The James Watson brouhaha began, I believe, with a story published in the London Times on a Sunday. By Wednesday of that week, a few comments deep within the article had set off a brouhaha around the world.
It's good to know we've got our priorities straight!
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
I guess the Watson story is just far more important than nuclear proliferation and treason. After all, if some minorities heard about Watson's opinion, they might not be able to achieve their best, so it was important to refute Watson by giving his comments lots of publicity so that fewer minorities would get the wrong idea, sort of like giving all that publicity to Gibson's drunken comments to ensure no body would hear anti-Semitic ideas from a famous person.
ReplyDeleteI’m sure that the reason Edmond’s story hasn’t gotten any coverage in the US media has nothing to do with the fear any journalists have about losing their jobs by touching on a sensitive subject that powerful people don’t want discussed.
And if the Edmond story doesn’t have any credibility it is very important that it isn’t even discussed in the USA, to make sure the public doesn’t get the wrong idea. I’ve been told that wrong ideas can be very, very dangerous. So, even refuting a dangerous idea can be dangerous and it is best just not to discuss it at all.
I’m sure that the reason Edmond’s story hasn’t gotten any coverage in the US media has nothing to do with the fear any journalists have about losing their jobs
ReplyDeletethe ancient greeks said that whoever controlled the chorus controlled the country.
Minor quibble,
ReplyDelete"former FBI prosecutor Sibel Edmonds"
I believe she was a translator not a prosecutor.
Well having read through the story on the previous thread and also the many comments, especially those by our friend Evil Neocon, one really surprising thing came to my mind.
ReplyDeleteI'll admit that I'm absolutely, totally astonished to hear our friend Evil Neocon so strongly praising the credibility and reliability of David Duke.
I'll admit I'd always vaguely assumed that neocons---evil or otherwise---didn't even like David Duke...
I assume the reason the Sibel Edmonds story hasn't received any coverage in the US mainstream media is because no one knows about it. The media is covering the primaries, and Hillary's "shocking" triumph in New Hampshire.
ReplyDeleteHow many journalists know anything about the NIST report, the 9/11 Commission report or anything else regarding 9/11?
David Duke? Guy is a racist nutcake loon.
ReplyDeleteEdmonds is likely not credible on the assertion that Israel gave US nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. That makes about as much sense as Obama showing up at a Duke Rally. I'm sure there was massive incompetence and idiocy.
But that doesn't make a conspiracy.
The FBI had wiretaps on terrorists turned off -- because they did not pay their phone bills. One bill was more than $66,000 overdue.
Bill Clinton's CIA gave working designs of Soviet nukes to the Iranians. It was originally designed to have (a rather obvious flaw) and be given by an out-of-work Soviet nuke designer who'd been recruited by the CIA. The guy felt he was being left out to hang by the CIA, made a notation on the plans he delivered to the Iranians about the flaw, and some suggestions on how to correct it. He didn't want the Iranians after him.
Was this a conspiracy? No it was stupidity.
My main problem with Steve is that he does not understand large organizations and the amount of stupidity that goes into them. How stupidity often rises to the top due to social dynamics and organization culture, even if the people involved are quite smart about other things.
Steve (and many posters here) remind me of the very smart but immature and childish engineers I work with who not understanding the social dynamics of the executive suite conjure up idiot conspiracy theories when simple stupidity will do.
An example: I worked for a large Energy company that was under competitive threats, had a new CEO and other high-ranking people, and was underperforming vs. other companies in the stock market. A lot of us were underwater in our options. Having sat in meetings where "re org of the month" would be plotted out I understood why this happened. People understood very well their core competency -- delivering power cheaply and reliably to customers. But had no clue how to react to the new environment which included a whole new executive staff. Fear and confusion reigned.
Watson is a story because it hits people in the emotional gut -- "Noted Scientist is a 'Racist'" -- even though Watson of course is not a racist.
Edmonds is not a story because it's the analogy of someone who witnesses a helicopter crash and calls it a UFO encounter.
It is all the more surprising given that Mrs. Edmonds is much easier on the eyes than Mr. Watson. I thought we were supposed to be in the age of superficial media here.
ReplyDeleteAnother long winded, ramblimg apologia for Israel from our favorite neocon. Just think of how confused the rest of us would be if we didn't have evil neocon and his ilk around to explain everything to us.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Edmonds's story would be more picked up by the American media if American journalists were not constantly bombarded with consipiracy theories of every type from the Apollo landings to Diebold (in NH too) to the Stonecutters to Jesus' offspring to...
ReplyDeleteAfter a while jadeness (sp?) comes into play.
But if you want to believe that a neocon owned newspaper like the Times is the only one 'brave' enough to 'reveal' that Israel needs nuke secrets from the US go ahead.
Careful who you call a "nutcake loon" Evil Neocon… glass houses and all.
ReplyDelete"Edmonds is likely not credible… idiot conspiracy theories… UFOs". Really? That explains why Sibel Edmonds complaint resulted in:
* Senate Judiciary Committee wasted untold hours holding unclassified hearings over the course of over 3 weeks, to hear “idiot conspiracy theories like UFOs”
* the FBI readily acknowledged some of Edmonds’ complaints
* Attorney General Ashcroft tried to get Edmonds’ suits against the DoJ, FBI and several high-level officials dismissed on the grounds they would endanger national security (not that they were frivolous idiot conspiracies).
* The judge didn’t see a frivolous idiot conspiracy and proceeded with the case at which time Attorney General Ashcroft took the unprecedented step to retroactively classify as Top Secret all material and statements in the earlier Senate Judiciary Committee
* Edmonds suit was dismissed on state secret grounds only, and when appealed the Inspector General released an unclassified summary of a highly classified summary concluding “that many of her allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI’s decision to terminate her services”
* Hours before hearing her appeal, three judges issued a ruling that barred all reporters, the public and even Edmonds from the courtroom for the hearing. Later, her case was dismissed without any reason given or opinion cited. (obviously due to the repeated claims of state secrecy)
What you say about bureaucratic bungling is universally true and unrelated to this. This is in no way comparable to late or unpaid phone bills handled by low paid government secretaries. This case purports to deal with hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign bribes purposefully directed by top-level officials to obtain key nuclear weapons technology, moles strategically placed throughout specific research and weapons research organizations with the aid of key US government officials all with the ultimate aim of destabilizing the Islamic world, infinitely increasing terrorist threats to America and potentially tragically drawing her into direct nuclear confrontation with certain states that are also enemies of Israel like Iran.
To paraphrase Lord Palmerston, nations have no allies, only interests. Where is the leap in logic here?
Off-topic, but this error can irritate when it happens so often: there is no such paper as the London Times. When I get a copy from my local newsagent, Mr Yogesh Patel, it says The Times on the masthead, and it has been saying that for over 200 years (since 1788). It's a UK national paper, not a local London paper, and it's called The Times. How about "The Times (U.K.)"?
ReplyDeleteEvil neocon is a professional disinformation agent ... long mendacious comments designed to cause the reader to forget what subject Steve addressed in the original post ... and also cause the reader to give up on reading any posts further below.
ReplyDelete