back then....

it was april 19, 1995. I was asleep on the floor mattress of my dorm room, and I was listening to national public radio on a little cheapo oval shaped radio I had gotten to wake me up on time.

the story was about an explosion in oklahoma city. an explosion, and a building destroyed. i was worried most, i guess, about how people would react.

eventually, they caught the guy... and he was put on trial, then executed. one of his buddies is in for life.

later that year, i would ride back home in a car, we happened to pass oklahoma city. we stopped and walked around. there were people smiling and mugging as their friends took photographs of them in front of what was left of the building, a bombed out shell.

the buildings in the neighborhood didn't look too good either, but that was because of urban blight, not because of terrorism. michael moore would later go on to put a picture of the murrah building in the front of one of his books. 'what do you call it when they take the people out before they blow it up'.

id call it, well, id call it 169 people not dead, and kids not getting killed on the playground, you fucking idiot. i was once a big fan of his.

i knew someone who knew someone who died... i think she was going to be a teacher.

i read about how people feel about 9/11. they want to go strap up, head to wherever, and fight back. . . .

to me.... the enemy here... was a lunatic redneck who hated 'big government'.

more than that, he was an ex-army person who said things like he was a killer, thats what he did in the gulf war.


i cant exactly strap up, head to the wilds of michigan, and start killing rednecks, right wing zealots, and others 'responsible' for 'these attacks'. i guess if i used the same logic as the iraq warriors, i would go invade texas, because even though texas did not directly attack oklahoma, it harbors many of the right wing anti government abortion-doctor killing nutjobs that make up the timothy mcveigh philosophy of life.

you think i am exaggerating, i think i am too... until i read some website like again, ex-military, feel so so sorry for themselves. in one radio show, a guest says 'when i am on campus, i feel like i am the terrorist', because the other college students just dont relate to him. the same people on this show will talk about violence, guns, violence, guns, violence, their hatred of liberals, violence, guns, more violence, and more guns. and then, of course, their hatred of liberals. they are obsessed with liberals in a way similar to the way that muslim fundamentalists are obsessed with jews. i remember hearing a middle east reporter putting it like this: they claim to hate jews, but they spend every waking hour thinking, talking, writing, and discussing jews. then he, an actual jew, got to meet some of them, and they couldnt wait to ask him a million questions. he felt, though, that it was not his job to disabuse them of their ridiculous world view.

the only refuge i take is in the rule of law, ie, in civilization. the only thing that moderates out ape like genetic history... watch chimpanzees go to war on television some time... even though people used to think chimps were so peaceful and lovey dovey, nah. they slaughter each other just like we do. somehow we put on these clothes, the courts, evidence, juries, science.... empiricism. . . . . not perfect, but what is the alternative? you and your cousins grabbing shotguns and murdering each others siblings. there are still places in the good, wholesome, christian countryside where this is pretty much considered not only normal, but the only honorable act - perhaps not murder, but a good amount of assault and battery against those who have 'slighted' you or yours.

but i have a hard time understanding how we should throw away the rule of law.... in defense of new york city, when we did not do it in defense of oklahoma city.

but i also remember, that when oklahoma city was bombed, in the media, it was 'them' getting bombed. a website named 'misanthropic bitch' said 'a bunch of hicks died. so what'. in new york city, it was 'us' getting bombed. misanthropic bitch had nothing to say then.

now some stupid ass harvard professor has said saddam was behind the oklahoma city bombing. i keep wondering why harvard is considered a good school, considering the horrific damage their graduates have done to society, the latest example being the large number of their products being at the heart of the greatest economic collapse since the great depression. of course, they would not let anyone into their school without a stellar GPA, because they need to promote standards, and they need to promote the idea that excellence should be rewarded, and everything must be earned. except, of course, when they themselves fail... then they should be bailed out by the government, and by the general population, because they are 'special people'. the vanguard of capitalism if you will, who like Lenin's vanguard, are a cut above the rest, and deserve to live outside the rules and philosophy they impose on others by force.

i dont know why i am writing this. i keep reading about these traumatic events people had on 9/11 or in the iraq war.

let me go over people i know or sort of knew who have died or been injured.

lung cancer
car crashes/drugs
boyfriend beat to death with a lead pipe
bad working conditions

id like to see a president address that. or talking heads on tv spend hours and hours talking about that.

little marks, of so much importance

in which the letter 'a' and the period play an important role in the events of humans.


you read a lot of jfk assassination pages, and eventually you find people who think they are quoting nixon talking about howard hunt and the 'bay of pigs thing', being apparently a code phrase used by nixon to refer to the jfk murder.

"Of course, this Hunt, that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab, there's a hell of a lot of things, and we feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further...the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again."

now, actually listen to the tape.

it says 'this is --a-- hunt'. Not howard hunt, A hunt. this is a hunt, as in people are going around hunting for things. like evidence.

ok, so a few seconds later, he talks about the 'Cubans, Hunt, ' ...fine. That can be howard hunt. but the dude clearly does not say 'this hunt, that will uncover a lot of things'.

ok i can hear them screaming. im piddling over small stuff, while they have uncovered the worst conspiracy ever.

well, nobody is going to listen to you unless you actually do go and piddle over the small stuff... am i right?

would you trust someone who said jim morrison stole from the 7-12 store, if they hadn't gone into the little piddly details? like the fact that its called 7-11, not 7-12? wouldn't that be considered sloppy?


the phrase 'Bay of Pigs thing', is mentioned other times on the nixon tapes, but he wants to expose it, not hide it... why? apparently to embarass the people involved with the bay of pigs, which was a disaster and an embarassement?

"May 14, 1973, the Executive Office Building:

Nixon: I want the Diem, and the Bay of Pigs totally declassified, and I want it done in 48 hours. "


Now, on his death bed, howard hunt says he -was- involved in the jfk murder.

Haldeman appaently thought 'bay of pigs thing' was a code for the jfk murder.

but where is the truth?


obviously i dont know the truth.
but i do know one thing, im a simple caveman typer.

and i really dont have time to go digging into nixons use of the phrase 'bay of pigs' right now. why not? i think its an interesting question, but first of all i have to pay the rent with my normal job... so there goes 40+ hours... and second of all i have other stuff im reading about... that just feels slightly more important in the present...

when i listen to the tape, i feel that i have been played with by the ellipses game, in regards to a lot of the jfk murder websites & articles.

Here is a better transcript, from

"Nixon: Of course, this is a, this is a Hunt, you will-that will uncover a lot of things. You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things and that we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves. Well what the hell, did Mitchell know about this thing to any much of a degree?

Haldeman: I think so. I don 't think he knew the details, but I think he knew.

Nixon: He didn't know how it was going to be handled though, with Dahlberg and the Texans and so forth? Well who was the asshole that did? (Unintelligible) Is it Liddy? Is that the fellow? He must be a little nuts.

Haldeman: He is.

Nixon: I mean he just isn't well screwed on is he? Isn't that the problem?

Haldeman: No, but he was under pressure, apparently, to get more information, and as he got more pressure, he pushed the people harder to move harder on...

Nixon: Pressure from Mitchell?

Haldeman: Apparently.

Nixon: Oh, Mitchell, Mitchell was at the point that you made on this, that exactly what I need from you is on the--

Haldeman: Gemstone, yeah.

Nixon: All right, fine, I understand it all. We won't second-guess Mitchell and the rest. Thank God it wasn't Colson.

Haldeman: The FBI interviewed Colson yesterday. They determined that would be a good thing to do.

Nixon: Um hum.

Haldeman: Ah, to have him take a...

Nixon: Um hum.

Haldeman: An interrogation, which he did, and that, the FBI guys working the case had concluded that there were one or two possibilities, one, that this was a White House, they don't think that there is anything at the Election Committee, they think it was either a White House operation and they had some obscure reasons for it, non political,...

Nixon: Uh huh.

Haldeman: or it was a...

Nixon: Cuban thing-

Haldeman: Cubans and the CIA. And after their interrogation of, of...

Nixon: Colson.

Haldeman: Colson, yesterday, they concluded it was not the White House, but are now convinced it is a CIA thing, so the CIA turn off would...

Nixon: Well, not sure of their analysis, I'm not going to get that involved. I'm (unintelligible).

Haldeman: No, sir. We don't want you to.

Nixon: You call them in.

Nixon: Good. Good deal! Play it tough. That's the way they play it and that's the way we are going to play it.

Haldeman: O.K. We'll do it.

Nixon: Yeah, when I saw that news summary item, I of course knew it was a bunch of crap, but I thought ah, well it's good to have them off on this wild hair thing because when they start bugging us, which they have, we'll know our little boys will not know how to handle it. I hope they will though. You never know. Maybe, you think about it. Good!


Nixon: When you get in these people when you...get these people in, say: "Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that" ah, without going into the details... don't, don't lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, "the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don't go any further into this case", period!

Haldeman: OK


Now, Hunt is still in there... right with the Cubans, whoever they are. And the 'Bay of Pigs' thing,.... is several minutes later in the tape.

To me, a simple cave man typer, i am having a hard time transforming that transcript into 'Hunt. . . . will open up the bay of pigs thing'

The ellipses ( the '. . . ', three periods in a row) seems a strange tool to me, ... when quoting someone... because i can leave out all sorts of things.

Lets take the gettysburg address, by abraham lincoln:

". . . seven years ago. . . our fathers. . . died in vain. . . and this government . . . shall . . . perish from the earth"

wow, how depressing.. . .

im just saying... why the sloppy work around the jfk murder case?
isn't it kind of important to get the little details right?
if Hunt is really connected, how? who? where? when? why? how do we know?
where is our evidence? is this nixon tape all we have?

im just saying, . . . . 'a hunt' is not some guy named hunt.

and the truth is found in the tiny , boring details.... is it not?

'mark felt wants to cooperate' -- lol

"PRESIDENT: What about Pat Gray, ah, you mean he doesn't want to?

HALDEMAN: Pat does want to. He doesn't know how to, and he doesn't have, he doesn't have any basis for doing it. Given this, he will then have the basis. He'll call Mark Felt in, and the two of them ...and Mark Felt wants to cooperate because...


HALDEMAN: he's ambitious...


for those of you playing along at home, his is Nixon and Haldeman talking about getting the CIA to tell the FBI to stop investigating Watergate. Who is their man? Mark Felt! Who was, of course, the famous leaker to Woodward and Bernstein. 'deep throat'

small thing they missed in the movie 'breach'

the fbi spy for russia was not just catholic.. he was opus dei, hard core. abortion protestor. like, out there. viewed the world as a conspiracy. way beyond.

he also hung out with a stripper.

a lot.

a lot a lot. trying to 'save her'.

stringing her along. giving her oodles of money.

but when she wanted to be with him, he said 'no im a family man'... lol sure was!

got a family here got a family there, maybe got another one somewhere else...

lordy lordy.

oh, and he assaulted a woman on his staff

""Everyone knew Dr. Death was strange, but nobody ever did anything about him. He was always hacking into someone's computer hard drive and then pointing out how easy it was to get their classified information. "

lol wonder if he posted on slashdot

at least the movie has him ranting about using linux. ha!

our top cia people don't know how to make websites

see the 'spytalk blog', by jeff stein, CIA man admits statements are his.

well. i think its funny.

the flu vs terrorists

the flu kills 20,000 americans per year.

terrorists... they kill.. uhm.

ok lets go back 10 years.

the flu has killed 200,000 americans.

terrorists have killed... 3000 americans at wtc.
how about overseas?
4000 in the terror war... but alot of those are accidents and.. alot are not terrorists, just militias and warlords (example muqtada al-sadr)

so... say, about 5000.

200,000 vs 5000.

that means the flu is 20 times more deadly than terrorists.
it is 20 times the threat.

i wonder.. have we spent 20 times the money fighting it?

of course not.


other things that kill a lot more americans than terrorists:

1. cancer
2. automobiles
3. unsafe working conditions
4. depression

but we wont spend very much fighting those things either.