As near as I can tell, that's why Alvin Greene won the Democratic primary.
Greene is unemployed but somehow came up with the $10,440 filing fee to get on the Primary ballot. He's currently indicted on two criminal counts - one a felony - and was arrested for them both 6 months before the Primary. His master plan to save the South Carolina economy is to create jobs by making and selling action figures of himself. As I understand it, he had no TV ads, no website, he neither scheduled nor attended any campaign rallies, did no fund raising nor any campaigning of any recognizable sort. He had no political background at all.
Watch this downright bizarre interview where Keith Olbermann asks Alvin Greene about how he campaigned:
His chief opponent in the primary was a four-time State legislator who did lots of campaigning.
Despite those many handicaps, Alvin Greene won the Primary by a landslide victory at the polls - with the electronic voting machines in some precincts reporting more votes for Green than total ballots cast! In most precincts in South Carolina, the only paper trail left after an election is the absentee ballots. Traditionally, absentee ballots tend to have similar results ratios as polling-place ballots. However, in this case, Greene got only 16% of the absentee ballot vote, but got 59% of the non-traceable, non-verifiable electronic votes at the polls.
Read more about his ridiculous logic-defying win at:
The BRAD BLOG
RAWstory
mainstream media's feeble attempt at pretending they care whether or not an election is stolen by their secret masters
The best case scenario seems to be one of State-wide election-machine error, and the more chilling yet more likely scenario seems to be systematic fraud and rigging of an election. Right here in the USA, not in some rinky-dink third-world banana republic.
In South Carolina, the majority of votes are placed on electronic voting machines at the polling stations. Machines that have no transparency or safeguards, so you can't be certain that your vote was tabulated or reported accurately. As near as I can tell, that's why Alvin Greene won the Democratic primary.
Greene is unemployed but somehow came up with the $10,440 filing fee to get on the Primary ballot. He's currently indicted on two criminal counts - one a felony - and was arrested for them both 6 months before the Primary. His master plan to save the South Carolina economy is to create jobs by making and selling action figures of himself. As I understand it, he had no TV ads, no website, he neither scheduled nor attended any campaign rallies, did no fund raising nor any campaigning of any recognizable sort. He had no political background at all.
Watch this downright bizarre interview where Keith Olbermann asks Alvin Greene about how he campaigned:
His chief opponent in the primary was a four-time State legislator who did lots of campaigning.
Despite those many handicaps, Alvin Greene won the Primary by a landslide victory at the polls - with the electronic voting machines in some precincts reporting more votes for Green than total ballots cast! In most precincts in South Carolina, the only paper trail left after an election is the absentee ballots. Traditionally, absentee ballots tend to have similar results ratios as polling-place ballots. However, in this case, Greene got only 16% of the absentee ballot vote, but got 59% of the non-traceable, non-verifiable electronic votes at the polls.
Read more about his ridiculous logic-defying win at:
The BRAD BLOG
RAWstory
mainstream media's feeble attempt at pretending they care whether or not an election is stolen by their secret masters
The best case scenario seems to be one of State-wide election-machine error, and the more chilling yet more likely scenario seems to be systematic fraud and rigging of an election. Right here in the USA, not in some rinky-dink third-world banana republic.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Of/By/4 (the People) in 18 minutes
The latest iteration of Lawrence Lessig's latest speech clocks in at just 18 minutes, which means everyone can find time to watch this one, and it moves at a pretty rapid pace.
As a long time a champion of copyright reform, Lawrence Lessig fought against Disney at the Supreme Court. He's the originator of the Creative Commons license. Now he's hard at work trying to tear down the special interests that have corrupted Congress. This man kicks ass.
Hey Obama, your next Supreme Court appointee should be Lawrence Lessig!
As a long time a champion of copyright reform, Lawrence Lessig fought against Disney at the Supreme Court. He's the originator of the Creative Commons license. Now he's hard at work trying to tear down the special interests that have corrupted Congress. This man kicks ass.
Hey Obama, your next Supreme Court appointee should be Lawrence Lessig!
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Chupacabra Dogs
This is the third news report I've seen about this animal over the past three years. I'm calling it the "Texas Chupacabra" as at least the most recent two reports involved livestock disturbances that echo the Chupacabra reports out of Central and South America.
Or maybe "Chupacabra Dog" since it looks to be canine-related. Naw, that makes me picture a goat-sucker-on-a-stick, like a "Chupacabra Dog" is something you'd order at the state fair. Trust me, if you saw one of these things, you wouldn't want to eat, not even on a stick.
It looks a lot like a dog, but with a dark blueish-grey skin (no or little fur), and completely wrong proportions. The ears and head are a bit like a chihuahua, but it's big, with a really large and lanky body, and in some cases disproportionately large canine teeth. It may be a mutant coyote, some sort of inbred wild version of the Mexican Hairless Dog, possibly a new species related to one or both of the above, a blood-sucking alien fiend, or it might just be a relatively mundane chihuahua-greyhound crossbreed with a bad case of mange. The truth is out there.
Three were found as roadkill in Cuero, Texas in 2007. One was killed when a family in Blanco, TX, put down poison in their barn to kill whatever had been attacking their livestock in 2009. Now in 2010, there's two shot to death within a week of each other in different locations in Hood County, TX.
I love how at the end of the video he oddly asserts that we'll know for certain whether or not it's a Chupacabra once the DNA tests come back. I find that amusing. I mean, if it's just a dog, the tests could show that. But if it's a Chupacabra... I mean it's not like we have Chupacabra DNA on file somewhere, do we? Do we? Na, that'd be silly.
As I said this is the third such report I've seen, over the past 3 years. Before that was the Elmendorf Beast, a very similar body found (also in Texas) in 2004, but I've only read wikipedia on it, so I can't say how closely it actually resembles the more recent critters.
Yet, this latest report (and the one from last year) make no mention of the previous carcasses or events. In fact, if memory serves correctly, all three reports have ended by saying that we're waiting on DNA tests to tell us what it is. Either they're dogs, in which case the third report/incident should mention the previous two cases turned out to be dogs, ...or the previous cases were something other than dogs, and it's suddenly big news. Makes you wonder why they haven't mentioned this.
Me, I suspect there's a real chupacabra out there, carefully framing wild dogs. Here we are calling these poor ugly dogs monsters, when the truth is they're the victims. One of these days we'll catch El Chup red-handed, planting a dead dog at the scene.
Or maybe "Chupacabra Dog" since it looks to be canine-related. Naw, that makes me picture a goat-sucker-on-a-stick, like a "Chupacabra Dog" is something you'd order at the state fair. Trust me, if you saw one of these things, you wouldn't want to eat, not even on a stick.
It looks a lot like a dog, but with a dark blueish-grey skin (no or little fur), and completely wrong proportions. The ears and head are a bit like a chihuahua, but it's big, with a really large and lanky body, and in some cases disproportionately large canine teeth. It may be a mutant coyote, some sort of inbred wild version of the Mexican Hairless Dog, possibly a new species related to one or both of the above, a blood-sucking alien fiend, or it might just be a relatively mundane chihuahua-greyhound crossbreed with a bad case of mange. The truth is out there.
Three were found as roadkill in Cuero, Texas in 2007. One was killed when a family in Blanco, TX, put down poison in their barn to kill whatever had been attacking their livestock in 2009. Now in 2010, there's two shot to death within a week of each other in different locations in Hood County, TX.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I love how at the end of the video he oddly asserts that we'll know for certain whether or not it's a Chupacabra once the DNA tests come back. I find that amusing. I mean, if it's just a dog, the tests could show that. But if it's a Chupacabra... I mean it's not like we have Chupacabra DNA on file somewhere, do we? Do we? Na, that'd be silly.
As I said this is the third such report I've seen, over the past 3 years. Before that was the Elmendorf Beast, a very similar body found (also in Texas) in 2004, but I've only read wikipedia on it, so I can't say how closely it actually resembles the more recent critters.
Yet, this latest report (and the one from last year) make no mention of the previous carcasses or events. In fact, if memory serves correctly, all three reports have ended by saying that we're waiting on DNA tests to tell us what it is. Either they're dogs, in which case the third report/incident should mention the previous two cases turned out to be dogs, ...or the previous cases were something other than dogs, and it's suddenly big news. Makes you wonder why they haven't mentioned this.
Me, I suspect there's a real chupacabra out there, carefully framing wild dogs. Here we are calling these poor ugly dogs monsters, when the truth is they're the victims. One of these days we'll catch El Chup red-handed, planting a dead dog at the scene.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Surely this could never be abused..?
This is just naturally a great idea, and clearly meant only to shield us all from the next 9/11. The government only wants the ability to suspend the internet, or specific sites, in the case of a legitimate emergency. There's no way that could be abused...
Yep, nothing to worry about there. There's no chance it'll ever be used to censor free speech, restrict the actions and organization of an opposing political movement, or shut down communication across the nation or globe while a coup d'état takes place and the new masters entrench and secure their power. Big Brother tells me not to worry, and Big Brother's never lied to me before - or at least, if he did, and I posted accusations or proof of it here, he might eventually get the proposed NCCC to shut down this website. So, it's just better for all of us if I say he's never lied to me. Because he hasn't ever lied to me. I promise.U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"
The proposed legislation ... would compel any internet providers, search engines or software companies, at the discretion of the U.S. government, to "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security.
...
The bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the "security status" of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries. Companies would be required to take part in "information sharing" with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that "relies on" the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would also be "subject to command" by the NCCC under the proposed new law.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Facebook Woes
Is this the part where I'm supposed to pretend I don't like to say "I told you so"? If so, I could totally pretend I don't get a smug satisfaction out of being proven right.
Okay, enough snarking and finger-wagging, time to embed something funny...
Some quitting Facebook as privacy concerns escalateIt goes beyond the Top Ten Reasons You Should Quit Facebook. I'm not just a neo-luddite, I'm also a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deeply alarmed by the Facebook-CIA link. Facebook is The Man, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
(CNN) -- Concerns over Facebook's new privacy policy and the online social network's recent efforts to spread its information across the Web have led some of the site's faithful to delete their accounts -- or at least try to.
Okay, enough snarking and finger-wagging, time to embed something funny...
Thursday, April 29, 2010
These guys make me look sane and rational
I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and I know it. I'm 100% certain the CIA, the Bavarian Illuminati, and the aliens are all out to get us - together. Well, maybe not 100% certain. The CIA might have their own rogue agenda.
But next to these birthers and teabaggers, I look downright rational. Skeptical, even. Case in point:
Ridiculous bullshit!
Even I can see that, and I set my alarm clock to wake me up at random intervals throughout the night so I can catch the Aliens with my pants down.
But next to these birthers and teabaggers, I look downright rational. Skeptical, even. Case in point:
COLMES: Do you really believe – you know he was born in Hawaii right?
TANCREDO: I have absolutely no idea where he was born.
COLMES: You’ve seen he was born in Hawaii; he was in two Hawaiian newspapers within two days of his birth.
TANCREDO: Anybody can put an article in a newspaper. Just show me your birth certificate!
That's what they're proposing. They're claiming that within two days after his birth, there was already a scheme to take a random Kenyan kid and groom him to become the President of the USA. They just knew, right then, that it was going to one day be very beneficial to his political career to be able to claim to be a native-born citizen, but not actually be one. So, rather than fly over to Hawaii prior to your delivery date to give birth to a U.S. Citizen, instead you fly over just after giving birth, and place newspaper announcements of your son's birth.Ridiculous bullshit!
Even I can see that, and I set my alarm clock to wake me up at random intervals throughout the night so I can catch the Aliens with my pants down.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Ctrl+Alt+Del Democracy
Awesome Lawrence Lessig speech from the Rebooting Democracy conference in Bend, Oregon:
Starts off a little slow, admittedly, because he covers a lot of ground he's done before. But the last half is pretty astounding. Radical, even, and not in the skaterpunk / valley girl way. If you lack patience and are familiar with Prof. Lessig, you can probably skip first 25 minutes or so.
Starts off a little slow, admittedly, because he covers a lot of ground he's done before. But the last half is pretty astounding. Radical, even, and not in the skaterpunk / valley girl way. If you lack patience and are familiar with Prof. Lessig, you can probably skip first 25 minutes or so.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Shadow Government
Revealed: Ashcroft, Tenet, Rumsfeld warned 9/11 Commission about ‘line’ it ’should not cross’
The first thing I think when I see that headline is "Holy crap! Dr. Who is part of the Conspiracy? Now we're really fucked!" But, apparently it's spelled David Tennant. See, if I look over here on Wikipedia, I... who the hell is Matt Smith? Damnit! That's what I get for canceling my cable.
Ahem.
Back to the original article... the ACLU has managed to get their hands on a letter from the Bush Administration to the 9/11 Commission, in which the Attorney General, Defense Secretary, and Head of the CIA refused the Commission's request to interview detainees.
"There is, however, a line that the Commission should not cross... The Commission staff's proposed participation in questioning of detainees would cross that line,"
That's a little ominous, eh? Who knows what it means. Even if it was just an innocent but poor choice of phrasing, it probably had a chilling effect on the people tasked with uncovering how our government failed. I mean if Ashcroft and Rumsfeld and Dr. Who told me I was about to cross a line, I'd shut the heck up and listen to them.
Why would the Bush Administration not want the 9/11 Commissioners anywhere near detained suspects in the 9/11 plot? Perhaps to keep the truth hidden about 9/11? Or maybe just to keep the truth hidden about how much torture was being used on detainees? Either seems believable, ...and disgustingly reprehensible.
Smoking gun though it may seem to be, this letter on it's own proves nothing... but it certainly justifies looking a little deeper. I think it's time for a new investigation into the shadier policies and activities of the previous administration, one that doesn't have to obey arbitrary limitations placed on it by the very government it's investigating. Shine a little light in there, and see what goes scurrying back into the deeper shadows. (...like on that Library planet. Or to see what just stands there like those statues in that episode "Blink". They were almost as creepy as Rumsfeld.)
Monday, January 25, 2010
Sealed for 70 years.
So, this guy blows the whistle on the fact that the British government "sexed up" the reports linking Iraq to WMDs. Then he's found dead, with his wrists slit, but hardly any blood on the scene. Seven years later, the courts finally decide whether or not his death was really a suicide, and they lock the case files for 70 years so we'll never know.Details of Iraq whistleblower’s alleged suicide to be sealed 70 years
By 2080, anyone with a direct interest in learning how Dr. David Kelly died, will themselves be dead.
And our governments expect us to trust them?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Science-Gate
Hilarious video on the ridiculousness of Climategate. That one won't let me embed it on blogger, but it's worth following the link to watch.
Here's another one by the same cartoonist:
Here's another one by the same cartoonist:
Monday, November 2, 2009
And on a related note
Since I was just bitchin' up a storm about rigged elections and people who violate the Constitution, I thought I'd share with you this trailer for an upcoming documentary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)