This will make you laugh with an unusual connection between Toyota and the Taliban:
http://trueslant.com/michaelpeck/2010/02/11/taliban-rear-ended-by-toyota-recall/
A little taste of political logic (with a side dose of insanity and humor to make things interesting.) My life will occassionally be brought in with some journalism.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Debate With a 9/11 Truther
It lasted in full 7 emails. The first two emails were confirming that we were going to have a debate. This is our full debate (taking out emails and easing the format some):
His first email (my first email was really a post on his blog):
My time is very short as I am making a film at the moment, a film that I hope will answer any questions or objections you have. But I'll think about it though, I'm always up for a phone convo if this is just for your own personal curiosity.
JM
My response:
I was hoping to have this debate via email, a continuous back and forth for years if needed. Along the way some issues will be permanently resolved, and those that are not should be placed publicly demanding answers. I'm hoping through our two side examination we can compile a list of unresolved issues for people with more means than I, possibly even you, have. I understand you have a life and so do I. An email a day, or a week, whenever we get the opportunity would be fine by me.
Besides making this public my intention is to inform as many people as possible of the unresolved issues (supporting or not supporting my side) so the public will be wiser. This is an opportunity to not only cover the truth of the event, but also teach other things such as psychology, religion, engineering, politics, ect. I am not formal in any regard, and hope we can "debate" for the truth.
Truther:
OK, well, kick things off I guess.
Me:
The September 11 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. (From Wikipedia).
Truther:
Even if we accept that bin Laden and gang were the masterminds of 9/11 it does not negate a slew of evidence indicating that they were allowed to succeed and had their results amplified. 9/11 very well could have been an inside and an outside job.
Me:
Your links lead to more links which lead to even more links following by another link to a source cited in a report I found to have had the citation of a report based on the JFK assassination. So lets go a direct route in bringing the information, the data, to the email. What evidence indicates they were allowed to succeed? What evidence indicated their results were amplified (presumably by a force outside of their own means)? The second link has no derivable questions of specific value as it raises no ambiguous leads only a statement of possibilities which can be found by the first two questions in this "segment". Do you accept the fact of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by Al-Qaeda on the United States on September 11, 2001?
Truther:
I'm sorry, but the more I think about this debate, the more I know I have no interest in it. You are in essence asking me to write a book. I tackle an issue here and there these days, but to tackle every detail in a possible multiple year long debate is frankly more time than I wish to devote to this cause. I have been a member of the 9/11 truth movement since 2004. I am pretty much finished after I complete my movie, absent some big developments. It's the capstone to all the research and activism I have done. Keep an eye out for it and review it if you want. I'll review your review. :)
Take care,
JM
Me:
You, sir, are unwilling to stand up for what you believe in no matter the cost. All I asked for was your time at your pace on a topic you've placed immense efforts in already. I didn't want a book, I wanted the truth. I don't play by your link to a link of a link rules that never finds the real truth and you back down. You are a coward.
His first email (my first email was really a post on his blog):
My time is very short as I am making a film at the moment, a film that I hope will answer any questions or objections you have. But I'll think about it though, I'm always up for a phone convo if this is just for your own personal curiosity.
JM
My response:
I was hoping to have this debate via email, a continuous back and forth for years if needed. Along the way some issues will be permanently resolved, and those that are not should be placed publicly demanding answers. I'm hoping through our two side examination we can compile a list of unresolved issues for people with more means than I, possibly even you, have. I understand you have a life and so do I. An email a day, or a week, whenever we get the opportunity would be fine by me.
Besides making this public my intention is to inform as many people as possible of the unresolved issues (supporting or not supporting my side) so the public will be wiser. This is an opportunity to not only cover the truth of the event, but also teach other things such as psychology, religion, engineering, politics, ect. I am not formal in any regard, and hope we can "debate" for the truth.
Truther:
OK, well, kick things off I guess.
Me:
The September 11 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. (From Wikipedia).
Truther:
Even if we accept that bin Laden and gang were the masterminds of 9/11 it does not negate a slew of evidence indicating that they were allowed to succeed and had their results amplified. 9/11 very well could have been an inside and an outside job.
Me:
Your links lead to more links which lead to even more links following by another link to a source cited in a report I found to have had the citation of a report based on the JFK assassination. So lets go a direct route in bringing the information, the data, to the email. What evidence indicates they were allowed to succeed? What evidence indicated their results were amplified (presumably by a force outside of their own means)? The second link has no derivable questions of specific value as it raises no ambiguous leads only a statement of possibilities which can be found by the first two questions in this "segment". Do you accept the fact of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by Al-Qaeda on the United States on September 11, 2001?
Truther:
I'm sorry, but the more I think about this debate, the more I know I have no interest in it. You are in essence asking me to write a book. I tackle an issue here and there these days, but to tackle every detail in a possible multiple year long debate is frankly more time than I wish to devote to this cause. I have been a member of the 9/11 truth movement since 2004. I am pretty much finished after I complete my movie, absent some big developments. It's the capstone to all the research and activism I have done. Keep an eye out for it and review it if you want. I'll review your review. :)
Take care,
JM
Me:
You, sir, are unwilling to stand up for what you believe in no matter the cost. All I asked for was your time at your pace on a topic you've placed immense efforts in already. I didn't want a book, I wanted the truth. I don't play by your link to a link of a link rules that never finds the real truth and you back down. You are a coward.
Iran/Resource Based Socialism
The hope internationally is that the crackdown by the government of Iran on their own people will give them another reason, aside from the nuclear issue which lacks Russian and Chinese will, to change the regime by any means.
The first is of course sanctions. The economic weapon once most potent for the reliance on America by the world for any measurable economic success. Yet, as globalization moves forward and sanctions are ignored by nations seeking any buyer at any price for their own survival, the supporters of sanctions will find that while removing one source of funds works short term the long term ability for sanctions to truly isolate and alter a nation's political course is minute.
Yet the oppression (in the form of limiting freedom of speech, assembly, ect.) is inspiring the world to investigate the brutal crimes an entrenching regime employs to not eliminate, but force into hiding the dissenters (imprisonment, torture, rape, execution, ect.) Recent sanctions called for by our US Congress targeted the security apparatus in the Revolutionary Guard; not for connections to the nuclear program, but for their compliance with orders to commit horrendous crimes against their own people's freedom. A UN investigation, urged by the US, will soon take place. Perhaps Israel can be the nation to bring legitimate scorn on its Arab opponents instead of the inventive delusions the War in Gaza brought onto Israel from its neighbors.
One can also see the failure of an attempt to create a Socialist Theocracy in recent years contributing to the uprising against the Iranian regime. The smaller nations of Qatar and Kuwait succeeded due to the luck of vast amounts of oil compared to population. The external influx of wealth allowed their mixture of Socialism and Capitalism to thrive due to the massive amount of prosperity injection. With no limit of resources this system has worked yet it requires an almost eternal resource base (in this case oil) to continue indefinitely in a status quo form. Some with limits on that resource diversified before crashing.
Dubai has made the efforts to diversify but did so in a limited fashion by going directly for two sectors (banking and real estate). Dubai is standing on the edge of a cliff now as the international market loses its value in real estate and banking. Not even their diversity of location (worldwide ports, Las Vegas, ect.) has spared them from the debt crash.
Other attempts to build resource based Socialism are failing elsewhere. Venezuela attempted to use its oil, and still does (rationing power to cities but not to oil fields), to support the Socialist revolution. However the people are finding the same problem Iran has found which is that it will not succeed. The leadership can't accept its failure because then they are no longer legitimate.
In Iran they lost their legitimacy. The promises made to the poor that got Ahmadinejad elected in 2005 resulted in gas rationing in an oil producing nation. His goal of helping the poor resulted in real estate becoming more expensive by factors of two or three in some areas. The enemy chosen by Iran was not capitalism directly but the west; not due to a lack of hatred of capitalism but since a cultural hatred of the west included more than just capitalism. Such a connection allowed greater political points to be scored in the Islamic nation. For those unaware about Ahmadinejad's connection to Socialism: "[o]ne of his goals is "putting the petroleum income on people's tables"." [1]
Oil hasn't been the only resource nation's have based their Socialist promises on. Green technology and industries were promised by Spain to produce jobs and make electricity cheaper while making the carbon output lower. Lets examine the results as known in December 2009:
"For the last ten years, Spain has said all the right things about controlling its carbon emissions in the face of the looming climate crisis. It has even taken concrete action: A new law demands every new house in Spain must have a solar water heater. The country also has made massive investments in solar power plants, wind farms and public transport. However in the last ten years Spain's carbon footprint has increased by more than 30 percent."
Excerpt over. So the country isn't cleaner, how about those jobs and cheaper electricity? Well, in 2008 Spain reached 37% unemployment. Right now 4 million of a workforce of 27 million are unemployed. As for prices I tried to find real value but due to the feed-in tariff policy every industry has an artificial price meant to encourage greener energy. That means it isn't cheaper and they have to subsidize it. Resource based Socialism doesn't work in large scale, just like all the other kinds of Socialism.
Conclusion:
Not only should we support the Iranian people's demand of freedom and help them attain it by all means possible but we need to prevent our own nation's leaders' promised reliance on green technology to try to create a resource based socialist nation.
[1]: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA19Ak03.html
[2]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121274675
The first is of course sanctions. The economic weapon once most potent for the reliance on America by the world for any measurable economic success. Yet, as globalization moves forward and sanctions are ignored by nations seeking any buyer at any price for their own survival, the supporters of sanctions will find that while removing one source of funds works short term the long term ability for sanctions to truly isolate and alter a nation's political course is minute.
Yet the oppression (in the form of limiting freedom of speech, assembly, ect.) is inspiring the world to investigate the brutal crimes an entrenching regime employs to not eliminate, but force into hiding the dissenters (imprisonment, torture, rape, execution, ect.) Recent sanctions called for by our US Congress targeted the security apparatus in the Revolutionary Guard; not for connections to the nuclear program, but for their compliance with orders to commit horrendous crimes against their own people's freedom. A UN investigation, urged by the US, will soon take place. Perhaps Israel can be the nation to bring legitimate scorn on its Arab opponents instead of the inventive delusions the War in Gaza brought onto Israel from its neighbors.
One can also see the failure of an attempt to create a Socialist Theocracy in recent years contributing to the uprising against the Iranian regime. The smaller nations of Qatar and Kuwait succeeded due to the luck of vast amounts of oil compared to population. The external influx of wealth allowed their mixture of Socialism and Capitalism to thrive due to the massive amount of prosperity injection. With no limit of resources this system has worked yet it requires an almost eternal resource base (in this case oil) to continue indefinitely in a status quo form. Some with limits on that resource diversified before crashing.
Dubai has made the efforts to diversify but did so in a limited fashion by going directly for two sectors (banking and real estate). Dubai is standing on the edge of a cliff now as the international market loses its value in real estate and banking. Not even their diversity of location (worldwide ports, Las Vegas, ect.) has spared them from the debt crash.
Other attempts to build resource based Socialism are failing elsewhere. Venezuela attempted to use its oil, and still does (rationing power to cities but not to oil fields), to support the Socialist revolution. However the people are finding the same problem Iran has found which is that it will not succeed. The leadership can't accept its failure because then they are no longer legitimate.
In Iran they lost their legitimacy. The promises made to the poor that got Ahmadinejad elected in 2005 resulted in gas rationing in an oil producing nation. His goal of helping the poor resulted in real estate becoming more expensive by factors of two or three in some areas. The enemy chosen by Iran was not capitalism directly but the west; not due to a lack of hatred of capitalism but since a cultural hatred of the west included more than just capitalism. Such a connection allowed greater political points to be scored in the Islamic nation. For those unaware about Ahmadinejad's connection to Socialism: "[o]ne of his goals is "putting the petroleum income on people's tables"." [1]
Oil hasn't been the only resource nation's have based their Socialist promises on. Green technology and industries were promised by Spain to produce jobs and make electricity cheaper while making the carbon output lower. Lets examine the results as known in December 2009:
"For the last ten years, Spain has said all the right things about controlling its carbon emissions in the face of the looming climate crisis. It has even taken concrete action: A new law demands every new house in Spain must have a solar water heater. The country also has made massive investments in solar power plants, wind farms and public transport. However in the last ten years Spain's carbon footprint has increased by more than 30 percent."
Excerpt over. So the country isn't cleaner, how about those jobs and cheaper electricity? Well, in 2008 Spain reached 37% unemployment. Right now 4 million of a workforce of 27 million are unemployed. As for prices I tried to find real value but due to the feed-in tariff policy every industry has an artificial price meant to encourage greener energy. That means it isn't cheaper and they have to subsidize it. Resource based Socialism doesn't work in large scale, just like all the other kinds of Socialism.
Conclusion:
Not only should we support the Iranian people's demand of freedom and help them attain it by all means possible but we need to prevent our own nation's leaders' promised reliance on green technology to try to create a resource based socialist nation.
[1]: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA19Ak03.html
[2]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121274675