Would you expect any military base, let alone the infamous Area 51, to be the “most boring” place you could ever work? Don’t they get to play with ET and fly spaceships? Or at least know what really happened in Roswell in 1947?
Not so much according to Thorton “T.D.” Barnes, former special-projects engineer at Area 51 in Nevada.
Actually, he says what people thought were alien-piloted UFOs in the 1960's were really spy planes being tested at over 2,000 miles per hour at altitudes of 90,000 feet, which would produce flashes of light high in the sky.
"We considered it to be a bonus. They [the UFO sightings] made it easier to conceal what we were doing," says Barnes.
While it's true that most reported UFO sightings really can be identified, I still have some questions about this random admittance of “truth:”
Why come out with it half a century later?
If the military at Area 51 was using the idea of UFOs and aliens as a cover-up for something else, how odd/questionable/bad must that something else be?
Is this just another cover-up?
(Image: Strangely hilarious, although I'm not sure if it's real. From GreyFalcon.us.)
Last night, I saw an episode of The Daily Show that really wasn’t that funny. (I think it originally aired on the 12th, but since this is Canada, maybe it was delayed?)
Jon Stewart let 'er tip on Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s Mad Money, calling out the host, the show, and the entire company for not doing what they’re supposed to be doing as, 1) a news network,and 2) a news network that markets itself as having trustworthy answers to people's financial worries.
The best part was that Cramer couldn’t do or say anything about it other than shrug his shoulders and act like a suck-up. So I guess it was funny in an I-don’t-believe-this-is-actually-happening kind of way.
What a lot of the criticism seems to be (from YouTube comments anyway) is that if Bush had said what Obama said about the Special Olympics, there would be so many complaints and he would be impeached and blah blah blah.
Well, guess what? Obama isn’t Bush and people are still complaining. And considering the things Bush has done and said during his 8 year reign, what’s a comment like that gonna do? Besides, there’s a reason we know exactly what Bushisms are.
Oddly enough, it looks like Obama fans don’t really care about his Special Olympics comment, whereas Obama haters (and who I think must be Bush lovers) do - not to mention everyone involved with the Special Olympics.
Let me just get it out there so there's no confusion: I'm a way bigger fan of Obama than Bush, so I'm going to defend Obama now by saying he made a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes, right? (It's not like he invaded a country or anything.)
Then again, I guess not everyone says insulting, prejudiced things on Leno, and obviously not everyone is the President of the United States - who based his entire campaign on Change no less. But Obama’s strategy from the beginning was to present himself as this regular, everyday person in America who everday people could identify with.
Is he just continuing on with that strategy, acting like the average Joe by unwittingly saying things that could offend people? (One of the big ones that comes to mind, and one I’m sure most of us has said at least once and heard at least a hundred times, is “that’s so gay.”) That said, is he just making an example out of himself?
Do you think the Special Olympics comment will affect Obama’s image? Were you upset by his comment? Do you even think it’s a big deal?
Will “Obamaisms” become the new thing? (If they do, I bet one of them would be, "We are facing a time of crisis." Not that he's wrong; he just seems to say it a lot.)
A Canadian journalist who was kidnapped in Pakistan last November, and is still being held hostage for US $375,000 (although some reports say $2 million), said this is a new video made by her captors:
"I am going to be beheaded just like the Polish engineer [Peter Stanczak], probably by the end of the month. The deadline is by the end of March, and that's basically, I don't know, 18 days or 16 days.”
"I'm not quite sure how long that is but the time is very short and my life is going to end."
Beverly Giesbrecht converted to Islam after the 9/11 attacks and now runs Jihad Unspun, a website which claims to provide "a clear view of the U.S. war on 'terrorism'" and information that is "devoid of the constraints of mainstream media." She now prefers to be called Khadija Abdul Qahaar (although many of the articles on her kidnapping use her former name).
These are some of the harsh comments from a CTV article and a Globe and Mail article on the video’s release. There weren’t many on each (only 10 comments all together), but there seemed to be a trend towards blaming Qahaar for her own kidnapping:
George As a journalist she put herself in harms way in order to obtain a story that would be considered a scoop. She knew the risks that she was taking what the consequences would be should she be captured, hoping that she could beat the odds, and collect a sizeable payment for doing so. Now that she has been kidnapped the expectation is for our federal government to come to the rescue at great expense to the taxpayers and to negotiate with her captors for her release. She took her chances and lost,end of story. it was her own doing. GDR As a journalist, she has put herself in harms way and has become an author of her own misfortune. I would not pay any ransom as that encourages other pseudo journalists to act so irresponsibly.
Alysha …this woman put herself in harms way for the sake of writing a story and being a journalist! Actions like this sometimes have consequences and now the people are expected to bail her by paying a ransom. Another load unto the taxpayers!
Eat Your Weedies I am sad for her. It's tough to watch someone plead for their life. However, it's also sad to watch a fool make foolhardy decisions. She had no business going there in the first place. Whatever her name, she's a blond Canadian dealing with illiterate, ignorant, hot heads.
Bill Williams Bye Bye Babe. You made the decision to go there, now suffer the consequences. Bad choice on your part, but, hey, that's the type of decisions idealist bleeding hearts make. Why should the rest of us be responsible for her well being.
Of course the woman had a choice not to go to such a dangerous area, but blaming her for getting herself kidnapped just for a story isn’t only an insult to her, but to journalists who actually are willing to report from such dangerous areas, Stanczak, the engineer who was kidnapped for ransom in September 2008 and murdered by Pakistani Taliban last month (the key word here is engineer, not journalist), and the area's citizens, who are also victims of these kidnappings and executions.
Blaming Qahaar for going somewhere she knew was dangerous also ignores the idea that because it is so dangerous it almost necessitates journalists going there to expose exactly what’s happening.
Isn’t that was journalists do?
When a firefighter is killed on the job, no one says, “Oh well, he knew what he was getting into.” Definitely not. I realize there might be more of an immediate need to put out fires, but why is it different for journalists when they're harmed or killed for doing their job? Isn't the truth important too?
As some of the commentators already mentioned, Qahaar knew the stakes and is now asking for help from them, which I guess seems contradictory.
But to just say the hell with her doesn’t make us (“the innocent taxpayers”) any less “ignorant” or criminal than those who are literally holding her life in their hands. It also gives me a sick feeling in my stomach.
“Seventeen people arrested during an anti-police brutality demonstration that turned into a riot are facing charges including mischief, theft, assault and possession of weapons...”
So, they were protesting police brutality by engaging in violence...that sounds about right.
“Police were pelted with bricks, bottles and food during the annual protest, organized by the Collective Opposed to Police Brutality, a Montreal group.”
There was also vandalism done to police cars, other cars, and store windows, with a grand total of $200,000 in damages.
But unfortunately, the Toronto Star article doesn’t mention the event leading up to the protest.
About a week before, in the same park where the protest was held, 18-year-old Fredy Villanueva was killed and two other men were shot and wounded when police attempted to make an arrest.
“The park [where the first shooting occurred] is in a predominantly Haitian neighbourhood where tensions between police and young people run high, according to residents. ‘The police are always creeping around here, hassling people,’ one unidentified youth told CBC News as he stood in front of a looted butcher shop.”
I don’t know what’s more ironic: being arrested for assault while participating in an anti-police brutality protest, that police brutality seems to occur more in places where people are already suspicious of (and under suspicion by) police, or, that people who are supposed to uphold the law don't appear to be subject to it themselves.
Just recently, surveillance footage was released of two police officers using excessive force on a 15-year-old girl.
Deputy Paul Schene defended himself by claiming the girl kicked her shoes off at him, causing "bruising, bleeding, and pain" as well as a "blood filled pocket." You tell me if his reaction was understandable (although I seriously doubt you will).
Obviously, not all police officers like to use their power to beat people up for no reason, but how the hell can they be police officers if they do!?
And if they're the police, who will police the police? (Question care of The Simpsons.)
WARNING: The following contains foul language and very bizarre thinking. May also cause outrage.
I really don't want to give these people any more exposure than they’ve already had, but since this blog is all about lunacy and things that I find just plain nuts, I can’t resist.
About 2 years ago the BBC did a really, um, interesting documentary on a religious cult that's become America's most hated family - at least that's the title of it.
They're known for protesting the funerals of AIDS victims, murdered Amish children, and soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few, by holding signs and screaming, “Soldiers are fags,” “God hates fags/soldiers/Muslims/Jews,” and “Thank God for dead soldiers." And they're still at it today.
They also call themselves Christian. No, sorry, the only true Christians.
The mother, Shirley Phelps-Roper (crazy lady extraordinaire), even has the smallest of her 11 children saying those things and waving signs...and they don’t even know what they mean! Obviously Crazy Lady doesn’t even know what she’s talking about. (She’s crazy after all). There's definitely some serious brainwashing going on there.
Their entire belief system, or whatever you want to call it, is just another case of I’m right and you’re wrong, with absolutely no intelligent (or even slightly human)things being said – aside from Louis Theroux piping in with Reason and all the passersby flipping them off.
This is just part 1/8, but I promise there isn’t a dull moment.
In my last post, “Make Jobs, Not War,” I mentioned that I know some people who have fought in Iraq. One of them is a guy I went to middle school with named Glen Villa. (And he was actually in Afghanistan. Sorry for the mix-up.)
While flipping through channels one day back in January, I saw Glen in a CBC documentary, "Fighting Ghosts,” which showed clips of his video journal from Afghanistan.
But what I remember most about that broadcast when it actually aired – I mean, besides the scary horrible realness of the footage – was that at the end, Peter Mansbridge said the military wasn’t exactly upset with Glen for sharing his experiences, but asked him not to speak to the news media anymore.
Pshh! If anything, this is what the news media should be showing. But since it’s “not allowed” or whatever (*cough bull@#$% cough*) there’s no reason I can’t post it here.
It’s really good and I want to encourage everyone to watch it!
The other day when I went grocery shopping I spotted some pro-life protesters across the street waving “Stop abortion” and “This hospital kills babies in the womb” signs.(Image: NewsPick.) I had one immediate response when I saw this: What exactly do they mean by “Stop Abortion”?
But the questions didn’t stop there.
Does stopping abortions mean all abortions, no matter the reason or circumstance? Does this also include rape victims? What about 13-year-olds who, at 13, simply aren’t ready to become parents? Are the people protesting for abortion bans the same people who oppose safe-sex education in schools? (Because if so, that would be messed up.) Isn’t the world already over-populated? What about the recession? What if the would-be parents can't afford a child? Aren’t couples who have abortions heartsick by their decision? Why should it be made any harder for them? What if the mother has health problems and the pregnancy threatens her life? What about violent pro-life protesters? Doesn’t violence negate the pro-life cause? Would banning abortions cause private “clinics” to be set up? Why not let people make their own decisions? Would denying people that option deny them certain freedoms? Why aren’t people more sexually responsible? Would banning abortion result in less unwanted pregnancies? Will this debate ever end?
Lyrically-awesome, politically-charged, makes-you-want-to-get-up-and-jump-around Rise Against deserves a tip o the hat, even if it's just from me. Why, you may be wondering? They’ve recently been given PETA’s Best Animal Friendly Band Award!
But I guess it’s not that surprising, seeing as how the members of RA are strict vegetarians and proud PETA-supporters. C’mon, it would be like leather-bound Marilyn Manson not winning the Most Frequent Cow-Wearer Award. (Image: RiseAgainst.com – Isn’t it kind of strange that it looks like it says, “Rise Against Vegetarians”?)
Wait – there’s more…
Besides their in-your-face music, RA’s videos are chock-full of truth. Their PETA-inspired video for “Ready to Fall” condemns animal cruelty by taking aim at sport-hunting (pun intended), environmental pillaging and pollution, “efficient” mass-processing technologies, and our general ignorance of the issue.
And just as PETA uses shocking, disturbing, nightmare-inducing images to create awareness, “Ready to Fall” will make you think twice about where your food comes from – and then make you want to kick your own ass for not thinking about it before.
True to their name, Rise Against goes against the mainstream by using music to expose violence rather than exploit it (50 Cent comes to mind here) and by using their fame to encourage change.
Aside from their PETA-friendliness, RA has teamed up with Vans to create a line of skate shoes that are not only vegan-appropriate, but slave-labour-free. (Yeah, apparently such things DO exist.) However, their video for “Prayer of the Refugee” shows this particular fight is far from over.
Set in what looks like a Wal-Mart, “Prayer of the Refugee” slams slave labour by exploring the histories of the products sitting on the shelves, and the lives of the workers who make them. Suddenly rollback prices don’t look so good.
And with their latest album, Appeal to Reason, RA has already begun to tackle the “hot” topics of today. Illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, gay marriage, Gitmo, and the silencing of truth by those in power are fair game in RA’s new video, “Audience of One.”
Like “Ready to Fall” and “Prayer of the Refugee,” “Audience of One” is a reflection of our world, and of what needs to be fixed. An appeal to reason, perhaps?
The video shows a little boy playing with a model world, and by playing I mean destroying. I'm pretty sure the boy is supposed to be George W. Bush.
Since I seem to be on some sort of free-speech kick, let’s just keep it going with a spoof article I came across called, “Human rights lawyer sues himself.” At first I didn’t understand why it was supposed to be funny, other than the idea of a human rights lawyer suing himself.
But the lawyer in the story is named Richard Warman. That’s not quite funny enough do be made up, so who exactly is Richard Warman? (And am I the only person who's never heard of him until now?)
Apparently he's a Canadian human rights lawyer who has made more complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission than, well, anyone else. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing; it’s not like there aren’t human rights violations happening right now that need to be complained about.
But among his complaints about white supremacists on the internet, he’s also focused a lot of his energy on suing conspiracy theorist David Icke (more on him to come), and requested that British Columbia libraries remove all copies of Icke’s book, “Children of the Matrix,” from their shelves. Warman isn’t exactly known for leaving (mainly conservative) bloggers alone either.
Oddly enough, all this information can be found at RichardWarman.com. Even weirder is the fact that it’s not even his site. There’s a disclaimer at the bottom that says, “This site is to document the actions of Richard Warman. Richard Warman has no association with this site.”
After reading Paul Sham’s post on the internet’s role in shaping democracy, and after writing/ranting about Holocaust deniers and woman-haters, I’m now left wondering about “freedom of speech.”
For one, is there a difference between “free speech” and “hate speech”? In his post Paul questions the ability of the web to democratize since it usually turns into an I’m-right-and-you’re-wrong competition, complete with insults and threats.
At this point, I would have to say that the right to “Freedom of Speech” is an illusion. Sure, we can all say what we want to say; it’s not like we’re all walking around with duct tape over our mouths…well, not literally. But if we say things that will offend or hurt another person/group of people, we’re suddenly not free anymore, and the metaphorical duct tape is firmly put in place.
The internet is making this freedom more real, yes, but the speaker is always susceptible to responses/threats/name-calling from their angry critics.
Take, for example, Bishop Richard Williamson, who claims that Jews made up the Holocaust. Obviously his comments upset a lot of people, but could we really believe we’re living in a democracy is he couldn’t express himself?
And in the same respect, should the people who think he’s an anti-Semite who needs to do some research not be allowed to say he’s an anti-Semite who needs to do some research?
It’s a very sticky issue, and no matter what is said it seems someone will always be hurt, offended, or disgusted by it. For example, I am pro-choice. Oops, I just pissed off a bunch of people!
I'm not trying to be rude, but here’s why I don’t care:
"Maintenance of a system of free expression is necessary:
as assuring individual self-fulfillment
as a means of attaining the truth
as a method of securing participation by the members of the society in social, including political, decision-making
as maintaining the balance between stability and change in society” (from U of Ottawa)
Without disparate voices speaking out, women might not be “legal persons,” a black man might not be the President of the United States, this freedom to speak out might not even exist. Then where would we be?
I just came across this website called MenAreBetterThanWomen.com. I don’t really know if it’s a joke, but I’m pretty sure there are actually men that stupid out there. So naturally, I must rant about it.
I’ll try to keep this short, but I doubt it will be sweet. And just so I don’t go rambling on in a fit of rage and annoyance, I’ll just refer to one of the articles, entitled, “Female Oppression: More Monkey Shit.”
In this article/piece of crap that makes absolutely no sense, it’s argued that MEN are the ones who have been oppressed for centuries (but keep in mind, the few brave men he's talking about were punished by other men):
“The fact is, men have been the real victims of oppression throughout history, not women. Men have been oppressed for their brilliance in math. Men have been punished for their innovations in science. Men have been drowned, stabbed, burned, tortured, and killed just for picking up a piece of chalk instead of a frying pan and a birth control test.”
Are you insane? It was never a law that (white) men couldn’t vote; it was never a law that a wife could beat, rape, or kill her husband. Look, I could go on for days about why this guy is a complete moron, and a...what's that word again? Oh yeah, hypocrite, but I won’t! At least not right now.
I would just like to bring to attention a story about a Saudi woman who is going to jail for being gang-raped.
After she accepted a ride from a man, the 23-year-old woman was taken to a house and gang-raped by the kidnapper and four of his friends. When she found out she was pregnant and attempted to get an abortion, she was taken to court and given a one-year prison sentence. After the child is born (that’s right, no abortion AND jail-time) she will receive 100 lashes.
The crime? Adultery - even though she’s not married.
Is that not female oppression? Or is it just evil?
Apparently a bishop – you know, someone who, by definition and requirement, believes in God – denies the Holocaust and ignores the murder of 11,000,000 people because there’s “no proof” that it occurred.
Um, is that what you call hypocrisy, or just plain nuts?
A letter written to the Belfast Telegraph caught my attention because it asked those questions (but not in those words, exactly), and it got me searching for more.
I found another article, this one from BBC News, which reported that Bishop Richard Williamson claims the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is authentic. This anti-Semitic piece of garbage supposedly reveals a secret plot for Jewish world domination, and has been proven a hoax numerous times since the early 20th century – hence the garbage comment.
To attempt to be fair, I should refer to this video in which Williamson explains that people were never killed in gas chambers. He doesn’t specifically deny that Jews were killed in Nazi concentration camps, but he says it was more likely 200,000 to 300,000.
Even more ridiculous is Williamson’s attempt to exonerate himself from his clearly anti-Semitic beliefs: "My definition of anti-Semitism is to be against every single Jew purely because he's a Jew. That's not at all my case. I once had a Jewish rabbi come and speak to seminarians. Does that sound to you like anti-Semitism?"
Well, no, but the part about the Holocaust never happening, and supporting the authenticity of a piece of hate literature that’s been used to justify the oppression and genocide of Jews, is.
Plus, it kind of reminds me of that part in movies when a white person is accused of being racist and all they can come up with is, “My grandma’s black. How can I be racist?”
But doing one semi-tolerant thing doesn’t make up for saying, "Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism,” or, “A woman can do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be thinking properly as a woman.”
So if denying the Holocaust isn’t anti-Semitic, does that mean calling Protestants devil-worshipers isn’t hateful? Or that claiming women are inherently stupid isn’t sexist?
Is this guy Rush Limbaugh’s best friend or something?
For the sake of being rhetorical, even IF (IF) the Holocaust didn't happen the way we're told it happened, according to Williamson at least 200,000 people were imprisoned and killed in Nazi concentration camps. Whether gas chambers were used or not, it doesn't make what happened any less awful.
Since I’ve been giving FOX so much flak for its right-wing biases, racial stereotyping, fear-mongering, cluelessness about the definition of “fair” and “balanced,” and its unwavering support for the Bush Administration (to name a few), it’s only fair to mention that FOX isn’t the only network guilty of spinning the news – and in some cases, ignoring it completely.
While researching editorial cartoons for a school project – My topic was conspiracies. Go figure – I came upon something especially disturbing regarding CBS.
In 2007 CBS made headlines of its own after the network released long-time Evening News anchor Dan Rather, which prompted him to fire back with a $70 million lawsuit.
But he didn’t stop there.
For one, Rather accused CBS of purposely sitting on the Abu Ghraib story, the evidence for which had been discovered months before the images were released in April 2004.
As an even larger blow, Rather claims this - as well as many other skewed reporting - was done simply to placate the Bush Administration.
And it was only when a journalist at the New Yorker was about to scoop the story that CBS reacted and reluctantly unveiled the horrible truth about the US Military’s actions at Abu Ghraib.
Above is a cartoon (GoalsForAmericans.org) based off an actual photograph of the kind of torture being administered at Abu Ghraib. A prisoner was connected to a series of wires and told to stand on a box; he was told that if he fell off he would be electrocuted. As you can see from this image, the victim is Liberty.
Posts
