After watching our president mumble through the Tim Russett interview, I can understand why he needs a "faith-based initiative." The prevailing look on Tim's face was one of deep concern for what goes on in the Oval Office, where impeachable acts were once only gooey and disgusting, and not so bloody ridiculous as they are today.

After watching our president mumble through the Tim Russett interview, I can understand why he needs a "faith-based initiative." The prevailing look on Tim's face was one of deep concern for what goes on in the Oval Office, where impeachable acts were once only gooey and disgusting, and not so bloody ridiculous as they are today.

After watching our president mumble through the Tim Russett interview, I can understand why he needs a "faith-based initiative." The prevailing look on Tim's face was one of deep concern for what goes on in the Oval Office, where impeachable acts were once only gooey and disgusting, and not so bloody ridiculous as they are today.

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

It is possible. It used to be called 'wagging the dog' when Clinton was in office. Every time Clinton responded to a world event, his motive was allegedly to draw attention away from Republican personal attacks on Clinton.

I have heard conspiracy theory style rumors associated with September 11th. People associated with the White House were supposedly told not to fly commercial in the days leading up to the attacks. Lots of folks reportedly heard sonic booms north and east of Washington, indicating fighter aircraft in a hurry moving in the area near where the fourth jet crashed in Pennsylvania. I've heard a few times that there are usually orders to scramble jets to chase hijackings, but these orders had been suspended specifically for 9.11. Some can't believe Bush would consider reading to school kids his proper role, and figure he must have known in advance or he would have wanted to keep up with news.

There have frequently been conspiracy theories associated with the start of crisis. Who fired the first shot at Lexington Green? How did the Maine sink? How was it the Pearl Harbor was a surprise? Americans don't lightly commit to war, but if the other side strikes first, we'll strike back with enthusiasm. This would tempt leaders to stage manage the start of a conflict. Political opponents then will accuse leaders of stage managing conflict. Suspicions that such manipulations occur never seem to fade, but somehow smoking guns are never found.

Me, I am curious why some Pearl Harbor papers are still classified, and why no black box reconstruction of how the Pennsylvania flight went down was released.

I also wonder about the intelligence games. One of the basic problems of signal intelligence is that using it blows your source. If we had high level intercepts reading Al Qaeda, some would say acting on this intelligence would blow highly valued sources. This would be one reason the government might not have acted prior to the attacks. If so, this policy has changed. I have been wondering if Al Qaeda is playing 'canary trap' games, talking about imaginary terror plots over various comm links secure and less secure, trying to discover which imaginary plots result in heightened terror alerts. This would serve several purposes. They learn which links are secure, which cells are not infiltrated. The West spends absurd amounts of money maintaining high alert status, then eventually cannot maintain a true high alert due to too many 'cry wolf' false alarms. Plus, Bush 43 and company are starting to look silly sounding all these false alarms. Terrorist threats are beginning to seem as real as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

I suspect both sides are playing games, but don't have real hard facts to guess who is playing what game.

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

It is possible. It used to be called 'wagging the dog' when Clinton was in office. Every time Clinton responded to a world event, his motive was allegedly to draw attention away from Republican personal attacks on Clinton.

I have heard conspiracy theory style rumors associated with September 11th. People associated with the White House were supposedly told not to fly commercial in the days leading up to the attacks. Lots of folks reportedly heard sonic booms north and east of Washington, indicating fighter aircraft in a hurry moving in the area near where the fourth jet crashed in Pennsylvania. I've heard a few times that there are usually orders to scramble jets to chase hijackings, but these orders had been suspended specifically for 9.11. Some can't believe Bush would consider reading to school kids his proper role, and figure he must have known in advance or he would have wanted to keep up with news.

There have frequently been conspiracy theories associated with the start of crisis. Who fired the first shot at Lexington Green? How did the Maine sink? How was it the Pearl Harbor was a surprise? Americans don't lightly commit to war, but if the other side strikes first, we'll strike back with enthusiasm. This would tempt leaders to stage manage the start of a conflict. Political opponents then will accuse leaders of stage managing conflict. Suspicions that such manipulations occur never seem to fade, but somehow smoking guns are never found.

Me, I am curious why some Pearl Harbor papers are still classified, and why no black box reconstruction of how the Pennsylvania flight went down was released.

I also wonder about the intelligence games. One of the basic problems of signal intelligence is that using it blows your source. If we had high level intercepts reading Al Qaeda, some would say acting on this intelligence would blow highly valued sources. This would be one reason the government might not have acted prior to the attacks. If so, this policy has changed. I have been wondering if Al Qaeda is playing 'canary trap' games, talking about imaginary terror plots over various comm links secure and less secure, trying to discover which imaginary plots result in heightened terror alerts. This would serve several purposes. They learn which links are secure, which cells are not infiltrated. The West spends absurd amounts of money maintaining high alert status, then eventually cannot maintain a true high alert due to too many 'cry wolf' false alarms. Plus, Bush 43 and company are starting to look silly sounding all these false alarms. Terrorist threats are beginning to seem as real as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

I suspect both sides are playing games, but don't have real hard facts to guess who is playing what game.

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"? Some have speculated that 911 may have been a set-up that Bush knew about in advance or even planned in order to get Americans scared enough to give up their civil rights and thereby be more easily controlled for whatever purposes he has in mind. If this is the case, it wouldn't surprise me if something bad happened again and the Bush administation turned out to be masterminding it all.

What do others think? Do I sound like a paranoid nutcase or am I onto something here?

It is possible. It used to be called 'wagging the dog' when Clinton was in office. Every time Clinton responded to a world event, his motive was allegedly to draw attention away from Republican personal attacks on Clinton.

I have heard conspiracy theory style rumors associated with September 11th. People associated with the White House were supposedly told not to fly commercial in the days leading up to the attacks. Lots of folks reportedly heard sonic booms north and east of Washington, indicating fighter aircraft in a hurry moving in the area near where the fourth jet crashed in Pennsylvania. I've heard a few times that there are usually orders to scramble jets to chase hijackings, but these orders had been suspended specifically for 9.11. Some can't believe Bush would consider reading to school kids his proper role, and figure he must have known in advance or he would have wanted to keep up with news.

There have frequently been conspiracy theories associated with the start of crisis. Who fired the first shot at Lexington Green? How did the Maine sink? How was it the Pearl Harbor was a surprise? Americans don't lightly commit to war, but if the other side strikes first, we'll strike back with enthusiasm. This would tempt leaders to stage manage the start of a conflict. Political opponents then will accuse leaders of stage managing conflict. Suspicions that such manipulations occur never seem to fade, but somehow smoking guns are never found.

Me, I am curious why some Pearl Harbor papers are still classified, and why no black box reconstruction of how the Pennsylvania flight went down was released.

I also wonder about the intelligence games. One of the basic problems of signal intelligence is that using it blows your source. If we had high level intercepts reading Al Qaeda, some would say acting on this intelligence would blow highly valued sources. This would be one reason the government might not have acted prior to the attacks. If so, this policy has changed. I have been wondering if Al Qaeda is playing 'canary trap' games, talking about imaginary terror plots over various comm links secure and less secure, trying to discover which imaginary plots result in heightened terror alerts. This would serve several purposes. They learn which links are secure, which cells are not infiltrated. The West spends absurd amounts of money maintaining high alert status, then eventually cannot maintain a true high alert due to too many 'cry wolf' false alarms. Plus, Bush 43 and company are starting to look silly sounding all these false alarms. Terrorist threats are beginning to seem as real as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

I suspect both sides are playing games, but don't have real hard facts to guess who is playing what game.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"?

It is possible. It used to be called 'wagging the dog' when Clinton was in office. Every time Clinton responded to a world event, his motive was allegedly to draw attention away from Republican personal attacks on Clinton.

I also wonder about the intelligence games. ....Snip... I have been wondering if Al Qaeda is playing 'canary trap' games, talking about imaginary terror plots over various comm links secure and less secure, trying to discover which imaginary plots result in heightened terror alerts. ....snip.....
I suspect both sides are playing games, but don't have real hard facts to guess who is playing what game.

I do not believe that Bush is actually planning some kind of staged attack.

I can certainly believe that intelligence games are being played on both sides--that is to be expected.

I can also believe that "Wag the Dog" scenarios are possible for Bush just as they were for Clinton.

What I wonder about is would Kerry be any different?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"?

It is possible. It used to be called 'wagging the dog' when Clinton was in office. Every time Clinton responded to a world event, his motive was allegedly to draw attention away from Republican personal attacks on Clinton.

I also wonder about the intelligence games. ....Snip... I have been wondering if Al Qaeda is playing 'canary trap' games, talking about imaginary terror plots over various comm links secure and less secure, trying to discover which imaginary plots result in heightened terror alerts. ....snip.....
I suspect both sides are playing games, but don't have real hard facts to guess who is playing what game.

I do not believe that Bush is actually planning some kind of staged attack.

I can certainly believe that intelligence games are being played on both sides--that is to be expected.

I can also believe that "Wag the Dog" scenarios are possible for Bush just as they were for Clinton.

What I wonder about is would Kerry be any different?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Xoomer

Something occurred to me and I want to know what the rest of you think.

How likely is it that the new al-Qeada terrorism threat issued today "from reliable sources" is bogus and really just an attempt by the Bush administration to (1) deflect attention from the search for the WMD (which obviously terrifies him since he knows there aren't any WMDs); or (2) get the nation scared enough again to glom onto Bush's "us against them" mindset and thus win back those voters who might otherwise vote for a Democrat in the '04 election? (I think this rat would do anything to win an election).

More ominously, could Bush be lining up goons to actually carry out an "attack"?

It is possible. It used to be called 'wagging the dog' when Clinton was in office. Every time Clinton responded to a world event, his motive was allegedly to draw attention away from Republican personal attacks on Clinton.

I also wonder about the intelligence games. ....Snip... I have been wondering if Al Qaeda is playing 'canary trap' games, talking about imaginary terror plots over various comm links secure and less secure, trying to discover which imaginary plots result in heightened terror alerts. ....snip.....
I suspect both sides are playing games, but don't have real hard facts to guess who is playing what game.

I do not believe that Bush is actually planning some kind of staged attack.

I can certainly believe that intelligence games are being played on both sides--that is to be expected.

I can also believe that "Wag the Dog" scenarios are possible for Bush just as they were for Clinton.

What I wonder about is would Kerry be any different?

I woundn't put anything past the kind of desperate control-freaks that populate this administration. - ANYTHING

Bush was absolutley incoherrent in his interview - who advised him to do this? Sometimes I wonder about his advisors - I could have told them ahead of time that this was not the best venue for him. Savy and eloquent are Not words that describe this president.

I woundn't put anything past the kind of desperate control-freaks that populate this administration. - ANYTHING

Bush was absolutley incoherrent in his interview - who advised him to do this? Sometimes I wonder about his advisors - I could have told them ahead of time that this was not the best venue for him. Savy and eloquent are Not words that describe this president.

I woundn't put anything past the kind of desperate control-freaks that populate this administration. - ANYTHING

Bush was absolutley incoherrent in his interview - who advised him to do this? Sometimes I wonder about his advisors - I could have told them ahead of time that this was not the best venue for him. Savy and eloquent are Not words that describe this president.

I get all my conspiracy theories from whatreallyhappened.com

Watch this video about the "pulling" of the wtc towers.

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

I get all my conspiracy theories from whatreallyhappened.com

Watch this video about the "pulling" of the wtc towers.

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

I get all my conspiracy theories from whatreallyhappened.com

Watch this video about the "pulling" of the wtc towers.

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

While on the subject of collapse, it is painful to watch that Grande Old Institution hit the ground so hard. Should I blame religion for this mess? Well, I'm certainly not going to blame the secular humanists. We could always blame the halftime show at the Super Bowl.

Is this not frosty-clear evidence of autumn turning into winter?

I think it was Hemmingway who said "There is only one beast in the bullfight area--the crowd."


--Croak

Originally Posted by Croakmore

While on the subject of collapse, it is painful to watch that Grande Old Institution hit the ground so hard. Should I blame religion for this mess? Well, I'm certainly not going to blame the secular humanists. We could always blame the halftime show at the Super Bowl.

Is this not frosty-clear evidence of autumn turning into winter?

--Croak

From all I can figure, clergy abuse of children and the cover up of same has been going on forever... Back to the Inquisition and beyond? I would expect any organization that forbids normal interactions between human beings will encounter perversion. With the power of bureaucratic religion what it was in past centuries, a systematic approach to perversion while maintaining a front of purity and holiness seems unlikely only in hindsight.

I'm less certain of whether the current perverted clergy scandal is a sign of 3T or 4T. For some reason, the Boston Globe targeted the Archdiocese of Boston, and just didn't let go. It took the Globe quite some time to break the cover up, and put the story in the public eye. The investigation and story broke far slower than Watergate, requiring persistence on the part of the Globe. In a 2T, this is the sort of story that gets squished by the Establishment. Popping up when it did, is it a 3T sex scandal, or a central thrust transforming the culture? To me, it feels more like a OJ style media feeding frenzy than a major war. It might be a side front of the Red / Blue conflict, with a very Blue newspaper striking at the heart of a 'holier than thou' religious establishment.

I have got an echo of the scandal being used to wedge other issues. Recently, when the Catholic Church in the Boston area takes a stand on birth control, abortion, female clergy, married clergy, or same sex marriages, the Blue respondents pushing equality and choice themes will mix in a variant on 'What do you perverts know about love and morality?' It would seem that if clergy are going to talk the talk, blue people are going to ask that they walk the walk. In my eyes at least, those that look to ancient value systems and hierarchical bureaucratic enforcement of same have lost considerable credibility.

Then again, I haven't been impressed by bureaucratic holiness in quite some time. As folk may guess, I see the Catholic hierarchy as being a relic of the Agricultural Age, an anchor holding society back from moving on into a newer Industrial or Information age pattern. Their most basic problem is an presumption of perfection, a belief that absolute and unchanging values can be written down, set in stone and proclaimed with certainty. No way. Maybe during the Agricultural Age, before technology started rapidly transforming society. Not since the Reformation. I don't pretend to perfection. I far prefer the cycle theory assumption that every four score and seven years, the world changes. Old injustices are purged. The value systems that justified the injustices is discredited. I expect, with luck and hard work, come the crisis - high cusp, new principles and values will be carved into stone to stand for another century or so.

I'm not ready to plot a 3T or 4T label on the clergy perversion and cover up scandal, but it doesn't feel wrong as part of the cusp.

I am not a Catholic. It seems to me, however, that the eruption of the scandal is a symptom of an impending 4T, because the scandal essentially is protecting Millennials, as the last two generations of young Catholic boys have not been protected. I wonder, however, whether Boomer bishops (like the new Boston cardinal) will have the courazge to realize, if I may say so, that their theology, and therefore their church, is fundamentally flawed insofar as it calls upon the clergy to deny perhaps the deepest impulses in human nature. A new report, apparently, cites 1300 abusive priests around the counry, and if that doesn't convince people that the celibacy rule drives pedophiles into the priesthood while barring people with normal impulses, I don't know what possibly could. I am impressed by how much Catholicism means to Catholics and by the independent attitude that American Catholics have developed in my lifetime; it would be inspiring to see them use the scandal to truly move ahead. The celibacy rule, after all, did NOT begin along with Christianity.
David K '47

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Then again, I haven't been impressed by bureaucratic holiness in quite some time. As folk may guess, I see the Catholic hierarchy as being a relic of the Agricultural Age, an anchor holding society back from moving on into a newer Industrial or Information age pattern.

This is still the Agricultural Age. The 'information age' is not a truly fundamantal change, though it gets hyped as such. I suspect 30 years from now the concept will seem naive, though a very 3Tish one. S&H themselves pointed out the tendency of the Silent to welcome the idea of endless, accelerating change as the wave of the future, in their book on the Xers.

(There will of course be change in the future, but historical patterns suggest that the rate of change speeds up and slows down, sometimes for centuries at a time. Compare, for ex, the period between Alexander and Caesar with the Roman Empire.)

You cannot afford to be ignorant about our tax system and how it is affecting you. I'm sure you have heard the political arguments where Democrats say, "the Republicans are robbing the poor to give to the rich" and the Republican arguments that "the rich are carrying all the tax burden and need relief." Which is really true, and how do you know it? Read this book and you will find out. It will become crystal clear.

Are you aware that there are really TWO Income Tax systems? One is the regular Income Tax which is what you hear everyone talk about when they talk about giving exemptions and giving tax cuts.

But you never hear them talk about the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). It takes precedence over the regular Income Tax and is the final determinate of the taxes you pay. It was originally put in place to prevent the richest 155 families in the US from getting away with paying zero taxes. It has since turned into just the opposite. What it now does is to redirect the tax burden from the top wealthiest families to the middle class families. The wealthiest still pay zero taxes by using tax deferment methods and tax shelters. They can delay tax payments up to 30 years and pay with inflated money that is worth less than half the original tax burden. And the major tax burden has shifted to families making from $70K to $500K. If you make over $500K, you tax burden drops DRAMATICALLY, but if you are in the middle class, you tax burden increases with each passing year. By the year 2010, the Alternative Minimum Tax will take in more of your tax dollars than the actual Income Tax structure.

Mr. Rex Bennett reviews Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else by Mr. David Cay Johnston.


As one who has had to file an AMT in years past, I can see where the "rich" are going to be made to pay for the "tax cuts for the rich" of recent years. With FICA collections from the lower orders and AMT collections from the upper middle class there will be monies to squander for quite a period. 3T will be funded for yet a while. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/column.../?id=110004704

Originally Posted by Chris'68

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110004704

That's one way of looking at it.

I have a piece of purely anecdotal evidence that would seem to support the idea that we now be Cascade Phase 4T, with E2004 as the Catalyst. I was talking on the phone earlier this afternoon with my first Mother-in-law, who was born in 1918, and who thus remembers the Great Depression from the POV of the (GI Gen) teenager that she was at the time. She told me that, as far as she's concerned, things are already getting worse now than they were then, even if in a radically different way from back then. Also, that nothing would surprise her now amongst the various scary possibilities for the near term future. Sounds to me like she believes that we be Cascade Phase 4T, though she doesn't know the first thing about our terminology - and since she lived through the entirety of the last 4T, including it's Cascade Phase, I would tend to give her view on the subject the full weight due to someone who speaks from prior experience.

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

She told me that, as far as she's concerned, things are already getting worse now than they were then, even if in a radically different way from back then.

I'd love for more detail on what she singles out as particularly heinous right now. Did she say?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Titus Sabinus Parthicus

She told me that, as far as she's concerned, things are already getting worse now than they were then, even if in a radically different way from back then.

I'd love for more detail on what she singles out as particularly heinous right now. Did she say?

Ditto that.