Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Not only did Ari Shapiro say something about a "weird obsession with a sorority" (thank you, GG, for proving what a load that was), but when he and NPR sunk so low as to say "Ivins was cast as the murderer in a high school play", I had to laugh at how bad they have become. From now on, every unsolved case of cannibalism should have Anthony Hopkins as a prime suspect.
I don't remember all the details, but I remember that years ago, Kenneth Tomlinson was appointed chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and immediately denounced NPR as too liberal, saying it must become "balanced". I even seem to recall him saying that he wanted to make NPR more like cable-news shows, that had hippy liberal douche from the left vs. intolerant asshole from the right (he said left vs. right, but you get the point).
Ever since then, I noticed NPR news quickly turn from hard-hitting, intelligent journalism to the bucket-o-crap we see before us today (even sans Tomlinson). In their attempt to become neutral, all they do now is regurgitate whatever they are fed.
Sorry, I know this post was a little OT, but this is the state of the media today...oh yeah, and this is in no way meant to say Ivins is Innocent. I wouldn't know...all I know is that he theoretically COULD be the guy, he liked to drink, enjoyed porn, didn't want people to know he enjoyed porn, once dated a sorority girl, and he pissed off a social worker who loves driving drunk. When I get more evidence, I may be more judgmental about him.
Even if one of his vaccines had been mass-produced, the primary beneficiaries would have been the producer and the government, not Bruce.
Just for completeness, though, he does have one patent application that was filed with another government researcher (currently with FDA) which is not assigned to the government. All the others were, and all of the others on the subject thread of the unassigned application.
Not that the water needs to be muddy.
He'd had a Guinness, which "made me a virtual zombie" he later told me, as he rarely drank alcohol.
Was Ivins the anthrax killer? Debora MacKenzie, Brussels correspondent
New Scientist Blog
Besides, isn't the choice of weapon for a drunk, an automobile?
Now there's class. I knew going to Sturgis would be a coup for McCain! It'll get his campaign off to a "Wet Start"
I heard this on the Ed Schultz show. I'm puzzled; was this just cluelessnes, or was it calculated (click my sig for the burning question on my mind).
Or click sig for video of McCain selling wife to bikers.
I have to state truthfully that I didn't do this. Something in my mind just says, "don't go there, man, don't go there...."
Cheers,
ondelette,
Point taken. What most impresses me in the testimonials from his closest coworkers, however, is the high regard in which they held Ivins. Not only are they passionately convinced that he is innocent, but they describe him as a decent man and a respected professional. Which means that the FBI, under pressure from Bush 43 administration higher-ups, may have driven an innocent man to his death, which is a monstrous deed and grievous abuse of government power. It also means that the real inside job and false flag terrorists are still on the loose, no doubt plotting more terrorist crimes against Americans, including against high government officials like Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.
Unfortunately I do know about mental illness having dealt directly with a mentally ill relative of my husband, her psychiatrist, her psychologists, the hospital, an her manipulation techniques. Mental illness is very complex, changes over years, and is sometimes undetectable by outsiders.
My experience dealing with this person has made me VERY aware of mental health problems and the mental health system.
Ivins could have easily worked and been a brilliant scientists for years and still have suffered from mental illness.
Duley was not his therapist. She was in group therapy with Ivins.
... and I suspect that "profit" motive applies to virtually all of the lab members IF they were fingered... who couldn't use a few extra hundred thousand to pay off the mortgage, help with kids' college tuition, plan for retirement, right?
More "lowest common denominator" one-size-fits-all bullshit ... maybe he was pissed about his co-pay rates or that dental work that his insurance refused to cover ...
Again, they are attempting to make the "profile" fit the suspect ... this is "assumption of guilt" and why it must be avoided like the plague (no pun intended) -- imho, it's part of the danger of FISA data trawling ... the "facts" are then selectively fitted around the dominant paradigm or theory ... how did Tony Blair and company put it??? Same blinking, ER, blinkered problem ....
I don't remember all the details, but I remember that years ago, Kenneth Tomlinson was appointed chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and immediately denounced NPR as too liberal, saying it must become "balanced".
While I'm always glad that someone else has noticed the subversion of NPR, it was already well underway in the 90's during the Gingrich Contract on America. They cut NPR's funding based on the argument that, 'its not popular', or 'its not commercially viable'. NPR, to maintain their unbiased stance, broadcast the arguments that undermined it's own funding.
Today's NPR is more corporate because of it.. Don't fail to notice Liasson and Cole either, Fox News collaborators both of them.
Thank you, I'm quite aware of my biases. That is why I posted the entire letter instead of excerpts so that people had everything in front of them.
I'll go off-topic for once and say that myself and any number of people of the same ethnic background believe that at least some of the 9/11 hijackers were really cover identities for the air force pilots of a "friendly" (Islamic) country. The suspicion arises in how the planes were flown; especially see the earliest reports. As to whether that country would be so stupid, the answer is a resounding yes. The coverup of 9/11 then consists in hiding the role that this country played. Reasons for the coverup include that it is not the country the administration wanted to go to war with, and public opinion would have demanded that if there were a war it be with this country. One of the results is that all that country's entry/exit controls are now American systems and presumably run a feed to the US.
Is it worth talking about? No - partly because it reflects my bias, partly because there is no way forward to prove or disprove the case.
Why even mention it? Because all the 9/11ers here are not so kind. Plausibility-wise, my scenario isn't deficient compared to all the other 9/11ers on this board.
Lastly, I've lost all interest in any further dialogue with you.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
