Friday, April 27, 2007

Flamboyish Lies in the Face of Outright Facts

George Boy Bush insists on not letting "politicians" (read that as Democrats only) interfere with the professional judgments of military generals and tell them (the ones still left "in uniform") "how to do their job".

One would think that an alert fourth estate (a.k.a. Main Stream Media news) would be piling over each other to point out a clear historical fact to the public: G. O. Distorting Bush is the number one Decider/Interferor Man who has consistently over ruled the military professionals.

The name of General Shineski should be plastered over the shoulder of every agree-bobbing news anchor in America on every channel. The silence is deafening though. Who dares to challenge the artificialness of Boy George's supernatural "time table"?

Ours is a Moe, Larry, Curly world after all. A small, small headed world. ... more later

Failure to Burrow: The New Journalists

Well what do you expect from a system that rewards Happy Hal for Shallow streams of pander and punishes Detail Oriented Lem for digging deep and getting to just the facts Mam?

Greg Palast complains here about the new generation of mediocre U.S. reporters.

Another expert complains here about gullibility and lack of skepticism.

However the bottom line is that the capitalist system rewards those who sell low quality fakery over those who sell high quality gems. The Market provides. It just doesn't provide truth and honesty. It provides the brain candy we yearn for.

Be happy. Don't worry. Hal has you covered.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Timing of the Lemm Cho's Leap just too Convenient

A housekeeping note: I'm generally skeptical of conspiracy theories. The human animal is often too bumbling, too mixed up and too irrational to get anything right. The idea that a large group of bungling humans can do anything right stretches the laws of probabilities to their breaking points.

That said, that said in the time framing first place; the timing, reliability-factors and efficiency of the Cho ops is just too good to be believable.

How did he learn to shoot a real gun (not a video one) with such deadly accuracy? How did he learn to deploy a diversionary killing in his dorm, a killing of someone he apparently had no connection to?

Most importantly, April 16th?

What caused his fuse to blow on that magical date?

Think about it.

April 16th was the day before Gonzo's scheduled appearance in the US Senate.

April 16th was the day before most Americans begin fuming over how much they pay in taxes; and for what?

The Cho Choice: Either you're Pro-Cho or you're Pro-Life

False choice: Once again this irrational tactic of rhetorical debate raises its ugly head.

There are only two teams on the football field of life and you must pick your one side now. Either you whole heartedly support everything Cho Seung-Hui did and you are therefore just another subversive Columbine Sympathizer OR you totally dennounce everything he did and you align yourself with the jock elite of America and with those who cry for less than all of the fallen because Cho was a sub-human and therefore does not deserve even one half of a tear drop.

Where have we seen False Flag operations before?

When will we ever learn?

Saturday, April 21, 2007

The Cho Flow: He didn't mean "you" you

The human animal is highly narcistic

So when the word "YOU" comes up in a dialouge, our antennas naturally go up and we immediately ask, Are you talking to me? To me?

But as more pieces of the Cho Seung Hui story come out, it becomes painfully obvious that "you" does not mean you. Sorry there big fella. We didn't mean to offend the EGOr in you. Relax, you are still the center of the Universe. But just for a brief moment please allow us to shift the camera and point it to Cho's tormentors:

Once, in a [High School] English class, the teacher had the students read aloud, and when it was Cho's turn, he just looked down in silence, [Chris] Davids recalled. Finally, after the teacher threatened him with an F for participation, Cho started to read in a strange, deep voice that sounded "like he had something in his mouth," Davids said.
"As soon as he started reading, the whole class started laughing and pointing and saying, 'Go back to China,'" Davids said.

Imagine for a moment (Yes, it's hard to keep the camera from swinging back to you. We'll get back to you after this brief ADHD message.) Imagine a line up of all the people who tormented Cho in high school and in college. Imagine that many of the allegations of bullying are true.

Dr Marissa Randozza, a psychologist in Nevada who formerly worked for the US secret service, told The Independent that Cho fitted the pattern of previous school shooters. In 2002 Dr Randozza co-authored a seminal study on school shootings that found that 71 per cent of perpetrators "felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others".
"We found that bullying usually happened closer to the actual shooting [than may have happened in this case]," she said. "In some instances we found that [shooters] were bullied so much it had been a torment, they felt despondent and desperate. It could be this pushed [Cho] into a downward spiral if he experienced bullying before going to Virginia Tech."

Given that kind of context, let's try plugging in the more probable "you" into Cho's allegedly insane rantings:

- "You [who have tormented me] had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today. But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you [who have tormented me] have blood on your hands that will never wash off."
- "I didn't have to do it. I could have left. I could have fled [Va. Tech]. But now I am no longer running. It's not for me, [it's] for my children and my brothers and sisters that you [who have tormented me] (F-expletived). I did it for them."
- "You [who have tormented me] just loved to crucify me. You loved inducing cancer in my head, terror in my heart and ripping my soul all this time."
- "You [who have tormented me] have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."
- "Do you [who have tormented me] know what it feels like to be spit on your face and have trash shoved down your throat? Do you know what it feels like to dig your own grave? Do you know what it feels like to have your throat slashed from ear to ear? Do you know what it feels like to be torched alive? Do you know what it feels like to be humiliated and be impaled upon a cross and left to bleed to death for your amusement?
You [who have tormented me] have never felt a single ounce of pain your whole life. And you want to inject as much misery in our lives because you can, just because you can. You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn't enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren't enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn't enough. Your vodka and cognac wasn't enough. All your debaucheries weren't enough. Those weren't enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You [who have tormented me] had everything."
- "When the time came, I did it. I had to."

Kind of starts to make sense now, huh?

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Disturbingly, Cho is US(A)

Why the fascination with Cho?

Why the insistence that he is not American?

He grew up here.
He was molded here.
For heavens sake, he was an "English" major.

And yet the papers are peppered with mention that he is "Korean". (Oh did we forget to mention that he is "Koran-eeyan"? Did we huh, did we?)

[New Insert:] Sorry folk. I know my recent rant sounds almost as cognitively disconnected as Cho's. The point to think about is this. Cho was not born speaking English. The English words that came out of his mouth were programmed into him by the culture he encounterd here, in the good old USSA. Below is some verse I found out there on the internet. It's not Cho's. It looks like some sort of popular teen lyrics perhaps. I don't know. Do you? Compare the lyrics to Cho's rants. Are you spotting similarities? Where did Cho pick up this concept of "vandalizing my heart"? What did it mean to him? Watch Cho's video (CNN copy here). He is clearly reading from a prepared text. The text appears to have originated in popular American culture, in song lyrics, or rap lyrics; things like that. Note that MSM refuses to pick up on the cues. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but .... hmmm.

In the below, all I did was Google some of the weird phrases Cho used to see if there is similar phraseology on the Internet. This is something any journalist with half a shred of original thought could have done. But no. They all paint Cho's troubled brain as a Seouless Cold Blooded Murderer. A monster. Not one of us. Not from us. One of "them". One from the other herd.

Google search #1: "Vandalized My Heart" Results: Eatbees, OldBoy, Wonky, ClueHunter, DemonHunter, more ...

Vandalized My Heart
I trusted you without being asked to.
I loved you without being told to.
I helped you without being begged to.
I showed you happiness without being forced to.

I cared for you without your consent.
I listened to you without ever interrupting.
I sacrificed my time so you would feel better.
I gave you a friend without all the hard work.
I told you all my secrets on my own will.
I let you into my life with a simple knock on the door.
(more & more ...)
Compare the above Vandalized lyrics to some of Cho's own words:
"You have vandalized my heart,
raped my soul and torched my conscience.
You thought it was one pathetic boy's life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people."

Google search #2: "Raped my soul" Results: SkornLyrics, KathrynBeMine,

Sunday, April 15, 2007

How Green Was my War Zone?

At the Lemming Institute of Global Human Theatrics (The LIGHT) we are always fascinated with the human creature's attraction to primary colors (Red, Green, Blue; or RGB for short).

As of late, GREEN, is the color of The Glory and The Salvation for them.

GREEN, decodes into so many complicated ideations in their primate prefrontals.

GREEN, is the color of a War Zone in which they feel strangely fail safe.

GREEN, is the color of their MONEY, a span of their federal reserves and a measure of their envy.

GREEN, means never having to say you're Ecologically Incorrect (EI).

GREEN, is the "New" Red, White and Blue (according to one of their great philosophers).

RED, on the other hand means that you are no tree-hugging commie pinko heart bleeder. When you see RED, you are angry. You are conseRvative and Right tilted; but most of all you are angry. You are angry at that Green Gobble Gobble Gore turkey. It's his fault. He makes you see Red. He Rubs you the wRong way. His Greenie ways gouge a great gash into your Red-Blooded Patriotic Heart. Your Red, White and, err ... Red again angry Heart.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Nuke-a-topia unfairly linked to life-loving lemmings

Hey. Unfair. Why drag the good name of life-loving burrow-happy lemmings into this?

The fifty-year multi-trillion dollar failure of atomic energy has resumed its lemming-like march to madness.

Lemmings prefer to live a radiation-free life. If the Lemm Lord had meant for us to be irradiated, He would not have gifted our glorious planet with a magnetic shield and an ozone layer.

Rage, yes, Rage against the precipice. Do not fall so freely for the lurid lure of fall out. Do not go gently into that green glow dark of nuclear night. There are alternatives. Step back and return to thine senses. Oh you humanity.

(Well my fellow lemms, what say you now? Do we unleash the rodent flu on the planet plundering humans or do we wait some more for signs of intelligent life amongst them? The hour grows short.)

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Stepping Up

Al Gore unveils a new Step (it) Up campaign. (Click on image)

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

As If They Were Bananas

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision (Mass. v. EPA) still baffles many a reader. What was it about? Who won? What did they win?

Forget about the "law" for a moment and think back to Woody Allen's movie, "Bananas". There is a scene in there where the allegedly benevolent dictator takes over, goes mad (goes bananas) and declares that all citizens must now wear their underwear on the outside instead of down under where they used to.

How would the U.S. Supreme Court handle such a situtation if, say, some concerned citizens sued and wanted the Dictator to deregulate underwear?

The conservative 4 on the bench may see it this way: He is after all the Administrator (El Dictator). He is entitled to do what is appropriate in "his judgment". Who are we to interfere with the judgment of El Dictator? The people have no standing to complain about the underwear situation. We say, "stay the course". Keep the underwear on the outside. Conservativism is all about avoiding change.

The bleeding brain liberals may see it this way: Although the law says "his judgment"; surely the law makers could not have been so stupid as to mean even if the Adminstrator is irrational. Besides, another part of the law requires the Administrator (Dictator) to demonstrate that he is rational by articulating a "reasonable" explantion for his ruling. Ergo, since he has not yet articulated any rational explanation, the people do have a right to challenge his sanity.

Well there you have it. The 5-to-4 majority in Mass. v. EPA is saying that the EPA's Adminstrator must demonstrate that he is not bananas in refusing to regulate CO2 emissions from automobiles. So far, in "their judgment" he has not risen to the reasonably rational level. On the other hand, CO2 levels have risen to the reasonably alarm-worthy level.

Monday, April 02, 2007

Hanging to the Ledge by Slimmest Edge (Mass v. EPA)

The opinion

Respected scientists believe ... [that] when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species —the most important species—of a “greenhouse gas.”

... In the late 1970’s, the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to the possibility that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601, which required the President to establish a program to “assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and maninduced climate processes and their implications,” id., §3. President Carter, in turn, asked the National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to investigate the subject. The Council’s response was unequivocal: “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. . . . A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.”