I live in Canada, the Great White North. It is called the Great White North because that is the colour of it between October and March each year. The white colouring material is snow. This stuff doesn’t always have the same consistency across the board. Sometimes it is light, floaty stuff, and sometimes it is more like semi-viscous lead. Its main properties are that it is cold and slippery, and can be found in thin layers or almost impenetrable barriers. It can stop airplanes, trains, trucks, buses, school buses, motorcycles and cars.

I fix home computers, on site if possible, and I need to be able to get out in all-weather to do this. If somebody calls me, they expect a visit from me on the same day, not middle spring of next year. Yes, of course the city clears all of the major roads and school bus routes, but do all of my clients live on a road that is cleared every hour? No, they don’t..

I drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee 4×4. It gets me to where I need to be when you need me to be there. Can I afford a summer car and a winter car? No, I can’t. I don’t have the storage room or the cash. So no, I don’t feel bad about it at all. When I make a journey, I make sure that it counts, and get as much done on the journey as I can. This reduces my time out on the road, engine running.

Is that what you do? I hope so. Just because your car is cheaper to run doesn’t mean that you should be in and out all day. You are probably using more gas per errand than I am.

When a vehicle was traded in under the ‘Cash for Clunker’ scheme, do you know what happened to it? Do you think that it was sent to somewhere where the vehicle could be usefully used, where no other type of vehicle is of much value?

Did it hurt to watch that? A perfectly good vehicle, great for use in the Canadian winter and in the Northern US states, was trashed, not allowed to be resold to somebody who could really benefit from such a vehicle. I wouldn’tsuggest that you look on YouTube Cash for Clunkers if you don’t want to see a BMW 5 or 7 series go the same way. It is heartbreaking to watch.

What did the scheme achieve? Well, at a time when the auto industry was in the doldrums, it got a few new sales. It got a few new sales from people who could afford to buy new. What about all of the people who couldn’t? There are a few of us around.

What has it done for emissions? Not a lot probably because the people who bought more economical cars can now afford to run around more. It is a situation much like health food. The less calories in each mouthful, the more people eat.

Cash for Clunkers was a crazy idea and solved NOTHING. It wasted a great deal of public funds. It was a joke that placed some car dealers in debt because the funding for the scheme didn’t get to them very quickly, and in some cases not at all.

The age of the gas driven car is coming to an end, but this was not the way to do it. Ethanol fuel is not the way to do it either, but there are ways and the energy producers know it. This is one way.. http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/transconic-supercritical-fuel-injection.html and there are probably others.

But wait, if vehicles were more efficient, less gas would be sold and the producers would lose out, UNLESS they charged a lot more for each litre/gallon. And if they did that, it would not only impact taking the kids to school. Everything would be way more expensive, being as most goods are moved by road.

Hurrah for the gas guzzlers. It is these vehicles which keep other goods at a price we can all afford. Or hadn’t you thought about that angle? Sit down for a few minutes and think about it..

There’s a bunch of activity here now, guys all over.We have been issued with all our stuff, Brass is rushing around, and the word is that we could be going soon.

Me and the others had some great leave, dancing and singing and I had a beer too. I don’t think that the Limeys like us too much but the gals are ok. Mom, I met this girl and heck she is pretty. When all this stuff is over, we are going to meet up again, and maybe she will come back with me. You’ll love her, Mom, I just know you will.

Pop, were you ever scared? Do heroes get scared, cos I surely am right now. Some guy was telling me what happened to a bunch of Canadians aways back. Do ya think they were scared too, Pop?

I better get this in the mail to you guys. Will write again real soon.. I love ya all..

An Unknown Soldier – June 5, 1944

I was told that there were monsters under my bed. It was a more effective way of keeping me there during the hours of darkness than just telling me ‘stay’. I did look to check, but couldn’t see any. When I asked about what I had observed, I was told that they were invisible. I looked for them in the daytime too, and they were still invisible. How opportune for them. A threat that I could not see or hear.

Ninety nine percent of me told me that I was being ‘had’, but that one rogue percent of doubt kept me in bed until such time as I felt that I could jump from far enough that the invisible monsters could not reach out and grab me.

Strangely enough, when my techinique for evading the monsters was discovered, they were replaced by a loss of privileges. As I had always suspected, the invisible monsters were a scam to keep me under control. But there is still that one rogue percent that tells me ‘you never know’. As of last night, I loooked under the bed and I can assure you that the invisible monsters are still there.

The Cold War – Reds under the bed
If Russia had no more tanks than the Germans towards the end of the European theatre in 1944/45, would they have broken through into Germany like they did?

The T34 tank broke through, not because it was a better tank, but because there were way more of them. The German tanks could pick them off for sure , but they just couldn’t do it fast enough. They had the same problem with the Sherman tanks coming in from the other side. There was not an allied tank which could sustain a shot from a Panther or Tiger II, but if you can’t get the shells out there fast enough, the end comes quickly enough.

So, as Germany fell, there was a mad dash to grab as much of the German war machine as possible. The West got all of the top guys because they had the means to an escape route to the West, and the German workers and plants, mostly situated in Eastern Germany in a bid to evade allied bombing, were sittings ducks for a takeover by the Russians.

This was the basis for the Cold War. With both sides now in possession of German technology, it was time to start the fear propaganda.

What I could never understand in earlier years was why the West had such a fear of the Soviet Union. It seemed to me that they didn’t have any record of producing quality stuff at any level. Their vehicles, cameras, space rockets etc lacked the quality and finesse of anything produced in the West, and I doubted that any of it was reliable enough to face us effectively. Now, I realise that it wasn’t about facing up. It was all about the ‘you never know’ fear factor.

Yes, both sides wanted and needed a way to keep the population in their hand, and the best way iwas to promise protection from the opposition, which would only be will be possible for only as long as we all followed the rules. So much for freedom.

Space and Aliens

Space aliens (Martians, Venusians etc) could not be seen to be flying here in 50′s jet junk, and as they would be travelling a fair distance, the thinking was that it would have to be fast and streamilined.

Enter the ‘flying saucer’, a nice, streamlined innocuous design in the ‘you never know’ category. Who could argue against it? Me?

Let’s start with the fact that out in space, streamlining is NOT important. We know this now but we didn’t back in the 50′s, and trust me, Martians would not have altered their thinking or contsruction methods just to be in-line with our thinking and knowledge. If they really had the technology to get this far, they would already know that saucers may not be appropriate for long range space travel.

Back in the 50′s, aliens were blobs, then Star Trek, Star Wars, Close Encounters, and StarGate introduced all kinds of shapes and sizes from cuddly but Viking like bears, through little green men, and latterly to huge insect like creatures and what we think of as Egyptian Pharoahs. Apart from some species, most seem to want to wipe us out.

Are any of the above a credible threat, or is this another attempt by our leaders to keep us in-line with the same guff as was used at the start of the Cold War: ‘We will protect you – just do as we command’?

The Communist world practised this long before we became aware of space aliens, and we never wanted to be like that or to become part of it, but we have in reality.

Area 51

Did you know that the whole of the US is marked out in areas and numbers. There is an Area 50 and Area 52 as well, the only difference being that there are no collections of strange buildings and airstrips on them, and employees who will not speak of what happens there.

What a great way to keep the paranoia going. Secret establishments, weird looking spheres in out of the way places can be found all over the civilized world. They exist to show that we are being protected, from ourselves and from outer space aliens. Rumour has it that there are space alien specimens within the boundaries of Area 51.

To show how secret and potentially dangerous the work there is, they surround these places with surveillance devices, and any attempt to get close will see guys in trucks coming to check you out. Religious weiro groups use the same scare tactics because what goes on inside the compounds is generally of a dubious nature. Why? Most likely because they are all up to no good.

As long as we don’t know, Area 51 can be used for experimenting on all kinds of things. Space aliens fit the bill well, but supposing the experimentation is on things closer to home, e.g. victims of a tragedy which may not have happened in the way we told that it did?

You never know, and the perceived fear of not knowing will always ensure that you can be controlled.

Trouble is that nobody could see it or want to see it. We all sat back on old glories, thinking that it would never end. Our industry kept making the same old stuff that had kept the empire going while other countries, including some in the empire, nipped smartly ahead of us.

The best example of how we got it all wrong was the car industry. Apart from one or two bright sparks like the original Mini and open top sports cars like the Triumphs and Morgans, we produced junk. The industry as a whole lacked investment in research and development, foresight, decent management.

In 1955, Citroen gave us the DS, the car which changed the way that cars were made. We gave the world the Morris Oxford which disappeared into obscurity. Then we followed up with the Morris Marina and the ‘Hydrolastic’ family. They were all bad from the core, and some of us could see it which is why we went out and bought BMW, Renault, Fiat, Nissan and Toyota. We spoke with our wallets, but the ‘powers that be’ never heard us.

Wars have cost us dear too. We staggered out of the Great War into WWII, did a bit in the Korean War, sailed halfway around the world to protect the Falklands (just out of interest, how many of you looked for the Falklands on a map, expecting to find them off the north Scottish coast? Be honest), and then believed Tony Blair when he told us that Saddam Hussein could give the order and we would be showered by Iraqi ICBM’s.

The ‘weapons of mass destruction’ were Tony Blair and GW Bush, and some of us knew that.

What a crock that Blair guy was. A spiv masquerading as leader of a party that was ‘for the working man’. He ran away when things started to look bad, left the mess in the hands of his mate Gordy.

The only thing that the Labour Party ever did for the working men was to tie them into one large ‘crocodile’ and haul them into the abyss.

If Britain wants to be great again, something has to change.

Let’s start with government ministers. Out with the comprehensive and grammar school nitwits who started their political careers as filing clerks in some backwoods town council.

We’ll get an industry leader for Minister for Industry, somebody like Alan Sugar. He knows how to build and maintain a good business. The Minister for Agriculture should be a farmer, not the ex-teaboy in Melton Mowbray council. Education should be headed by a school headmaster with a proven track record. Are you getting the gist of what I am saying here? Let’s get people who know more than how to use a franking machine.

British workers have had a bad rap in the past, but give them something which they are proud to make and see what they can do. They are the most skilled guys in the world, proud and tough, and they will go to work and work overtime if their hearts are in it. Manage them badly and give them junk to assemble and make and you will never get the best from them.

Dump administration overflow. A hospital electrician told me that there was a time when there were ten electricians to one admin worker. He said that it all went wrong when they created ten admin for every one electrician. Bloody madness is what it is.

I was in Coventry when there was an IRA bomb scare in the main council building. I have never seen so many people evacuate a building so fast in my life. You couldn’t move in Coventry Precinct for council workers. Funny but the only time I ever went on business to the Coventry City Council Transport Dept, the guy I saw didn’t have a clue. There were three other desks in the office but who knows where the occupants were. Probably on a ’how to be clueless course’. The guy I saw had already passed with flying colours.

We will never rule the world or the waves again. Only a fool would even try (and there are fools trying as I type this). When the Brits work with others, they do great things.

An example: For a while, they forgot about how much they dislike the French, and they produced ‘Concorde’ and the Channel Tunnel. Less mocking and shooting at people is good, and more working together with others is what makes Britain great.

Presently, the Brits are taking a bashing. Cuts, cuts cuts and yet more cuts. Stoicism will see them through, just as it always has, but more than a few Brits will be severely demoralised by what is happening, some never quite recovering from it.

Those who hold the power strings have a duty to the people to get it right. To those people, I say this. Read the history of what made us great, and then sit down with people who know what they are about, and listen to them. Don’t assume that your elected position gives you knwoledge out of thin air because it doesn’t, and political history over the last century clearly shows that it doesn’t.

To the man/woman on the street: Watch televised government broadcasts of the House of Commons. If you can’t ever see your MP in the cameras, he/she is probably hugging a baby or opening a Community Centre. That’s no good to anybody other than the MP. Ask him/her to document what has been done by his/her office that is meaningful, that will make a difference.

Get rid of the waste. It is bogging the country down.

Nothing? Walk away having decided not to get involved?

OK, supposing you were a grandparent of the child and you were witnessing the above? Now what would you do?

Wait!! Before you step forwards and rescue the child, the law of the land may not be with you.

If the child was being forced to approach a Tiger enclosure at a zoo, you would have a right to prevent the action and the law would be with you. Causing real distress to a toddler is not allowed, and the parent of the child could lose custody for causing unecessary distress, especially if the action was a regular occurrence.

Now, could somebody please outline the difference between forcing a child to confront a caged animal and forcing the child to confront its biological father.

In my world, anything which causes extreme distress to a toddler should be terminated at the earliest possible convenience.

What makes the biological father of a child want to take the child away from the mother for ANY period of time such that the separation from its mother or maternal grandparents causes the child to become hysterical and ask for help from the mother and maternal grandparents?

Is it concern for the child’s well-being? A desire to make the child happy? Does it sound like the child is happy?

At what point should the rights of a biological parent override the childs feelings and well-being? What the hell is going through the mind of the biological parent who can do this?

It certainly is NOT concern for the child. In the above circumstances, it is all about legal rights and to hell with how the child feels about it. How much does a biological parent have to hate the estranged partner to put a child through hell every other weekend?

Why can’t the government bodies set up to protect the well-being of children see this kind of thing and put a stop to it? All they provide is lip service, and all of them are easily fooled or just can’t be bothered to take the time to properly investigate problems.

Lawyers promise the earth if paid up front, but can do nothing or choose to do nothing because it is too much effort to properly fight for the cause of children. To some degree, their hands are tied because they have to work within the law of the land, but they must be able to see that some laws are cock-eyed, and they do nothing about it.

So who to blame? The pompous idiots in the Federal and Provincial Governments who have decided that everything should be fair on all parties no matter what the circumstances?  Look around you at what they do. Would you trust any one of them to buy you a Big Mac and know that there should be change from a ten dollar bill?

You can’t tell me that all of the members of the House or Senate in Canada, its provinces and territories, are totally oblivious to the fact that parental rights are being abused at the expense of the child. It is ALWAYS the child that pays the price.

What happened to the rights of the child?

I am appalled by any adult who is pompous enough to believe that a three year old child does not have the right to refuse to be placed in circumstances which bring the aforementioned child great distress, and I tell you this too. If ever I am put in the position of being asked for help by a small child where I have to refuse the help and turn away because of some dumb law passed by equally dumb idiots, I am going to get very angry and very loud, and the dumb lawmakers are going to know how I feel in no uncertain terms..

JFK allegedly did not like the plan one iota, the suggestion that Americans being harmed by those given the task to protect the nation being too abhorrent. I have no doubt that he made enemies within the nut job community who believe that if you don’t like something, you nuke it a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Anyway, a year later, JFK was terminally removed from the loop, ostensibly by a lone nut job known as Lee Harvey Oswald. From a higher floor in the Texas Book Depository, Oswald shot and killed JFK.

Question: When the Presidential car set off  on its tour, the security guys were told to get off of the rear of the car. From video footage of the time, you could see them question the order, and it was also apparent that the space between the Lincoln and the security vehicle widened somewhat.

The official line at the time was that the people would get a better view of JFK and his wife.

Question: Why would anybody think that the people would be interested in looking at the back of JFK’s head unless of course, any person had an peculiar interest in it? Like maybe somebody who wanted clear line of sight to it, an assassin closer to street level perhaps?

The bubble top, which would have offered some protection, was removed from the car. In a place where they knew that JFK had enemies?

Pathways of the bullets fired suggested that they originated from a lower level than what was officially said, but the authorities persisted in their story that Oswald did it. The only evidence which would have proved this was the bullets trajectory through JFK’s brain, but this was removed and lost within the hour.

Jack Ruby shot Oswald as he was lead out to a car in the underground parking area of where he had been held for questioning.

The underground parking area was set up for the very first time ever to enable film crews and photographers for various news agencies to get clear pictures of Oswald as he was lead out. The whole area was lit up with movie set lighting.

Looking back at videos of the time, it looked as badly orchestrated as WWE wrestling fights, but I don’t think that the people who set all of this up cared. They knew that the atrocity itself would take focus away from the sidelines.

Just as with 9/11, there were many holes in the original official accounts, too many pure co-incidences.

Finally

Watching JFK slump forwards was such a mind numbing event for all of us, but the right wing nut jobs who did the set up and execution knew exactly what was coming and where.

Any evidence which would have shown what and why was removed, either by the simple act of misplacement or by shooting to kill.

We are handed perpetrators and the damning evidence which convicts them and we are expected to take it all in and accept it. The problem with this is that going back over events like these is like seeing a movie more than once. There is a tendency to notice stuff that was missed the first time around.

On the morning of September 11 2001, an airplane flew into one of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre. It looked like a case of really bad piloting. A second airplane flew into the second tower a little while later. At this point, we all realised that this event was more than pilots not knowing what they were doing.

At this point, I was probably prepared to believe that it was a terrorist attack on an awesome scale, but then the Twin Towers fell in what appeared to be the same manner as buildings subjected to controlled demolition.

I have watched this kind of thing on TV for a long time where blocks of apartments that have become unserviceable are brought down to make way foe something better.

Large buildings have been subjected to random fires and explosions before, but none ever fell in the way that the Twin Towers did.

Question: Why would anybody want to bring them down in this way?

Answer: To ensure that no evidence of what actually hit them would ever be conclusive, other than the fact that they were airplanes made by Boeing for commercial and military use.

Building 7

This is the one that gets me thinking that it was all an inside job. We are told that some damage to one corner and random fires within the building brought it down. Again, it fell in a controlled manner, just like the Towers did. No other buildings in history have ever fallen this way, given the same conditions.

Building 7 was maybe the strongest building in New York City. Being the home of the FBI, CIA and NYC local government, it was designed to withstand hell and still be serviceable. Why didn’t the automated sprinkler system put out the fires? We have never been told, and never will be.

The Pentagon

This was also hit by something. We are told that it was a Boeing airplane. This would be believable if any of the video cameras around the Pentagon, and there are a few, showed it. But the only video ever shown was from a camera watching a parking lot entrance!! What it showed was totally inconclusive.

The object hit a side of the Pentagon that had work being done on it. The offices were not being used, and the object had to circle the building in order to be able to hit the newly strengthened side.

Bearing in mind that the Pentagon is an armoured building, how could a flimsy Boeing aircraft do the kind of damage that the pictures showed?

Tests were conducted to disprove the conspiracy theory by taking an aluminum tube and firing it at a mock up of a building. The tests were designed to show that it could have been an airplane, but they didn’t fire a an aluminum tube which had the same kind of construction as an airplane. They used an extruded aluminum tube, and set the wall thickness to prove what they wanted to prove.

All that it proved for me was that they set out to prove what was politically correct to prove.

Question: Why was there an explosion a while after?

Answer: To further mash up whatever evidence may have been found that would show that a cruise missile hit the building.

Cumberland County, Pennsylvania

An airplane is said to have buried itself completely in the ground right next to a wooded area. We were told that the passengers gallantly fought with the hijackers, and prevented the airplane from reaching its destination.

There were phone calls apparently made to substantiate this claim. They must have been exceptional cell phones, able to operate way beyond the normal in and outbound limits for the average cell phone.

The official crash site showed very little. Remembering that two airplanes had brought down the Towers, and one had made a hole through three layers of the Pentagon, this airplane hardly left a mark anywhere.

Question: Why was the site never excavated?

Answer: Because there was no airplane buried there. The area was fenced off and is still guarded to this day around the clock. If there was ever a chance to find out what happened there, the authorities are never going to let anybody try.

Finally

We are told that too many people would have to be involved if this was a conspiracy, that somebody would have come out with the truth. This I doubt. It would not have taken too many people to orchestrate what happened as much would have been set up in advance. It would not have been done by ordinary folk. Nut jobs and whackos who have a belief that the US should rule the world would have been recruited.

To us on the street, the destruction of three towers and the deaths of so many people is an absolute tragedy. To a government looking to find a reason to get control of oil assets in the Middle East, it is nothing, just a list of social security numbers.

The official accounts will always stand. The truth will always be trashed and those who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy will always be the ones marked as nut jobs and cranks. None of the official line can ever be changed now as it would destroy any credibility, and as I see it, there is very little anyway.

I leave it up to you to decide in your own minds about where culpability should be apportioned. A search on the Internet brings up a huge amount of material.