What do Winnie-the-Pooh and John the Baptist have in common? (For your answer, see footnote 1.)
What do the tonsils and appendix have in common? Cutting both the tonsils and appendixes out of children was high fashion in the 1950s and 1960s. If a child had a history of too many sore throats, tonsils and adenoids were removed. If a child had a sore abdomen, the appendix was removed. “If in doubt, cut it out.” Tonsils and appendixes usually were removed because they were considered to be diseased. Sometimes, however, they were removed to prevent them from becoming diseased. People figured nature had made a careless error when adding tonsils and appendix to an otherwise brilliant machine.
Then it was discovered that the tonsils and appendix have important functions. It was discovered that they contribute to the valuable human immune system. A huge number of children who are now adults lost important parts of their bodies due to lack of knowledge and wisdom on the part of the medical profession. Tonsils and appendixes are now removed only in severe medical conditions.
Nature was vindicated. Fashion changed and American doctors no longer routinely performed tonsillectomies and appendectomies. Good riddance!…
Read much more (and find the answer to the riddle) at Winnie the Pooh, John the Baptist, tonsils, appendix, and foreskin.
SITE curiously surpassed the combined capacities of the entire US intelligence community
… Though routinely overlooked in the flurry of front-page coverage corporate media have allotted the three beheading videos–the most recent of which featured Scottish aid worker David Cawthorne Haines–it is common knowledge that SITE uncannily secures terrorist statements and videos well before the US’s wide array of lavishly-funded intelligence services.
For example, as the Washington Post reported in 2007,
[a] small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7 … It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release. Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company’s Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.
The video later proved to be fraudulent.
With the above in mind, one may ask, If parties within a US presidential administration or the State Department sought to bypass the potential scrutiny of a wide-ranging intelligence community concerning such matters, while simultaneously providing itself with the means to effectively propagandize the American public toward a broader end, what better way than to contract the services of an entity such as SITE? …