Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Mel Gibson

Interesting story here.

This story began, AFAIK, when Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving. During the proceedings, he said: "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world".

The story is ending, or at least the die is cast, and we mainstream media followers have prime time, front row seats to Mel's destruction, a quote at a time (here is one, and another and another, - the list goes on, probably including all or most of these mouthpieces.

He did apologize, but apparently that wasn't enough. It's obviously been decided that he must now be destroyed. And throw in "obliterated" for good measure (relish?).

Suppose he were sober, researched his suspicions, and able to phrase his thoughts more clearly. Would he then have said something like:

"The Zionists and their supporters played a major role in duping America into the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses, an act that set the stage for a much longer - and very likely far more savage - war in the Middle East that we Americans will assuredly come to rue"

Would this require an apology? Far more important, when you think about it, is the question: "would anyone have heard him say that?"

Mel's BraveHart movie was a riveting saga of one man's quest for justice, his extreme bravery, and his ultimate betrayal and public execution at the hand of evil rulers, duly witnessed by a properly brainwashed mob.

Mel, when he's not drunk, is a very smart fellow. What will he do now? What can he do? He can certainly afford the research to determine the truth of his (sober) assertions. He's capable of making another riveting film, this time one about the Neocon gang and what they and their cronies in Washington, Wall Street and the media have perpetrated. If he can do that, he may also be able to arouse public awareness of Vincent Bugliosi's quest to put Bush on trail for murder.

But will the people who are handling the snuffing of him today then turn around and give him the airtime to promote his movie? I doubt it, but something like that could go "viral".

Or - will life just imitate art, as it sometimes does?

Addendum: A related thought: Mel Gibson is being destroyed because he's been branded a racist. Isn't it fascinating to see this much attention given one racist at the very same time an entire country, Israel, practices racism at the highest level with what is effectively an Apartheid state? It's even more interesting when you consider the stunning degree of influence Zionists have over our information supply. Is this not yet another perfect example of accusing your enemy with the very crime you yourself are guilty of?

Update 1: Source: Gibson's wife says she was not abused

"According to celebrity website TMZ.com, Robyn Gibson wrote in the declaration, "Mel never engaged in any physical abuse of any kind toward me before, during or after our marriage." She also noted that "Mel was a wonderful and loving father." "

Whether he's innocent or guilty to a lesser extent, the hatchet job is done, by our information supply, which performed perfectly for the task. I'd be willing to bet 80% of American's know about each and every accusation, and that's tainted him severely. Make that film, Mel!


The three trillion dollar war by Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University and Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes

Two question/answers from this page:

Submitted by Dave from Washington, DC

Q: While I understand your tabulation and overall methodology, aren't you getting a lot of shock value from simply stating the cost at $3T? After all, over the 70+ years these costs will hit the Treasury, the average annual cost is about $43B--hardly as shocking. I realize these cost are front loaded, but there are other long-term Federal costs that are far larger. BTW: I'm not a war supporter. I just can't stand sensationalized stories.

Answered 04/16/08 12:03:11 by Linda Bilmes

A: We actually tried to be very conservative. You can easily support a number that is much higher and we decided not to do that. The $3 trillion is really simple: it is just the sum of the $800bn we will have spent by the end of 2008, the present value of a conservative estimate of health care and disability compensation for the veterans, plus the cost of ongoing fighting, replacing military equipment, and paying interest on the money we borrowed. This reaches $3 Trillion. For example, oil prices have gone up from $25 before the war to over $100 barrel now. The war changed the supply&demand equation and put upward pressure on oil prices. But in our book we only attribute $5-$10 of this increase to Iraq, because we don't want to be sensationalist.

Submitted by Jack Tuten from Pelahatchie Ms

Q: why are not the american people in the streets in protest?

Answered 04/03/08 22:24:21 by Linda Bilmes

A: Hard to know for sure, but one reason is that the sacrifice in this wra is not widely shared. The average person in America is not paying higher txes for the war (because we borrowed all the money to pay for the war), and is not at risk of sending their loved ones to fight (because there is no draft).


No comments: