The Bush regime seems ever more intent on attacking Iran, using the same program of lies, deceptions, misinformation, propagandizing by major media, and recklessness that led up to the present disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are losing these two wars badly, for the same reason and by the same means that undid our efforts in Viet Nam - another war based on lies. Iraq and Afghanistan are what Viet Nam was: guerilla warfare which the United States military establishment has proven powerless against. War with Iran will be no different and very different at the same time. The US is now fighting a war on two fronts, a fool's mission in anybody's book. If we attack Iran we will be facing a military disaster of unparalleled severity, but not for the reasons given in the largely clueless press. And not according to the scenarion of Global War that these idiots are trying to sell us.
No. It will be far different and, in the end, will probably return an outcome that the Neocons and their Nazi-like Zionist colleagues would never have envisioned. But some explanation is in order.
For one thing, a geurilla war is not over until the guerillas win. It may take years as it did in Nam and as it is in Iraq, but the outcome is ceratin: just look at the history. For another, we know that wars cannot be won with airpower alone; there have to be boots on the ground. But where will they come from? Doesn't it stand to reason that if the United States army faces Iranian forces over the extensive border with Iraq, that the Iraqi freedom fighters won't double and redouble their efforts to eject this occupying force from their land? Prime Minister el Maliki, the head of our own puppet government in Iraq wants us to leave. The people want us to leave; the vast majority of American people want us to leave. And everyone is tired of the double talk: "we're winning, so we have to stay; we're not winning, so we have to stay." It's an insane tautology that reasoning people will not buy.
The next thing to think about is how the sides will stack up. The US/Israeli coalition of evil, with some interest allegedly shown by Great Britain, France, and Italy, on one side; Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and al Sadr's insurgents in Iraq, on the other, it will be a Chinese fire drill of monumental proportions - and we can't win against that kind of opposition. We have already wasted too many lives and treasure in the region for the American people to stand for any more. That is in addition to the strategic and tactical problems we would face.
It is a foregone conclusion that Israel would be hard hit in any retaliatory effort on the part of Iran, especially if Israel initiates an attack against them. A very risky matter for Israel, as neither the CIA or Mossad actually knows where the Iranian missile bases and military installations actually are. There seems little doubt that Israel is counting on American support in the proposed military adventure and, for reasons already given, that is not a given.
Another question; What will Russia do in the case of an attack upon Iran? They have economic ties and significant interests in Teheran; will they just sit back and allow Israel and the United States to attack? Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets. Aren't the idiots who are allegedly planning this insane adventure taking the Russian question into consideration? They have been wrong about everything they've said about Iraq; why should anyone think they have suddenly become proficient in the strategic arts, both diplomatic and military? There is much that they seem oblivious to that it is frightening. Or it should be.
One thing, concerning Iraq and the desire of the Iraqis for American troops to leave, that nobody so far has given any thought to: There is one man in Iraq who, by just saying the word, could bring the entire population of Iraq into the insurgent camp in a major effort to oust the occupying forces: The Ayatollah el Sistani. He is the spiritual leader of the Iraqi people and if he tells them to rise up and throw the invader out, the Iraqis will risa as one and our already overtaxed military will face near anihilation.
Then there is the question of where such an ill-advised military adventure will lead. Some feel that it will be the start of World War III and that the United States will be attacked. Not a very happy outcome in either case, but I believe the possibility of escalation to these levels is rather remote.
For one thing, neither the United States or Israel would be able to go it alone; the 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon was a defeat for the Israelis, and Iraq has been the same for the United States for over six years. Each military establishment took on single nations and fared badly; both taking on the combined forces of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinians, would lead to disastrous consequences for them. And lest we forget, Israel and the Unuited States have had control of the skies in the Middle East all along, but the bloodshed continues. The most likely outcome of all this would be greatly protracted guerilla warfare against greater odds than either the United States or Israel have ever faced, or even thought of facing. We might also consider what Egypt would do.
An attack on the United States? By whom? Iran would have no interest in doing that; in fact, an attack on the US would be counter-productive from their standpoint. We have a loud, vocal, and ever-expanding anti-war movement in this country. Should our leaders step over the line and go ahead with an attack on Iran they would risk a whole bucketful of "unintended consequences" right here in their own backyard. The people will stand for just-so-much and the needle is rapidly approaching red line.
Europe is much closer to the action and a war spreading to that continent is far more likely than any threat to the United States. But the Europeans still have vivid memories of World War II and would have no interest in inviting more of the same by entering into a coalition with Israel and the United States. France, Italy, Germany, and Great Britain, may ally themselves with us in voting sanctions against Iran in the United Nations, but we have already seen how willing they are to commit troops: not very. The Brits, who actually sent forces to Iraq, have brought most of their military personnel out and have no plans for returning anytime soon, perhaps when elephants fly.
For these and other reasons too numerous to go into here, an attack on Iran would be stupid in the extreme. Our leadership ( if that's what you call it )is playing Checkers, and not very well, while the other team is playing Chess; two very different games though the board is the same. And if you accept the Checkers/Chess analogy, then remember this: THEY INVENTED CHESS!
Monday, July 7, 2008
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Where Are We Going?
The American economy appears to be in a shambles, but it is not. What we are seeing is a transformmation. The combination of the weaker dollar and outsourcing of jobs can only lead to a resurgence in domestic production. It's the bitter pill that we as a people must swallow in the short run, much as a sot must seek hangover relief the monring after. But we will come back stronger than ever if enough people wake up and see the potential.
The days of high paying jobs are over. For too long have we piled salary increases and benefit packages on the corporations that we presently hold in such contempt, that outsourcing jobs to cheaper wage environments was a no-brainer. Of course they were going to relocate to countries where labor is cheaper. Wouldn't you? It's easy to lay blame on the most visible targets, the corporation, but it doesn't solve the basic problem: Americans' attitude about work.
We the people have brought the current calamity on ourselves. The five-day work week is bracketed by "Blue Monday" at the front end and "Thank God it's Friday!" on the other. Low paying, menial jobs are anathema; let somebody else do them, and there are people less fortunate than we who are more than glad to fill these positions. At the same time we are bringing foreign professionals, technicians, teachers, and engineers to this country because we can pay them less. A triple whammie: unskilled, semi-skilled, and highly educated workers are out in the street.Adam Smith had it right. Laisses-faire economics still works though the appearances may make it seem otherwise. The overall economy will always tend toward full employment, it just takes longer nowadays. In Smith's day economies were largely agrarian, the labor mostly unskilled. The technology was primitive by present standards, so workers could be easily trained to oil machines, operate looms, and work on farms. The labor force was adaptable and mobile. Without safety nets such as unemployment, welfare, and the like, when a worker making fifty-cents a day was laid off he had to go right out and find another job, willing to take less, say thirty cents a day. No choice in the matter. Those who kept working survived and enjoyed a marked advantage over time; unskilled though they might have been, they had more and a greater variety of experience. This is not to extoll the conditions that prevailed in those days: they were hard times, but in essence the mechanics are the same.
The Age of Technology skewed the process. Whereas in Smith's day labor was unskilled and mobile, today it is highly specialized and immobile. People are educated and trained in such closely defined occupational parameters that if their jobs go away they cannot easily secure employment in other fields where their experience might be close enough that they could be adapted to the new job. But that isn't to say that it never happens. My own experience proves that it can.
Years ago I lived in Upstate New York, an economic disaster area. At one point the unemployment rate peaked at 14%; when a job was advertized three-hundred people showed up to apply. It wasn't fun. A company that manufactured air-driven tools had an opening, and I appled for it with my background in electronics. Not a good fit.The interviewer advised me that they didn't have any jobs in electronincs, to which I replied, "Do you think that's all I know?" He said he realized that I knew a lot more than how electrons surge through conductors, and also knew that I wanted a job and wouldn't be deterred easily. He leafed through his book of job listings and told me he couldn't see me doing any of them."Like what?" I asked."Foundry," he replied and I agreed. No foundry."Well, what CAN you see me doing?" He looked some more and finally said, "Handscrew".That took a little explaining but what he was talking about was operating a turret lathe, something I had never done before."Alright, how long do you think it would take me to learn?" Three weeks was his answer."I'm willing!" I said - and he hired me. And it only took one week for me to get up to speed, and from then on I exceeded my quotas every day. It can happen, just don't fold up at the first negative indicator. If you truly want a job, you can get one;it may not be in the corner office, you might not be making big bucks, but as long as you have an income you can make it.
Got preachy that time;didn't I. But I get so disturbed at the intertia demonstrated by so many people, those who think they can pick and choose jobs. The sucker lists of people who have gotten burned with the work-at-home scams testify to the fact that too many people are stll looking for more mone, less work. In that regard our preoccupation with celebrity exacerbates this condition. But let us not lose sight of the also-rans who strove for star status and fell by the wayside. There's a good chance that the waiter who takes your order in a restaurant is an aspiring actor, writer, singer, or artist. Who wants to be a waiter all his life. That brings up another deleterious aspect of Americans' attitude toward work.
This attitude has sucked for as long as I can remember. Aside from the drudgery so often associated with work and the disdain for menial occupations, there is one more way in which the American labor force has sabotaged the economy. Upon my release from the military I immediately went to work for a defense contractor. We built aircraft on a cost-plus basis: most government contracts, especially in the area of defense were contracts of this kind. In almost everyinstance I can recall the watchword among the rank and file was, "Don't kill the job." Work progressed at an easy, slow pace, preserving the job but running the costs into the stratosphere. The prevailing wisdom behind this idiocy was that once the contract was completed there would be no more work. Now tax payers complain of cost-overruns, but few realize how the practice got started.
The Fin de Siecle period at the close of the nineteenth century lamented the demise of the craftsman, the artisan who created fine wares by hand; a good pair of shoes, a Princess Anne chair, a Sterling Silver tea service, and a panoplea of other consumer goods. The Industrial Revolution was seen as the rapacious doomsday machine bearing down on European society, threatening to crush mankind under its wheels and relegating man to the status of slaves, ever tending the noisy, smelly, grimy machines that bore on, never tiring, always needing tending.
Mass production killed the love of honest work and the pride of accomplishment that went with it. People chose careers, not, as at one time, for the love of the craft, but because of the money that could be made. Technology froze a once mobile work force into stangant pools of specialization, categories identifying individuals qualified to work in a particular field, but largely shutting them out of any other occupation group.
Labor unions had their part to play in the economic downturn. A principal feature of practically every union contract negotiation has historically been the demand for higher wages. These gradual encroachments, 3% to 5% increases, over time add substatially to a company's costs, and drive prices higher. Of course it is well to raise wages wherever and whenever possible, when the balance sheet shows adequate profits to accommodate such demands, but often these demands have been made in instances where the companies involved were under pressure from market forces, foreign imports, legal actions, and other distadvanteged positions. The cumulative effect of all this was to drive wages in union shops much higher than in othere areas of the economy, and it was these higher paying jobs that were the first to be outsourced.
In conclusion we may safely predict that the domestic economy will experience a resurgence, but at a slower rate and with lower wages. That is not as bad as it sounds because prices will be lower as well: low overhead, lower prices. Small business will predominate in the is renewed economic drive, and the sorporations that have benefited from outsourcing will experience a new set of problems when the presently low paid labor force starts agitating for more money. Watch for strikes and walkouts in these offshore labor markets. A further downturn in corporate profits will result from consumers buying American made goods; foreign imports from foreign sources and from US corporations operating overseas will become too expensive. The times they are a-changing.
The days of high paying jobs are over. For too long have we piled salary increases and benefit packages on the corporations that we presently hold in such contempt, that outsourcing jobs to cheaper wage environments was a no-brainer. Of course they were going to relocate to countries where labor is cheaper. Wouldn't you? It's easy to lay blame on the most visible targets, the corporation, but it doesn't solve the basic problem: Americans' attitude about work.
We the people have brought the current calamity on ourselves. The five-day work week is bracketed by "Blue Monday" at the front end and "Thank God it's Friday!" on the other. Low paying, menial jobs are anathema; let somebody else do them, and there are people less fortunate than we who are more than glad to fill these positions. At the same time we are bringing foreign professionals, technicians, teachers, and engineers to this country because we can pay them less. A triple whammie: unskilled, semi-skilled, and highly educated workers are out in the street.Adam Smith had it right. Laisses-faire economics still works though the appearances may make it seem otherwise. The overall economy will always tend toward full employment, it just takes longer nowadays. In Smith's day economies were largely agrarian, the labor mostly unskilled. The technology was primitive by present standards, so workers could be easily trained to oil machines, operate looms, and work on farms. The labor force was adaptable and mobile. Without safety nets such as unemployment, welfare, and the like, when a worker making fifty-cents a day was laid off he had to go right out and find another job, willing to take less, say thirty cents a day. No choice in the matter. Those who kept working survived and enjoyed a marked advantage over time; unskilled though they might have been, they had more and a greater variety of experience. This is not to extoll the conditions that prevailed in those days: they were hard times, but in essence the mechanics are the same.
The Age of Technology skewed the process. Whereas in Smith's day labor was unskilled and mobile, today it is highly specialized and immobile. People are educated and trained in such closely defined occupational parameters that if their jobs go away they cannot easily secure employment in other fields where their experience might be close enough that they could be adapted to the new job. But that isn't to say that it never happens. My own experience proves that it can.
Years ago I lived in Upstate New York, an economic disaster area. At one point the unemployment rate peaked at 14%; when a job was advertized three-hundred people showed up to apply. It wasn't fun. A company that manufactured air-driven tools had an opening, and I appled for it with my background in electronics. Not a good fit.The interviewer advised me that they didn't have any jobs in electronincs, to which I replied, "Do you think that's all I know?" He said he realized that I knew a lot more than how electrons surge through conductors, and also knew that I wanted a job and wouldn't be deterred easily. He leafed through his book of job listings and told me he couldn't see me doing any of them."Like what?" I asked."Foundry," he replied and I agreed. No foundry."Well, what CAN you see me doing?" He looked some more and finally said, "Handscrew".That took a little explaining but what he was talking about was operating a turret lathe, something I had never done before."Alright, how long do you think it would take me to learn?" Three weeks was his answer."I'm willing!" I said - and he hired me. And it only took one week for me to get up to speed, and from then on I exceeded my quotas every day. It can happen, just don't fold up at the first negative indicator. If you truly want a job, you can get one;it may not be in the corner office, you might not be making big bucks, but as long as you have an income you can make it.
Got preachy that time;didn't I. But I get so disturbed at the intertia demonstrated by so many people, those who think they can pick and choose jobs. The sucker lists of people who have gotten burned with the work-at-home scams testify to the fact that too many people are stll looking for more mone, less work. In that regard our preoccupation with celebrity exacerbates this condition. But let us not lose sight of the also-rans who strove for star status and fell by the wayside. There's a good chance that the waiter who takes your order in a restaurant is an aspiring actor, writer, singer, or artist. Who wants to be a waiter all his life. That brings up another deleterious aspect of Americans' attitude toward work.
This attitude has sucked for as long as I can remember. Aside from the drudgery so often associated with work and the disdain for menial occupations, there is one more way in which the American labor force has sabotaged the economy. Upon my release from the military I immediately went to work for a defense contractor. We built aircraft on a cost-plus basis: most government contracts, especially in the area of defense were contracts of this kind. In almost everyinstance I can recall the watchword among the rank and file was, "Don't kill the job." Work progressed at an easy, slow pace, preserving the job but running the costs into the stratosphere. The prevailing wisdom behind this idiocy was that once the contract was completed there would be no more work. Now tax payers complain of cost-overruns, but few realize how the practice got started.
The Fin de Siecle period at the close of the nineteenth century lamented the demise of the craftsman, the artisan who created fine wares by hand; a good pair of shoes, a Princess Anne chair, a Sterling Silver tea service, and a panoplea of other consumer goods. The Industrial Revolution was seen as the rapacious doomsday machine bearing down on European society, threatening to crush mankind under its wheels and relegating man to the status of slaves, ever tending the noisy, smelly, grimy machines that bore on, never tiring, always needing tending.
Mass production killed the love of honest work and the pride of accomplishment that went with it. People chose careers, not, as at one time, for the love of the craft, but because of the money that could be made. Technology froze a once mobile work force into stangant pools of specialization, categories identifying individuals qualified to work in a particular field, but largely shutting them out of any other occupation group.
Labor unions had their part to play in the economic downturn. A principal feature of practically every union contract negotiation has historically been the demand for higher wages. These gradual encroachments, 3% to 5% increases, over time add substatially to a company's costs, and drive prices higher. Of course it is well to raise wages wherever and whenever possible, when the balance sheet shows adequate profits to accommodate such demands, but often these demands have been made in instances where the companies involved were under pressure from market forces, foreign imports, legal actions, and other distadvanteged positions. The cumulative effect of all this was to drive wages in union shops much higher than in othere areas of the economy, and it was these higher paying jobs that were the first to be outsourced.
In conclusion we may safely predict that the domestic economy will experience a resurgence, but at a slower rate and with lower wages. That is not as bad as it sounds because prices will be lower as well: low overhead, lower prices. Small business will predominate in the is renewed economic drive, and the sorporations that have benefited from outsourcing will experience a new set of problems when the presently low paid labor force starts agitating for more money. Watch for strikes and walkouts in these offshore labor markets. A further downturn in corporate profits will result from consumers buying American made goods; foreign imports from foreign sources and from US corporations operating overseas will become too expensive. The times they are a-changing.
Friday, July 4, 2008
The Security Sham
I just recently resigned from a security position at a large convention center. I've been in the security field for five years in various posts, including position at a majot local airport. In this latest position I held the rank of lieutenant, and was charged with directing the actvities of security personnel, guarding this enormous venue and so, you might say, I've seen it from all sides. What I have seen is not good. In fact it stinks!
I left to pursue other business opportunities, so there was no bad feeling on anyone's part; in fact they were sorry I was leaving (and even threw a little going away party), but in looking back it was the right thing to do. No regrets. In fact it serves as a "moment of truth" as, contrary to what my state license represents, I wasn't really doing much security work. Quite honestly, I was "playing the game".Much of the security industry (funny what they call 'industries' nowadays) is not at all what the term implies. Funding is erratic, personnel are poorly trained, and the people running these shows display a wide variance in competence, dedication, and plain ol' common sense. Cronyism and corruption also play a part in many instances. Take this last assigment.
The convention center is a major attraction in this city and one would think that the local government would install security to protect taxpayer funded assets, and to ensure public safety on the premises. But that isn't why they have security; it's because they get a substantial reduction in their insurance if they have something called 'security' guarding the premises. They have, but it is the furthest thing from security imaginable.
The security company the city hired was chosen by a single criterion: it submitted the lowest bid. That's it! Little or no thought was given to the quality of the service this company would provide and, as an employee of the company in certain high-visibility, adminstrative security positions, I was effectively shielded from the down-and-dirty, ground level aspects of the job. The year and a half I spent at the convention center was revealing.
First let us consider the hiring practices of this now-defunct company. If you could find the convention center, had no missing body parts, and could correctly spell your name, you were in! The starting pay wasn't bad, well above minimum wage, but it was a 'blind alley' in that there were no raises. So the combination of hiring off the street and no incentive to excell resulted in a turnover rate of 85%, and we were almost always short handed. The full compliment there is twelve security officers to guard a four acre installation. Many nights there were only five of us, and replacements were slow in coming. This was ot due to an unavailability of appliacnts; when we were short handed the city was still billed for the full crew and the extra money found its way into the account manager's pocket. The payroll was short a lot of the times the result of someone tampering with the time reports; the payroll would be shorted, the agrieved parties would complain, and in time the corrections would be made, but not before the regional manager booked these shortages as 'cost reductions' and collected a bomus. Once the check was cut, then the records were straightened out - and nobody caught on to what was happening.On the city government's part, this gigantic facility was poorly kept up and nobody seemed to care. There were 36 CCTV cameras, of which fourteen actually worked. The displays in the 'nerve' center were poor owing to the 1970's technology that wasn't adequate to the task. The radios were damaged and held together by tape, the NiCad batteries had 'memory' problems that necessitated changing batteries every two hours; an electronic wand and button security control was dropped because the city didn't want to spend the money to download the data from the wands. The golf carts were in a miserable state of disrepair and once, quite recently, I checked the oil on one that I was using and found it to be 2½ quarts low: the thing only holds about three quarts. But equipment failure and poor maintenance are only part of the problem; there is alo the matter of authority.
Private security officers have little or no enforcement powers. Here we are not talking about Blackwater-like goon squads, just common, ordinary, civilian security. Their mission is to 'observe and report', make sure buildings are secured, and bar access to facilities to unauthorized persons. Security officers are no police and do not have anything like the powers granted to law enforcement. For one thing, most security personnel are unarmed, may not use physical force except under very specific conditions, and when confronted by hostile persons they must retreat. A couple of weeks before I left I foiled a felony-in-progress: a woman was being sexually assaulted on the property. When I intervened the perpetrator left the premises quickly; as he was off the property I was unable to apprehend, the police had to be called, and by the time they showed up (twenty minutes) the woman had already been taken by ambulance to the hospital. One of my officers watched from a distance and we both furnished consistent descriptions of the perpetrator, who was by this time long gone. Armed security officers have it even worse.
To qualify as an armed guard or officer requires classroom instruction and range time amounting to three days, in some instances an entire week. If the security company pays for it, you're fine, if not be preared to pay between $800 - $1,000 to complete the cycle. This includes all the gear; weapon, gun belt, safety holster, handcuffs, et al. The weapon itself counts for at least half the cost; and what do you get for all that?
You get to wear the weapon. Actually getting to shoot it can be a very dicey matter.
In fact, armed officers are in greater danger than their unarmed colleagues. It's all about the rules governing the use of a weapon by security personnel. They are very stringent: you practically have to wait to be shot before you can act. And it's great if you have witnesses who can testify that your life was in danger when you fired. Police can use deadly force; you can't. There has to be a clear and present, mortal danger to you or to another person before you can use your weapon; even then you can count on being arrested, booked, and relieved of duty until an investigation clears you. This is without pay in most instances. You are guilty until proven innocent.
As to the perils an armed security officer faces, these are very real. If you have a suspect covered and he reaches for his wallet, a cop can shoot if he feels that the party is going for a weapon; you can't. Make a mistake like that and you'll face manslaughter charges at least - the cop won't. Then there is the clear and present danger of confronting an armed perpetrator, say in a robbery. He wants to get away with his crime and won't abide any threat to his success. You. Unless you see him first and act quickly, you could end up dead. An unarmed security officer poses no threat to the perpetrator. He too may get shot but his chances of survival are much better than yours.
It's a dangerous game.
And it's played for the most part by amateurs. Private companies fund security staffs and appoint directors by the eenie-meenie-miney-moe method, a pet employee gets the job - or more often than not someone just gets stuck with it. That's when the fun starts. I have personally checked out an installation that was supposedly secured by a top company. I walked up to a keypad door, pulled on the handle - and it opened!
Nobody had noticed that the lock mechanism had hung up and the tongue wasn't seating in the receptacle on the jamb - and this was at an airport! This same venue had emergency exits from each classroom; they looked secure but when I pushed on them with some force - they flew open! Another door, this one in a kitchen had paper stuffed into the jamb plate to prevent the door from locking; the caterers wanted to keep from having to use a key each time they entered the building to prepare lunch for the staff and trainees. When I found this breech it was evening, well past lunch time, and the place was deserted. But that was nothing compared to the "bomb" a group of us were charged to find.
This was at another site, a nationally known insurance company. They played the security game" to the hilt, holding meetings every so-often to discuss strategies that were seldom implimnted and didn't work very well when they were. At one of these meetings, on a bright sunny morning in June, the director of security told us that she had secreted a 'bomb' somewhere in or around the building: we were to find it, all thrity-two of us. I knew we wouldn't succeed. There was one vital piece of equipment that no none had, and with which we would have found the 'bomb' in a matter of minutes: a flashlight.
Yes, a flashlight! It was a bright and sunny morning and folks don't usually need a flashlight on a glorious spring day. But when you're poking around bushes that surround the building on three sides, the sunlight causes deep shadows to form in the inner reaches of the bush - you can't see a thing! But a flashlight can easily penetrate the gloom, highlighting irregular shapes and reflecting light from metallic objects. As it was, thirty-two security officers searching for over an hour couldn't find the "bomb".
Security is not a game for amateurs.
I left to pursue other business opportunities, so there was no bad feeling on anyone's part; in fact they were sorry I was leaving (and even threw a little going away party), but in looking back it was the right thing to do. No regrets. In fact it serves as a "moment of truth" as, contrary to what my state license represents, I wasn't really doing much security work. Quite honestly, I was "playing the game".Much of the security industry (funny what they call 'industries' nowadays) is not at all what the term implies. Funding is erratic, personnel are poorly trained, and the people running these shows display a wide variance in competence, dedication, and plain ol' common sense. Cronyism and corruption also play a part in many instances. Take this last assigment.
The convention center is a major attraction in this city and one would think that the local government would install security to protect taxpayer funded assets, and to ensure public safety on the premises. But that isn't why they have security; it's because they get a substantial reduction in their insurance if they have something called 'security' guarding the premises. They have, but it is the furthest thing from security imaginable.
The security company the city hired was chosen by a single criterion: it submitted the lowest bid. That's it! Little or no thought was given to the quality of the service this company would provide and, as an employee of the company in certain high-visibility, adminstrative security positions, I was effectively shielded from the down-and-dirty, ground level aspects of the job. The year and a half I spent at the convention center was revealing.
First let us consider the hiring practices of this now-defunct company. If you could find the convention center, had no missing body parts, and could correctly spell your name, you were in! The starting pay wasn't bad, well above minimum wage, but it was a 'blind alley' in that there were no raises. So the combination of hiring off the street and no incentive to excell resulted in a turnover rate of 85%, and we were almost always short handed. The full compliment there is twelve security officers to guard a four acre installation. Many nights there were only five of us, and replacements were slow in coming. This was ot due to an unavailability of appliacnts; when we were short handed the city was still billed for the full crew and the extra money found its way into the account manager's pocket. The payroll was short a lot of the times the result of someone tampering with the time reports; the payroll would be shorted, the agrieved parties would complain, and in time the corrections would be made, but not before the regional manager booked these shortages as 'cost reductions' and collected a bomus. Once the check was cut, then the records were straightened out - and nobody caught on to what was happening.On the city government's part, this gigantic facility was poorly kept up and nobody seemed to care. There were 36 CCTV cameras, of which fourteen actually worked. The displays in the 'nerve' center were poor owing to the 1970's technology that wasn't adequate to the task. The radios were damaged and held together by tape, the NiCad batteries had 'memory' problems that necessitated changing batteries every two hours; an electronic wand and button security control was dropped because the city didn't want to spend the money to download the data from the wands. The golf carts were in a miserable state of disrepair and once, quite recently, I checked the oil on one that I was using and found it to be 2½ quarts low: the thing only holds about three quarts. But equipment failure and poor maintenance are only part of the problem; there is alo the matter of authority.
Private security officers have little or no enforcement powers. Here we are not talking about Blackwater-like goon squads, just common, ordinary, civilian security. Their mission is to 'observe and report', make sure buildings are secured, and bar access to facilities to unauthorized persons. Security officers are no police and do not have anything like the powers granted to law enforcement. For one thing, most security personnel are unarmed, may not use physical force except under very specific conditions, and when confronted by hostile persons they must retreat. A couple of weeks before I left I foiled a felony-in-progress: a woman was being sexually assaulted on the property. When I intervened the perpetrator left the premises quickly; as he was off the property I was unable to apprehend, the police had to be called, and by the time they showed up (twenty minutes) the woman had already been taken by ambulance to the hospital. One of my officers watched from a distance and we both furnished consistent descriptions of the perpetrator, who was by this time long gone. Armed security officers have it even worse.
To qualify as an armed guard or officer requires classroom instruction and range time amounting to three days, in some instances an entire week. If the security company pays for it, you're fine, if not be preared to pay between $800 - $1,000 to complete the cycle. This includes all the gear; weapon, gun belt, safety holster, handcuffs, et al. The weapon itself counts for at least half the cost; and what do you get for all that?
You get to wear the weapon. Actually getting to shoot it can be a very dicey matter.
In fact, armed officers are in greater danger than their unarmed colleagues. It's all about the rules governing the use of a weapon by security personnel. They are very stringent: you practically have to wait to be shot before you can act. And it's great if you have witnesses who can testify that your life was in danger when you fired. Police can use deadly force; you can't. There has to be a clear and present, mortal danger to you or to another person before you can use your weapon; even then you can count on being arrested, booked, and relieved of duty until an investigation clears you. This is without pay in most instances. You are guilty until proven innocent.
As to the perils an armed security officer faces, these are very real. If you have a suspect covered and he reaches for his wallet, a cop can shoot if he feels that the party is going for a weapon; you can't. Make a mistake like that and you'll face manslaughter charges at least - the cop won't. Then there is the clear and present danger of confronting an armed perpetrator, say in a robbery. He wants to get away with his crime and won't abide any threat to his success. You. Unless you see him first and act quickly, you could end up dead. An unarmed security officer poses no threat to the perpetrator. He too may get shot but his chances of survival are much better than yours.
It's a dangerous game.
And it's played for the most part by amateurs. Private companies fund security staffs and appoint directors by the eenie-meenie-miney-moe method, a pet employee gets the job - or more often than not someone just gets stuck with it. That's when the fun starts. I have personally checked out an installation that was supposedly secured by a top company. I walked up to a keypad door, pulled on the handle - and it opened!
Nobody had noticed that the lock mechanism had hung up and the tongue wasn't seating in the receptacle on the jamb - and this was at an airport! This same venue had emergency exits from each classroom; they looked secure but when I pushed on them with some force - they flew open! Another door, this one in a kitchen had paper stuffed into the jamb plate to prevent the door from locking; the caterers wanted to keep from having to use a key each time they entered the building to prepare lunch for the staff and trainees. When I found this breech it was evening, well past lunch time, and the place was deserted. But that was nothing compared to the "bomb" a group of us were charged to find.
This was at another site, a nationally known insurance company. They played the security game" to the hilt, holding meetings every so-often to discuss strategies that were seldom implimnted and didn't work very well when they were. At one of these meetings, on a bright sunny morning in June, the director of security told us that she had secreted a 'bomb' somewhere in or around the building: we were to find it, all thrity-two of us. I knew we wouldn't succeed. There was one vital piece of equipment that no none had, and with which we would have found the 'bomb' in a matter of minutes: a flashlight.
Yes, a flashlight! It was a bright and sunny morning and folks don't usually need a flashlight on a glorious spring day. But when you're poking around bushes that surround the building on three sides, the sunlight causes deep shadows to form in the inner reaches of the bush - you can't see a thing! But a flashlight can easily penetrate the gloom, highlighting irregular shapes and reflecting light from metallic objects. As it was, thirty-two security officers searching for over an hour couldn't find the "bomb".
Security is not a game for amateurs.
Friday, June 27, 2008
The World Tomorrow
This is my first posting in over a month. I've been busy, but I have been watching developments over thepast few weeks, especially with the elections and the Congress, both of which are enough to make a person puke. Longtime visitors to my website know that mine was one of the voices raised on the Internet, speaking out against Bush and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Myself, Jason Raimond, Michael Rivero, Noam Chomsky, and several others were warning against military action in the wake of 9/11.But the Congress of the United States ( and Israel ) laid down, rolled over, and played dead, allowing Bush and his Neocon supporters to go ahead with the wars. Now we are seeing the correctness of our evaluation, not only of the military situation, but of George W. Bush himself; a thief and a liar, a mass murderer, a war criminal, a traitor, terrorist, and a coward. We were right, but this is one area where being right is an unenviable distinction. We are losing the two wars badly, the economy is in a shambles, the dollar is losing value, and now the Crackpot in Chief is very likely to attack Iran before he leaves office. It would be insane, but that's what Bush is: a ne'er do well, dry drunk, lout bearing a strong resemblance to the Roman emperor Caligula; he spoke with God too, until he came to beieve that he was God. The Praetorian Guard skewered him one morning on the way back from the Coliseum where the good emperor sat watching men and women kill each other in that era's verion of "bread and circuses."
And I'm betting that I am right in my further analysis, also on the website at the time, that we'll win back our nation from the greedy, vile, and corrupt individuals who hijacked it in 2000 and again in 2004. But it won't be Barak Obama who brings this happy conclusion about; he is one of the corporate-controlled media's hand picked candidates. Look at the short shrift they gave Ron Paul, a true statesman and patriot. Ron who? Oh, no: they don't want anyone in their who will threaten their Fascist hold on America - but they are fools, and will lose in the end.Why? Heard of the Campaign for Liberty? It's out there; I'm a member, as well as of Break the Matrix, a new online news source that will specialize it telling the truth.Join us in our continuing and growing effort to make government responsible to the people of the United States, and to stop supporting the Nazi-like terror that Israel commits against the Palestinians ( whose land they stole with our help. We are going to pursue our campaign like a pack of wolves, calling attention to those elected officials who are serving special interests, and themselves, and getting them out of office and in jail, if that's what their activities call for. The people are waking up; they are sick of war, a ruined economy, crumbling infrastructure, low wage jobs, high unemployment, and fiat money. And that's not all. The IVAW ( Iraq Veterans Against the War ) are growing stronre and more vocal, and they are being joined by active duty soldiers who are also sick of the death abnd destruction they've seen and in some cases directly participated in; and they are spirtually disturbed, many suffereing PTSD. The army is helpless to bring any stability to Iraq; the longer we remain the worse it gets. The truth is out now: it was about oil, nothing else - and now the major oil companies are ready to sign contracts that will give them control of Iraq's enormous reserves. And all the while, our young people in the military suffer repeated deplyments ( in some cases six ), " stop loss " retentions; AWOLs are at an all-time high, soldiers are refusing to follow orders of their cowardly commanders, and suicide rates among them are also at an all-time.It's time for a change - and we're going to make it. We warned you about Bush and you didn't listen. Now we're wanring you about Obama ( and Hillary ): pay attention this time.John McCain? He is a certifiable nut case. Just watch his videos on YouTube. A vote for McCain is a vote for war without end. A vote for Obama id a vote for tyranny without end. He recently said " America needs the Clintons "; yeah, like New Orleans need another Katrina.Here are your instructions.* Join the Campaign for Liberty.* Stop watching the propaganda mills: FOX, CNN, and MSNBC, and get your news from WHATREALLYHAPPENED.com, the Huffington Post, the Rense blog, and others.* Pay attention to what's going on.* Call and email your congressperson; let him/her know you're watching and demand that they start serving the people, not the special, moneyed interests, follow the US Constitution, get rid of the Federal Reserve, and end these stupid, wasteful wars, or we'll remove them from office."We the People" includes you too, dummy!
And I'm betting that I am right in my further analysis, also on the website at the time, that we'll win back our nation from the greedy, vile, and corrupt individuals who hijacked it in 2000 and again in 2004. But it won't be Barak Obama who brings this happy conclusion about; he is one of the corporate-controlled media's hand picked candidates. Look at the short shrift they gave Ron Paul, a true statesman and patriot. Ron who? Oh, no: they don't want anyone in their who will threaten their Fascist hold on America - but they are fools, and will lose in the end.Why? Heard of the Campaign for Liberty? It's out there; I'm a member, as well as of Break the Matrix, a new online news source that will specialize it telling the truth.Join us in our continuing and growing effort to make government responsible to the people of the United States, and to stop supporting the Nazi-like terror that Israel commits against the Palestinians ( whose land they stole with our help. We are going to pursue our campaign like a pack of wolves, calling attention to those elected officials who are serving special interests, and themselves, and getting them out of office and in jail, if that's what their activities call for. The people are waking up; they are sick of war, a ruined economy, crumbling infrastructure, low wage jobs, high unemployment, and fiat money. And that's not all. The IVAW ( Iraq Veterans Against the War ) are growing stronre and more vocal, and they are being joined by active duty soldiers who are also sick of the death abnd destruction they've seen and in some cases directly participated in; and they are spirtually disturbed, many suffereing PTSD. The army is helpless to bring any stability to Iraq; the longer we remain the worse it gets. The truth is out now: it was about oil, nothing else - and now the major oil companies are ready to sign contracts that will give them control of Iraq's enormous reserves. And all the while, our young people in the military suffer repeated deplyments ( in some cases six ), " stop loss " retentions; AWOLs are at an all-time high, soldiers are refusing to follow orders of their cowardly commanders, and suicide rates among them are also at an all-time.It's time for a change - and we're going to make it. We warned you about Bush and you didn't listen. Now we're wanring you about Obama ( and Hillary ): pay attention this time.John McCain? He is a certifiable nut case. Just watch his videos on YouTube. A vote for McCain is a vote for war without end. A vote for Obama id a vote for tyranny without end. He recently said " America needs the Clintons "; yeah, like New Orleans need another Katrina.Here are your instructions.* Join the Campaign for Liberty.* Stop watching the propaganda mills: FOX, CNN, and MSNBC, and get your news from WHATREALLYHAPPENED.com, the Huffington Post, the Rense blog, and others.* Pay attention to what's going on.* Call and email your congressperson; let him/her know you're watching and demand that they start serving the people, not the special, moneyed interests, follow the US Constitution, get rid of the Federal Reserve, and end these stupid, wasteful wars, or we'll remove them from office."We the People" includes you too, dummy!
Monday, May 26, 2008
Ron Paul Wins Republican Nomination!
This is an imagiinary headline. Most folks would just blow it off and say, It can't happen! Oh, yes it can, and I believe it probably will. Why? Because Dr. Paul can win and bery likely willif he becomes the Republican Party candidate. He has overwhelming support among the people across this war-weary land, and his position on the issues accurately reflects the will of the people. He knows he can win, the people know he can win - and so do the people on the Republican National Committee.
It's a no brainer.
Speasking of No-Brainers John McCain seems to be the leading candidate of the GOP but he is such a nut job that his position on the war in Iraq is sure to lead to his ignominious defeat if he is the Republicans' choice. I believe he won't be. There is an old saying: When you have both dfeet in your mouth you haven't a leg to stand on; McCain's got both feet so deep in his throat that he is practically kissing his own ass (a major shift, since McCain is notorious for kissing anyone's ass who can further his ambitions, or get him out of a jam a la Keating). No, John's star is fading fast and it's all part of the plan. In fact I believe that McCain is being encouraged to appear to be another Bush. Whitechapel had one Jack-the-Ripper, they aren't in the mood for another one. Oh, the plan? Actually it's a game plan; first the game, then the plan. The game is a variation of Good Cop, Bad Cop. The Bad Cop side is that the GOP seems to be backing McCain and that is scaring a lot of people, and pissing many more off. But for the time-being McCain's the man.
Then he says something stupid, something so obnoxious that the Republicans will have no choice but to dump him. Then in a showy change of heart the RNC will come out strongly behind RON PAUL! Hey, he's been there all the time, and thos media rock heads have been trying to shove Obama (JFK with a shoeshine box), Hillary Clinton, and our pal John down our throats. Why those dirty so-and-sos! Well, we're going to make things right! Get out and vote for Ron Paul, the people's choice. And the nation will celebrate the complete change that has come over the Republicans; now we can honor the Constitution, eliminate the Federal Reserve, end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bring the troops home. All the troops! Yippee! Why the people will be so happy they's probably vote straight Republican tickets right across the board. And that's exactly what the RNC wants! Who says (besides me, that is)?
Sen Tsui.
The legendary ancient Chinese military genius who wrote the Art of War told us how to capture Nanking. It's one of his strategies, the "plan" part of this discourse. What he said was: to capture Nanking, attack Shanghai! In other words, convince the enemy you are after one objective, when all the while it is quite another goal your strategy is aimed at. In the present context it works like this: Make everybody think you're after the White House - and win control of the Congress! Hey, put Ron Paul on the ticket and who wouldn't vote Republican? The Democrats have only a finger hold on the Legislature - a couple of key wins could give it right back to the GOP; then we'd have it made; right? After all, Republican president and a Republican Congress? What a combination!
Not so fast.
Suppose that Republican Congress is hostile to the president of its own controlling party. They vote to extend the war, Dr. Paul vetoes it, they override the veto, and we have the same situation as before only with the shoe in the other foot.
In the end, they will lose.
It's a no brainer.
Speasking of No-Brainers John McCain seems to be the leading candidate of the GOP but he is such a nut job that his position on the war in Iraq is sure to lead to his ignominious defeat if he is the Republicans' choice. I believe he won't be. There is an old saying: When you have both dfeet in your mouth you haven't a leg to stand on; McCain's got both feet so deep in his throat that he is practically kissing his own ass (a major shift, since McCain is notorious for kissing anyone's ass who can further his ambitions, or get him out of a jam a la Keating). No, John's star is fading fast and it's all part of the plan. In fact I believe that McCain is being encouraged to appear to be another Bush. Whitechapel had one Jack-the-Ripper, they aren't in the mood for another one. Oh, the plan? Actually it's a game plan; first the game, then the plan. The game is a variation of Good Cop, Bad Cop. The Bad Cop side is that the GOP seems to be backing McCain and that is scaring a lot of people, and pissing many more off. But for the time-being McCain's the man.
Then he says something stupid, something so obnoxious that the Republicans will have no choice but to dump him. Then in a showy change of heart the RNC will come out strongly behind RON PAUL! Hey, he's been there all the time, and thos media rock heads have been trying to shove Obama (JFK with a shoeshine box), Hillary Clinton, and our pal John down our throats. Why those dirty so-and-sos! Well, we're going to make things right! Get out and vote for Ron Paul, the people's choice. And the nation will celebrate the complete change that has come over the Republicans; now we can honor the Constitution, eliminate the Federal Reserve, end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, bring the troops home. All the troops! Yippee! Why the people will be so happy they's probably vote straight Republican tickets right across the board. And that's exactly what the RNC wants! Who says (besides me, that is)?
Sen Tsui.
The legendary ancient Chinese military genius who wrote the Art of War told us how to capture Nanking. It's one of his strategies, the "plan" part of this discourse. What he said was: to capture Nanking, attack Shanghai! In other words, convince the enemy you are after one objective, when all the while it is quite another goal your strategy is aimed at. In the present context it works like this: Make everybody think you're after the White House - and win control of the Congress! Hey, put Ron Paul on the ticket and who wouldn't vote Republican? The Democrats have only a finger hold on the Legislature - a couple of key wins could give it right back to the GOP; then we'd have it made; right? After all, Republican president and a Republican Congress? What a combination!
Not so fast.
Suppose that Republican Congress is hostile to the president of its own controlling party. They vote to extend the war, Dr. Paul vetoes it, they override the veto, and we have the same situation as before only with the shoe in the other foot.
In the end, they will lose.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
What the...?
I buy Reader's Digest almost every month. Some of the stories are inspiring tales of heroism, others exposés of fraud, theft, and corruption; there are entertaining features like Word Power, Laughter, and the puzzles. Do I sound like a fan?
I'm not. For me it's a matter of taking the fleas with the dog. Sometimes there are more fleas, it seems, than dog. I believe that the regular feature Humor in Uniform is a example of apalling bad taste, considering the present losing wars our military is embroiled in in Afghanistan and Iraq. Over four-thousand (that's the official count, the truth is far worse) young men and women have lost their lives in these wars based on lies. Many more have lost body parts and have suffered mental and emotional trauma. Desertions and suicides are up and there are Anti-War actvist groups made up of veterans of these wars. One candidate wants to bring the troops home - now! And over 80% of the American people want the same, so it was with particular revulsion that I noted an aticle in the current issue: the Facebook Election.
Reader's Digest conducted a poll among the current generation of under-thirties. What I found particularly telling was in the part of the article under the caption, Who Do You Love? Ron Paul wasn't on the list; George Bush was, and got 27 favorable opionions and 67 unfavorable. Fine, but what's with those 27? Have they been living in a cave for the last eight years? There is a definite disconnect here somewhere as noted under the section called In Their Own Words.
* Twenty respondents - a lot for an open-ended question - registered their opposition to the war in Iraq, the majority condemning the armed conflict itself, as summed up in the one succinct answer: "We hate war." OK, so where was Ron Paul in the Who Do You Love? segment? Dr. Paul is the only candidate on either side whao has consistently expressed his intention to end the war and bring the troops home. The rest of the field, the usual suspects; two Clintons, Obama, Gore, and McCain, either have taken no like stance on the war but, as with McCain, seem intent on continuing Bush's disastrous policies for ten or a hundred years more! McCain doesn't hate war.
Another twenty of those questioned expressed the fear that Social Security won't be there when they're ready to retire. Can it be that the billions of dollars that we are wasting on a war based on lies might have something to do with that? Lyndon Baines Johnson tried the "guns and butter" thing back in the Sixties - and we got more guns and less butter. There were other concerns aired; Global Warming ("It's real!" despite the fact that dozens of top scientists have identified solar activity as the true cause. Shall we have apresident who can control the sun?); jobs being sent overseas, the ease with which people can get into debt, and four participants felt that the government had become "too secular." Governments are secular: we have presidents and congresspersons, not popes and bishops - it has something to do with the First Amendment. And then there were the four.
Four persons interviewed stressed the importance of personal integrity. "We need someone with good morals and an open mind to run this country and inspire us," said one respondent. Another longed for a President "with a soul" and who is more than "just a politician." Only four young people? Let's reiterate the question; where is Ron Paul mentioned in this piece?"
Ron Paul has consistently voted against the war in Iraq from the first, has voted against funding this disaster, hase never voted a raise for himself, has never accepted a PAC money, stands for the Constitution and the personal liberties that are protected by that august document. If that doesn't reflect soul, if that isn't statesmanship, then what is? What soul is there in torture, renditions, stonewalling, lying to the people, serving the special corporate interests that are destroying this nation?
The only expalanation I can come up with is that the people questioned may be readers of this spectacularly successful monthly publication. Reader's Digest has been a leader in one respect; while people have expressed concern that Big Pharma is marketing directly to the public. RD has been doing that for many years.
Have these kids been taking those drugs?
Follow the money.
I'm not. For me it's a matter of taking the fleas with the dog. Sometimes there are more fleas, it seems, than dog. I believe that the regular feature Humor in Uniform is a example of apalling bad taste, considering the present losing wars our military is embroiled in in Afghanistan and Iraq. Over four-thousand (that's the official count, the truth is far worse) young men and women have lost their lives in these wars based on lies. Many more have lost body parts and have suffered mental and emotional trauma. Desertions and suicides are up and there are Anti-War actvist groups made up of veterans of these wars. One candidate wants to bring the troops home - now! And over 80% of the American people want the same, so it was with particular revulsion that I noted an aticle in the current issue: the Facebook Election.
Reader's Digest conducted a poll among the current generation of under-thirties. What I found particularly telling was in the part of the article under the caption, Who Do You Love? Ron Paul wasn't on the list; George Bush was, and got 27 favorable opionions and 67 unfavorable. Fine, but what's with those 27? Have they been living in a cave for the last eight years? There is a definite disconnect here somewhere as noted under the section called In Their Own Words.
* Twenty respondents - a lot for an open-ended question - registered their opposition to the war in Iraq, the majority condemning the armed conflict itself, as summed up in the one succinct answer: "We hate war." OK, so where was Ron Paul in the Who Do You Love? segment? Dr. Paul is the only candidate on either side whao has consistently expressed his intention to end the war and bring the troops home. The rest of the field, the usual suspects; two Clintons, Obama, Gore, and McCain, either have taken no like stance on the war but, as with McCain, seem intent on continuing Bush's disastrous policies for ten or a hundred years more! McCain doesn't hate war.
Another twenty of those questioned expressed the fear that Social Security won't be there when they're ready to retire. Can it be that the billions of dollars that we are wasting on a war based on lies might have something to do with that? Lyndon Baines Johnson tried the "guns and butter" thing back in the Sixties - and we got more guns and less butter. There were other concerns aired; Global Warming ("It's real!" despite the fact that dozens of top scientists have identified solar activity as the true cause. Shall we have apresident who can control the sun?); jobs being sent overseas, the ease with which people can get into debt, and four participants felt that the government had become "too secular." Governments are secular: we have presidents and congresspersons, not popes and bishops - it has something to do with the First Amendment. And then there were the four.
Four persons interviewed stressed the importance of personal integrity. "We need someone with good morals and an open mind to run this country and inspire us," said one respondent. Another longed for a President "with a soul" and who is more than "just a politician." Only four young people? Let's reiterate the question; where is Ron Paul mentioned in this piece?"
Ron Paul has consistently voted against the war in Iraq from the first, has voted against funding this disaster, hase never voted a raise for himself, has never accepted a PAC money, stands for the Constitution and the personal liberties that are protected by that august document. If that doesn't reflect soul, if that isn't statesmanship, then what is? What soul is there in torture, renditions, stonewalling, lying to the people, serving the special corporate interests that are destroying this nation?
The only expalanation I can come up with is that the people questioned may be readers of this spectacularly successful monthly publication. Reader's Digest has been a leader in one respect; while people have expressed concern that Big Pharma is marketing directly to the public. RD has been doing that for many years.
Have these kids been taking those drugs?
Follow the money.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Unscrambling the Egg
I've been viewing everything I could find on YouTube concerning 9/11. It's a mixed bag to say the least. The evidence I've seen convinces me that it was definitely not consistent with the official inquiry's conclusions on the matter. It was a conspiracy. The question that remains is; why all the confusion? Why is this tragic incident continually pored over by experts, eyewitnesses, and interested parties? The answer is, I believe, DENIAL.For many years we have lived in a bubble of comfort and relative safety. Our intel services, our military, our government, all seemed to support the prideful mantras: It can't happen here! and They wouldn't dare!It did, they did. But who are "they"?
OUR OWN GOVERNMENT? Was 9/11 a Reichstag fire?
It was. There is no doubt. The evidence linking the present regime to this disaster is overwhelming - if you care to look at it. Not only that, but more information has come to light linking Prescott Bush, Dubya's grandfather, to Hitler and the Nazis in the 1920's and '30's. The same influences that brought Hitler to power are still active and have virtually taken over this country: the Militray-Industrial complex.The same war-profiteers who brought Hitler to power brought Bush to the White House and the Neo-cons into positions of power. If you care to research the matter you will see that Hitler, the seventh member of the fledgling Nazi party in 1923 became chacellor of Germany only a decade later. This too a lot of money; where did it come from? Well, if we follow the money, look where it all went.
Corporations. Then it was Krupp, I.G. Farben, Seimens, Boeing, Curtis, Kaiser; now it's Halliburton, Kellog Root Brand, Bechtel, and others. What's the difference? We are now embroiled in two losing wars; who's making the money? While our own veterans are being deprived of care, many living on the streets; while out infrastructure is crumbling, our education system a shambles, health care in the hands of Big Pharma, we carry on these senseless, purposeless wars that waste lives and treasure on both sides; and who wins?
It's time to stop the insanity and there is one man who stands for the people of this country: Ron Paul. There are still people who ask; Ron who? But these numbers are dwindling quickly. The fact is however, that the same corporate powers that saw to it that the criminal-idiot Bush became president, are now trying to promote a new field of poseurs to succeed him. The corporate controlled media grind out piece after piece about Obama, Clinton, and McCain; but who do the people want?
Ron Paul. But please, please, don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.There is a feature on Google called Trends. Just type that word into the browser and you'll be taken there. In the new browser type the names of any "mainstream" candidtae and Ron Paul. Separate the two with a comma and hit "search". What you will see is the number of visits the websites of the respective candidates received.Ron Paul swamps every one of them. See for yourself. Then look at the graph running aong the bottom of the display. This is the measure of mass media exposure given the candidates, and it shows that all the other candidates on both sides received much more coverage than Dr. Paul.
The message is clear. While Gallup and AP poles sample a few thousand, the Internet seves millions, and of those millions the vast majority support Ron Paul. And I do too. The revolution has begun, and we will win!
OUR OWN GOVERNMENT? Was 9/11 a Reichstag fire?
It was. There is no doubt. The evidence linking the present regime to this disaster is overwhelming - if you care to look at it. Not only that, but more information has come to light linking Prescott Bush, Dubya's grandfather, to Hitler and the Nazis in the 1920's and '30's. The same influences that brought Hitler to power are still active and have virtually taken over this country: the Militray-Industrial complex.The same war-profiteers who brought Hitler to power brought Bush to the White House and the Neo-cons into positions of power. If you care to research the matter you will see that Hitler, the seventh member of the fledgling Nazi party in 1923 became chacellor of Germany only a decade later. This too a lot of money; where did it come from? Well, if we follow the money, look where it all went.
Corporations. Then it was Krupp, I.G. Farben, Seimens, Boeing, Curtis, Kaiser; now it's Halliburton, Kellog Root Brand, Bechtel, and others. What's the difference? We are now embroiled in two losing wars; who's making the money? While our own veterans are being deprived of care, many living on the streets; while out infrastructure is crumbling, our education system a shambles, health care in the hands of Big Pharma, we carry on these senseless, purposeless wars that waste lives and treasure on both sides; and who wins?
It's time to stop the insanity and there is one man who stands for the people of this country: Ron Paul. There are still people who ask; Ron who? But these numbers are dwindling quickly. The fact is however, that the same corporate powers that saw to it that the criminal-idiot Bush became president, are now trying to promote a new field of poseurs to succeed him. The corporate controlled media grind out piece after piece about Obama, Clinton, and McCain; but who do the people want?
Ron Paul. But please, please, don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.There is a feature on Google called Trends. Just type that word into the browser and you'll be taken there. In the new browser type the names of any "mainstream" candidtae and Ron Paul. Separate the two with a comma and hit "search". What you will see is the number of visits the websites of the respective candidates received.Ron Paul swamps every one of them. See for yourself. Then look at the graph running aong the bottom of the display. This is the measure of mass media exposure given the candidates, and it shows that all the other candidates on both sides received much more coverage than Dr. Paul.
The message is clear. While Gallup and AP poles sample a few thousand, the Internet seves millions, and of those millions the vast majority support Ron Paul. And I do too. The revolution has begun, and we will win!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
