9/11 Revisited

Today marks the fifth anniversary of the destruction of the World Trade Center’s twin towers, in New York City, each of which collapsed into its own footprint after being struck by a hijacked airliner. Five years has not been long enough to erase the memory of that fateful day, to ease the pain felt by those who lost friends or loved ones to the carnage, or to quell the sense of outrage that grew in the aftermath of terrorism.

Still, after five years, many questions remain unanswered. A high percentage of citizens believe the government engaged in some kind of cover-up. The official 9/11 Commission Report contained inaccuracies and “facts” not in evidence. Indeed, the government’s explanations of the 9/11 catastrophe fail, on many points, to pass the straight-face test.

One of the talking heads on NBC News, last night, claimed that the interiors of the fallen buildings were subjected to temperatures equal to those at Earth’s core—physical and thermodynamic impossibilities unless thermite or other high-intensity explosives were used to cut through structural members and facilitate their collapse.

To suggest that kerosene, burning at temperatures not exceeding 800 degrees centigrade, could heat structural steel (which melts at approximately twice that temperature) to the point of failure, in 62 minutes and 102 minutes respectively, is the height of ignorance and stupidity—unless you have something to hide. Those buildings didn’t fall without a lot of inside help.

There are other inconsistencies, paradoxes, enigmas and conundrums associated with the government’s official version of the events occurring on 9/11/01. Among the questions raised by various conspiracy theories are:

Why was the Air Force, despite being equipped with billions of dollars worth of high-tech weaponry and state-of-the-art detection systems, unable to mount an effective response to the hijacking and unauthorized deployment of four commercial civilian aircraft?

What caused Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex to collapse?

Why, in photos of the various impact sites, is there no visible aircraft debris?

How was the pilot of one of the airliners that struck the Trade Center able to override automatic controls that prevent the aircraft from exceeding pre-established safe g-force levels when the aircraft is banking into a turn?

How did debris from Flight 93 end up eight miles away, on the other side of a hill?

Why were some of Osama bin Laden’s relatives flown to safety, outside the country, immediately after the attacks?

Why did President Bush lose focus on his avowed mission of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden to concentrate his attention on waging war in Iraq?

How were so many people on Flight 93 able to communicate by cell phone? (It’s my understanding that, because of the speed at which commercial airliners travel, it’s difficult for a cell phone to establish a connection through a microwave tower before it’s out of range and has to re-establish the connection through a different tower.)

How is it possible that at least 11 of the named hijackers were still living two years after 9/11?

These are only a few of the questions that come to mind; there are many others, but I’ve given you enough to think about, for now. To find out what really triggered the events of 9/11, you must first find satisfactory answers to these questions.

The mainstream media belittles people who speak of conspiracies and conspiracy theories. However, there can be no doubt that there was indeed a conspiracy behind the 9/11 tragedy.

With that thought in mind, we might ask ourselves one final question: Whose conspiracy was it?

Liars Can't Be Trusted

Do you trust President Bush? I don’t!

How can you trust a guy whose every important political decision has been based on a lie? There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Saddam Hussein had no ties to the terrorism of 9/11, the U.S. did engage in the torture of prisoners, in extraordinary rendition, in warrantless spying on U.S. citizens. Bush has said he’s either done or not done a lot of things, but the facts prove otherwise.

How can you trust someone who gutted the Constitution, tried to gut Social Security, and made a bigger mess of public education and public healthcare than they were already in? How can you trust a man who’s willing to sacrifice the global environment all of us depend on for the sake of his oil-plundering buddies?

When queried about his veracity, his expression is that of an idiot deer caught in the headlights, or maybe Alfred E. Neuman on crystal meth, but without the guileless charm. I don’t know, maybe it’s his arrogance, his apparent ignorance, and that ever-present smirk that turns me so against him.

It’s no surprise that Bush’s approval rating has slipped to around 33 or 34 percent. What’s surprising is that there are still that many people who think he’s doing a good job. How can he be doing a good job when he’s involved Americans in an illegal, misbegotten war and spent the country to the brink of bankruptcy?

Who are the Bush supporters? No doubt their numbers are made up of the people who profit handsomely from his policy decisions—special-interest groups, corporate leaders and investors, politicos and political party members who gain political traction from decisions that favor their causes.

Religious fundamentalists, gleefully awaiting Armageddon because they loathe the world they helped create, “true patriots” who never met a crooked politician they didn’t like, and the upper strata of the middle class—too busy fighting the forces that are dragging them down to gain a clear understanding that it’s the Bush Cabal behind the forces that are dragging them down—make up the remainder of Bush loyalists.

But who, in a sound state of mind, would support an incompetent twit, a chronic liar, a leader that lacks direction, a decider that makes bad decisions? Other than diminish our nation’s reputation in the eyes of the world, undermine Constitutional protections, and put the country into hock up to its ears, his only successes have been to make rich people richer, poor people poorer, and the fearful more fearful. It’s not a track record anyone should be proud of.

Bush is such a habitual liar that he reminds me of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. He’s told so many lies, so often, that he no longer has any credibility. It’s probably best if we just ignore the fear-mongering rhetoric that would keep us living in fear, and learn to make peace with the wolf.

At Risk of Dying

The premature death of Steve Irwin, Australia’s famed “Crocodile Hunter,” got me to thinking about death and dying—and, more specifically, about one’s chances of dying while engaged in one’s favorite activities.

People who swim with sharks have a much higher risk of being bitten by a shark (not applicable to lawyers, who enjoy professional courtesy) than do people who stay at home and watch Steve Irwin, swimming with stingrays, on the telly.

It’s a given that we’re all going to die, some sooner, some later, but there’s no question that, eventually, death takes us all. The only questions are how? When? And how much is it gonna hurt?

I heard, recently, that the odds of being struck by lightning are 800,000-to-1. Sounds like a pretty low risk, doesn’t it? Please, be smart enough to know that those odds include the risk to all people. Golfers who stand in the middle of a golf course during a thunderstorm are at substantially higher risk. Mountain climbers who stand on top of a mountain while a thunderstorm passes overhead are at even higher risk of being struck by lightning. Proximity to the danger zone has a lot to do with the odds.

Frequency seems to be a determining factor when assessing risk. How often you engage in risky behavior has a profound effect on your chances of being seriously injured or killed. People who rack up frequent flyer miles are probably more likely to die in an airplane crash than a person who takes a single airplane trip and lives to tell about it.

Vintage fighter jet pilot Robert Guilford had thousands of hours flying without crashing and burning, until he did. Jean-Claude Killy skied on countless mountain slopes without being caught in an avalanche, until he was. Dale Earnhart raced thousands of laps in stock cars without hitting a wall and dying, until he did. (It’s fair to say that because Earnhart did all of his racing in stock cars, his chances of dying in a Formula One race were non-existent.)

The odds of dying in a building collapse are greater if you’re above the floors of a skyscraper impacted by a Jumbo Jet than you are if you’re below the impact area. And if you’re in the impact area . . .? Well, you qualify for a starring role in the next Final Destination movie.

But what are your chances of dying in a building collapse if you’re sitting at a table in the front window of your local Mickey D’s scarfing down a Big Mac? Almost nil! You’d be at greater risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, or being gunned down by a sniper shooting from across the street. If it’s any consolation, it would be almost impossible for a sniper to hit you if you were in a collapsing skyscraper.

Speaking of those Final Destination movies, when I saw the first one it got me to thinking about my own life, about how many times I’ve averted disaster or escaped serious injury or death and not given it a second thought. I suspect the same can be said for your life, too.

And while we’re on the subject of death, have you ever seen the Sci-fi channel series Dead Like Me? It’s gotta be the funniest show on television. First time I saw it, I damned near died laughing. Still, I haven’t missed an episode since.

Yeah, yeah! It’s risky behavior, I know, but I just can’t seem to help myself. It seems reasonable that if I’m gonna die anyway, I might as well go out laughing.

Lost and Found

So far, none of my posts for the month of August have shown up on my blog. Not sure what's going on, here, but I'm determined to get to the bottom of it.

There! That's better! Although I'm not sure what caused the problem (guess it could have been memory cache overload), I've obviously figured out how to solve it.

Onward!

Tenderloin Steak Masquerades as Spam

A couple of weeks ago, an unsolicited e-mail landed in one of my most obscure “in” boxes. Had it not borne a site relevant subject line, I would have deleted it immediately, just as I did with the spam that accompanied it. There was something about this one, though, that wouldn’t let me blow it off so easily. I dared to open it.

A woman by the name of Yolanda Carden introduced herself as a publicist for FSB Associates, a New Jersey firm that specializes in promoting books, for authors and publishers, on the Web. She asked me if I’d be interested in reading a book she was promoting and writing a review of it to post on my Web site. After reading a brief description of Anonymous Lawyer (which Yolanda provided in her initial e-mail) and visiting the author’s blog at www.anonymouslawyer.blogspot.com, I agreed.

Within two days of my acceptance of Yolanda’s offer, the USPS delivered a brand new copy of Anonymous Lawyer to my door. So far, so good! Not long after, I was fully immersed in the book and anticipating the writing of a favorable review.

Well, I finished reading the book and writing the review (which you can read online), and I gotta tell you that Anonymous Lawyer is the funniest book I’ve read this year, and maybe the funniest book I’ve read in the last couple of years.

That’s not to say that Isle of Dogs, by Patricia Cornwell, Skinny Dip, by Carl Hiaasen, The Road to Ruin, by Donald E. Westlake, Tricky Business, by Dave Barry, The Light-years Beneath My Feet, by Alan Dean Foster, and Tanner’s Tiger, by Lawrence Block aren’t funny stories. They were, and are, among the funniest, but don’t construe that to mean that their authors are the only writers capable of writing with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

Jeremy Blachman, author of Anonymous Lawyer, is the new kid on the block, both capable and worthy of inclusion in this elite company of best-selling authors with a flair for humor.

The great thing about humor is that it can take many forms, and be expressed in many ways. In the end it’s all about the laughter. It’s the only thing that counts.

China Poised to Become the World's Next Great Superpower

Are we on the brink of World War III? Judging by recent and current events in the Middle East, it seems safe to answer that question with an unqualified “yes.” What we’re seeing now is the spark that leads to ignition—and a raging inferno.

U.S. troops occupy Afghanistan. More U.S. troops conduct a failing ground war in Iraq. And, in Lebanon, U.S. ally Israel continues its outrageous slaughter of the innocents—and its wanton destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure—as it wages war against a largely civilian population in an attempt to root out Hezbollah.

On another Israeli border, the Palestinians, as always, are restless. The stability of the entire region is threatened. How long before Syria is drawn into the picture? How long before the U.S. or Israel looses a preemptive strike against Iran? How long before the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Turks are sucked into the conflict?

As tensions rise and hostilities spread across the region, it won’t be long before Russia and all of Europe is fully engaged in the madness. Add to this mess North Korean ambition and you have an RSVP invitation to the biggest weenie roast in history.

Can any single nation hope to survive a global conflict and emerge from it a winner? Clearly the U.S. cannot, short of unleashing a firestorm of nuclear weapons early on. An all out nuclear war, however, would likely render the planet uninhabitable for most of the higher life forms, including humans. No winners here.

Early and protracted engagement in a global conflict will consume resources and erode capacities and capabilities of nations so engaged. One by one, the European Union, Russia and the U.S. will fall, leaving their allies vulnerable to takeover by invading forces.

China, inscrutable as always, is poised to be the big winner of WWIII, providing she can postpone her involvement until most other nations have been depleted and defeated, and the end of hostilities draws near. Through careful planning and timing, China can conserve its resources and vast reserves of manpower, using them efficiently to conduct strategic mop-up operations and police actions in far-flung countries where populations, resources and infrastructure are so diminished that citizens and governments lack the will or the means to resist.

Sun Tzu (a name used collectively by several Chinese writers) wrote The Art of War, which contains the guiding principles of successful combat, between about 450 B.C. and 220 B.C. Many of the principles contained therein are as valid today as they were more than two millennia ago.

Providing that China’s political and military leaders adhere to and apply Sun Tzu’s principles of war, there’s no reason not to think that that nation of a billion people has the capability of becoming the world’s next great superpower.

The War Against (Some) Drugs

If you think the U.S. has any intention of winning the War on (some) Drugs, think again. Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s not call it a war on drugs, let’s call it a war against the middle class.

To understand the rationale for the drug war, you must first understand that the drug war is not about illegal drugs, per se, but about the money that can be made from combating illegal drugs. There’s a big difference. The government doesn’t give a rat’s ass about your health or your life. All it cares about is your money. Get over it, and move on.

Money! It’s always about money. Following the money trail will always lead you to the real motives behind any enterprise. Begin with the fact of illicit drugs. How does legal status affect the price of drugs? Who profits? Who loses?

The profit taking begins almost as soon as a law proscribing something—anything—that is desired by the public goes into effect. Popular demand for illegal goods creates a black market, which entrepreneurs who are less concerned with the law than they are with huge profit potential are only too glad to fill. Were it not for the law, suppliers of illicit drugs couldn’t make enough money for the activity to be worth their time and effort. A black market always drives up the price of whatever is being sold on the black market.

Let’s follow the money trail blazed by marijuana prohibition to get an unobstructed look at how prohibition creates a high-revving high-torque economic engine that, once it’s set into motion, evolves into a freewheeling juggernaut few people want to see stopped.

The money trail begins with legislators and other politicians who get political mileage out of writing or supporting anti-drug laws. By exploiting the public’s ignorance and appealing to raw emotions through the dissemination of disinformation, politicians gain popular support for anti-drug laws and the punitive measures to be used against violators. A lucrative market instantly springs into existence.

A network of growers, suppliers and dealers arises to feed the market, taking advantage of the artificial price supports created by the law. Huge profit potential makes the consequences of breaking the law an acceptable risk. It’s all part of doing business.

Soon, an anti-marijuana propaganda machine cranks up, disseminating lies that arouse public fear, hatred and resentment, with the idea of justifying the government’s expenditures of the taxpayers’ money in the cause of fighting marijuana. Ad space in magazines, newspapers and on television consume lots of anti-drug propaganda dollars.

Other anti-drug vultures that have found a way to cash in on marijuana prohibition are the drug testers (programs, clinics, equipment manufacturers, chemists), drug educators (D.A.R.E., etc.), and drug rehabilitation programs.

Moving on down the money trail, we come to law enforcement, which has its collective hand out for funds (provided by taxpayers) to apprehend marijuana users and traffickers. Drug enforcement units need airplanes and FLIR systems, canine units and SWAT teams, assault rifles and bulletproof vests, an assortment of other equipment, and extra personnel in order to catch the dreaded marijuana traffickers. If marijuana were legal, most of these expenses could be eliminated.

The next money-grubbing mitts belong to various members of the criminal justice system, beginning with lawyers. (When aren’t lawyers involved when there’s a large amount of money at stake?) And of course, judges, court officials and other functionaries of the justice system are money sponges waiting for their turn to soak up a share of the taxpayer-funded marijuana prevention bonanza.

Of course, punitive measures require prisons, the construction of which provides a source of income to construction companies and all their suppliers. Prisons need wardens and prison guards, too, and all kinds of supplies to keep the prisoners clothed and fed. With the annual cost of housing a single prisoner running between $19,000 and $31,000 (depending on location), it’s no surprise that the current U.S. prison population approaches 2.5 million prisoners. No wonder prisons are one of the fastest growing segments of the economy.

Incarceration demands parole boards and parole officers, counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists, and medical personnel. Even when imprisoned marijuana offenders are released from prison, marijuana prohibition is the gift that keeps on giving.

No one is naive enough to believe, given the high rates of recidivism, that incarceration was meant to rehabilitate convicted drug offenders. Serious study of cause and effect shows that a high percentage of non-violent first-time marijuana offenders who land in prison quickly learn the ways of the hardened criminal. Upon release they re-offend, often graduating to more serious crimes.

In their zeal to fight a problem of their own making, members of the legal/judicial system sacrifice their integrity and credibility by riding roughshod over civil rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. One of the most egregious abuses of power involves forfeiture laws, where law enforcement seizes property (both real and personal) of suspected drug dealers—no conviction needed, no due process required.