Boston

[SD Realtor]

The day of the explosion the “person of interest” was questioned by police. This person was mentioned on all of the news outlets. Two days later none of the media outlets carried that this person was going to be deported due to national security concerns immediately after both John Kerry and the president met with the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia. The following day Janet Napolitano was questioned about this person but gave no information. Yes Glenn Beck has been talking about it.

So your implication is that since nobody else in the media has talked about it then it is of no significance.

[SK in CV]

Right, they were talking about him a week ago. And unless something has changed in the last couple days, he is no longer a person of interest in the Boston bombing. Unless you’re a follower of Glenn Beck.

There were also reports Saturday, primarily out of the UK, that authorities are looking for a cell of at least 12 in and around New England. That kind of fizzled too. News services have been pretty unreliable in reporting the status of the case, as in with the issue of the incompetence of not understanding the difference between an uploaded youtube video and a linked-to video. Or in some cases, despite their using formerly reliable sources. (In the case of the errant NY Post photograph, it may have even been intentional.)

So the fact that nobody else has talked about it (particularly in the last 48 hours) is significant. “Breaking stories” can quickly become broken stories.

[SD Realtor]

Agreed that breaking stories can become broken stories. I don’t think it would behoove the security agencies for “more reporting” as opposed to less reporting of a sleeper cell. As we have witnessed over the past decade in pretty much every terrorist plot that has been detected prior to that event, those stories died within a day or two as well.

As you and many others may deride Glenn Beck, I find it interesting that nobody has actually refuted what he has said. I guess they don’t feel it is important.

While to you it is not important that someone with a student visa is living in Boston and is at the crime scene while on a student visa to go to school in Ohio, to me it is important. The 9/11 attacks had several terrorists that were also here on student visa’s. So the non story to you is important to me and I would like to know more details about it. Since nobody else is reporting about it, where else can I find out about it but these outlets.

It is just our different perspectives. We have different opinions on the media. My guess is that you believe that if the mainstream media doesn’t report about it, then it is not an issue and that outlets like Fox and people like Beck are right wing crazy’s. You may very well be correct. Mine is that the mainstream media is steeped in political correctness and is almost fearful of the current administration. I don’t bite on everything that Fox or Beck report on but don’t ignore them or laugh them off like everyone else does. Perhaps the truth is in between.

[paramount]

I guess it was only a matter of time before video’s like this one appeared on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpu6_kArb9U

[desmond]

[quote=paramount]I guess it was only a matter of time before video’s like this one appeared on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpu6_kArb9U%5B/quote%5D

So I watched this video and a few more that were “over to the right” on the youtube page. Then I was watching CNN showing “see how a pressure cooker bomb works” and I noticed the guy in that video is wearing the same clothes as the guys in one of the “over to the right” videos..

CNN video:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2013/04/22/erin-mattingly-pressure-cooker-bombs.cnn

youtube “Over to the right video”

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Desmond: Many of these news outlets, regardless of leaning, source their materials from the same people or groups, which means an intern went out on Google and looked up “bomb expert”.

They also share military “experts”, which is why I was granted the rare viewing pleasure of watching that complete moron Wesley Clark beclown himself on several networks. But, he’s telegenic, speaks in complete sentences and once wore an Army uniform with little shiny stars on it, so he clearly must know what he’s talking about.

He does additional duty as a “counterinsurgency” expert (a topic he knows exactly dick about) and “strategy” expert. On the latter topic, he is an expert. He developed and implemented an excellent strategy of affixing his lips to Bill Clinton’s ass.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Desmond: Many of these news outlets, regardless of leaning, source their materials from the same people or groups, which means an intern went out on Google and looked up “bomb expert”.

He does additional duty as a “counterinsurgency” expert (a topic he knows exactly dick about) and “strategy” expert. On the latter topic, he is an expert. He developed and implemented an excellent strategy of affixing his lips to Bill Clinton’s ass.[/quote]

LMAO, I’ve missed you Allan.

One of best things I’ve read what Timothy Ferris’ “Four Hour Work Week” section on becoming “an expert”. Literally a little formula for becoming the go to person for the media to call up on something. Which in turn is useful for being able to pump whatever pabulum you want.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

NSR: Thanks. I’ll check Ferris out; he sounds like a good read. Speaking of pabulum, I’m reminded of former “security expert” Richard Clarke and his turn as a self-professed “cyber security expert”. He wrote a book on the topic, which was shredded by “Wired” magazine and then Rob Rosenberg at VMyths took him down as being part of a False Authority Syndrome. That term stuck with me and I think of it every time I see one of these media darlings bloviating about a topic they know nothing about.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dan: Speaking of history, isn’t a non-representative authority (in the form of a tyrannical monarch like George III) a tautology?

Also, can the Sons of Liberty, in your example, be considered “Constitutionalists”, given that the Constitution hadn’t even been written yet?[/quote]

Re tautology:
Lots of authorities are powered by representative democracy.
Prior to colonial establishment, most British subjects were represented through their MP.
The colonies were the exception.
Nobody really cared until the crown started throwing its weight around.
It lost that argument.
Britain lost the Americans colonies.
And the crown was so weakened that it fully lost any real authority shortly thereafter.
Nor was that isolated to the hypercalcemic King George.
Its the same way the glorious revolution, the English civil war, and gelding of King John went down.
Ambitious monarch gets checked by players in the broader power base after failing to read “the Prince” (film at eleven).
Also, King George was foolish in his application of force but not much of a tyrant in my opinion.

Re Tea and Boston:
And no, I did not mean to say that the SOL were constitutionalists but that their rebellion had become a big part of the mythos underpinning this new wave of deified constitutional fundamentalism.

I strongly doubt they would identify with the Tea Party (which complains about taxation WITH representation).

Re Wes Clark:
So….you really think the NATO supreme commander was that much of a doofus?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Agreed that breaking stories can become broken stories. I don’t think it would behoove the security agencies for “more reporting” as opposed to less reporting of a sleeper cell. As we have witnessed over the past decade in pretty much every terrorist plot that has been detected prior to that event, those stories died within a day or two as well.

As you and many others may deride Glenn Beck, I find it interesting that nobody has actually refuted what he has said. I guess they don’t feel it is important.

While to you it is not important that someone with a student visa is living in Boston and is at the crime scene while on a student visa to go to school in Ohio, to me it is important. The 9/11 attacks had several terrorists that were also here on student visa’s. So the non story to you is important to me and I would like to know more details about it. Since nobody else is reporting about it, where else can I find out about it but these outlets.

It is just our different perspectives. We have different opinions on the media. My guess is that you believe that if the mainstream media doesn’t report about it, then it is not an issue and that outlets like Fox and people like Beck are right wing crazy’s. You may very well be correct. Mine is that the mainstream media is steeped in political correctness and is almost fearful of the current administration. I don’t bite on everything that Fox or Beck report on but don’t ignore them or laugh them off like everyone else does. Perhaps the truth is in between.[/quote]

Adam, most news sources don’t refute Glenn Beck in the same way they don’t refute Stella Tremblay when she asserts the government is run by Queen Elizabeth.

They don’t refute it because its FUCKING RETARDED.

Here is a fun example:
http://news.yahoo.com/glenn-beck-conspiracy-theory-whats-evidence-202312996.html

Fox News is not crazy.
However it is partisan.
In the same way that MSNBC is partisan.
Thats part of the reason Beck isn’t on Fox News anymore.

They have a perspective (which isn’t mine) but they don’t run about alleging the Muslim Brotherhood is front for Code Pink.

I disagree with Fox News but actually disdain Glenn Beck (and his dittoheads).

This reminds me of that movie Barcelona where everybody in Spain is fighting the AFL-CIA conspiracy. Whenever the Americans try to explain how that makes no sense, they are accused of being a part of it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan: Dude, you rock. Seriously. Plus, you used the word “hypercalcemic”! Nice.

Relative to the tautology, I wanted to yank yer twine and see if I could get a response.

I also agree with the paradox of the modern Tea Party and its “Keep your government hands off my Medicare” mantra. No cure for stupid.

No, I don’t believe that Wesley Clark is a doofus. Far from it. He is representative of that ass-kissing, social-climbing Politically Correct general officer that the Army is awash in right now (and has been for the last generation). These officers know the right asses to kiss, the way to play the game within “The Corporation” (the Pentagon) and will do or say anything to advance their own fortunes, whilst never given offense or telling the truth.

So, Clark isn’t a fighting general (in the WWII sense of the word), doesn’t really know tactics, or strategy, or war-fighting, since he hasn’t been involved with the “dirty” side of the business since he was probably a major or light colonel, but that doesn’t prevent him from appearing on every news show that will have him, blathering on about shit he knows less than nothing about.

Tommy Franks, and Shinseki and McChrystal fall into this category as well. Stan McChrystal’s most serious failing wasn’t running his mouth to Rolling Stone, it was pretending he had a fucking clue about what to do in Afghanistan. His contention that he “wrote the book” on counterinsurgency warfare in Afghanistan was a howler because it WAS NOT a counterinsurgency war at all. Again, no cure for stupid.

[paramount]

I thought this video offered an interesting perspective on Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTYJ5Yi-1kk

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=paramount]I thought this video offered an interesting perspective on Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTYJ5Yi-1kk%5B/quote%5D

Paramount: Wow. Gotta love the internet. Prior to the internet, lunatic fringe elements like this would have been relegated to a dark corner of Nowheresville, Alabama, preaching this nonsense to other like-minded folks.

Now? You can widely disseminate this stupidity across the globe. Wheeeeee!

[paramount]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=paramount]I thought this video offered an interesting perspective on Boston:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTYJ5Yi-1kk%5B/quote%5D

Paramount: Wow. Gotta love the internet. Prior to the internet, lunatic fringe elements like this would have been relegated to a dark corner of Nowheresville, Alabama, preaching this nonsense to other like-minded folks.

Now? You can widely disseminate this stupidity across the globe. Wheeeeee![/quote]

Calm down, calm down…it’s not like you and you alone have a corner on the Truth.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Paramount: I hear you and wouldn’t claim a corner on the truth, but some shit is just so bugfuck crazy you have to call it out.

In the blast engineering business, we have our share of crazies, I’m talking people that claim that Oklahoma City 1995 and 9/11 were inside jobs and they can provide “proof” in the form of data and graphs and photos. Some of this proof can actually look fairly convincing, but, when subjected to scrutiny, it falls apart.

And that’s the rub with this sort of shit: It isn’t Truth in any sort of way. But to someone who doesn’t know any better, or doesn’t know the right questions to ask, well, it appears that clowns like these might actually be onto something. So, instead of “low-information” voters, we get “no-information” voters.

[Author]

Posts