Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the ‘pathetic’ American media
It doesn’t take much to fire up Hersh, the investigative journalist who has been the nemesis of US presidents since the 1960s and who was once described by the Republican party as “the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist”.
He is angry about the timidity of journalists in America, their failure to challenge the White House and be an unpopular messenger of truth.
————
On Snowden: “Editors love documents. Chicken-shit editors who wouldn’t touch stories like that, they love documents, so he changed the whole ball game,” he adds, before qualifying his remarks.“But I don’t know if it’s going to mean anything in the long [run] because the polls I see in America – the president can still say to voters ‘al-Qaida, al-Qaida’ and the public will vote two to one for this kind of surveillance, which is so idiotic,” he says.
————Don’t even get him started on the New York Times which, he says, spends “so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would” – or the death of Osama bin Laden. “Nothing’s been done about that story, it’s one big lie, not one word of it is true,” he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011. Hersh is writing a book about national security and has devoted a chapter to the bin Laden killing. He says a recent report put out by an “independent” Pakistani commission about life in the Abottabad compound in which Bin Laden was holed up would not stand up to scrutiny. “The Pakistanis put out a report, don’t get me going on it. Let’s put it this way, it was done with considerable American input. It’s a bullshit report,” he says hinting of revelations to come in his book.
The Obama administration lies systematically, he claims, yet none of the leviathans of American media, the TV networks or big print titles, challenge him.
“It’s pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama],” he declares in an interview with the Guardian.
His story of how he uncovered the My Lai atrocity is one of old-fashioned shoe-leather journalism and doggedness. Back in 1969, he got a tip about a 26-year-old platoon leader, William Calley, who had been charged by the army with alleged mass murder.
Instead of picking up the phone to a press officer, he got into his car and started looking for him in the army camp of Fort Benning in Georgia, where he heard he had been detained. From door to door he searched the vast compound, sometimes blagging his way, marching up to the reception, slamming his fist on the table and shouting: “Sergeant, I want Calley out now.”
Eventually his efforts paid off with his first story appearing in the St Louis Post-Despatch, which was then syndicated across America and eventually earned him the Pulitzer Prize. “I did five stories. I charged $100 for the first, by the end the [New York] Times were paying $5,000.”
I wonder what this country would be like if we had more like him.
As much as I strongly respect Seymour Hersh work record and no doubt Seymour Hersh has been on point for uncovering many truths a republic/democracy needs to self-govern; however, his latest cranky Bin Laden grumblings sounds more like him trying to sell his book!
It’s too bad he can’t be cloned, America would be better for it.
Maybe it just me, but it does seem America doesn’t make people with the depth of character like Seymour Hersh, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk (born in South Africa), “Burt” Rutan, Dean Kamen, ….
People whose works and thinking display integrity, ingenuity, hard work and a degree of brilliance!
Don’t forget to factor in dumb luck. You might also spend some time thinking about how much of your admiration is simply based on the fact that “they made it”—aka: are rich.
WE DON’T KNOW the internal workings of these people…or anyone else except hints at 3-10 people in our whole lives. Hardly ever even ourselves.
People are mostly blind.
Silly Hoomans.
Ok bobbo, let me reply “somewhat” bobbo style:
“Dumb luck”: who doesn’t have that? Really a silly response, since everyone has some amount of dumb luck in many personal endeavors. In fact Teflon, was a serendipitous discovery as is many things!
“They made it” therefore I know and admire them: This one is really goes into your alley!!
Since for you, if a tree falls in the woods and had no impact on you, it really didn’t fall; particularly if nobody or noname did not perceive it! ….
As with Teflon, I know of its existence because of its impact. And as with anything, I can only know of it by its impact on me. That “knowing” aspect I may agree with you. However; your double entendre or double speak, seems clearly oxymoronic reasoning from you, i.e.; trying to link two contradictory ideas into one, creating a “new idea” with an existence devoid of outside objective reality, excepting your perception of it!
Let me try to explain:
In a recent post (9/25/2013 at 7:41 pm) “I posited the very real possibility certainty of unperceived existence. To which you replied “noname challenges me in a quite provocative way”::
As you stated strongly, emotionally 9/25/2013 at 10:40 pm, and your name calling aside:: “Bobbo can you answer affirmatively; that everything existing, is only that which is objectively perceivable? /// Well—just LOOK. Of what import is that which cannot be perceived? ANSWER===ZERO. Think about it. If something is of zero impact, what impact does it have? Simple really.”
Knowing you, you will likely equivocate on your word use of “impact” & “ZERO” in response to my question regarding “objectively perceivable” and “everything existing”, I continue.
My affirmative answers that everything existing need not be objectively perceivable, I base on very “real & verifiable” evidence from Quantum mechanics, which continues to be very successful, mathematically elegant and deeply explanatory scientific explanation of our truly puzzling world!! QM describes entities that behave like waves when unobserved but like particles when observed!
An example of this key “real & verifiable” descriptions available from QM occurs with unobserved and observed entities in the very famous Double-slit experiment!
That is, I don’t need to observe or perceive something for it to exist!!! Things do exist out of my perception. I find it arrogant and extremely egotistical to think otherwise!!
In short, Unlike you, I do not believe man is the center of the universe!
To “noname” (still a name)
If you and your sweetheart make it to personal, go the full way and take your stupid yippety-yap to email. No one wants to read this stuff.
Adios mofo
Mark
Mark,
So cleaver, you so figured out, “noname” (still a name); be still my heart!
Go ahead and post your email, I will start sending my “sweetheart” romantic ecards to you! X0X0X0X0
You must be so smart because you can’t resist reading every material ever!
>Ok bobbo, let me reply “somewhat” bobbo style:
You’re going to tell people on the internet that your wife is a druggie lodger?
my bad and good catch!
Damn! Maybe I need to start reading Bobbo’s posts. I completely missed that soap opera.
So where’s that imminent war with Iran he predicted, and that this site posted about so many times? How about the upcoming military draft?
Notice he expected the New York Times to carry water for Obama, he was only surprised by how much.
And if not one word of the Bin Laden killing is true, does that mean he is still alive?
No, he was dead before they killed him. That was his understudy who got shot in the eye, ironically enough, by his employer, the CIA.
I’m surprised Seymour hasn’t published the theory that Osama was actually an American agent who gave Bush the villain he needed to go to war. That’s why he was ‘buried at sea.’
No, he was buried at sea because any examination of the body would have proven that he was not who they said he was.
The survey sequent tragic helicopter crash that took out much of SEAL team 6 was meant to prevent leaking or whistleblowing.
I’m not sure how your average SEAL feels about that, I guess they are expected to be too stupid to figure it out. Things will get interesting if that prooves not to be the case.
s/survey//
s/sequent/subsequent/
The ties between most of the media and the WH are clear to see. I don’t even consider them journalist. More like Pravda west.
I’m outraged that journalists don’t report both sides of an argument without the rhetoric.
Is that what journalists do? ‘Report’ on arguments? I’m a tiny tit piqued that they don’t uncover, verify, sort, and communicate *facts* about *events* anymore.
Ohh, that’s right; People who still try and do those things are scofflaws and the new, respected, refined, and defined ‘real journalist’ does a little voice acting for an argument script, after all.
http://infowars.com/feinstein-youre-not-a-real-journalist-unless-you-draw-a-salary/
Isn’t that just what D/R has reduced us to?? All that can be gotten from MSM are talking points to issues someone hands them. They don’t report; They read scripts and have the fake debate and argument to ease the public into some pre-determined mindset and action.
*Breaking* This just in.
“”WhiteHouse officials have confirmed that there has been an ongoing argument at Honest Jon’s Used Cars between the owner and some schmuck who allegedly bought one of the cars. The official, who must remain anonymous because Obama, stated “The guy was a schmuck. What kind of schmuck fucking nutsack walks into a used car place and says ‘Hi. Any chance you guys being nice to me?’ Apparently, the argument stems from contested allegations that ‘the ride be a peice of shit’. Ha. Ha. Ha. Typical. Back to you, Joan…
{comments on this article have been discontinued to protect the good reputation of the unwaivering licensed-to-sell-cars Honest Jon, a piller of the community and chairman of the Ad Council — And out of respect for the shcmuck’s family until they are notified personally.}
Timmy you exactly right!!
What dallas wants is less investigative journalism and more Horse race journalism. The kind that resembles coverage of horse races because of the focus on “competing talking heads augments”, polling data, public perception instead of …objective facts!
Besides objective facts are so dull, and require objective thinking and hard work, because; facts alone don’t directly instruct the user what to believe or who to vote for! Also, reporting from facts oft proffers an objective conclusion. Heaven forbid some news organization proffers a fact based objective conclusion! That wouldn’t be fair and balanced!!
So, according to have dallas, journalism is not to be fact based but “competing talking heads augments” based!
So dallas, the question is, do you vote and act as a citizen from facts or your favorite competing talking head augment!
It’s obvious you have a “fair and balanced” understanding that is not fact based!
I’ll let you answer that to complete your point original premise but the above is poor journalism on your part.
dallas what the question I am answering?
“Do these pumps conflict with my hot-pink fish-net? I don’t want anyone to alert the media, or anything.”
Timmy, gasp and egads, wipe off the gestapo on your chin, add lipstick and put on a nurses uniform; now your trottin!
That ‘trotter’ does not look very green to produce. Perhaps, one may construct the handle from recycled florescent tubes to offset the footprint?
Nah, you don’t have much footprint wearing red pumps!
But if you do make a glowing florescent tube handle, send us the pics of you riding it on a bumpy street wearing pumps!!
Ouch . Someone needs to take some Saturday yoga!
goddammit Dallas, as soon as I get my left ankle out of my asshole I’m going to humm negative chachra waves of such amplitude that I don’t even need to specify ‘in your general direction’
An admirable man for sure.
But why would I need help seeing what is true?
Maybe the low information voter / reader needs his help with what is obvious.
Fully appreciative of Marks histerical insistence on interfering in an honest dialectic without adding anything to it noname returns the Fisking and says:
9/28/2013 at 2:17 pm
Ok bobbo, let me reply “somewhat” bobbo style:
“Dumb luck”: who doesn’t have that? /// Many if not most if not all of the 99.99% who aren’t successful. You post as if you can’t remember what dumb luck even means.
Really a silly response, since everyone has some amount of dumb luck in many personal endeavors. /// Well, then mathematically speaking, why arent there 99% of the business entrepeneurs at the top of their chosen fields? You know–so many Steve Jobs they can’t establish a work force.
In fact Teflon, was a serendipitous discovery as is many things! /// Yes, good example of “observed” dumb luck. Supporting my side of the argument. Lose attention…. again?/still? which would be the better word?
“They made it” therefore I know and admire them: This one is really goes into your alley!!
Since for you, if a tree falls in the woods and had no impact on you, it really didn’t fall; particularly if nobody or noname did not perceive it! …. /// You are babbling. All trees fall at some point whether I see it, hear it, admit it or not. Oh…… I suppose the issue of FIRE might stump me, I’m just hoping you woodn’t bring that up.
As with Teflon, I know of its existence because of its impact. /// Impact? Unusual word choice. I’d think application and use in consumer products mostly frying pans?
And as with anything, I can only know of it by its impact on me. /// Leave how you argue with your wifey out of this.
That “knowing” aspect I may agree with you. However; your double entendre or double speak, /// you use or in the conjuctive sense but the words are near opposites of one another. You so silly.
seems clearly oxymoronic reasoning from you, i.e.; /// misuse of oxymoronic, as I think you sense as you create your own private definition for your usage. That is an excellent foray into legitimate discourse.
trying to link two contradictory ideas into one, creating a “new idea” with an existence devoid of outside objective reality, excepting your perception of it! /// But all we have presented is your own defective attempt at joinder.
Let me try to explain:
In a recent post (9/25/2013 at 7:41 pm) “I posited the very real possibility certainty of unperceived existence. To which you replied “noname challenges me in a quite provocative way”::
As you stated strongly, emotionally 9/25/2013 at 10:40 pm, and your name calling aside:: “Bobbo can you answer affirmatively; that everything existing, is only that which is objectively perceivable? /// Well—just LOOK. Of what import is that which cannot be perceived? ANSWER===ZERO. Think about it. If something is of zero impact, what impact does it have? Simple really.”
Knowing you, you will likely equivocate on your word use of “impact” & “ZERO” in response to my question regarding “objectively perceivable” and “everything existing”, I continue. /// No. I am awe struck at how perceptive I am. I see it had an impact on you as well in a non-Teflon ™ sort of way.
My affirmative answers that everything existing need not be objectively perceivable, I base on very “real & verifiable” evidence from Quantum mechanics, which continues to be very successful, mathematically elegant and deeply explanatory scientific explanation of our truly puzzling world!! /// Ha, ha. You don’t even know what you are babbling about. Quantum Mechanics only has application in the Quantum World–one that we humans can’t even observe without instrumentation. See the word Quantum is even in its name. Talk about your trees falling. Ha, ha.
QM describes entities that behave like waves when unobserved but like particles when observed! /// Oh Jesus and Lord Einstein. How do you establish that quantum scale particles behave like waves if you don’t observe them? And if you want to squirm like Pedro caught in his own devises and argue that observation includes the effects of the prime particle as well, then further define how that does not apply to the observation of the particle characteristic as well.
An example of this key “real & verifiable” descriptions available from QM occurs with unobserved and observed entities in the very famous Double-slit experiment! /// Yes. Now connect those quanta to the success of Steve Jobs. Go>>>>>>>>
That is, I don’t need to observe or perceive something for it to exist!!! /// True, but the point was you won’t know that “it” exists until you do.
Things do exist out of my perception. I find it arrogant and extremely egotistical to think otherwise!! /// Again—that wasn’t the point.
In short, Unlike you, I do not believe man is the center of the universe! /// No one ever said.
……… I don’t think I even need to say it.
poor Bobbo, Every day I am able to alter, manipulate, use, ….. QM states every day, with out instrumentation, ( I don’t need no stinking computer, cell phone or any solid state electronics)!
I guess you never used a computer, cell phone or any solid state electronics which operate by “Quantum Mechanic action!
Bobbo, now I know why your so ignorant, you’re a disembodied lost spirit who can’t think and write with QM states!
SAD!
I am ignorant of what you say which I do assume is the truth. Can you provide some details? I’m wondering how far you have to downstream the action of QM to actually “use” it.
Seriously.
I also might have said “Lord Kelvin” but I think of Einstein as the One among Many.
You lost me at “histerical”.
Actually there are many QM effects that are easily perceivable with the naked eye and necessary for life!
Your eyes can easily perceive the QM wave character of light by interference, diffraction and polarization (think, polarized sun glasses). On the other hand the eyes can easily perceive the QM particle character of light by Photoelectric photon detection. (think being able to see, the human eye is capable of perceiving = 1704 photons /s)
1.) Light is composed of QM particles, photons.
Human eye is capable of perceiving = 1704 photons /s and animals can detect much less!
2.) Color is the wavelength of these photons, W = (h*c)/Energy.
The “h” is Planck’s Constant which is fundamental in all QM.
3.) The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein “for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect”
Well, this only shows my “non-technical” limitations. I “think of” quantum effects more as action at a distance and being at two places at once, while interference issues as more of the dual nature of light which is understood without reference to quantum theory at all. Its quantum theory demonstrated only if you ascribe quantum action to everything which equates its action to a meaningless generality.
No doubt, I’m totally wrong.
Your service in our family-oriented propaganda blitz is mandatory.
{really, we thought about it alot. We are 95% sure this is the correct placement for you.}
They did just come out with a new report. 95% sure now AGW is caused by A’s. Very interesting visuals on how predictive and accurate their models are becoming.
…… but I don’t wanna hijack no thread.
http://corbettreport.com/episode-282-the-ipcc-exposed/
Really?====I mean>>>>>REALLY?!?!!!
From his website: The Corbett Report is an independent, listener-supported alternative news source. It operates on the principle of open source intelligence and provides podcasts, interviews, articles and videos about breaking news and important issues from 9/11 Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother police state, eugenics, geopolitics, the central banking fraud and more.” ////
I prefer the written word to lip smacking.
two minute vent
http://corbettreport.com/global-warming-minute-why-is-the-ipcc-95-certain-that-climate-change-is-manmade/
Thanks for the link. I signed up. Looks like some good stuff there, and 2 minutes is about my speed…. for a video.
I actually thought the 95% was pure BS but the video shows there is more to it. I agree it is only a rough measurement of the scientists rather than the phenomenon. If some new theory comes out and the number starts to drop?
“”I “think of” quantum effects more as action at a distance…
Interesting. For me, that was an esoteric offshoot I first took notice of in 2005 over some extraordinary claims that quantum entanglement of photons could lead to teleportation of more complex systems such as atoms {fill your tire up without a valve-stem, yea!!}.
The ‘nature’ of QM is more in its first name ‘Quanta’ or discreet– That values of energy and momentum only occur and can only change in integral steps. — True, first year students do silly things with it like calculating the wavelenght of macroscopic objects such as bullets and so on, but that is a helpful way to ease one into a world which just can’t be described from our own experiences — You can’t effectively use a metaphore way down there but ludicrous-frequency cats does get one a little closer.
http://quantiki.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Quantum_Theory
Here is a sort of interesting semi crowd-sourced approach to observing and testing the physical relm —
http://wikimechanics.org/premise
Thanks Tim–I also accept your superior knowledge base in things that cannot be observed. ((Sounds sarcastic, not meant to be…but only from the discussion and funny))
The ‘nature’ of QM is more in its first name ‘Quanta’ or discreet–/// Words? Now you are in “my” field–and I must say that such a lead in is like a sunny day to a honey bee. Quite seductive….. oops, that would be cocaine to a hooker. Quanta then may have started on the particle side of the duality of light waiting for the wave form for later experimental reveal?
That values of energy and momentum /// very close to the same thing? or the difference never being important?
only occur and can only change in integral steps /// “integral steps.” What the hey does that mean? Can steps ever not be integral. Meaningful or just a flourish?
integral: necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental.
“games are an integral part of the school’s curriculum”
synonyms: essential, fundamental, basic, intrinsic, inherent, constitutive, innate, structural; More
vital, necessary, requisite
“an integral part of human behavior”
antonyms: peripheral, incidental
included as part of the whole rather than supplied separately.
“the unit comes complete with integral pump and heater”
synonyms: built-in, integrated, incorporated, included More
“the dryer has integral cord storage”
antonyms: peripheral
having or containing all parts that are necessary to be complete.
“the first integral recording of the ten Mahler symphonies”
synonyms: unified, integrated, comprehensive, composite, combined, aggregate; More
complete, whole
“an integral approach to learning”
antonyms: partial, fragmented
2.
Mathematics
of or denoted by an integer.
involving only integers, esp. as coefficients of a function.
noun
Mathematics
noun: integral; plural noun: integrals
1.
a function of which a given function is the derivative, i.e., which yields that function when differentiated, and which may express the area under the curve of a graph of the function.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nope. No doubt my admitted lack of understanding of QM also inhibits my ability to appreciate further explanations of it as well. That will so often happen until some threshold is reached, then hopefully what is only parroted can be understood and integrated into its proper meaning and application.
Lordy, lordy…… knowledge surely is power.
I guess, take it to be the mathematical definition mostly — an integer. an integral stepwise change in some intrinsic value and possibly even space (like pixels on a screen) and time (like the smallest chunk of time that can be registered with a ‘clock’).
And, whole; as in, well, lets word it like this — You can drive across the border with the arousal delivered of 1, 2, or 3 hookers but you’ll never get past customs into this reality with 1 1/2 hookers or 1.067 hookers or even just a box of hooker feet.
corollary: If you drop a hooker off at the checkpoint, then you can’t keep some part of her along for the ride — It’s got to be the whole hooker and delivered to something definate and made of concrete {perhaps a drug-smuggling tunnel?} instead of just floating around on the side of the road.
Sometimes, breaking things down sentence by sentence destroys the gestalt which contains the meaning. In other words, just read the links I sometimes defere to when I can’t explain stuff. *grins*
p.s. In practice, to avoid lots of paperwork and go to the front of the line, you just exchange a couple hookers with the guard for swift passage through.
Excellent technique there Timmy==going from a subject we both assume the other knows something about, ridesharing with dead hookers, to the discrete integration of particles summing up to reality.
I do visit most of your links, and did visit the QM links and was going to comment on how I agreed with the first page of each as they were presented. Too minimal a review to start offering opinions or review.
I have only noticed that the duality of the nature of light seems to always be addressed when QM is being discussed, but what QM has to do with it is never stated. WHAT does QM have to say about the duality of photons that simply saying photons have a dual nature doesn’t explain all on its own?
You know?
Double Slit Experiment: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Thanks Timmy–thats about the best 5 minutes I have spent on Youtube in quite a while. Demonstrates “the issue” better than I have understood it before while still leaving my previous conundrum still wrapped.
But it adds another: “The act of mere observation changes the action of the quantum stream.” ….. Well… yes BECAUSE you aren’t simply observing it as with the screen after the slits, in fact to “observe” you have to capture some of the quantum which interferes with the stream. iow–to observe you have to capture which means to alter. I am analogizing the optical measuring device in the clip like film. The photon hits the chemicals in the film and its energy is absorbed etc.
Maybe if the “observation” (sic) was replaced by a non-interfering technology like a magnectic field that can count but not capture what passes in front of it, the outcome would be totally different with no mystery at all.
I find that with most of physics. The paradoxes in the main are just poorly designed propositions.
…… No doubt…. I have it completely wrong. Just for fun: my own lay person’s view of the basic building block of matter will be that finally matter becomes so discrete that it does not exist at all. My incompetent impression of e=mc2 is that energy IS matter and vice versa with the emPHAsis being on the E.
Quark me in the boson!
A 2 min clip to refine the point above by Michiu Kaku: http://youtube.com/watch?v=lFLR5vNKiSw
All leaving me again with the impression that some physicists may have a handle on what QM is, but I fear they lack the language skills to share this knowledge with the rest of us. When Michiu says the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is based on our inability to know where an electron is or if it is in two places at once I can grok that this is an issue touching upon QM but what does it have to do with any small particle being “discrete?” And I say nothing at all. It as to do with the particle being so small we can’t see it without interfering with it. Different “idea” totally.
….. No doubt, I’m totally wrong.
“”So ‘quantum’ fundamentally means a discontinuity. This word quantum originally just meant the latin ‘quantity’. But, that’s not the way we use it in quantum physics. From the beginning we use the word quantum and quantum physics to signify ‘discreteness’ and now signifiying a quantum leap, a discontinous ‘movement’ …
http://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rdulFAR0-Aw#t=2626
Meh.
http://goodreads.com/book/show/1058798.I_m_Not_Really_Here
And in other news, it appears that Obama is taking the NRA’s advice.
http://foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/28/obama-administration-to-spend-45m-on-cops-in-schools/
It’s a start at least.
“Do school children really think all cops are named ‘Barbrady’? We’ll be right back to argue about it after the break…”
Cops in schools, starting the kiddies off in a police state nursery/daycare.
A couple days ago I ran across this from a comment on DU.
http://c-spanvideo.org/program/Sey
I only watched about half an hour and skipped the intro.
I guess he’s selling a book, besides giving a lecture. Not the most engaging speaker or comprehensible unless you know the era that made Hersh famous. Still interesting.
Yeah, I’m not totally happy with that solution either.
I would much prefer to see the teachers trained and made reserve officers instead — which, interestingly enough, is happening in more places than is reported in the media.
Isn’t a “reserve officer” still “an” officer and a further regimentation into a volks-force of a previously free people?
regardless—still only treating the symptoms of the problems and not going for the cause.
I know you know what I mean. sad you can’t know what you mean.
Ha, ha. Note: when you think shit is ice cream, you get a worsening case of bad breath. Go>>>>>!
Why bother teaching? Just jump to the end of his line of reasoning. Schools should be military training camps.
I agree, some teachers specially tested and trained to carry conceal. In other words a secret teacher concealed armed force. The kiddies are not to know who has the hardware on them to protect said students from a shooter, because you can’t even trust the little angels nowadays.
I can’t believe my own comment but the days are a changing.
Ha! ha. ha… I’m not really a teacher; I’m an agent of the British Dental Association —
http://youtube.com/watch?v=l6tAW7bbnAU
It isn’t so much that I want armed officers patrolling our schools, but I want citizens able to fight back.
As the majority of the population seems against the idea of arming teachers, give them the same training as officers in active shooter scenarios and make them reserve officers.
People don’t have a problem with cops in schools, so this solves two issues at once.
http://randomgrouches.blogspot.com/2013/01/sandy-hook-and-solution-to-problem.html
6 year olds should be in a position to return fire. Just sayin’.
I recommend the kneeling position at their desks. Not the prone position nor the standing position up against the wall which only serves to negate the active-shooter agent’s dyslexic depth perception he has been striken with because of too many mass murder suicide pills.
I know what you’re trying to say, but a six year old is not qualified to make those kinds of decisions.
Age of consent, and all.
Like we can’t teach our sons and daughters how to drive a tractor or sight a mortar tube before they are old enough for gubment to issue a license??
Hersh is right. Traditional journalists today really are pretty sorry at what they do. Just look at what passes for news – or even what passes as news programming! Right off the bat I can’t help but think of NBC’s Dateline program, ABC’s 20/20, Nightline or even CBS’s 60 Minutes and the pathetic journalism on those shows. Even the radio personality Rush Limbaugh is often quoted as some sort of journalistic source. Interesting? Yes. But newsworthy? Hardly!
When you get your stories from disreputable sources like the National Enquirer, TMZ, etc. (a rather long list) or even let them scoop you on a story, it’s almost like someone made a bunch of intellectual clones of those fictional characters Les Nesman or Ted Baxter and then gave them real jobs.
And for the handful of journalists with any functioning brains, they seem to lack that other required part of the anatomy – balls! Not one of them seems to have the balls to poke at a political bee hive or give fair and impartial reports should the subject matter be even mildly disagreeable. Not one of them is willing to really check their sources!
But what else is new?!
Journalists are just as gutless as anyone else. With very few exceptions, I see them all as rather sorry excuses for citizens who would probably sit idly by and sell out their own mothers rather than actually do their job. To them, it’s all about keeping that paycheck coming and not rocking the boat. In fact, it’s pretty easy when all you do is repeat what someone else has repeated, do what other people do and basically keep your head down. Because being a mind controlled lemming is what being a fat lying/ignorant American pig is all about!
R.I.P. Seymour Hersh. You’re the last real journalist.
(Yes, I know he’s not dead.)
IF’
we treated Politicians/presidents/LAW as well as we treat Actors/musicians/popular people…
They wouldnt be able to DO ANYTHING behind closed doors..
Consider that the Location the congress and reps get together, USEd to have enough room for a FEW people to watch…NOW its to small for the number of people..and MUCH of it is restricted..
As well as, MOST legislation ISNT DONE THERE..
Speaking of that which we cannot perceive that may or may not impact us, Richard Dawkins on Daily show last week very lightly touched on the subject but stuck more with the role of faith vs evidence.
Interesting how resolutely people reject ambiguity.
http://thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-24-2013/exclusive—richard-dawkins-extended-interview-pt–1
“”..nutcases who believe that their god requires them to wreak havoc on this country…
Don’t let Lindsay Graham tour the bio-labs, mmmkay?
yours 404’d
this one seems to work
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stewart-and-richard-dawkins-ask-the-big-question-will-it-be-science-or-religion-that-dooms-us-all/
Guardian needs a proofreader. I hope they find one soon. They sent a comma to do a period’s job 14 times. Grade-school stuff. To have published suchlike to the entire world is breathtaking & shameful.
Here’s five little words, gleaned from the above DU comments:
awestruck
beehive
cookware
doublespeak
sunglasses
Pastafarian headdress may be attributed as *cookwear* — o.k. I’m groveling.
I’m awestruck that you found a beehive to whack with some cookware while trying not to use doublespeak when donning sunglasses.
Yes, would make a dynamite uncrackable password:
Awestruckbeehivecookwaredoublespeaksunglasses{{{{{{{{
(Special-character padding at the end there just to befuddle the NSA.)
Pay attention to Mark Perkel’s posts, you editors.
This is a time of crisis, Seymour Hersh is a traitor, and President Obama is within his rights to ignore the constitution to deal with any trouble caused by a traitor.
Go fuck yourself with a hot, bent fork.
those who provide aid and comfort to traitors are also traitors.
Does that include smoking after sex?
Ask Tim, who provides aid and comfort to Sy Hersh with his posts. By the Perkel Rule, it is off to Guantanamo for him.
Possibly, if it adds up to more than a pack a day.
{I’d probably get decent broadband and free XM and gold earbuds for recreation time on the go-cart track down there anyways… I wonder, if I were to just drop by for a visit to see if I might fit in there, if I would avoid prosecution because nobody at government was at work to process my traveling permissions? — I’ll just have to wait for some panel of
expertsfuckwits to argue about it on CNN’s New Day. }Hooray for Americas Hero: Fugitive NSA leaker Edward Snowden!
Hey, I got a new pickup line —
“Madam, you sho is stupid-fly! And yet, there is this air of aidless discomfort wafting about you. Say, would you like to accompany me to my crib to do a little old fashioned muckraking? Are you ready to try the HershSy hiway??”
{ten minutes later}
“I’m your traitor!! I’m your traitor!! I’m your traitor!! Opps. Got a cigarette?”
For those who don’t want to search for the latest response, I double post because of the good link…. and nominally it is against my own interests/stated positions.
ninety five percent says:
9/29/2013 at 3:26 pm
two minute vent
http://corbettreport.com/global-warming-minute-why-is-the-ipcc-95-certain-that-climate-change-is-manmade/
bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:
10/3/2013 at 6:57 pm
Thanks for the link. I signed up. Looks like some good stuff there, and 2 minutes is about my speed…. for a video.
I actually thought the 95% was pure BS but the video shows there is more to it. I agree it is only a rough measurement of the scientists rather than the phenomenon. If some new theory comes out and the number starts to drop?
It usually goes like drowned in hot tubs or noose jacked themselves off to death or the dominatrix bitch they kicked out of the house was a secret irs agent — needless to say, the only numbers that are going to drop are sperm viability and NWO climate-vehicle opponents.
Group regarding Figures, a fantastic game which in turn demands riot
points to discover the entire a higher level pleasure.
And also if you’re here searching for totally free huge range details next you’re not incorrect.
getriotpointsforfree. com only affords the exact same without cost.
Most of us realize ones trouble within wasting useful income to acquire the particular huge range items even so the gaming is significant as well.
No more issues!! Without doubt you happen
to be any significant other from the video game League connected with legends as well as needing frantically to
obtain the Riot details to help gain access to the development packages
along with gambling alternatives.
No cost riot items which can enhance the strategy of your own online game are on hand using 1 press download.
This huge range points creator acquire web page link underneath is going to
take one to the particular get alternative wherever you get to finish the particular 3 move study in accordance to have the factors.
And so nowadays we’re giving out free category of stories huge
range things turbine to help everyone who
trips our web site as well as finish 3 Really easy measures.