| |
|
twenty minutes or so, I abruptly stopped and abandoned it.
There are so very many articles with titles that attract attention
that I have become increasingly selective in my reading. I try to
read those books and articles that seem to be well researched and are
well-written. I found the Saudi article at Smirking Chimp, which
has previously been a trusted site for me, so I was surprised to
come across, deep in the article, hidden amongst facts and stories
that I reasonably knew to be true based on collateral reading, a
small paragraph that espoused an unvarnished and complete acceptance
of the Official US Conspiracy Theory about what happened on 9/11
(planes piloted by suicide terrorist flown into the trade towers and
the pentagon).
|
|
I don't know that anyone understands what really
happened on 9/11, perhaps outside of some small group of insiders,
and I doubt if anyone ever will, so I remain agnostic on the issue.
All anyone has to do to keep my attention is to qualify their
statements about 9/11 with some kind of disclaimer about being unable
to be sure about the factuality of what they are promoting.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know that anyone understands what really
happened on 9/11, perhaps outside of some small group of insiders,
and I doubt if anyone ever will, so I remain agnostic on the issue.
All anyone has to do to keep my attention is to qualify their
statements about 9/11 with some kind of disclaimer about being unable
to be sure about the factuality of what they are promoting. On the
other hand, anyone who wants me to listen to them should not expect
me to do so, no matter what their qualifications or scholarship, if
they present the Official Conspiracy Theory as fact.
This rule of thumb has been a
real efficiency. I no longer read Alexander Cockburn. I no longer
listen to Michio Kaku's show, "Explorations." I no longer am tempted
by the intriguing headlines of Popular Mechanics.
This rule has been a very
mentally healthful approach to information glut, and keeps paying
dividends as I encounter further examples of foolish credulity and
can strike more sources from my list of those considered reliable.
I'm sorry for my intemperateness on the issue, but at the point where
someone blithely restates the Official US Government Conspiracy
Theory about 9/11, I just stop listening. I have no room in my
thinking for this kind of foolishness.
Besides, I always need more
time for exercise and errands, and my approach is working well for me.
* * *
The 7/19/2007 Visionary Activist show on KPFA was a novel take on
current politics.
Best nutritional advice in a nutshell: consume as wide a variety of
foods as possible.
The same thing works for your head if you can
avoid the poisonous lying that passes for media so much of the time.
Caroline Casey is a truthful balance for those of us who read and
take in too much for our own good mental health. Try it. You'll
like it.
* * *
The very rich and powerful always hate democracy. That is why we need it.
* * *
I don't know about terrorist bringing us to our knees, but the federal government certainly has.
| |
Your method for cutting through the crap is rather brilliant. I'm adopting your filtering rule, and I think it applies even (or especially) when 9/11 is mentioned just briefly, in passing. I'm pretty dang sick of hearing jackasses cite "the lessons of 9/11," when, in my opinion, the only lesson of 9/11 is that the Bush-Cheney administration can stonewall and sidestep all inquiries and the US Congress and US mainstream media will let him get away with it. |
|
Helen & Harry
|
|
|
Our front page is free from nudity and profanity, but interior pages and external links may not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. Of course, we publish all incoming hate mail.
Unknown News is more fun and more informative with your participation, so please don't be shy. Consider yourself invited to speak your mind.
|
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication.
When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever.
We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong.
You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>.
But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else.
Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want.
If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread.
If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
|
|
| |
We sell our own progressive bumper stickers:
pro-peace, anti-Bush,
pro-freedom,
anti-Republican
stickers you won't find anywhere else.
bumper stickers
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
