I've decided to give Blogspot another shot as host for the Znewz1 blog, despite a bunch of hassles with those accounts.

So for now, we're at

http://www.znewz1blog.blogspot.com

9/11 treason is merely a conspiracy theory, Darwinism is merely a theory, relativity is incomplete so it's merely a theory...

The CIA is paid to conspire, but when it does, the result is merely a theory...

And notice that when the CIA is paid to conspire to insert agents into al Qaeda and kill the leaders, it does a very, very poor job. In fact, in typical CIA fashion, it makes as if it's trying to do something while in reality being dilatory.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, wasn't it CIA dilatoriness that was an issue BEFORE 9/11? And after 9/11, they can't seem to get their act together to go in and knock out Qaeda biggies. No wonder they didn't want to tell Congress what they were doing. They weren't really doing anything other than intermittently playing a game to, it seems, keep Bush happy.

Oh yeah, and BTW, who were the intelligence officials who initially told the press that the clandestine CIA program was NOT about terrorism, was about some sort of collection activity and was no big deal? We have yet to learn what this collection program was. Or was this just another example of CIA deception?

Federal judge Royce Lambeth, who has long experience in national security cases, has accused CIA lawyers of defrauding the court in order to keep a person's name secret whose cover had been lifted years before. He said the agency's credibility was at a low level in its attempt to use the state secrets privilege to squelch a lawsuit and he scorned the agency for being unwilling to admit that it had wiretap capabilities.

Your Honor, what are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist?

Virtually no one in the news business uses the word "transpire" as a synonym for "occur," yet White House spokesman Robert Gibbs let a "transpire" slide at a press conference yesterday.

In response to a question about the Honduras situation, Gibbs said, "Well, we will continue to monitor the situation and will respond accordingly as events transpire. But, again, as I said, we're watching closely what's going on."

Use of this little word is of interest because it suggests that possibly Gibbs has a certain disdain for press traditions, and might help to explain the argument with Helen Thomas over the planting of a question.

The word is included in the White House transcript, and so presumably isn't there because of misreporting.

If one reads those transcripts, one sees that Gibbs is very skillful and careful about choosing his words. On the other hand, we must acknowledge the human tendency to use a word because of some unconscious prompting, rather than because one really wishes to.

And, of course, he may have meant "transpire" to mean "unfold," but, again, no bona fide member of the press would ever use "transpire" that way. For the record, "transpire" means "breath through" (as in breathing through a membrane) and is related to the words "inspire" and "expire," the meanings of which have admittedly evolved over time.

Now you may say this is trivial: it's not as though he cussed or anything. But I'm not so sure. Isn't he laughing at the press he's there to serve? Every press secretary tries to manage the news, but one wonders if Gibbs has some secret animus toward reporters.

Virtually no one in the news business uses the word <i>transpire</i> as a synonym for <i>occur</i>, yet White House spokesman Robert Gibbs let one slide at a press conference yesterday.

In response to a question about the Honduras situation, Gibbs said, "Well, we will continue to monitor the situation and will respond accordingly as events transpire. But, again, as I said, we're watching closely what's going on."

Use of this little word is of interest because it suggests that possibly Gibbs has a certain disdain for press traditions and might help to explain the argument with Helen Thomas over the planting of a question.

The word is included in the White House transcript, and so presumably isn't there because of misreporting.

If one reads those transcripts, one sees that Gibbs is very skillful and careful about choosing his words. On the other hand, we must acknowledge the human tendency to use a word because of some unconscious prompting, rather than because one really wishes to.

Now you may say this is trivial, it's not as though he cussed or anything. But I'm not so sure. Isn't he laughing at the press he's there to serve, members of the press being the surrogates of the people?

I have for years complained of incessant harassment by persons who seek to disrupt my internet activities, whether I use Yahoo, Gmail or Angelfire/Lycos, or any other company. Their motives are to limit access to my sites and to "demonstrate control" by using cyber-command-style tactics to make my work difficult, but generally the level of disruption is kept at a "politically tolerable" level.

One would assume that government operatives are behind the harassment, whether or not they use cut-outs. That's because the disruptions occur no matter what terminal or email account I use, implying continuing surveillance on a scale that requires government funding.

One favorite of theirs is to prohibit me from receiving White House email alerts intended for the general public. This was done under Bush, but alerts started to arrive after a change in chiefs of staff. In the latter months of Bush's presidency, they ceased.

 I signed up for alerts from the Obama White House and, upon receiving none, I sent an email to a few people with the headline: "Is there a no-read list?" Since then, other emails from lists have ceased being delivered: two science news circulars and a daily scripture circular. I suppose that the control freaks are either trying to lay down a smokescreen so they don't have to permit the White House emails to arrive or they are "upping the ante" after I complained. I'm sure they not only read my emails.

Respect the First Amendment clauses for freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Ho ho ho...

 If you wish to comment, please write me at krypto78@gmail.com. Once in a great while, they permit a comment through -- if it's not perceived as a political threat to the 9/11 coverup crowd.

I have for years complained of incessant harassment by persons who seek to disrupt my internet activities, whether I use Yahoo, Gmail or Angelfire/Lycos, or any other company. Their motives are to limit access to my sites and to "demonstrate control" by using cyber-command-style tactics to make my work difficult, but generally the level of disruption is kept at a "politically tolerable" level.

One would assume that government operatives are behind the harassment, whether or not they use cut-outs. That's because the disruptions occur no matter what terminal or email account I use, implying continuing surveillance on a scale that requires government funding.

One favorite of theirs is to prohibit me from receiving White House email alerts intended for the general public. This was done under Bush, but alerts started to arrive after a change in chiefs of staff. In the latter months of Bush's presidency, they ceased.

 I signed up for alerts from the Obama White House and, upon receiving none, I sent an email to a few people with the headline: "Is there a no-read list?" Since then, other emails from lists have ceased being delivered: two science news circulars and a daily scripture circular. I suppose that the control freaks are either trying to lay down a smokescreen so they don't have to permit the White House emails to arrive or they are "upping the ante" after I complained. I'm sure they not only read my emails.

Respect the First Amendment clauses for freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Ho ho ho...

 If you wish to comment, please write me at krypto78@gmail.com. Once in a great while, they permit a comment through -- if it's not perceived as a political threat to the 9/11 coverup crowd.

Black holes may erupt near Geneva this fall, but don't worry, there's a theory that says they'll evaporate almost immediately. Of course the theory hasn't been verified, and, anyway there is at most a one in 100 chance that they'll be formed, says Stephen Hawking.

Hawking's estimate of the probability that CERN's Large Hadron Collider will whip up sufficient energies to form miniscule black holes is given in the latest issue of Discover magazine.

He's the fellow who came up with the theory that miniature black holes are possible and that quantum mechanics implies that they'd evaporate rapidly. But suppose he's right about the lil devils but that they don't cooperate and leave immediately. Well, then, doomsday.

I have no idea of the likelihood of such an event. But we've come to a strange pass when a miniscule group of experts decides on what's a safe risk for the remaining 6 billion of us. True, in WWII, some physicists wondered whether the fission might just keep going and blow the world up. But, at least they could say there was a world war on.

I haven't read transcripts of Billy Graham's discussions with Nixon concerning his feelings about Jews.

But some take offense to Graham's use of the phrase "synagogue of Satan" which comes from the Book of Revelation. I'd like to point out that this is a reference to people who put on an outward show, but their actions show who they really follow.

 These days one might say a person who says one thing but under cover does something else is a member of the "church of Satan."

In a nice piece of investigative reporting, the Manchester Guardian has disclosed that Tony Blair knew about torture of terrorism suspects as far back as January 2002.

Blair's spokesman did not deny the Guardian report that, as prime minister, Blair was aware that torture was being used against terrorism suspects held by a foreign power, presumably the United States.

The former PM's spokesman however insisted that Blair had never condoned torture.

British interrogators were instructed to take a "do nothing" stance if they became aware of torture, except that if a captive told of having been tortured, there was to be no further contact with him. The British attitude strongly suggests that its officials considered the CIA's "enhanced interrogations" to be nothing other than torture.

I have ceased using Blogger for the Znewz1 blog. After several attempts on different accounts, each one was bedeviled by some sor of bug or other.

So we'll give Angelfire a shot.