Saturday, July 21, 2007

What the Hell is Going On?

Something is puzzling me. When this happens my mind doesn’t rest. Whatever I may be doing, my mind keeps churning in the background and occasionally throws up a piece of the puzzle which I will look at and then set down; back the mind goes to its churning with this new piece added. Eventually I come up with a hypothesis which satisfies my understanding. Until this happens though, the mind churns and churns.

I imagine other people have this feature. We worry at a problem or a mystery until whatever surface information we have matches up with information from the sub-conscious. Now and then we get “Eureka!”

Something has been on my mind for several weeks now. It’s connected to Ron Paul’s saying something to the effect that the country is in "great danger" of the U.S. government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate.

Then there was the article by Paul Craig Roberts

http://counterpunch.org/roberts07162007.html

in which he gets very direct about the possibility that the administration might be planning a false flag operation.

These people are both Republicans.

On the other hand there are commentaries from bloggers and other writers from all over the world about this possibility based on Chertoff’s visceral antenna; recent Al Qaeda announcements, the usual fake Bin Laden video, all sorts of fuzzy news from Pakistan, the efforts to justify attacking Iran, Israel’s intention to go to war with Syria and the buildup in readiness that is taking place at this moment.

Okay, let’s pause a moment and think about something. Sure, opinion writers analyze events in the news and come up with a perspective on it and most of them also have some sort of political POV or affiliation that will color how they present it and determine what information they want to highlight along the way to making their case.

Less obvious are the reasons why members of the president’s own party would make such a comment. Furthermore, these are not the only people connected to the Republican party that have indicated a willingness to believe that the government fabricates information and stages events to advance their agenda.

Here is the thing that is puzzling me. For people to say what they are saying they must have some information that the administration has been up to this before. They must have some intel that the administration has been involved in false flag operations in the past. I’m not talking about the common fact that the administration routinely lies. I’m not talking about things like Niger yellowcake. I’m not talking about manipulating terror alerts. There are many, many efforts such as this of which we are aware and any government will engage in acts like this to a greater or lesser degree. “Every ship of state sails on a river of darkness.”

I’m hoping I can convey to you just what it is that is puzzling me. It is a difficult thing to do. I’m having trouble with it. What information do these people have that has convinced them to the degree that they would announce it? We don’t have any sure and certain information that this administration has actually committed a staged terror attack, regardless of how certain many of us are that it has happened. We don’t have the smoking gun.

Why do so many people of good reputation believe that the administration would do such a thing when there’s no hard evidence that they have before? It seems to me that they in fact do know. Nowhere in mass media is there any honest dialogue allowed about 9/11. That door is sealed shut. Nowhere in mass media is there any revelation concerning the plethora of false information about Iran (except for Keith Olbermann). The news is rigidly controlled and manipulated to the advantage of corporations and criminal interests in the government.

It doesn’t matter how much we suspect Bushco of involvement in 9/11. It doesn’t matter what we think the government may have been up to and it doesn’t matter that they have a history of saying and doing anything they want to achieve their ends. When it comes to staged terror attacks our information is circumstantial. So, on what information are Roberts and Paul and others of their affiliation basing their beliefs?

One could say that all over America there are a large number of people who are convinced that the administration is going to stage a false terror attack. At the same time there’s no concrete evidence that they have done this. It creates a real puzzle in my mind. It seems like I am seeing a ubiquitous conviction, a collective certainty that this administration can and will commit treason against their own country. Does this strike anyone else as being outrageous?

We know they’ve been up to bad things but surely, if there was the hard evidence, impeachment and worse would be an absolute certainty. But yet, we are certain. Do you see my problem? It is so difficult to present the picture I want to convey, that we are in a situation where we know something we don’t know and for some reason everything continues on toward what awaits.

Here we sit, lacking the one vital thing we need to change everything while at the same time so many people know. And it can get mentioned in the paper and on TV. It can be discussed as if it were really happening, had happened and yet… it isn’t being treated as if it were real. Major efforts are not underway to handcuff the administration and speed toward impeachment. Meanwhile the administration makes one step after another toward limiting individual rights, declaring martial law, seizing the possessions of anyone who opposes policy, attacking Iran and so on and so on. Step by step it proceeds. Everyone can see it but no one is doing anything but making a little noise here and there. It just moves forward. Do you not find this as strange as I do?

We know something. We know it the way a jury knows it when they find a defendant guilty due to a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. What is this curious thing that I can’t describe that gives the sensation of moving through Jello? It feels like sleepwalking, like swimming through liquid tar. People are actually talking about an act of treason by their own government and… nothing. Most of the country wants impeachment and there is just more aqua ballet through fluid Vaseline. It feels like science fiction to me. It feels like some kind of Stepford Wives meets the pod people.

There’s some kind of metaphysical conundrum at work and I am moving through Jello myself as I try to present this elusive concept that just won’t form for me. I’m all around it and some of you may be getting enough to see what I’m getting at. It’s like being in a dream where you are watching something you can’t participate in. You can’t move very well when you try. It’s slow motion while something else is going at normal speed. The soundtrack is unintelligible due to excessive slurring.

In conclusion, why isn’t impeachment the focus of the moment? Tell me why the entire country and the majority of the lawmakers aren’t diligently engaged in this? There’s not just one solid reason. There are dozens. We don’t need no stinking, smoking gun. Is it mass hypnosis? Is it some kind of subliminal broadcast? Is it a gas or in the water supply? This might seem absurd to some but I can’t seem to find any sane explanations for it.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm really amazed by the remark that we don't know if Bush was involved in 9/11. He sure as hell had to know what was going on, and he sure as hell knew that there was no possibility of his being a target of any attack. How else do you explain the fact that the Secret Service allowed him to sit on his ass in that classroom for 15 minutes or more after he admits that he was informed that the country was under "terrorist" attack?

His whereabouts, as well as when he would be there, what he would be doing there, and how long he would be there, were all public knowledge. He was less than five miles from an airport. According to Bush himself, every single person in that school was a potential terror target, and yet nobody made a move.

When they could finally be bothered to leave the school, after Bush was even allowed to go outside and deliver A PREVIOUSLY PREPARED SPEECH, they followed their publicly announced departure route to the letter, and Air Force One took off WITHOUT A MILITARY ESCORT, almost an hour after Card whispered in Bush's ear.

No proof of foreknowledge and/or involvement? BULLSHIT!

Visible said...

You need to calm down. You don't understand what I'm saying and it doesn't look like you read carefully. Personally I am completely convinced that the administration was involved and I believe that was not only clear here but certainly in much of what I have written before.

What I am saying is we don't have concrete evidenc. What you have presented is circumstantial. It isn't HARD proof. Think about it. It is also not the point of the essay. I hope this was helpful.

Anonymous said...

Dear Visible:

Sorry if I seemed insane. I'm actually quite calm, if anybody can remain calm about this sort of knowledge.

I don't consider the evidence circumstantial, considering that every moment Bush was in that school was caught on tape. He has publicly claimed that he was told that the country was under attack, and yet he did nothing, and the failure of the Secret Service to remove him from the classroom is proof positive that they knew what was up, unless you want to hypothesize that they are all either treasonous or criminally insane. Considering what took place on that day, and the loss of life, I'm completely dumbfounded that El Fascista Maximo wasn't impeached before the end of September, and every single person in his security detail criminally indicted.

visible said...

Okay, but in legal terms it is circumstantial. They can give any reason for any of those events and it would be their word against yours. Hard evidence would be a smoking gun, fingerprints, eye witness testimony. And that was my argument; we all know but we don't have the photo of Bush playing with the little boys dick.

Did he do it? Yes, he and his handlers. Is he a psychopathic sonofabitch? Yes. Is he the worst president ever? Absolutely. Is he going down? Count on it (I hope)

Regards.

Anonymous said...

All true Visible
Now leave me alone, I'm watching an interesting movie (or going shopping or my favourite soap is on or I’m going for a beer with my mates or ...you get the gist)
Tony

Anonymous said...

I practiced law (by working for the gov) for three years back in the late '70s, and just before that I "became a lawyer," and just before that I went to law school.

I had one professor, for Evidence, who was a big human being. His name was Ivan Rutledge, half-brother to a former Supreme Court justice.

He had some deep insights about the nature of evidence that were very unpopular with many students because they were insights into human reality rather than being sound-bites that would help someone pass the bar exam.

One such unpopular viewpoint had to do with "circumstantiality." He said that in the practice of law, we would run into thousands of people including judges who automatically operate on the unexamined assumption that "circumstantiality" is a useful category for legal analysis. He warned us that in order to communicate truthfully and successfully with those people, we needed to understand the real situation, namely, that no matter what the others may think and say, there is no point in trying to analyze the relevance or probative power of a piece of evidence based on whether or not the evidence is "circumstantial" . . . because all evidence is 100% circumstantial.

Even in the case of truthful eyewitness testimony, the fact that the person was there and saw what they saw, and the fact that they're now relating a narrative of what they saw using sounds that form words, which reach the minds of hearers who recognize the sounds as words and form mental pictures of what must have happened . . . all those things are circumstances.

Regarding our now-criminal government and specifically 911 I too have longed to see what you are calling "the hard evidence," and I have suspected that people in the government (and also in the other G8 governments) are already aware of "hard evidence" and they just aren't talking about it.

But in reality, "hard evidence" is a total phantom, because our whole experience is one big mass of interrelated circumstances, and when a "hard-evidence"-type piece of evidence shows up, it never does come on-scene as THE decisive factor that suddenly changes everyone's mind. Moreover, no such single decisive piece of evidence ever will show up! What we thought would be the decisive "hard evidence" in fact melds into the whole pre-existing mass of OTHER interrelated circustances that people are already aware of.

Example: The BBC video of their anchor-person in New York saying that WTC 7 had just fallen down . . . while the live feed showed it still standing in the background! If there is such a thing as a totally-decisive smoking gun that had to be it. And it wasn't! The BBC bigwig fronted the explanation that in the heat of the broadcast moment, an anchor person can easily get things out of sequence, etc., etc., and he hasn't been fired or even called in question by "the authorities," nor will that ever happen.

Here's an Einsteinian mind experiment: Make up (i.e., imagine) a 911 piece of evidence that you think WOULD BE *THE* 'smoking gun' . . . THE piece of evidence that CAN'T be manipulated by the powers that be, and that is INCAPABLE of fading into the background of pre-existing circumstantial evidence.

Impossible, right???

Therefore, if it's true that we really must wait for a true smoking gun, a true piece of "hard evidence," before acting, we will never act.

And that moving through Jell-o feeling? Which I have had too, and I think I know just what you mean. That's the feeling of living inside of a belief that I MUST wait, for something which is, in actuality, nonexistent.

Visible said...

Dear Anonymous;

What an outstanding comment. You happen to be correct because 'all' evidence can be attacked. There are even lawyer who specialize in specific areas of attack; witness the O.J.D.N.A. domino game.

I want to thank you for that clear and concise bit of acrobatics. I feel extremely lucky that I get such intelligent responses most of the time. Well done.

Anonymous said...

A very big dichotomy is that pre-emptive intervention does not require smoking guns, just "gut feelings". This puts everyone else in a confused state of inaction since we are weaned on rule of law and common decency.

nobody said...

Hey Les,

I thought that Steven Jones finding traces of thermite and thermate in the 911 debris qualified as hard evidence. But what do I know? Nothing happened.

The old 'If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and nobody is there' riddle is now 'If a building is brought down in the middle of a city and the media ignores it did it really happen?'.

My conundrum is - Are you technically mad if you hold a thing in your mind that everyone you know thinks is bullshit? We need a neoligism, like Kundera's 'litost', to describe how I, and I'm sure others, feel in this situation. It's too much for me. I just tell people I'm technically mad.

Otherwise good to see you back mate.

Joy said...

Regarding the 9/11 evidence issue, certainly there is more than enough evidence for a grand jury type body to issue indictments, if such judicial independence existed. So why no action? Why no outcry except from marginal characters like Ron Paul and P.C. Roberts?

The answer is more depressing than 9/11 itself. The US government is a wholly owned subsidiary of an international monetary cartel, has been since 1913. Likewise all large corporations including media corporations are under the same control through a web of trusts, foundations, banks and interlocking directorates. Even new money entrepreneurs quickly learn that if they don't play along with the boss that the big investment banks can savage their firm's stock values, downgrade their credit rating, and arrange a hostile leveraged buyout by private equity. Not to mention a hostile tax audit or a SEC investigation.

Many people know this to some degree of understanding, it is not a big secret. In fact, it is the underlying common subtext of academic/corporate/media/government/ military/financial culture. Go along to get along.

Everyone knows they have a boss, and their boss has a boss, and so on, up into the mists at the top of society where "we do not speak his name" might dwell. If you have a mortgage, student loans, debts, ambitions for your children to have a better life, you do as the boss tells you, believe what he tells you to believe. Just listen to CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN/FOX/PBS and the boss will let you know what the range of acceptable opinions is. The voices of the boss all say some version of "Al Qaida" did 9/11. One can reason that either that is true, or the boss did 9/11, in which case it is necessary for your career survival to act as if you believe the lie.

Now here is an inside joke right out in the open. This famous rich guy, Lord Jacob Rothschild, comes from an old family, formerly known as the Bauer family. Let's be familiar and call him "Jake" Bauer, why not? Now this guy has many titles, he is the Independent Non-Executive Deputy Chairman of the Board of British Sky Broadcasting Group plc., a division of News Corporation. Now Fox Entertainment is another division of News Corporation. The top rated show on Fox Entertainment for the past several years has been "24", about a hero saving the world from terrorism by torturing people. Our fictional hero is named "Jack" Bauer. If you don't think that is funny, you are probably also not amused by the 9.11.01 on Jeff Goldblum's laptop (@45:33 on the DVD) in the 1996 movie Independence Day, or the Fox "Lone Gunmen" pilot broadcast 4 March 2001, or the Pearl Harbor propaganda movie shown the summer of 2001...

What I am saying is this 9/11 is way bigger than a few rogue spooks, soldiers, and politicians in the USA. It comes from our planetary lords themselves. It is amazing that anyone under age 90 with two cents to rub together will speak out.

Anonymous said...

The main reason why no one is acting (although most are enraged) is the media, which is so tightly controlled / owned by the perpetrators of the crime. The media pumps out false perceptions day in and day out and the masses are not aware of whats going on OR are too busy making a living to bother.

The enlightened few (who get most of their news via the internet) can talk and fume but most are scared (of being perceived as being on the fringe).

I think that is the reason why Ron Paul has such a following because any one who is tired of the atmosphere of lies flocks to anyone who speaks a little truth.

What can be done about this situation. Lobbying the congress is useless, as all of them are bought. Only a grass root movement, which the media cannot ignore and jolts the stupified masses from their dreams has a chance of success, if any.

Visible said...

Yes, that is hard evidence but not of 'who' did it, only that it was done and that the explosives and cutting chemicals prove prior knowledge on someone's part and go as far as anyone would need to go to imply beyond argument that it was an inside job.

Of course we know some of the people involved based on what our common sense and reasoning powers tell us as a result of what they did on that day and after.

Joy said...

16 perps indicted by "citizen's grand jury"

http://stj911.org/paul/SDCGJ_HistoricResults.html

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Joy. That may be the clearest writeup of "the whole situation" that I have seen yet. Also, that's the first I had heard about the San Diego grand jury.

Anonymous said...

Here's an Einsteinian mind experiment: Make up (i.e., imagine) a 911 piece of evidence that you think WOULD BE *THE* 'smoking gun' . . . THE piece of evidence that CAN'T be manipulated by the powers that be, and that is INCAPABLE of fading into the background of pre-existing circumstantial evidence.

Impossible, right???

Lemme think for a sec:

You mean, like eh,

The media released 4.5 years,

(And the FBI released a day after the media had "learned" that a passport was found in the gazillions of tons of dust of the WTC crime scene. Ref: MSNBC )

after 911, the info to the public that a day after the 'titanium' passport was found according to the media the FBI issued a statement that that was an URBAN legend/myth.

An 100% positive proof identity that according to the government IS acknowledged and confirmed by OTHER evidence that is kept secret because of (Failed!) sources and methods.

You mean something like that?

The fact that they used something they KNEW was an urban legend, instead of fighting it as being such.

(And everyone knows that the FBI stated that the hijackers could have used false passports.)

Can we now get to the good part of the Tar and Feathering?

Anonymous said...

Good essay. Good discussion. Thanks for all of it.

Could it be that we are living in *mid evil times*?

seems so...

annemarie

Mike Land said...

I'm more interested in the point of your essay... the jello. I feel it too. The same kind of helplessness felt in a dream where you are screaming but nobody can hear you, or trying to run but can't get any traction.

I think there are two flavors in this jello. Mine is made of friends and family who simply won't listen. They even stop communicating (e-mail) altogether. They love me but I think they are uncomfortable with critical thinking they can't blow off. When it makes sense they just turn off.

They are in a different jello. Theirs is the disbelieving/wont-believe-it world of those who don't want their American dream interupted with facts that would jerk their eyes open to reveal that they've been fed mythology all of their lives. That their precious democracy never was, and that capitolism always becomes tyrrany. They so badly want to believe we invaded a sovereign nation for noble reasons... but if they open their eyes they'll see it was for the oil. And what's worse they know that if they were ever forced to decide between the dreaded lack of personal freedom of carpooling, or killing a few thousand more insurgents... it would be a really tough call.

So they don't act and we can't. We're all locked in a world of impending hell and it feels like all we can do is wait and watch and see how it all plays out.

Anonymous said...

"Could it be that we are living in *mid evil times*?

"seems so...

"annemarie"

You might well like the book called "Lost Star of Myth and Time" by Walter Cruttenden, which has brought an actual "paradigm shift" to the way I think about almost everything. The new (actually old-old-old and now re-discovered) viewpoint that the book is presenting on time, human culture, and practically everything, is something that people are going to be amazed by when they see it.

Also I would like to second Visible's recommendation of the current writing on "Ponerology," which is just as amazing as the above, from a totally different perspective. Starting with the very powerful story of how the main Ponerology-guy came to write his book, and how it almost dropped out of existence and then did in fact get published.

Oarwell said...

How's this for hard evidence. What if someone was present when the Vice President ordered the incoming Pentagon aircraft NOT to be shot down?

Hey--someone was! Norman Mineta, the Transportation Sec, who was forced to resign after this fact became public. It's on tape and it's on YouTube.

Cheney was running the other wargames. Cheney, according to eyewitness, cabinet-level testimony, ordered the plane to be allowed in.

What do you want, a hand-written note from the guy?

But no "sheesh" from me--that was a nice essay describing what cognitive dissonance feels like.

Anonymous said...

To Mike Land: - I hear you 100%....what are we supposed to do with family like that...just give up on them?
To Joy: you nailed it.

There is a great new video out called Zeitgeist that does a bang up job of explaining Joy's point.
Zeitgeist - Part 3: "Don't Mind the Men Behind the Curtain"
www.tinyurl.com/2kg6p5

After that I bet you would be inspired to watch the whole thing - Zeitgeist The Movie - Full Production, here:
www.tinyurl.com/24qhz7

If you get turned off by the criticism of religion in Part 1 - don't give up on Part 2 - which does a great short concise job on 911.
Even though it's current view rate ranks it #7 on google - for some reason they aren't including it in the Top 100 list.....hmmmm....definitely something to see to find out why that is the case.
Enjoy and share - time is running out.

My 2 cents on why nobody is doing anything, even IF they know - I think a large part of it has to do with the simple fact that "they" will simply kill anyone who makes too much trouble. Remember - we are dealing with an organization just like the mob (except without the principles and honor).
I suspect most of the people allowed to speak out (about 911) are allowed to as they are part of controlling the coverup. It's the people who have disappeared or been silenced, which are the ones who were getting too close to the truth. For example - Mark Cuban, supposedly distributing LooseChange (in spite of this: http://prisonplanet.com/audio/240307oreilly.mp3 ), had "halifaxion" (one of the better collections of original 911 clips online) removed from youtube and apparently everywhere else online too?? Now I think that pretty much tells us who was close to the truth on 911 and who is not going to be.

I think quite possibly we are facing EVIL on what is truly a biblical scale (and I am not even religious that way!)

I found this part of a group of daring set of clips the other day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDIOwjUckQo

A false messiah = antichrist?
Perhaps the jello we are in is part of a very powerful malevolent force - how else could you explain this universal trance that has permitted such deception to be accepted?

Anonymous said...

Paul Graig Roberts and Ron Paul are both RINOS (repubs in name only). They are Libertarians. That's why they will say things against the fascists.

Henry the eighth said...

While we do not have proof of THIS administration engaging in a false flag operation, we certainly have proof the US government has done it many times in the past. The sinking of the Maine, WWI & WWII, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the list goes on.

Sean O'Neil said...

I think the answer, visible, is that the folks like PCR have access to information that they are unwilling to share with people in a public setting.

That's the only logical explanation. It's the only rational explanation. And based on those two points, it seems to me the only POSSIBLE explanation.

I learned long ago that the "news media" do not independently investigate much of anything, and merely report whatever the subject governmental entity or business entity has provided by way of press release or statements in a press conference. Analysis, where offered, is given by partisan hacks who have a vested interest in the proffered analysis being accepted as true; the vested interest commonly is money, power, prestige, or a combination of them.

Information on what really happens in the Oval Office and in Congressmen's chambers is not utterly secret. While away some hours at a place like the Old Ebbitt Grill (when it still existed) and you'd hear plenty from the drunk bureaucrats and their sycophantic "reporter" lackeys.

When most humans are part of an enterprise of the sort now being conducted by the Bush-Cheney Crime Syndicate, they begin to have pangs of existential angst due to the morally questionable nature of their role. Some can live with it. Others cannot, they blab to a friend, they get drunk and blurt it to a stranger, they tell a wife who tells her bridge partner or golf partner.

Stuff does NOT stay contained or hidden or silent. What changes is the duration of the secrecy. The uglier the secret, the shorter the life -- up to a point. At a certain ugliness the person whose secret it is will defend the secret with lethal force. At that point, the secrecy usually is fairly well guaranteed -- for maybe a generation or two.

We know that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld are not strangers to causing the death of others.

We know that Cheney shot a "friend" in the face out of some contentious point of supposed disloyalty to the Cheney Worldview.

It is possible that Chomsky, Palast and Cockburn have been threatened.

In the case of Cockburn I think it more likely he is trying to maintain a high press profile for future publication ease.

In the case of Palast, I think he always has been someone's stooge. His "breaking stories" always have some sort of partisan bias, IMO.

Chomsky is just wrong. He is canonized by certain "liberals" an "progressives" but he isn't infallible. In this case I would suggest he's being over-skeptical, in a way that is supposed to secure his profile as a level-headed poindexter of progressive points.

LanceThruster said...

Related to this piece, please read this:

http://lancethruster.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=455228

Dirty Bombs, Gut Feelings and False-Flags: An Examination of Implications of Recent Remarks by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Economist Mr. Paul Craig Roberts

Sean O'Neil said...

nice, lancethruster.

Here's my take on it:

http://runnyguts.blogspot.com/2007/07/i-got-me-chertoff-sized-gut-feeling.html

Todd Howe said...

I've just been doing a little bit of reading up on the field of social psychology for an article I posted to my blog (link below), and I'm left with the impression that at an operational level, its practitioners are sufficiently advanced to inject memes of this kind into the culture without too much trouble.

The most interesting and relevant passage was an interview with Edward Bernays, which I found here. He describes the process that he would use to promote the interviewers' book, after the fashion of a free lesson in media manipulation. Bernays is the 'father' of what we know today as PR, and has advised Presidents from Wilson though Clinton:

"If you said to me, 'I would like more readers of this book' [tapping the cover] ...I would immediately get in touch with the largest American consumer association. And I would say to the head of the consumers association, 'There are undoubtedly...I can't tell you the exact percentage, but X percentage of your members who are very definitely interested in the images that come from a finance capitalist society, and who I think would enjoy hearing about that. Why don't you devote one of your twelve meetings a year to consumer images, the name of a new book, and I think it may be possible for me to get the author to talk to the New York meeting and you then make an arrangement with American Tel and Tel and have a video tape made of him beforehand and in thirty of the largest cities of the United States that have the American Consumer League, you listen to an in-depth concept of consumers and images....'

Then Bernays turned to me and, with an abracadabra tone in his voice, he summarized the imaginable result of his hypothetical phone-call to the head of the country's largest consumer association:

Every one of the consumer groups has contacts with the local paper, and in some cases the AP may pick it up, or Reuters, and you become an international star!"

I'm sure there are people that can pick up the phone (Roger Ailes for one) and get the same kind of thing going in a heartbeat. It's all about exploiting social networks I guess.

http://tehowe.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

You people are truly crazy.