Jordan, Gardner and me New Ruskin College
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 02-14-05
trophy hunters
“Come on boys, they are getting away!” --- Oct.25 1944
“Jordan's resignation marks the end of a 23-year career at CNN as one of its most powerful and influential executives; much of his time at CNN was spent building and running the network's global newsgathering operations. . . .
”It was not the first time that Jordan generated controversy. In April 2003, he wrote in a New York Times op-ed that CNN had declined to report several instances of torture, murder and other depredations by Saddam Hussein and his sons for fear of endangering CNN employees in Iraq. That led critics to accuse him of abetting Hussein's dictatorship.” CNN exec quits after comments on killings, Denies saying U.S. targeted reporters, By John Cook, Tribune staff reporter. Published February 12, 2005
Come on boys! You are trophy hunters! That is what the New York Times says about you bloggers. It is not about truth. It is just sport with you, right? The people in the media, at the New York Times for example, they are the ones we are hunting, right?
So come on. We can’t just let this one stagger off. He is wounded but he is still breathing. We got to keep after him. Find out where he lives --- let’s burglarize his home and steal his notebook. Plant electronic listening devices. Follow him!
Don’t let up now! If he finds a job let’s use our influence to harasse him there too. The New York Times says we are the hunters and they are the prey, right? We are the predators. One year, two years, if it takes us fourteen years, let’s get him!
The careerists in the media, the ones making the six and seven figure incomes they are the innocents and we bloggers, we are the bad guys, the “trophy hunters.” The mere fact that Jordan made a deal with the devil of Baghdad, and then he accused our military, after the loss of so many getting rid of that devil, accused them of killing (“I know of eleven”) journalists, that ain’t no thin’.
Indeed, didn’t Lee Rogers of KSFO say that he thought the Marines would kill the journalist who reported on the killing of the wounded Iraqi prisoners that had been left in a mosque for 24 hours? (see Lecture Notes: 11-24-04) Yes I believe he did. Yes I do.
Oh, what is another word for it? Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! By any other name, damnable Hypocrisy!.
For example the other day Lee Rogers suggested to Mrs. Jack Swanson that they link their KSFO web site to a web site for an insurance adjuster, (Mr. Gardner), who had been fired from his job because he said he was a Republican and he would not support Mr. Kerry. (His boss said, “We are all Democrats.”)
There was a moment’s pause as she considered Lee Roger’s suggestion, (was she considering the irony?),and then Mrs. Jack Swanson agreed, saying how outrageous she felt it was for those Kennedy people and Kerry’s people to interfere with Mr. Gardner’s employment. (see Intel Operations, Psy Ops on the main campus and, CENCAL Letters at the Moynihan)
W E B E X C L U S I V EThe Tenth BrotherDouglas Brinkley, author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, interviews Kerry’s tenth warmate and gets a story sharply different from what the other nine crew members have had to say By DOUGLAS BRINKLEY The hardnosed Gardner returned from Vietnam in February 1969; Kerry came home a month later. The two men haven’t spoken in nearly 35 years. Kerry has no recollection of any of Gardner’s accusations, including the threatening of a court martial. None of PCF-44’s crew trusts Gardner’s memory. Today Gardner claims he works at Millennium Services (an insurance inspection company) and is bitter about Kerry’s national prominence. At various times in our interview he complained about Kerry “running around with Hanoi Jane” after the war and having a “rich wife.” And—like Limbaugh—he is determined to convince people that Kerry is Slick Willy incarnate.
Note the adjective “hardnosed.” Insurance adjusters are “hardnosed.” Note the “today he claims to work . . .” as if tomorrow he might “claim” something different. (After we fire his ass.) Does one “claim” to be an insurance adjuster? I mean if he says so can we not take him at his word? Why would anyone make such a “claim” if it were not true.
I could understand, for example, if Brinkley had written: “he claimed to be a vice president with J. P. Morgan.” But why did Mr. Brinkley feel it necessary to put in the name of the employer? What did the employer’s name add to the story? (Perhaps it is a warning to others?)
But Mr. Brinkley was under some pressure. The “historian” wrote a puff book on Kerry and the fabric was coming undone. It was apparent even to bloggers that the research was not what we expect of a “historian.” It was what we expect from a political shill.
Note that the hardnosed adjuster “complained” about Kerry “running around” with Hanoi Jane. Still complaining after all these years? Or was he critical? He is “bitter” about “prominence.” Well you have to expect that from the bottom 75%. Malcontents. But “complaining” about the “rich wife.” How does one complain about a rich wife? Perhaps an example would have helped here. (For example: He impressed me as an opportunist, so I was not surprised he married a rich wife. Yes, but is this complaining?) From the wording it is not clear who brought up Rush, or if the name even came up in the interview, but the claim that he was trying to “convince people” seems misplaced here, in as much as Brinkley sought out Gardner not the other way around.
Days later, Brinkley called again, warning Gardner to expect some calls. It seems Brinkley had used the "fact checking" conversation to write an inflammatory article about Gardner for Time.com. The article, implying that Gardner was politically motivated, appeared under the headline "The 10th Brother."
Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position. Gardner doesn't have the money to sue to get the job back. How Kerry whistleblower suffered for truth , November 29, 2004 , BY MARY LANEY, Chicago Sun Times
But the hypocrisy I ask that you consider is not Brinkley’s but that of Mrs. Jack Swanson. For it was Mrs. Jack Swanson who harassed me in 2001 and 2002, then used her influence with the millionaire owners of CENCAL Insurance, my employer, to first steal my letters, (see CENCAL letters) and then have me laid off. She then, two years later, expresses righteous anger at the Kennedys and the Kerrys for getting Mr. Gardner fired from his job. (“Oh, I’m vicious” she says of herself. Yes vicious, and a liar, and a neurotic, etc. etc.)
Rich Lowery in a phone conversation with me in 1992 claimed he had never heard about me and then later went on to boast to Gordon Peterson that he had lied to me. He had in fact known about me and he boasted to Gordy, that he had lied. Had lied to me just to lie, for just the exercise. Later Mr. Lowery went on to right a book about Mr. Clinton, Legacy, all about “paying the price” for Mr. Clinton’s lies. (The boastful liar calls Clinton a liar.)
How do you live with yourselves?
Mr. Lehrer had Lowery on his show last Friday and when the phrase “kool-aid drinkers” was used, Mr. Lehrer felt obliged to caution, “let’s watch our metaphors.” (Yes, metaphor, thank you.) See? Mr. Lehrer is a professional. He has standards? But this is trophy hunting? Mr. Lowery shows himself to be a boastful liar, and I report this, and the New York Times says I am a “trophy hunter.” What of the lies?
Our troops do not kill journalists despite what Mr. Jordan or Mr. Rogers say. Mrs. Jack Swanson is a dishonest liar, a hypocrite. She harassed me for year simply to entertain herself. Mr. Lowery had heard of me. Mr. Lehrer knows what his colleagues at KQED have done: the intentional interference with contractual both with the counselor and with my employment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, oppression . . . and he helps cover it up.
I am nauseated . . .
Al Franken on his show today referred to Social Security as an “annuity.” But because he is so poorly spoken on these matters one is inclined to exempt him from the charge of liar. To tell the lie that Social Security is an annuity would require that one knows what an annuity is and what the Social Security system is, and one doubts Franken will ever bother to study that much.
Social Security is an income transfer scheme. No money was ever invested. When surpluses were created the moneys were spent in the general accounts. They were not invested. They did not build value over time. There are no guaranteed annuities or variable annuities in the Social Security system. (“There is no such thing as capital there are only capital goods.”---L v Mises)
Dr. Greenspan, among many others, specifically rejected the idea that the Social Security surplus be invested. They did not want the government to own the capital goods as the state ownership would be less efficient than if the capital goods were owned by private owners who would look to the returns more carefully than state managers. (Dr. Greenspan now says that if the capital is held in “individual accounts” he is no longer concerned about the innervating effects of the state sponsored ownership.)
No one does not think Al Franken is lying when he claims that Social Security is an annuity, he is simply an example of the gullible ignorant public. The Democrats and Republicans tell them lies about “annuities” and “lock boxes” “trust accounts” all the lies, carried out over the continent by the mass media, with people like Lowery, Lehrer, Brinkley, Jordan, and god help us, Mrs. Jack Swanson, telling those lies about social security. Yes and all the other lies. . .
And who is there to tell the truth?
The other morning I awoke shouting “No, no, no.” Why? I dreamed I was driving in San Francisco. The streets were empty. Foreboding. Where was everyone? Was a tidal wave coming? Had there been a plague? I started shouting, No. No!
Then I realized as I came to, my last day is approaching and part of me wants to live. That is why I shouted No! No, to death. I want to live. Part of me just wants a job, any job, and to go on, reading, studying. . . watching. Just to be allowed to live.
But then I think of all of you . . . I think back over the last fourteen years . . . and I am thankful that I have this last way out . . . away from you . . . where you can not reach me . . . away from your hypocrisy.
Some trophy hunter.
Late breaking news:
Just now the NewsHour adds “scalp hunter” to the media’s invective. They harasse me for fourteen years, interfere with my employment, . . . fourteen years! Burglary, and PBS was a leader in this and then say we are scalp hunters? Go away PBS you are corrupt beyond belief.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
Lecture Notes: 02-14-05
trophy hunters
“Come on boys, they are getting away!” --- Oct.25 1944
“Jordan's resignation marks the end of a 23-year career at CNN as one of its most powerful and influential executives; much of his time at CNN was spent building and running the network's global newsgathering operations. . . .
”It was not the first time that Jordan generated controversy. In April 2003, he wrote in a New York Times op-ed that CNN had declined to report several instances of torture, murder and other depredations by Saddam Hussein and his sons for fear of endangering CNN employees in Iraq. That led critics to accuse him of abetting Hussein's dictatorship.” CNN exec quits after comments on killings, Denies saying U.S. targeted reporters, By John Cook, Tribune staff reporter. Published February 12, 2005
Come on boys! You are trophy hunters! That is what the New York Times says about you bloggers. It is not about truth. It is just sport with you, right? The people in the media, at the New York Times for example, they are the ones we are hunting, right?
So come on. We can’t just let this one stagger off. He is wounded but he is still breathing. We got to keep after him. Find out where he lives --- let’s burglarize his home and steal his notebook. Plant electronic listening devices. Follow him!
Don’t let up now! If he finds a job let’s use our influence to harasse him there too. The New York Times says we are the hunters and they are the prey, right? We are the predators. One year, two years, if it takes us fourteen years, let’s get him!
The careerists in the media, the ones making the six and seven figure incomes they are the innocents and we bloggers, we are the bad guys, the “trophy hunters.” The mere fact that Jordan made a deal with the devil of Baghdad, and then he accused our military, after the loss of so many getting rid of that devil, accused them of killing (“I know of eleven”) journalists, that ain’t no thin’.
Indeed, didn’t Lee Rogers of KSFO say that he thought the Marines would kill the journalist who reported on the killing of the wounded Iraqi prisoners that had been left in a mosque for 24 hours? (see Lecture Notes: 11-24-04) Yes I believe he did. Yes I do.
Oh, what is another word for it? Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy! By any other name, damnable Hypocrisy!.
For example the other day Lee Rogers suggested to Mrs. Jack Swanson that they link their KSFO web site to a web site for an insurance adjuster, (Mr. Gardner), who had been fired from his job because he said he was a Republican and he would not support Mr. Kerry. (His boss said, “We are all Democrats.”)
There was a moment’s pause as she considered Lee Roger’s suggestion, (was she considering the irony?),and then Mrs. Jack Swanson agreed, saying how outrageous she felt it was for those Kennedy people and Kerry’s people to interfere with Mr. Gardner’s employment. (see Intel Operations, Psy Ops on the main campus and, CENCAL Letters at the Moynihan)
W E B E X C L U S I V EThe Tenth BrotherDouglas Brinkley, author of Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, interviews Kerry’s tenth warmate and gets a story sharply different from what the other nine crew members have had to say By DOUGLAS BRINKLEY The hardnosed Gardner returned from Vietnam in February 1969; Kerry came home a month later. The two men haven’t spoken in nearly 35 years. Kerry has no recollection of any of Gardner’s accusations, including the threatening of a court martial. None of PCF-44’s crew trusts Gardner’s memory. Today Gardner claims he works at Millennium Services (an insurance inspection company) and is bitter about Kerry’s national prominence. At various times in our interview he complained about Kerry “running around with Hanoi Jane” after the war and having a “rich wife.” And—like Limbaugh—he is determined to convince people that Kerry is Slick Willy incarnate.
Note the adjective “hardnosed.” Insurance adjusters are “hardnosed.” Note the “today he claims to work . . .” as if tomorrow he might “claim” something different. (After we fire his ass.) Does one “claim” to be an insurance adjuster? I mean if he says so can we not take him at his word? Why would anyone make such a “claim” if it were not true.
I could understand, for example, if Brinkley had written: “he claimed to be a vice president with J. P. Morgan.” But why did Mr. Brinkley feel it necessary to put in the name of the employer? What did the employer’s name add to the story? (Perhaps it is a warning to others?)
But Mr. Brinkley was under some pressure. The “historian” wrote a puff book on Kerry and the fabric was coming undone. It was apparent even to bloggers that the research was not what we expect of a “historian.” It was what we expect from a political shill.
Note that the hardnosed adjuster “complained” about Kerry “running around” with Hanoi Jane. Still complaining after all these years? Or was he critical? He is “bitter” about “prominence.” Well you have to expect that from the bottom 75%. Malcontents. But “complaining” about the “rich wife.” How does one complain about a rich wife? Perhaps an example would have helped here. (For example: He impressed me as an opportunist, so I was not surprised he married a rich wife. Yes, but is this complaining?) From the wording it is not clear who brought up Rush, or if the name even came up in the interview, but the claim that he was trying to “convince people” seems misplaced here, in as much as Brinkley sought out Gardner not the other way around.
Days later, Brinkley called again, warning Gardner to expect some calls. It seems Brinkley had used the "fact checking" conversation to write an inflammatory article about Gardner for Time.com. The article, implying that Gardner was politically motivated, appeared under the headline "The 10th Brother."
Twenty-four hours later, Gardner got an e-mail from his company, Millennium Information Services, informing him that his services would no longer be necessary. He was laid off in an e-mail -- by the same man who only days before had congratulated him for his exemplary work in a territory which covered North and South Carolina. The e-mail stated that his position was being eliminated. Since then, he's seen the company advertising for his old position. Gardner doesn't have the money to sue to get the job back. How Kerry whistleblower suffered for truth , November 29, 2004 , BY MARY LANEY, Chicago Sun Times
But the hypocrisy I ask that you consider is not Brinkley’s but that of Mrs. Jack Swanson. For it was Mrs. Jack Swanson who harassed me in 2001 and 2002, then used her influence with the millionaire owners of CENCAL Insurance, my employer, to first steal my letters, (see CENCAL letters) and then have me laid off. She then, two years later, expresses righteous anger at the Kennedys and the Kerrys for getting Mr. Gardner fired from his job. (“Oh, I’m vicious” she says of herself. Yes vicious, and a liar, and a neurotic, etc. etc.)
Rich Lowery in a phone conversation with me in 1992 claimed he had never heard about me and then later went on to boast to Gordon Peterson that he had lied to me. He had in fact known about me and he boasted to Gordy, that he had lied. Had lied to me just to lie, for just the exercise. Later Mr. Lowery went on to right a book about Mr. Clinton, Legacy, all about “paying the price” for Mr. Clinton’s lies. (The boastful liar calls Clinton a liar.)
How do you live with yourselves?
Mr. Lehrer had Lowery on his show last Friday and when the phrase “kool-aid drinkers” was used, Mr. Lehrer felt obliged to caution, “let’s watch our metaphors.” (Yes, metaphor, thank you.) See? Mr. Lehrer is a professional. He has standards? But this is trophy hunting? Mr. Lowery shows himself to be a boastful liar, and I report this, and the New York Times says I am a “trophy hunter.” What of the lies?
Our troops do not kill journalists despite what Mr. Jordan or Mr. Rogers say. Mrs. Jack Swanson is a dishonest liar, a hypocrite. She harassed me for year simply to entertain herself. Mr. Lowery had heard of me. Mr. Lehrer knows what his colleagues at KQED have done: the intentional interference with contractual both with the counselor and with my employment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, oppression . . . and he helps cover it up.
I am nauseated . . .
Al Franken on his show today referred to Social Security as an “annuity.” But because he is so poorly spoken on these matters one is inclined to exempt him from the charge of liar. To tell the lie that Social Security is an annuity would require that one knows what an annuity is and what the Social Security system is, and one doubts Franken will ever bother to study that much.
Social Security is an income transfer scheme. No money was ever invested. When surpluses were created the moneys were spent in the general accounts. They were not invested. They did not build value over time. There are no guaranteed annuities or variable annuities in the Social Security system. (“There is no such thing as capital there are only capital goods.”---L v Mises)
Dr. Greenspan, among many others, specifically rejected the idea that the Social Security surplus be invested. They did not want the government to own the capital goods as the state ownership would be less efficient than if the capital goods were owned by private owners who would look to the returns more carefully than state managers. (Dr. Greenspan now says that if the capital is held in “individual accounts” he is no longer concerned about the innervating effects of the state sponsored ownership.)
No one does not think Al Franken is lying when he claims that Social Security is an annuity, he is simply an example of the gullible ignorant public. The Democrats and Republicans tell them lies about “annuities” and “lock boxes” “trust accounts” all the lies, carried out over the continent by the mass media, with people like Lowery, Lehrer, Brinkley, Jordan, and god help us, Mrs. Jack Swanson, telling those lies about social security. Yes and all the other lies. . .
And who is there to tell the truth?
The other morning I awoke shouting “No, no, no.” Why? I dreamed I was driving in San Francisco. The streets were empty. Foreboding. Where was everyone? Was a tidal wave coming? Had there been a plague? I started shouting, No. No!
Then I realized as I came to, my last day is approaching and part of me wants to live. That is why I shouted No! No, to death. I want to live. Part of me just wants a job, any job, and to go on, reading, studying. . . watching. Just to be allowed to live.
But then I think of all of you . . . I think back over the last fourteen years . . . and I am thankful that I have this last way out . . . away from you . . . where you can not reach me . . . away from your hypocrisy.
Some trophy hunter.
Late breaking news:
Just now the NewsHour adds “scalp hunter” to the media’s invective. They harasse me for fourteen years, interfere with my employment, . . . fourteen years! Burglary, and PBS was a leader in this and then say we are scalp hunters? Go away PBS you are corrupt beyond belief.
www.NewRuskinCollege.com
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home