Eileen and I ordered this book and it came in the mail yesterday. I read a bit in it and discovered that the entire book was published simultaneously on line [link to site].
I find this extremely encouraging.
I was also surprised to learn that Twain actually left a coherent implication of how he wanted his autobiography published. I always thought it was just a huge collection of preparatory manuscripts.
This makes me even more excited to read this book.
I listened to a hilarious satirical song yesterday on the Capital Steps website called Lirty Dies [link to site, link to mp3]
Lirty Dies: Tough Rimes of 2010 mp3
I love the Capital Steps. They even have an entire web site dedicated to “Whipping Flurds” as they say [link]. I especially like: “Licky Weaks, the poo tarty system & the pee tarty…”
Yesterday’s report includes information on the recent cancellation of George Bush’s trip to Switzerland due to possibly being confronted as an international war crimincal:
“…on Monday, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Berlin-based European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights issued a 42-page document they call a preliminary indictment against Bush. Human rights lawyers say Bush could now face a lawsuit wherever he travels outside the United States. (from the report)
I have to say I support this and have been saying for years that Bush and Cheney should be held responsible for their reckless behavior in office that resulted in the deaths and torture of so many people, not to mention lying to the American public about Weapons for Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Since I am allowing myself to express my radical political views here, I might as well go whole hog and recommend a report I plan to listen to this morning: Noam Chomsky: How Climate Change Became a ‘Liberal Hoax’
7 thoughts on “Licky Weaks, the poo tarty system & the pee tarty”
Information is manipulated and it requires critical decision making skills to effect an understanding of what is going on in today’s world. I believe that this nonsense about George Bush is just that, Nonsense. Presidents make decisions all the time about situations that are filled with misinformation.
Boy do we disagree about this. Bush advocated torture and invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. He is a war criminal. This is not misinformation. It is the truth.
I wasn’t go to touch this one, but figured what the heck. For what its worth, I have another take on the entire situation. Almost by definition an opinion cannot be wrong and I respect many people’s opinions especially on such hot and debated topics. In one sense I would agree that one cannot believe anything the media says in any form whether it is newspaper, television, or the internet reporting. All the stories about Bush during his term were so varied that I could not keep them all straight. I remember reading an article about a Bush issue in 2 different papers (concerning the same issue) and each had a different outcome for the same story.
In terms of weapons of mass destruction, there were many reports that Saddam had WMD’s depending on what your definition of WMD’s are. If by WMD’s you include biological/chemical weapons than Hussein did have these and used them not only on his own people, but there is evidenced that these were used during the Gulf war as well. If by WMD’s you only include nuclear weapons than as far as I can tell, there was no evidence of having them immediately in his possession, but there was evidence that just like Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, Iraq was seeking them. Of course all this is only prefaced by the fact that we as citizens were not privy to the highest levels of information concerning foreign affairs and our government until recently.
With the advent of Wikileaks, I have been reexamining how things have happened concerning such issues over the last few decades. That is of course if all the Wikileaks are real. For the most part I would consider this information as close to “raw data” as possible given my current position as a citizen in this country. This data gives me ample food for reexamination and critical analysis.
In terms of 9/11, I have examined many theories from very credible resources. Most of these theories are conspiratorial in nature, but there are a few that are noteworthy. Especially some studies by a professor named Dr Lance DeHaven-Smith who was ostracized from a major university for critically analyzing and researching the events that happened on 9/11 and shortly thereafter. He published some research on the events that took place and ideas around structural engineering. I encourage you to look him up and read some of his materials that deal with the physics and engineering around the collapse of the twin towers.
However, nothing I have read or come across has made me believe that 9/11 was undoubtedly some kind of inside job. The people involved were Arabic nationalist’s not American nationalists.
As far as Bush being a war criminal, I would look at the bigger picture in that presidents for decades have made decisions based on advisors input that could be considered “criminal” in nature. The question should be who decides what is criminal? The Center for International Rights? The Geneva Convention? The British Secret Service? The FBI? Etc. As a citizen of this world I do not recall ever being asked to participate in designating criteria for what constitutes “criminality” in an international context. If one of the citizens of my country is being accused of international criminal activity regardless of public stature, than I would want to be involved with a common consensus of what constitutes criminal behavior at the international level. Hopefully you get my line of reasoning.
Again examining the raw data (for me) that I can get my hands on will assist in conceptualizing historical events that have unfolded over the past 4-5 decades.
Of course this is all food for thought and is all just my opinion…..
Thank you for responding. It is very interesting to see how you have arrived at opinions I know are prevalent in the U.S. And I really appreciate you taking the time to raise questions about my offhand remarks in such a civil and reasonable way.
There are media sources in the World that I often find credible. This morning I was checking out the Mubarek resignation and found myself on web sites in the U.K., France, not to mention the online presence of the excellent Aljazeera.
I often quickly double check things that confuse me or seem questionable to me, though. As a high school student I was very interested in journalism and believe that information reporting is essential to a functioning democratic society, the better the info, the better able we are to function as citizens. There’s no question that we are deluged with much that fails to be actual journalism. I would say that most TV news I see falls in this category.
Last night Eileen and I happen to watch the NBC news all the way through. A lot of time was spent on the Cairo story, but there was not a whisper about the Conservative leadership meeting in DC which is what the PBS Newshour report led second after a Cairo update. Over and over I see news stories that are not news but calculated to titillate.
I don’t think information is the same thing as opinion. It takes a strong crap detector to filter out bad information. And lots of work as you point out in the areas you mention.
However, I completely respect your and others right to see things the way you do even if it differs from me.
Either Bush did or did not know there were no WMDs (defined by the US and UK leaders in a private memo as “unconventional weapons”). My reading leads me to reasonably suspect he did.
Not only this 2006 article on the NYT about the memo I just mentioned: http://tinyurl.com/4d39pw2
but also Ron Susskind’s excellent book: “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism.” This book is about a lot of different things, but part of it describes how the former head of the WMD analysis at the Cia, Alan Foley, was ignored by the government in his accurate depiction of the lack of these weapons in Iraq prior to the invasion.
This is part of what why I think the way I do. I offer it only in that spirit, not to convince you or Ray or anyone else for that matter.
I did look for Dr. Lance Haven-Smith. Is he the man who is currently Professor, Reubin O’D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University? His writings have quite a range, but I don’t see anything by this man about the twin towers. Maybe I have the wrong guy. Here’s a link to the CV I looked at: http://www.askew.fsu.edu/faculty/resume/dehavenl.pdf
As to your point about being asked about what is criminal. Most countries in the world (including the U.S.) are signatories to the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Reagan actually apparently signed it. So in a sense this country has had this discussion. Not to say it couldn’t re-open the discussion. Here’s where I was reading about it this morning:
I put all the links into this comment to demonstrate how I am trying to approach some of these difficult questions with some critical thinking.
But I do find it terribly difficult to analyze the huge raw date in the wiki-leaks. It’s beyond me. I prefer to read analyses by people to whom I have given credibility with citations that make sense to me.
But that’s just me, of course.
Thanks again for your comment. I am very interested in what’s going on in your head!
Regarding the the professor, I got my cookie professors mixed up. Dehaven-Smith is involved with “State Crimes Against Democracy”. Steven E. Jones is the physic prof I was thinking of. his info:
Thanks for the link! I have read about these questions before and also am unconvinced that it was an inside job. But the science is interesting and definitely makes one pause.