Saturday, January 31, 2015
Friday, January 23, 2015
Revisiting 9/11: When the Walls were Down
NORAD Response on 9/11
Considering the events leading up to 9/11, the role of the US military defense and the events following this catastrophic failure there are many lessons to be learned. Ironically, the most salient factor of 9/11---in other words the ingredient of all ingredients that most of all contributed to the catastrophe---was lack of defense---yet this is rarely discussed.
US military might (at least in terms of defense) had been considered somewhat invincible prior to 9/11. Using a football analogy, no team had ever penetrated the end zone and scored a touchdown at a home game! Militarily, no enemy had ever scored a strike against the homeland---and one of the chief reasons for this invincibility was the trillion dollar budget military defense.
In terms of attacks from land, air or sea---it is the stated goal and mission of NORAD to defend US soil from attack. Here is the link:
NORAD link
The most relevant question on 9/11 and immediately following---whether you buy the official report or find more truth in a conspiratorial scenario---that is, in either case--the one crucial ingredient which of all others led to the success of this attack---was the failure in US military defense of 9/11. It alone can be said to be the chief cause of the catastrophic events of this "day of infamy". It is not as if there had not been previous attempts---yet these were unsuccessful thanks to military defense.
It becomes clearer looking back after the dust has cleared that on September 11, 2001 the US possessed no means of defending the homeland against an enemy attack (either from internal or external enemies)---there was no response from NORAD. Rabbi Jonathan Cahn's book The Nine Harbingers brought this clearly to my attention.
The key point is that no matter how nefarious the terrorist plot may have been---this attack could never have succeeded if the basic protocols of military defense had been followed on 9/11. In other words if NORAD had done the job which it and it alone was qualified to perform. Considered from an organizational point of view one must conclude that this should count as one of the greatest organizational and military failures in human history. By definition! It is comparable to playing a very important football game, and just as the opposing quarterback snaps--the entire United States defense flees the field and the other team runs the entire length of the field unchecked by any defensive measure to an easily scored touchdown.
The example of Troy and the Trojan Horse is very apt. As mentioned above the final precipitating cause---the cause which alone could have prevented the action of that day---was the failure of the US military to respond defensively to protect the homeland. The historical record clearly shows that there was NO defense, hence the success of the strike (and this the case whether you take the official report which many engineers, architects and physicists have very seriously questioned its integrity----or you take a conspiratorial view).
Ironic that the single precipitating cause of 9/11---and the greatest military failure since Egypt failed to defend itself from the Israeli airstrike in 1968 in the so-called seven day war (one of the most successful offensive attacks in military history). 9/11 would have been a non-event if NORAD had even adequately responded to offensive strike of 9/11. Not only was there no adequate response, there was NO response. A complete failure---let me put it this way: In order to grasp the magnitude of this failure let's draw some analogies and parallels:
*The failure of NORAD to do its basic job on 9/11 is like---
a football game where just as the play commences the home team runs off of the field allowing the opposing team to score effortlessly.
*It is also like a police officer selling crack to teens in a city park.
*It is like purchasing real estate in a swamp of quicksand.
It is, in short, a failure of the greatest magnitude. Not a simple failure but a failure so great that great effort seems to have been required to bring about the complete lack of adequate defensive response. This is a very provocative consideration! And yet, consult your own memory---there was no mention of the systematic US military failure to defend the homeland on 9/11---an undisputable fact! To think that millions of hours of effort to defend should lead to a complete zero performance of 9/11.
In corporate terms, if ever an individual or organization had so completely failed in its one basic job---that individual or organization would be fired----Yet there was not even a censure! Not a mention of apology---an admission of failure. Pondering this even further one wonders if the leaders of NORAD were promoted or praised after their greatest failure. One wonders whether or not certain things are built to fail. It may sound cynical, however, it is compelling. Perhaps the entire event of that catastrophic day can be better understood by grasping this thread alone and unravelling it to the very source and to find that the greatest key to understanding 9/11 is to focus on NORAD's absence on that fateful day!
Considering the events leading up to 9/11, the role of the US military defense and the events following this catastrophic failure there are many lessons to be learned. Ironically, the most salient factor of 9/11---in other words the ingredient of all ingredients that most of all contributed to the catastrophe---was lack of defense---yet this is rarely discussed.
US military might (at least in terms of defense) had been considered somewhat invincible prior to 9/11. Using a football analogy, no team had ever penetrated the end zone and scored a touchdown at a home game! Militarily, no enemy had ever scored a strike against the homeland---and one of the chief reasons for this invincibility was the trillion dollar budget military defense.
In terms of attacks from land, air or sea---it is the stated goal and mission of NORAD to defend US soil from attack. Here is the link:
NORAD link
The most relevant question on 9/11 and immediately following---whether you buy the official report or find more truth in a conspiratorial scenario---that is, in either case--the one crucial ingredient which of all others led to the success of this attack---was the failure in US military defense of 9/11. It alone can be said to be the chief cause of the catastrophic events of this "day of infamy". It is not as if there had not been previous attempts---yet these were unsuccessful thanks to military defense.
It becomes clearer looking back after the dust has cleared that on September 11, 2001 the US possessed no means of defending the homeland against an enemy attack (either from internal or external enemies)---there was no response from NORAD. Rabbi Jonathan Cahn's book The Nine Harbingers brought this clearly to my attention.
The key point is that no matter how nefarious the terrorist plot may have been---this attack could never have succeeded if the basic protocols of military defense had been followed on 9/11. In other words if NORAD had done the job which it and it alone was qualified to perform. Considered from an organizational point of view one must conclude that this should count as one of the greatest organizational and military failures in human history. By definition! It is comparable to playing a very important football game, and just as the opposing quarterback snaps--the entire United States defense flees the field and the other team runs the entire length of the field unchecked by any defensive measure to an easily scored touchdown.
The example of Troy and the Trojan Horse is very apt. As mentioned above the final precipitating cause---the cause which alone could have prevented the action of that day---was the failure of the US military to respond defensively to protect the homeland. The historical record clearly shows that there was NO defense, hence the success of the strike (and this the case whether you take the official report which many engineers, architects and physicists have very seriously questioned its integrity----or you take a conspiratorial view).
Ironic that the single precipitating cause of 9/11---and the greatest military failure since Egypt failed to defend itself from the Israeli airstrike in 1968 in the so-called seven day war (one of the most successful offensive attacks in military history). 9/11 would have been a non-event if NORAD had even adequately responded to offensive strike of 9/11. Not only was there no adequate response, there was NO response. A complete failure---let me put it this way: In order to grasp the magnitude of this failure let's draw some analogies and parallels:
*The failure of NORAD to do its basic job on 9/11 is like---
a football game where just as the play commences the home team runs off of the field allowing the opposing team to score effortlessly.
*It is also like a police officer selling crack to teens in a city park.
*It is like purchasing real estate in a swamp of quicksand.
It is, in short, a failure of the greatest magnitude. Not a simple failure but a failure so great that great effort seems to have been required to bring about the complete lack of adequate defensive response. This is a very provocative consideration! And yet, consult your own memory---there was no mention of the systematic US military failure to defend the homeland on 9/11---an undisputable fact! To think that millions of hours of effort to defend should lead to a complete zero performance of 9/11.
In corporate terms, if ever an individual or organization had so completely failed in its one basic job---that individual or organization would be fired----Yet there was not even a censure! Not a mention of apology---an admission of failure. Pondering this even further one wonders if the leaders of NORAD were promoted or praised after their greatest failure. One wonders whether or not certain things are built to fail. It may sound cynical, however, it is compelling. Perhaps the entire event of that catastrophic day can be better understood by grasping this thread alone and unravelling it to the very source and to find that the greatest key to understanding 9/11 is to focus on NORAD's absence on that fateful day!
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Shelter from the Storm: Bob Dylan Live
Bob Dylan Live: Shelter From the Storm
A unique performance, what a band and it is interesting to see Bob Dylan play slide guitar on that amazing techno-guitar!
Bill Murray sings along w/Shelter from the Storm
A unique performance, what a band and it is interesting to see Bob Dylan play slide guitar on that amazing techno-guitar!
Bill Murray sings along w/Shelter from the Storm
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Happy New Year 2015!
It is a new year---this means nothing to rabbits or any other natural beings---it is another arbitrary human artifact, void on of any truth save the functional and cultural use!
Frosty survived long enough to raise her three kits (Daisy, Jack Frost and Sherpa). She did not live long enough to see this New Year and she is terribly missed.
At the time of this writing all is well in the rabbitry---all of the rabbits are healthy---Thank God!
I moved a young buck named Rocky Joe to the cellar as he seemed to have been quite weak with a loss of equilibrium---I feared the dreaded Head Tilt---fortunately the cause of the loss of balance seems to have its source elsewhere and in all other ways Rock Joe is thriving and growing daily.
ONE MORE NOTE:I moved another bunny kit into the cellar with Sherpa and Rocky Joe---this is Wilbury (Winterberry)---I will post a photo when I get the chance--this little guy is quite unique. First of all the coat appears to that of a wild rabbit (is it possible that one of the does who roamed free last Summer, became impregnated by a wild buck?) The other strange fact is that Wilbury does not seem to grow---looking for all practical reasons to be a wild dwarf!
Frosty survived long enough to raise her three kits (Daisy, Jack Frost and Sherpa). She did not live long enough to see this New Year and she is terribly missed.
At the time of this writing all is well in the rabbitry---all of the rabbits are healthy---Thank God!
I moved a young buck named Rocky Joe to the cellar as he seemed to have been quite weak with a loss of equilibrium---I feared the dreaded Head Tilt---fortunately the cause of the loss of balance seems to have its source elsewhere and in all other ways Rock Joe is thriving and growing daily.
ONE MORE NOTE:I moved another bunny kit into the cellar with Sherpa and Rocky Joe---this is Wilbury (Winterberry)---I will post a photo when I get the chance--this little guy is quite unique. First of all the coat appears to that of a wild rabbit (is it possible that one of the does who roamed free last Summer, became impregnated by a wild buck?) The other strange fact is that Wilbury does not seem to grow---looking for all practical reasons to be a wild dwarf!
Monday, January 05, 2015
The Soul: To Begin the Quest
We begin today's essay where we always begin...the question of how is that this day is before me--taken in the most basic and simple sense of 'being there'. Yes, the desk is before me. Yes, I am typing on a Microsoft keyboard. No, I don't like it, I much prefer writing with a pencil. Have you ever noticed how cheaply made pencils are today? No one uses them any way.
Back to the meditation of this day: before me as desk is before me and I type---see how the desk is not simply 'before' me or 'in front of me'' or even 'outside of me'. No. The reason is that the desk is also 'inside of me'! I know what you are thinking---what kind of crack is this guy on?---But I can assure you that this is a reasonable claim. And if you the reader were to begin considering these matters and keep at it in serious philosophical meditation, in a matter of time, you too will come to see the nature of this paradox: inside-outside.
If meditated upon consistently for many days and years the nature of this paradox will become clearer. This is the path to "open up" the inquiry of the soul. Prior to the out being outside and in being inside---I have analyzed this in another blog---Scriptorjesus, Realistpsychology, or some other blog in the Scriptor domain. At any rate I will rehearse again it here: there is my cup---it is whitespeckel'd dull blue campfire gear---it contains my morning tea---honey sweeten'd hazelnut strongbrew. The cup contains my morning tea (or what's left of it).
The cup contains my tea....'contains'? Pardon but what do you mean by 'to contain'? Oh, for something to be in inside of something else. And what do you mean by 'inside'? Oh, that one spatial reference contains another. And is the container contained by something else? Yes. and no!
Think harder. Well, yes the cup is on the desk and the desk is in the room. And isn't the room in the house? Well yes now that you say so, I can see this. So if one thing is on another and inside another and another---how far do you think this pattern goes on?
Can all be contained in one container--or can all be held in no container?
This is the basis for the question concerning the nature of the universe, is the universe inside of something or outside of something? What outside might there be? What if there were no outside? Either way it is paradoxical---the asymptotes and excesses of the debate concerning the meaning of 'inside' or 'outside' collapse at the extremes of the dialectic. Thought then to the very end, the inside-outside dichotomy collapses.
Now, believe it or not, we are on the trail of our inquiry---yes, to investigate the presence of this day, and give thanks accordingly for the gift, but also to realize that the ultimate telos of our inquiry into the being there of the teacupteamug also entails implicately the being there (in terms of inside-outside dichotomy) of all that is. It's not as if there is just the cup without its surrounding environing world, and this environing world does not hang suspended in the void either!
Best understood as womblike, the nascence of being, of my being present to the presence of this new day! Present to the presence as in the investigation of the blue teamug.
a)Yes, it is on the desk.
b)Yes I see it and that which I see is within my mind.
Both a) and b) propositions dissolve at the extreme of the dichotomy if extrapolated to the sense of 'all there is' or the 'universe'. That leaves us with the following question: How is this state of affairs to be considered?
In the investigation of the teamug, or anything else that is present before or around me, the harmony of the soul is already presupposed.
How so?
Because I began this day with a cup of tea. The idea of writing an essay came up, I came to my office to type this essay which is ostensibly about the mug (a)---but also requires my perceptual and hermeneutic appropriation of the mug (b). Yet, if I am honest, I will say there is no separation of these worlds---my investigation began with the true and complete synthesis of my life already given and from this plenitude I snatched the cup out of the room interrogatively. Even before I typed one word I was already HERE. Even before I typed one word, the desk is HERE. This pre-given harmony and truth is the life of my soul.
"God made the universe for us as if there were only one of us," I think St. Augustine said that.
"You can be in my world if I can be in yours," I said that.
"I'll let you be in my dream if you let me be in yours," Bob Dylan said that.
Back to the meditation of this day: before me as desk is before me and I type---see how the desk is not simply 'before' me or 'in front of me'' or even 'outside of me'. No. The reason is that the desk is also 'inside of me'! I know what you are thinking---what kind of crack is this guy on?---But I can assure you that this is a reasonable claim. And if you the reader were to begin considering these matters and keep at it in serious philosophical meditation, in a matter of time, you too will come to see the nature of this paradox: inside-outside.
If meditated upon consistently for many days and years the nature of this paradox will become clearer. This is the path to "open up" the inquiry of the soul. Prior to the out being outside and in being inside---I have analyzed this in another blog---Scriptorjesus, Realistpsychology, or some other blog in the Scriptor domain. At any rate I will rehearse again it here: there is my cup---it is whitespeckel'd dull blue campfire gear---it contains my morning tea---honey sweeten'd hazelnut strongbrew. The cup contains my morning tea (or what's left of it).
The cup contains my tea....'contains'? Pardon but what do you mean by 'to contain'? Oh, for something to be in inside of something else. And what do you mean by 'inside'? Oh, that one spatial reference contains another. And is the container contained by something else? Yes. and no!
Think harder. Well, yes the cup is on the desk and the desk is in the room. And isn't the room in the house? Well yes now that you say so, I can see this. So if one thing is on another and inside another and another---how far do you think this pattern goes on?
Can all be contained in one container--or can all be held in no container?
This is the basis for the question concerning the nature of the universe, is the universe inside of something or outside of something? What outside might there be? What if there were no outside? Either way it is paradoxical---the asymptotes and excesses of the debate concerning the meaning of 'inside' or 'outside' collapse at the extremes of the dialectic. Thought then to the very end, the inside-outside dichotomy collapses.
Now, believe it or not, we are on the trail of our inquiry---yes, to investigate the presence of this day, and give thanks accordingly for the gift, but also to realize that the ultimate telos of our inquiry into the being there of the teacupteamug also entails implicately the being there (in terms of inside-outside dichotomy) of all that is. It's not as if there is just the cup without its surrounding environing world, and this environing world does not hang suspended in the void either!
Best understood as womblike, the nascence of being, of my being present to the presence of this new day! Present to the presence as in the investigation of the blue teamug.
a)Yes, it is on the desk.
b)Yes I see it and that which I see is within my mind.
Both a) and b) propositions dissolve at the extreme of the dichotomy if extrapolated to the sense of 'all there is' or the 'universe'. That leaves us with the following question: How is this state of affairs to be considered?
In the investigation of the teamug, or anything else that is present before or around me, the harmony of the soul is already presupposed.
How so?
Because I began this day with a cup of tea. The idea of writing an essay came up, I came to my office to type this essay which is ostensibly about the mug (a)---but also requires my perceptual and hermeneutic appropriation of the mug (b). Yet, if I am honest, I will say there is no separation of these worlds---my investigation began with the true and complete synthesis of my life already given and from this plenitude I snatched the cup out of the room interrogatively. Even before I typed one word I was already HERE. Even before I typed one word, the desk is HERE. This pre-given harmony and truth is the life of my soul.
"God made the universe for us as if there were only one of us," I think St. Augustine said that.
"You can be in my world if I can be in yours," I said that.
"I'll let you be in my dream if you let me be in yours," Bob Dylan said that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)