Friday, November 30, 2007
Mao's famine
After finishing Skousen, Polistra has been skimming another book from that era, Iron Curtain Over America by John Beaty, printed in 1951. This book is rather more 'crankish' than Skousen, but still contains some interesting quotes.
For instance: We're now sure that some 50 million Chinese died from famine during Mao's Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s. But even non-Commie scholars argue whether the genocide was intentional or just the result of disorganization and incompetence.
They shouldn't argue.
From Beaty, 1951:
Tyrants always tell us what they intend to do. ¶ 11:35 AM
For instance: We're now sure that some 50 million Chinese died from famine during Mao's Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s. But even non-Commie scholars argue whether the genocide was intentional or just the result of disorganization and incompetence.
They shouldn't argue.
From Beaty, 1951:
Similarly, according to Chinese Nationalist sources, the Chinese Communists, backed by Russia, have decided that they must accomplish the "eventual extermination of 150,000,000 Chinese" to reduce Chinese population to "more manageable proportions."
Tyrants always tell us what they intend to do. ¶ 11:35 AM
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Casinos, teddy bears, gay generals
I'm working on another one of those dull but paid spreadsheet jobs for the publisher that handles my courseware, so my mind is occupied by something other than politics. Probably a good thing.
Still, a few brief comments:
1. It's clear that the Wall Street Casino is gradually losing its centrality and authority, and it's clear (to everyone but the bettors) that this loss is good for American business. I've seen the emptiness of the Wall Street approach three times in my life, in different types of work. Three times I worked for family-owned companies which were then bought by stock-based corporations. The family had enjoyed the actual work (printing, construction, education respectively) and kept the loyalty of workers who also enjoyed the same vocation. When the corporation took over, the task became irrelevant because stock-based corporations are only interested in raising the share price. If maintaining a business will increase the share price, maintain the business. If destroying a business will increase the share price, destroy the business. If destroying the United States will increase the share price, destroy the United States.
With this publisher, I've now seen changes in both directions for the first time. In judging causation, you can't always tell what's happening from an A-to-B change, because other things could have been changing at the same time. When you see A-to-B-and-back-to-A, you have a more meaningful experiment. During this publisher's stock-based ownership, it churned out endless press releases full of words like 'exciting' and 'thrilling', and my occasional free-lance assignments were encrusted with meaningless legalisms such as notarizing every document. A few months ago they were bought by a private equity holding, which is basically a group of Canadian provincial pension funds. Since then, I've seen much less of the 'exciting' verbiage and less of the legalistic stuff, and more of the good old business. "Here's a piece of work. Have at it." Much better!
2. On the British teacher in Sudan who was punished for letting her students name a teddy bear 'Mohammed', all the talking-pointheads are saying "How horrible! This couldn't happen here!" Really?? Just what would happen to an American teacher who allowed her students to name a class mascot 'Jesus'??? She'd be punished for sure, but for an opposite reason. Our authorities wouldn't be worried about blaspheming the Holy Name, because the name of Jesus is anathema to them. Our officially established religion worships Gaia the Planet Goddess, and no other name is permitted.
3. On the gay general at last night's CNN debate: He hated the "don't ask / don't tell" policy when used by the Army, but he gladly collaborated with "don't ask / don't tell" when used by CNN. Anderson Cooper claims that he didn't know about the gay general's preference for the Clinton campaign, and the gay general didn't tell anyone in the debate about his life partnership with the Clinton campaign. ¶ 7:13 PM
Still, a few brief comments:
1. It's clear that the Wall Street Casino is gradually losing its centrality and authority, and it's clear (to everyone but the bettors) that this loss is good for American business. I've seen the emptiness of the Wall Street approach three times in my life, in different types of work. Three times I worked for family-owned companies which were then bought by stock-based corporations. The family had enjoyed the actual work (printing, construction, education respectively) and kept the loyalty of workers who also enjoyed the same vocation. When the corporation took over, the task became irrelevant because stock-based corporations are only interested in raising the share price. If maintaining a business will increase the share price, maintain the business. If destroying a business will increase the share price, destroy the business. If destroying the United States will increase the share price, destroy the United States.
With this publisher, I've now seen changes in both directions for the first time. In judging causation, you can't always tell what's happening from an A-to-B change, because other things could have been changing at the same time. When you see A-to-B-and-back-to-A, you have a more meaningful experiment. During this publisher's stock-based ownership, it churned out endless press releases full of words like 'exciting' and 'thrilling', and my occasional free-lance assignments were encrusted with meaningless legalisms such as notarizing every document. A few months ago they were bought by a private equity holding, which is basically a group of Canadian provincial pension funds. Since then, I've seen much less of the 'exciting' verbiage and less of the legalistic stuff, and more of the good old business. "Here's a piece of work. Have at it." Much better!
2. On the British teacher in Sudan who was punished for letting her students name a teddy bear 'Mohammed', all the talking-pointheads are saying "How horrible! This couldn't happen here!" Really?? Just what would happen to an American teacher who allowed her students to name a class mascot 'Jesus'??? She'd be punished for sure, but for an opposite reason. Our authorities wouldn't be worried about blaspheming the Holy Name, because the name of Jesus is anathema to them. Our officially established religion worships Gaia the Planet Goddess, and no other name is permitted.
3. On the gay general at last night's CNN debate: He hated the "don't ask / don't tell" policy when used by the Army, but he gladly collaborated with "don't ask / don't tell" when used by CNN. Anderson Cooper claims that he didn't know about the gay general's preference for the Clinton campaign, and the gay general didn't tell anyone in the debate about his life partnership with the Clinton campaign. ¶ 7:13 PM
Monday, November 26, 2007
Hypocrisy? Nope.
Wonder why American feminists are slow to defend the women of Arab countries, such as the Saudi woman currently charged with the crime of being gang-raped? It ain't hypocrisy. It's Leninist orthodoxy.
Skousen cited a couple of early Soviet documents on the status of women.
Are these values obsolete? First, remember that the delightfully deceased Betty Fried[m]an remained loyal to Stalin until her fortunate death. Second, listen to any modern feminist scoffing and disdaining the "antique" notion of marriage as ownership, and you'll see that these values still form the core of feminism. The newer post-Marxian Communists may substitute The Planet[pbuh] for the government in name, but it always comes down to the same thing in practice.
Look at what's happened to the relationship between parents and children. Parents no longer own children; they are merely renters. Parents are allowed to maintain the children until they dare to show signs of ownership, such as applying discipline or using sacrilegious substances like t*b*cco. At that point the lease is revoked and the children revert to the State. ¶ 12:19 PM
Skousen cited a couple of early Soviet documents on the status of women.
Beginning March 1, 1919, the right to possess women between the ages of 19 and 32 is abolished. By virtue of the present decree no woman can be considered as private property and all women become the property of the nation. The distribution and maintenance of nationalized women ... are the prerogative of the Soviet. All women thus put at the disposition of the nation must present themselves in person at the address indicated, and provide all necessary information. Any man who wishes to make use of a nationalized woman must hold a certificate issued by the Soviet, attesting that he belongs to the working class. Male citizens not belonging to the working class may enjoy the same rights provided they pay 250 French Francs, which will be turned over to the public fund.
and
There is no such thing as a woman being violated by a man; he who says that a violation is wrong denies the Revolution. To defend a violated woman is to reveal oneself as a bourgeois and a partisan of private property.
Are these values obsolete? First, remember that the delightfully deceased Betty Fried[m]an remained loyal to Stalin until her fortunate death. Second, listen to any modern feminist scoffing and disdaining the "antique" notion of marriage as ownership, and you'll see that these values still form the core of feminism. The newer post-Marxian Communists may substitute The Planet[pbuh] for the government in name, but it always comes down to the same thing in practice.
Look at what's happened to the relationship between parents and children. Parents no longer own children; they are merely renters. Parents are allowed to maintain the children until they dare to show signs of ownership, such as applying discipline or using sacrilegious substances like t*b*cco. At that point the lease is revoked and the children revert to the State. ¶ 12:19 PM
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Subliminal Huckabee
When I'm working with the TV running in the background, and I happen to hear Huckabee doing an interview, I'll look over and think semiconsciously "Who's that? Oh yeah, that's the President." And the deep meaning of 'president' here is more than just 'occupant of the Oval Office'; it's more like 'natural chief of our tribe' or 'grandfather'.
Obviously this has no connection to intellect or decision; as stated before, I've decided that Duncan Hunter is the only current candidate who gets the important questions right... especially his focus on re-taking our industrial base from China. On this logical level, Huckabee strikes me as too soft and forgiving for our present predicament.
And this response can't be a result of advertising; I've seen and heard plenty of ads for Romney and Giuliani, the rich guys who have enough private wealth to advertise early, but haven't seen or heard any Huckabee ads.
It must be some deep subliminal thing. I don't recall this sensation with any other President or candidate in my lifetime. Maybe it's the same thing that enabled FDR to lead us through extremely difficult times. If this is a common reaction, maybe it's the most important quality of all, overriding all those checklist "issues". ¶ 7:27 PM
When I'm working with the TV running in the background, and I happen to hear Huckabee doing an interview, I'll look over and think semiconsciously "Who's that? Oh yeah, that's the President." And the deep meaning of 'president' here is more than just 'occupant of the Oval Office'; it's more like 'natural chief of our tribe' or 'grandfather'.
Obviously this has no connection to intellect or decision; as stated before, I've decided that Duncan Hunter is the only current candidate who gets the important questions right... especially his focus on re-taking our industrial base from China. On this logical level, Huckabee strikes me as too soft and forgiving for our present predicament.
And this response can't be a result of advertising; I've seen and heard plenty of ads for Romney and Giuliani, the rich guys who have enough private wealth to advertise early, but haven't seen or heard any Huckabee ads.
It must be some deep subliminal thing. I don't recall this sensation with any other President or candidate in my lifetime. Maybe it's the same thing that enabled FDR to lead us through extremely difficult times. If this is a common reaction, maybe it's the most important quality of all, overriding all those checklist "issues". ¶ 7:27 PM
Skousen
Polistra has been reading W. Cleon Skousen's book The Naked Communist. After finding the astoundingly prophetic 1958 list of Commie goals derived from this book, she was compelled to seek more details. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck has also discovered the book and recommended it to his listeners.
Because of Beck's recommendation, I was afraid all available copies would already be bought ... but in fact I shopped at good old Alibris.com and found a dozen copies in various conditions, which is just what I'd expect for a book of this vintage and type. Perhaps Beck is referring people to the official Skousen site which has some newer publications and CDs; in any case, I wanted an old book so I could be sure of the prophetic quality of the list.
Skousen's book is disappointing on one small point: I really hoped he would amplify the item about artistic ugliness (#22 and #23) in his list of goals. This item explains most of our current culture, but I hadn't realized it was a specific 'bullet-point' on the long-standing Communist agenda. The book contains a version of the list, with extended descriptions of many items, but no extra footnotes or documentation of this goal.
With that quibble out of the way, Naked Communist is quite simply a Bible of politics, history and economics. Skousen always starts from basic human nature rather than a theory or formula, and then proceeds to explain matters clearly and plainly. I've read a lot of political and economic books, but never learned and retained a tenth as much from any of the others.
Example from economics: When laying out the nature and advantages of free-market capitalism, Skousen starts from the needs of humans, not only the crude physical needs but the spiritual needs. He lists:
= = = = =
This focus on variation, along with its criterion of survival rather than dominance, is absent from modern expositions of capitalism. Current expositors have a strong smell of Ayn Rand about them ... in other words, a strong smell of the schoolyard bully. They assume that everyone must aim for the peak and "get a life"; that everyone must work 600 hours a day, smoke $600 cigars, drive 600-horsepower Maybach limousines, and watch football on 600-foot-tall high-def television sets in their spare time. They assume that the only meaningful destination is unimaginable material riches and absolute control, and that anyone who fails to reach this pinnacle - or anyone who fails to desire this pinnacle - is a Loser Loser Loser Nyah Nyah Nyah.
Skousen emphasizes that capitalism (when properly organized) gives superior benefits to everyone, not just the champions. In fact, that's the point. Natural conquerors don't need civilization. It's the lower echelons, viewed as contemptible by modern commentators, who need capitalism and civil order most desperately.
The most tantalizing bit of the book was a fairly brief mention of 1973 as the goal for complete world Commie takeover. I'd been using 1968 as the turning point; clearly '68 brought a dramatic push in Europe, China, and America. But a lot of important landmarks were achieved between '68 and '73. Consider that Comrade Nixon was elected in '68 and kicked out in '74. During his term, he effectively established the newer form of Leninism in America, the environmental movement; he pulled out of Vietnam, negotiated with the USSR, and established our "alliance" with China. He also built affirmative action into the American legal structure, and Comrade Harry Blackmun [may he roast in Hell], appointed by Comrade Nixon, established abortion as the deepest and most untouchable part of what the Left calls "The Constitution". In other words, Nixon gave us all of the Holy Sacraments of the modern Left by 1973. Nothing new has been added to the Canon since then. ¶ 8:42 AM
Polistra has been reading W. Cleon Skousen's book The Naked Communist. After finding the astoundingly prophetic 1958 list of Commie goals derived from this book, she was compelled to seek more details. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck has also discovered the book and recommended it to his listeners.
Because of Beck's recommendation, I was afraid all available copies would already be bought ... but in fact I shopped at good old Alibris.com and found a dozen copies in various conditions, which is just what I'd expect for a book of this vintage and type. Perhaps Beck is referring people to the official Skousen site which has some newer publications and CDs; in any case, I wanted an old book so I could be sure of the prophetic quality of the list.
Skousen's book is disappointing on one small point: I really hoped he would amplify the item about artistic ugliness (#22 and #23) in his list of goals. This item explains most of our current culture, but I hadn't realized it was a specific 'bullet-point' on the long-standing Communist agenda. The book contains a version of the list, with extended descriptions of many items, but no extra footnotes or documentation of this goal.
With that quibble out of the way, Naked Communist is quite simply a Bible of politics, history and economics. Skousen always starts from basic human nature rather than a theory or formula, and then proceeds to explain matters clearly and plainly. I've read a lot of political and economic books, but never learned and retained a tenth as much from any of the others.
Example from economics: When laying out the nature and advantages of free-market capitalism, Skousen starts from the needs of humans, not only the crude physical needs but the spiritual needs. He lists:
To be of individual importance so as to count for something as a person.
To be a 'vested party': to be identified with the system.
To enjoy owning things.
To be appreciated for some unique and important contribution.
To have a satisfactory degree of economic security.
To feel the satisfaction of sacrificing or risking something to achieve progress.
To have the opportunity for creativity.
To feel family solidarity.
To enjoy the right of privacy.
To have freedom of expression in matters of opinion.
To be protected in convictions of religion and conscience.
To feel significant in determining matters of political importance.
In studying the nature of man it soon becomes apparent that his "mainspring of action" is the driving necessity to satisfy both physical and spiritual needs. Many economic systems which men have invented tend to smother or ignore these deep, throbbing human desires.
... The genius of capitalism is not merely that it satisfies the desires and needs of mankind generally, but it responds to the factor of variability between individuals. It allows each man to do anything he wishes so long as he can survive at it. Therefore each man continually surveys the field of economic opportunity and gradually tries to push himself into that phase of work which best satisfies him.
= = = = =
This focus on variation, along with its criterion of survival rather than dominance, is absent from modern expositions of capitalism. Current expositors have a strong smell of Ayn Rand about them ... in other words, a strong smell of the schoolyard bully. They assume that everyone must aim for the peak and "get a life"; that everyone must work 600 hours a day, smoke $600 cigars, drive 600-horsepower Maybach limousines, and watch football on 600-foot-tall high-def television sets in their spare time. They assume that the only meaningful destination is unimaginable material riches and absolute control, and that anyone who fails to reach this pinnacle - or anyone who fails to desire this pinnacle - is a Loser Loser Loser Nyah Nyah Nyah.
Skousen emphasizes that capitalism (when properly organized) gives superior benefits to everyone, not just the champions. In fact, that's the point. Natural conquerors don't need civilization. It's the lower echelons, viewed as contemptible by modern commentators, who need capitalism and civil order most desperately.
The most tantalizing bit of the book was a fairly brief mention of 1973 as the goal for complete world Commie takeover. I'd been using 1968 as the turning point; clearly '68 brought a dramatic push in Europe, China, and America. But a lot of important landmarks were achieved between '68 and '73. Consider that Comrade Nixon was elected in '68 and kicked out in '74. During his term, he effectively established the newer form of Leninism in America, the environmental movement; he pulled out of Vietnam, negotiated with the USSR, and established our "alliance" with China. He also built affirmative action into the American legal structure, and Comrade Harry Blackmun [may he roast in Hell], appointed by Comrade Nixon, established abortion as the deepest and most untouchable part of what the Left calls "The Constitution". In other words, Nixon gave us all of the Holy Sacraments of the modern Left by 1973. Nothing new has been added to the Canon since then. ¶ 8:42 AM
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Slanty-eyed Chavez?
= = = = = = Cesar Chavez Avenue? = = = = = =
The Communist mayor of Portland decided, under pressure by Hispanic activists, to rename Interstate Avenue to 'Cesar Chavez Avenue' after the famous Communist labor leader who died a few years ago. Merchants and residents along Interstate complained furiously, so the Politburo backed off and decided instead to apply the name of Chavez to 4th Avenue. Well, 4th Avenue is the heart of Portland's Chinatown.
After more complaints, the whole plan is now on hold, which really means it's gone. Apparently somebody finally asked the Communist mayor why it was so crucially important to rename any damn street!
Nevertheless, the process shows us how the modern leftist totem pole is stacked. Authentic African Americans (ie gangsters) are on top of the privilege column; illegal Mexicans are next; but generic Caucasians aren't quite on the bottom. No, the lowest head on the pole is the one wearing glasses, the nearest available 'clever and clannish' ethnic group. Since Portland doesn't have a significant Jewish community, leftists must pick on the local Chinese.
This is oddly inconsistent, since modern leftists are essentially Maoists, but most of the Chinese who live in our urban Chinatowns are anti-Mao types, tied more to Hong Kong than to Beijing, which probably makes them Inauthentic.
(Thomas Sowell has described this hierarchy with wonderful conciseness.) ¶ 1:48 PM
= = = = = = Cesar Chavez Avenue? = = = = = =
The Communist mayor of Portland decided, under pressure by Hispanic activists, to rename Interstate Avenue to 'Cesar Chavez Avenue' after the famous Communist labor leader who died a few years ago. Merchants and residents along Interstate complained furiously, so the Politburo backed off and decided instead to apply the name of Chavez to 4th Avenue. Well, 4th Avenue is the heart of Portland's Chinatown.
After more complaints, the whole plan is now on hold, which really means it's gone. Apparently somebody finally asked the Communist mayor why it was so crucially important to rename any damn street!
Nevertheless, the process shows us how the modern leftist totem pole is stacked. Authentic African Americans (ie gangsters) are on top of the privilege column; illegal Mexicans are next; but generic Caucasians aren't quite on the bottom. No, the lowest head on the pole is the one wearing glasses, the nearest available 'clever and clannish' ethnic group. Since Portland doesn't have a significant Jewish community, leftists must pick on the local Chinese.
This is oddly inconsistent, since modern leftists are essentially Maoists, but most of the Chinese who live in our urban Chinatowns are anti-Mao types, tied more to Hong Kong than to Beijing, which probably makes them Inauthentic.
(Thomas Sowell has described this hierarchy with wonderful conciseness.) ¶ 1:48 PM
Hidden price controls
The oldest and most basic economic law is: Price and wage controls never work. It was first observed in 300 AD when Roman emperor Diocletian (the same dude who perfected the art of killing Christians) placed controls on the price of bread, hoping to prevent urban riots. The inevitable result was shortages, riots, and bakers going out of business. We can understand why Diocletian couldn't foresee the result, but we can't forgive any ruler after 300 AD.
And what do we have now? Shortages of some products, wild swings in prices of others, companies going out of business, employees losing good jobs. This looks a whole lot like partial wage and price controls, yet we don't have an Office of Price Administration.
Well, where's the agency? China. Mexico. India.
By allowing China to flood our retailers with cheap products, and Mexico to flood our employers with cheap labor, the Clinton and Bush dynasties have very cleverly imposed hard but hidden ceilings on wages and prices, without any explicit signs or laws, without an agency that Congress could restrict or eliminate. Anyone who objects to the controls is called a "protectionist" or "nativist", and the controls can be defended as "pure free trade", which is supposedly the proper goal of free-market economics.
Orwell would love it.
[I'm certain someone has already made this connection ... it seems quite obvious ... but I can't find it directly on the web through any combination of words I can think of. If it's a common thought, described by some other terminology, I apologize!]
And what do we have now? Shortages of some products, wild swings in prices of others, companies going out of business, employees losing good jobs. This looks a whole lot like partial wage and price controls, yet we don't have an Office of Price Administration.
Well, where's the agency? China. Mexico. India.
By allowing China to flood our retailers with cheap products, and Mexico to flood our employers with cheap labor, the Clinton and Bush dynasties have very cleverly imposed hard but hidden ceilings on wages and prices, without any explicit signs or laws, without an agency that Congress could restrict or eliminate. Anyone who objects to the controls is called a "protectionist" or "nativist", and the controls can be defended as "pure free trade", which is supposedly the proper goal of free-market economics.
Orwell would love it.
[I'm certain someone has already made this connection ... it seems quite obvious ... but I can't find it directly on the web through any combination of words I can think of. If it's a common thought, described by some other terminology, I apologize!]
Labels: the broken circle
¶ 12:44 PM
Monday, November 19, 2007
Willie Horton all over again
A perfect example of the topic I was discussing a few days ago: judges and other Commies using 'Rights' and 'Due Process' to redistribute good and evil. Bad people go free, good people are restrained, caged or dead.
A shark named Daniel Tavares, clearly exemplifying the Gold Standard of evil, killed his mother at the age of 25. Was he executed? No, he was given a 13-year sentence in Massachusetts. He constantly committed violent acts in prison, as a shark will, and received extensions to his sentence. Finally after 20 years he was released this summer; he married a woman he had met through a prison penpal service and moved to the Seattle area. As sharks will, he immediately resumed killing. This time his prey was a young innocent normal couple, Brian and Beverly Mauck, who died because they lived in the same neighborhood that Tavares chose.
Story here. ¶ 8:43 PM
A shark named Daniel Tavares, clearly exemplifying the Gold Standard of evil, killed his mother at the age of 25. Was he executed? No, he was given a 13-year sentence in Massachusetts. He constantly committed violent acts in prison, as a shark will, and received extensions to his sentence. Finally after 20 years he was released this summer; he married a woman he had met through a prison penpal service and moved to the Seattle area. As sharks will, he immediately resumed killing. This time his prey was a young innocent normal couple, Brian and Beverly Mauck, who died because they lived in the same neighborhood that Tavares chose.
Story here. ¶ 8:43 PM
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Noonan on beacons
Peggy Noonan's latest column gives critically important instructions to us as Americans. If we want to remain a great power, we need to follow this path.
I'd been thinking about the subject from a different angle, and it's no longer clear to me that we should even try to remain a great power. I'm just about convinced that our citizens would be better off with a more French attitude toward the world ... but if we're going to hold onto the Superpower Status, we must listen to Peggy.
I'd quibble with one thing, italicized here:
The quibble: When a politician skips the Brand-R and Brand-D recorded talking points to discuss real questions with real solutions, our pundits don't say he lacks "fire in the belly"; they treat him as crazy, and describe his obvious truths as unthinkable, racist, protectionist, nativist, etc, etc, etc. ¶ 7:55 PM
I'd been thinking about the subject from a different angle, and it's no longer clear to me that we should even try to remain a great power. I'm just about convinced that our citizens would be better off with a more French attitude toward the world ... but if we're going to hold onto the Superpower Status, we must listen to Peggy.
I'd quibble with one thing, italicized here:
To be a beacon is to speak softly to the world, with dignity, with elegance if you can manage it, or simple good-natured courtesy if you can't. A superpower should never shout, never bray "We're No. 1!" If you're No. 1, you don't have to.
To be a beacon is to have a democracy in which issues of actual import are regularly debated. Instead our political coverage consists of daily disquisitions on "targeted ads," "narratives," "positioning" and "talking points." We really do make politicians crazy. If a politician cares only about his ads and his rehearsed answers, the pundits call him inauthentic. But if a politician ignores these things to speak of great issues we say he lacks "fire in the belly" and is incompetent. So many criticisms of politicians boil down to: He's not manipulating us well enough! We need more actual adults who are actually serious about the business of the nation.
The quibble: When a politician skips the Brand-R and Brand-D recorded talking points to discuss real questions with real solutions, our pundits don't say he lacks "fire in the belly"; they treat him as crazy, and describe his obvious truths as unthinkable, racist, protectionist, nativist, etc, etc, etc. ¶ 7:55 PM
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Gaia 0, Jehovah 1.
Since Polistra has joined in the prayers for rain in Georgia, she figures a public display of gratitude is called for!
In earlier times, a story like this would have been written as a competition between two gods.
The Emperor and his rich cronies worshipped Gaia by denying water to the people, thus sacrificing the people to a handful of Sacred Clams.
The people, having absolutely no power to change the emperor's mind, prayed to Jehovah for mercy, and Jehovah answered.
= = = = =
Update: I thought I was being just a little bit metaphorical, thought I was stretching things just a wee bit for the sake of parody. Nope, you can't get ahead of these Commies. Via Media Research Center:
¶ 8:25 AM
Since Polistra has joined in the prayers for rain in Georgia, she figures a public display of gratitude is called for!
In earlier times, a story like this would have been written as a competition between two gods.
The Emperor and his rich cronies worshipped Gaia by denying water to the people, thus sacrificing the people to a handful of Sacred Clams.
The people, having absolutely no power to change the emperor's mind, prayed to Jehovah for mercy, and Jehovah answered.
= = = = =
Update: I thought I was being just a little bit metaphorical, thought I was stretching things just a wee bit for the sake of parody. Nope, you can't get ahead of these Commies. Via Media Research Center:
The View's Joy Behar considers prayer a "distraction" from achieving scientific results which would be better achieved by praying for a fix for global warming. On the November 14 show, the co-hosts discussed Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue's prayer service for drought relief. Whoopi Goldberg surprisingly defended the Governor, but Joy Behar fretted about the "separation of church and state," and hinted the Georgia residents should be praying to Al Gore instead: "Well, they need to be praying to people who will fix global warming and take care of the environment because that's more realistic."
¶ 8:25 AM
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Privacy and all that
Polistra has been thinking about anonymity and privacy. It's a hot topic at the moment, but she thinks our basic definitions and expectations are messed up.
What exactly do we mean by anonymity, and is that really what we need? What exactly is privacy? When we seek privacy as currently defined, are we moving in an appropriate direction?
Let's look back at how these terms were treated before our Communist masters took over. Look back at the '30s and '40s when America still had an American flavor.
It's hard to get precise information about such ethereal concepts. Memories of older folks won't help, because every human mind is constantly reshaped by current tendencies and remembers things from a modern framework. Literature and architecture can help some: we know that a typical bungalow was designed to let all sorts of visitors, servants and tradesmen in and out easily. Movies and radio shows give us a feel for the furnace man, the milkman, the mailman (who came twice a day!) the ice man, the grocery boy, the phone operator, the maid if you were slightly above middle class, Grandma if you weren't, a neighbor kid who was staying temporarily while his drunk parents dried out .... In short, there was a TREMENDOUS amount of daily contact with a wide variety of people.
Polistra has found one small fact that reveals another difference.
Herewith a few samples from a forgotten radio show of 1946. "Breakfast in Hollywood" was essentially a promotional device for Tom Breneman's restaurant, and it grew into a national show for a few years. Nothing profound in the show, just Breneman talking briefly with the ladies (and their uncomfortable husbands) who frequented the restaurant. Every day he held an "age auction" to give an orchid and a kiss to the oldest lady present; every day he read a letter giving tribute to a "good neighbor".
First clip: A "good neighbor" tribute to a schoolteacher. Note that the school would be considered a "home school" by today's standards, but was clearly considered just another public school in '46. The state wouldn't fund it, so the community set it up without state help and without state regulations.
Second clip: A "good neighbor" letter about a Japanese lady who ran a drugstore in New York. Note that Tom doesn't waste any sympathy on the plight of the Japs who were interned, which would be the entire topic of such a letter now. Nor does he automatically hate the Jap lady, as might be assumed by our modern everything-is-racism mentality. No, he praises her tremendous war-bond sales, and her brother's sacrifice on behalf of this country. In short, he is judging by merit, not by blood.
Third clip: Just a delightful conversation with a younger woman, who clearly enjoyed her 15 seconds of fame. Note that smoking is perfectly normal and natural, not even worth mentioning, but tipping your ashes on Tom's carpet is impolite!
Do you pick up the one salient fact? The commonplace and unremarkable bit of speech that would be unthinkable today?
Everyone gives their home address cheerfully and openly, and Tom reads the full address of the "good neighbors" in other cities.
What? No privacy? No anonymity? No protection? No RIGHTS?
Did these ladies consider announcing their full address to a national audience as a dangerous risk or a precious freedom? Probably closer to the latter, if they even thought about it.
No radio or TV host would consider giving an address now, and most people won't even give their full names in such a situation. If we can afford it, we live in a gated community with private security, triple locks, double alarm systems, and no nameplate on the door.
And this is a perfectly rational decision.
Does the difference connect at all with 'enumerated rights'?
In fact there's a negative correlation with 'enumerated rights' ... with one exception. I suspect the right to self-defense was a positive factor. Potential burglars knew that every home was likely armed. Most husbands and many wives were recently returned soldiers who had a thorough and fresh acquaintance with weaponry.
So it comes down to this: Who owns the rights? Who is restrained and who is free? WHO IS INSIDE THE WALLS?
Before 1968, bad and crazy people were inside the walls, and nobody thought about using 'enumerated rights' to turn them loose against the rest of us. Since the Communist takeover in 1968, the SOLE AND EXPLICIT PURPOSE of 'enumerated rights' is to turn the bad and crazy people loose so they can destroy and confuse normal people. Since 1968, normal people are restrained from defending themselves, even restrained from speaking accurately about the bad and crazy people.
This is exactly how Stalin meant to kill us.
Read Kennan's famous 1946 telegram. It's all there.
= = = = =
Back to the original question. Did Americans before 1950 cherish privacy? No. Did they cherish the American way of doing things? Yes. Enough to die for it willingly. So by whatever name we might call it, Americans liked their situation. They had the confidence to declare their name, address and phone number in public, without fear that a burglar or identity thief would take advantage of their pride; and without fear that the authorities would decide to prosecute them for meaningless or fraudulent charges. And why did they have so much confidence? Because the authorities were confident enough to distinguish between good, bad, and crazy people, and sensible enough to restrain the bad and leave the good alone. ¶ 9:51 AM
What exactly do we mean by anonymity, and is that really what we need? What exactly is privacy? When we seek privacy as currently defined, are we moving in an appropriate direction?
Let's look back at how these terms were treated before our Communist masters took over. Look back at the '30s and '40s when America still had an American flavor.
It's hard to get precise information about such ethereal concepts. Memories of older folks won't help, because every human mind is constantly reshaped by current tendencies and remembers things from a modern framework. Literature and architecture can help some: we know that a typical bungalow was designed to let all sorts of visitors, servants and tradesmen in and out easily. Movies and radio shows give us a feel for the furnace man, the milkman, the mailman (who came twice a day!) the ice man, the grocery boy, the phone operator, the maid if you were slightly above middle class, Grandma if you weren't, a neighbor kid who was staying temporarily while his drunk parents dried out .... In short, there was a TREMENDOUS amount of daily contact with a wide variety of people.
Polistra has found one small fact that reveals another difference.
Herewith a few samples from a forgotten radio show of 1946. "Breakfast in Hollywood" was essentially a promotional device for Tom Breneman's restaurant, and it grew into a national show for a few years. Nothing profound in the show, just Breneman talking briefly with the ladies (and their uncomfortable husbands) who frequented the restaurant. Every day he held an "age auction" to give an orchid and a kiss to the oldest lady present; every day he read a letter giving tribute to a "good neighbor".
First clip: A "good neighbor" tribute to a schoolteacher. Note that the school would be considered a "home school" by today's standards, but was clearly considered just another public school in '46. The state wouldn't fund it, so the community set it up without state help and without state regulations.
Second clip: A "good neighbor" letter about a Japanese lady who ran a drugstore in New York. Note that Tom doesn't waste any sympathy on the plight of the Japs who were interned, which would be the entire topic of such a letter now. Nor does he automatically hate the Jap lady, as might be assumed by our modern everything-is-racism mentality. No, he praises her tremendous war-bond sales, and her brother's sacrifice on behalf of this country. In short, he is judging by merit, not by blood.
Third clip: Just a delightful conversation with a younger woman, who clearly enjoyed her 15 seconds of fame. Note that smoking is perfectly normal and natural, not even worth mentioning, but tipping your ashes on Tom's carpet is impolite!
Do you pick up the one salient fact? The commonplace and unremarkable bit of speech that would be unthinkable today?
Everyone gives their home address cheerfully and openly, and Tom reads the full address of the "good neighbors" in other cities.
What? No privacy? No anonymity? No protection? No RIGHTS?
Did these ladies consider announcing their full address to a national audience as a dangerous risk or a precious freedom? Probably closer to the latter, if they even thought about it.
No radio or TV host would consider giving an address now, and most people won't even give their full names in such a situation. If we can afford it, we live in a gated community with private security, triple locks, double alarm systems, and no nameplate on the door.
And this is a perfectly rational decision.
Does the difference connect at all with 'enumerated rights'?
In fact there's a negative correlation with 'enumerated rights' ... with one exception. I suspect the right to self-defense was a positive factor. Potential burglars knew that every home was likely armed. Most husbands and many wives were recently returned soldiers who had a thorough and fresh acquaintance with weaponry.
So it comes down to this: Who owns the rights? Who is restrained and who is free? WHO IS INSIDE THE WALLS?
Before 1968, bad and crazy people were inside the walls, and nobody thought about using 'enumerated rights' to turn them loose against the rest of us. Since the Communist takeover in 1968, the SOLE AND EXPLICIT PURPOSE of 'enumerated rights' is to turn the bad and crazy people loose so they can destroy and confuse normal people. Since 1968, normal people are restrained from defending themselves, even restrained from speaking accurately about the bad and crazy people.
This is exactly how Stalin meant to kill us.
Read Kennan's famous 1946 telegram. It's all there.
= = = = =
Back to the original question. Did Americans before 1950 cherish privacy? No. Did they cherish the American way of doing things? Yes. Enough to die for it willingly. So by whatever name we might call it, Americans liked their situation. They had the confidence to declare their name, address and phone number in public, without fear that a burglar or identity thief would take advantage of their pride; and without fear that the authorities would decide to prosecute them for meaningless or fraudulent charges. And why did they have so much confidence? Because the authorities were confident enough to distinguish between good, bad, and crazy people, and sensible enough to restrain the bad and leave the good alone. ¶ 9:51 AM
Fountain of Youth?
A new invention worth watching:
Funny, I thought Nitric Oxide was an Evil Pollutant, one of those Taboo Substances that we must Eliminate From The Planet [pbuh] At All Costs. If this CVAC thing turns out to be effective, it will be interesting to watch the aging Boomers struggling with the cognitive dissonance between a longer life and their idiotic fascistic Cargo-Cult Religion of Global Warming. ¶ 6:46 AM
CVAC, or Cyclic Variations in Altitude Conditioning, is a podlike device that raises and lowers air pressure and oxygen concentration.
The pressure changes alternately compress and decompress the body. The periods of reduced oxygen and air pressure cause the body to produce more red blood cells, said Allan Ruszkowski, president and chief executive of the company.
Nitric oxide is the underlying cause of many beneficial effects that experimental studies attribute to the CVAC device.
The CVAC device's most immediate use is for conditioning athletes, but it's also being explored as a way of treating insulin-resistant diabetes and may even counteract aging-related diseases. Ruszkowski said.
"In the beginning, it sounds wacky: You take people and put them inside of a chamber and take them up to 22,000 feet in simulated altitude and bring them back to sea level in two seconds," Ruszkowski said.
"People have said, wait a minute, if this thing really works the way it might, this is a trillion-dollar market. It could eliminate all the diseases associated with aging, like diabetes, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, breast cancer, colon cancer, infertility."
Funny, I thought Nitric Oxide was an Evil Pollutant, one of those Taboo Substances that we must Eliminate From The Planet [pbuh] At All Costs. If this CVAC thing turns out to be effective, it will be interesting to watch the aging Boomers struggling with the cognitive dissonance between a longer life and their idiotic fascistic Cargo-Cult Religion of Global Warming. ¶ 6:46 AM
The correct question
In a brief moment of lucidity this morning, half-dreaming, I realized the basic problem with the Bush-Wilson approach.
Presumably, yesterday's dream must have fermented with the Rumsfeld comment to form this solution.
I was thinking this morning about FDR's use of the Four Freedoms as a propaganda tool, and Lincoln's use of the Emancipation Proclamation. Throw in Reagan's less direct and belligerent focus on American freedoms, and you have the obvious background for Bush's focus on democracy.
Well, why were the first three effective while the last is idiotic? My first thought was that Lincoln and FDR didn't really mean it; they were not really fighting for freedom as such; they weren't aiming to set up Free And Fair Elections Supervised By The Carter Center; they were basically trying to preserve the Union and to preserve ...
Aha! Then I realized. It's not the purpose of the tool or even the effectiveness of the tool that matters. The critical difference is where you apply the tool.
Dropping the tool metaphor, the real question is: Who are you talking to?
Lincoln was talking to the black slaves, trying to motivate them to rise up against their white and Indian masters. He was NOT TALKING TO THE SLAVEHOLDERS, who already had everything they needed.
FDR was talking to the oppressed people of Europe and Asia: French, Poles, Serbians, Chinese. Motivating them to form Resistance movements. He was NOT TALKING TO THE KRAUTS AND JAPS, who already had everything they needed.
Well, then, who is Bush talking to? HE IS TALKING TO THE GODDAMN ARABS. Arabs are the world champions of holding and selling slaves. Arabs sold the slaves to our white and Indian slaveholders and taught them how to keep the slaves in chains. Arabs are still happily and actively holding and selling African slaves.
Thanks to oil-welfare, Arabs have everything they need even more intensely than our Southern white and Cherokee slaveholders of the 1800s, or the Krauts and Japs of the 1930s.
So it's no wonder the tool doesn't work. He's pointing it the wrong way. ¶ 6:14 AM
Presumably, yesterday's dream must have fermented with the Rumsfeld comment to form this solution.
I was thinking this morning about FDR's use of the Four Freedoms as a propaganda tool, and Lincoln's use of the Emancipation Proclamation. Throw in Reagan's less direct and belligerent focus on American freedoms, and you have the obvious background for Bush's focus on democracy.
Well, why were the first three effective while the last is idiotic? My first thought was that Lincoln and FDR didn't really mean it; they were not really fighting for freedom as such; they weren't aiming to set up Free And Fair Elections Supervised By The Carter Center; they were basically trying to preserve the Union and to preserve ...
Aha! Then I realized. It's not the purpose of the tool or even the effectiveness of the tool that matters. The critical difference is where you apply the tool.
Dropping the tool metaphor, the real question is: Who are you talking to?
Lincoln was talking to the black slaves, trying to motivate them to rise up against their white and Indian masters. He was NOT TALKING TO THE SLAVEHOLDERS, who already had everything they needed.
FDR was talking to the oppressed people of Europe and Asia: French, Poles, Serbians, Chinese. Motivating them to form Resistance movements. He was NOT TALKING TO THE KRAUTS AND JAPS, who already had everything they needed.
Well, then, who is Bush talking to? HE IS TALKING TO THE GODDAMN ARABS. Arabs are the world champions of holding and selling slaves. Arabs sold the slaves to our white and Indian slaveholders and taught them how to keep the slaves in chains. Arabs are still happily and actively holding and selling African slaves.
Thanks to oil-welfare, Arabs have everything they need even more intensely than our Southern white and Cherokee slaveholders of the 1800s, or the Krauts and Japs of the 1930s.
So it's no wonder the tool doesn't work. He's pointing it the wrong way. ¶ 6:14 AM
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Polistra had a dream
Polistra had a dream.
In the dream, she had the magical power to pick up two men and switch their locations and positions in life.
The first man is Hastings Jesus Ogbunkpankwe, a Christian living in a mud hut in Sudan.
The second man is George Walker Bush, an Episcopalian living in a large house in Washington DC.
= = = = =
Several months have passed since the magic reversal ... Let's see what the two men are doing.
The first man, President Hastings Jesus Ogbunkpankwe, who had seen his family and ancestors enslaved and slaughtered by Mohammedans for many centuries, wasted no time. He observed that the mighty and powerful US Military was wasting its sacred lives on building new facilities for Mohammedans in Iraq, and building "democracies" in several places which will elect Osama's men to office.
Being a direct man, President Hastings Jesus Ogbunkpankwe immediately ordered the US Military to erase Allah from the face of the earth. Good progress has been made; Mecca and Medina are now salty lakes, and the Arabian peninsula has been depopulated and taken over by American and British oil companies.
Being a Christian man, President Hastings Jesus Ogbunkpankwe asked why a supposedly Christian nation was spending tax money to build wudu-washbasins for Mohammedans to wash their feet, while Christians were forbidden to worship or even to pray silently in public places. When he heard the answer, he immediately shipped the ACLU and other Communists to prison camps, deported all Mohammedan imams, placed a careful watch on all other Mohammedans, and dissolved the Senate and the federal courts. Unfortunately, these efforts have borne little fruit in terms of national behavior, because most white American Christians had already surrendered either to Mohammed or to Marx, and no longer remembered how to behave as Christians.
Being a black man, President Hastings Jesus Ogbunkpankwe asked why so many of his fellow black men were wasting their sacred lives on crime and drugs instead of raising Christian families. He found out that black families were once the strictest and most exemplary Christians in the land, but a vicious half-century-long collusion between Communists and Corporations had made American education useless for all children, moved many of the jobs suitable for black men to China, and encouraged black men to behave in pre-Christian tribal ways, living off the government welfare checks of their harems. He then cut off all trade with China and ordered American corporate leaders, on pain of total confiscation of their corporate and personal wealth, to rebuild and resuscitate their factories and assembly lines.
There has been tremendous progress on this front. Turns out that old Henry Ford was right. If you give a man proper work and pay him well for his work, this country will be able to support itself.
=====
Now let's see how the second man is getting along.
Being an aphasic man, Mister George Walker Bush has found gainful employment writing letters like this:
¶ 12:53 PM
In the dream, she had the magical power to pick up two men and switch their locations and positions in life.
The first man is Hastings Jesus Ogbunkpankwe, a Christian living in a mud hut in Sudan.
The second man is George Walker Bush, an Episcopalian living in a large house in Washington DC.
= = = = =
Several months have passed since the magic reversal ... Let's see what the two men are doing.
The first man, President Hastings Jesus Ogbunkpankwe, who had seen his family and ancestors enslaved and slaughtered by Mohammedans for many centuries, wasted no time. He observed that the mighty and powerful US Military was wasting its sacred lives on building new facilities for Mohammedans in Iraq, and building "democracies" in several places which will elect Osama's men to office.
Being a direct man, President Hastings Jesus Ogbunkpankwe immediately ordered the US Military to erase Allah from the face of the earth. Good progress has been made; Mecca and Medina are now salty lakes, and the Arabian peninsula has been depopulated and taken over by American and British oil companies.
Being a Christian man, President Hastings Jesus Ogbunkpankwe asked why a supposedly Christian nation was spending tax money to build wudu-washbasins for Mohammedans to wash their feet, while Christians were forbidden to worship or even to pray silently in public places. When he heard the answer, he immediately shipped the ACLU and other Communists to prison camps, deported all Mohammedan imams, placed a careful watch on all other Mohammedans, and dissolved the Senate and the federal courts. Unfortunately, these efforts have borne little fruit in terms of national behavior, because most white American Christians had already surrendered either to Mohammed or to Marx, and no longer remembered how to behave as Christians.
Being a black man, President Hastings Jesus Ogbunkpankwe asked why so many of his fellow black men were wasting their sacred lives on crime and drugs instead of raising Christian families. He found out that black families were once the strictest and most exemplary Christians in the land, but a vicious half-century-long collusion between Communists and Corporations had made American education useless for all children, moved many of the jobs suitable for black men to China, and encouraged black men to behave in pre-Christian tribal ways, living off the government welfare checks of their harems. He then cut off all trade with China and ordered American corporate leaders, on pain of total confiscation of their corporate and personal wealth, to rebuild and resuscitate their factories and assembly lines.
There has been tremendous progress on this front. Turns out that old Henry Ford was right. If you give a man proper work and pay him well for his work, this country will be able to support itself.
=====
Now let's see how the second man is getting along.
Being an aphasic man, Mister George Walker Bush has found gainful employment writing letters like this:
Greeting Dear,
I know you will be surprised to read from me especially from this strange note but please consider this as a request from a family in dear need of assistance. I am MISTER GEORGE WALKER BUSH the only son of MISTER GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH. I am presently residing in SUDAN. Well, I got your informations through a trustworthy information exchange regardings your trustworthiness as such I decided to ask for your assistance to transfer some moneys out of SUDAN into your country and invest wisely. ...
¶ 12:53 PM
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Coleman's manifesto
Appreciating the declaration by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel. Perhaps cri de coeur is a better term, since Coleman must be grieving the total subversion of his brainchild by our Communist masters.
I do wish the original website had done a bit of editing for spelling and grammar. Leninists pounce on misspellings and bad constructions as evidence of poor credentials, and Coleman's writing is full of such opportunities.
Actually, global warming is FAR more than a scam. I can't think of any fraud in history with so many tentacles. There have been many commercial frauds, many religious frauds, many scientific frauds, many ideological frauds, but no previous deception has managed to infect all spheres of human endeavor so completely.
All "responsible" politicians have signed on; all "responsible" religious leaders have abdicated to the Antichrist Maurice Strong; all "responsible" corporations have Gone Green; all "responsible" scientists have tossed their reputations onto this vast pile of putrid superstitious garbage.
As this all-encompassing and genocidal deception unravels over the next two years, I shall be FEASTING on the finest Schadenfreude.
¶ 10:28 AM
I do wish the original website had done a bit of editing for spelling and grammar. Leninists pounce on misspellings and bad constructions as evidence of poor credentials, and Coleman's writing is full of such opportunities.
Actually, global warming is FAR more than a scam. I can't think of any fraud in history with so many tentacles. There have been many commercial frauds, many religious frauds, many scientific frauds, many ideological frauds, but no previous deception has managed to infect all spheres of human endeavor so completely.
All "responsible" politicians have signed on; all "responsible" religious leaders have abdicated to the Antichrist Maurice Strong; all "responsible" corporations have Gone Green; all "responsible" scientists have tossed their reputations onto this vast pile of putrid superstitious garbage.
As this all-encompassing and genocidal deception unravels over the next two years, I shall be FEASTING on the finest Schadenfreude.
¶ 10:28 AM
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Proves the point
M. Stanton Evans has been making the book-tour in the last couple of days with his book about old Joe McCarthy. The response of some talk-hosts demonstrates just how thoroughly and deeply our Communist masters have done their job.
Evans is actually covering old ground.
Serious historians, including even some leftists, had already concluded by 1980 that McCarthy's lists of subversives were mainly accurate. The opening of the Soviet archives in 1991 added tons of weight to the vindication; at that point we learned that Joe was even correct about many highly-placed saboteurs and spies who had escaped the notice of the FBI.
Books on the subject have been around for nearly twenty years now, and most non-stupefied people have picked up the point.
And yet talkers like Beck and Miller, who are generally on the non-Communist side of things, seem to be blindsided by this information. Beck was interrogating Evans in a bemused style: "Aw come on, Stan, you don't really mean this. I just can't bring myself to think it." Just now Miller said, chuckling all the way, "We're going to hear from M. Stanton Stan, defending McCarthy. And then we'll have an author defending Pol Pot." ... and later ... "I hear he has a funny little Richard Speck story as well."
A set of lies planted deeply enough is nearly impossible to uproot. It's not really repetition that does the work, as the overquoted Goebbels line says. It's the total censorship of any alternative information, and the careful construction of a framework around the lies. And our Communist masters have managed to maintain the framework of lies on this subject for 60 years now.
= = = = =
Bit later: In the interview, Miller showed himself to be more informed and open-minded than his initial dismissals sounded. But he still proved the long-lasting power of the framework. The basic Leninist tactic goes like this: subvert or blackmail most "responsible" officials into silence, so that the only people who feel both determined and free to reveal the truth are disreputable types who can be made to look crazy. As the Brit historian Paul Johnson demonstrated, Satan's boss Roy Cohn was the Communist mole in charge of guiding McCarthy toward the appearance of craziness in this case. But the tactic works in most cases without the help of a mole. ¶ 8:11 AM
Evans is actually covering old ground.
Serious historians, including even some leftists, had already concluded by 1980 that McCarthy's lists of subversives were mainly accurate. The opening of the Soviet archives in 1991 added tons of weight to the vindication; at that point we learned that Joe was even correct about many highly-placed saboteurs and spies who had escaped the notice of the FBI.
Books on the subject have been around for nearly twenty years now, and most non-stupefied people have picked up the point.
And yet talkers like Beck and Miller, who are generally on the non-Communist side of things, seem to be blindsided by this information. Beck was interrogating Evans in a bemused style: "Aw come on, Stan, you don't really mean this. I just can't bring myself to think it." Just now Miller said, chuckling all the way, "We're going to hear from M. Stanton Stan, defending McCarthy. And then we'll have an author defending Pol Pot." ... and later ... "I hear he has a funny little Richard Speck story as well."
A set of lies planted deeply enough is nearly impossible to uproot. It's not really repetition that does the work, as the overquoted Goebbels line says. It's the total censorship of any alternative information, and the careful construction of a framework around the lies. And our Communist masters have managed to maintain the framework of lies on this subject for 60 years now.
= = = = =
Bit later: In the interview, Miller showed himself to be more informed and open-minded than his initial dismissals sounded. But he still proved the long-lasting power of the framework. The basic Leninist tactic goes like this: subvert or blackmail most "responsible" officials into silence, so that the only people who feel both determined and free to reveal the truth are disreputable types who can be made to look crazy. As the Brit historian Paul Johnson demonstrated, Satan's boss Roy Cohn was the Communist mole in charge of guiding McCarthy toward the appearance of craziness in this case. But the tactic works in most cases without the help of a mole. ¶ 8:11 AM
Monday, November 05, 2007
Musharraf is right about many things.......
Musharraf is doing exactly what a wartime leader needs to do. He should have done it much earlier, just as a competent president of this country should have done the same thing in September of 2001.
The same steps Churchill took in 1940, and FDR took in 1942. Jail the saboteurs, lawyers, "activists", and bad judges; take control of the media. Normal, natural and time-proven steps in an extreme crisis, and the best way to insure national survival.
If Musharraf is really against Osama, as he claims, he should be able to operate against Osama now, far more effectively than when he was tied down by lawyers, "activists", and Due Process.
Therefore, if Pakistan's natural interests are parallel with ours, if M really wants to defeat Osama, he can now be a better ally than before. This is simple logic.
So naturally George W. Gandhi is lecturing Musharraf on his failures, and threatening to take back our billions in bribes, in order to force Musharraf back into a position where he won't be able to serve our purposes.
Speeding backwards into chaos and defeat, as usual.
I'm still trying hard to assume that George W. Gandhi is weirdly deluded, naive and infantile, perhaps as the result of alcohol-induced brain damage like Korsakoff's Syndrome. By now this nice charitable assumption is really impossible to sustain, but I'll still pretend in order to keep my own sanity. ¶ 6:16 PM
The same steps Churchill took in 1940, and FDR took in 1942. Jail the saboteurs, lawyers, "activists", and bad judges; take control of the media. Normal, natural and time-proven steps in an extreme crisis, and the best way to insure national survival.
If Musharraf is really against Osama, as he claims, he should be able to operate against Osama now, far more effectively than when he was tied down by lawyers, "activists", and Due Process.
Therefore, if Pakistan's natural interests are parallel with ours, if M really wants to defeat Osama, he can now be a better ally than before. This is simple logic.
So naturally George W. Gandhi is lecturing Musharraf on his failures, and threatening to take back our billions in bribes, in order to force Musharraf back into a position where he won't be able to serve our purposes.
Speeding backwards into chaos and defeat, as usual.
I'm still trying hard to assume that George W. Gandhi is weirdly deluded, naive and infantile, perhaps as the result of alcohol-induced brain damage like Korsakoff's Syndrome. By now this nice charitable assumption is really impossible to sustain, but I'll still pretend in order to keep my own sanity. ¶ 6:16 PM
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Rumsfeld was right about one thing.....
From Agence France Presse:
A memo written by Rumsfeld in 2004 said that oil wealth has detached Muslims "from the reality of the work, effort and investment that leads to wealth for the rest of the world. Too often Muslims are against physical labor, so they bring in Koreans and Pakistanis while their young people remain unemployed. ... An unemployed population is easy to recruit to radicalism."
This is precisely true and deeply important. In fact, oil-welfare is pretty nearly the whole problem. Other things contribute to the mess, but oil-welfare is the single element that would shut off the war impulse if it could be removed.
The only quibble I'd make with Rumsfeld's diagnosis: the problem belongs to Arabs, not Mohammedans. I suspect he may have been using a euphemism, though. "Bringing in Koreans and Pakistanis" identifies who he's really talking about. Pakistanis are Mohammedans; since they are among the laborers, it's not Mohammedans who dislike work. The only people who "bring in Koreans and Pakistanis" are Saudi Arabians.
Osama has made it clear that even though he talks in terms of Allah, he's really fighting for Arabs as a tribe, not Mohammedans as a faith.
Needless to say, the Bush idiots are instantly and loudly niggerlisting Rumsfeld for daring to speak the plain and obvious truth about an ethnic group.
"We are aware that we have a lot of work to do in order to win hearts and minds across the Arab world and the Muslim world. And I can understand why they would be offended by those comments," said Dana Perino.
DO YOU UNSPEAKABLE GANDHIAN BAREFOOT FLOWER-CHILD MUSHROOM-EATING HIPPIES COMPREHEND THAT WE ARE AT WAR? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE POINT OF A WAR IS TO OFFEND THE ENEMY? JESUS H. FUCKING CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ¶ 11:43 PM
A memo written by Rumsfeld in 2004 said that oil wealth has detached Muslims "from the reality of the work, effort and investment that leads to wealth for the rest of the world. Too often Muslims are against physical labor, so they bring in Koreans and Pakistanis while their young people remain unemployed. ... An unemployed population is easy to recruit to radicalism."
This is precisely true and deeply important. In fact, oil-welfare is pretty nearly the whole problem. Other things contribute to the mess, but oil-welfare is the single element that would shut off the war impulse if it could be removed.
The only quibble I'd make with Rumsfeld's diagnosis: the problem belongs to Arabs, not Mohammedans. I suspect he may have been using a euphemism, though. "Bringing in Koreans and Pakistanis" identifies who he's really talking about. Pakistanis are Mohammedans; since they are among the laborers, it's not Mohammedans who dislike work. The only people who "bring in Koreans and Pakistanis" are Saudi Arabians.
Osama has made it clear that even though he talks in terms of Allah, he's really fighting for Arabs as a tribe, not Mohammedans as a faith.
Needless to say, the Bush idiots are instantly and loudly niggerlisting Rumsfeld for daring to speak the plain and obvious truth about an ethnic group.
"We are aware that we have a lot of work to do in order to win hearts and minds across the Arab world and the Muslim world. And I can understand why they would be offended by those comments," said Dana Perino.
DO YOU UNSPEAKABLE GANDHIAN BAREFOOT FLOWER-CHILD MUSHROOM-EATING HIPPIES COMPREHEND THAT WE ARE AT WAR? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE POINT OF A WAR IS TO OFFEND THE ENEMY? JESUS H. FUCKING CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ¶ 11:43 PM
Saturday, November 03, 2007
The death of contracts
Bit of a half-formed thought ... writing it in the hope that someone capable of fully-formed thinking on this subject will find it interesting enough to pick up the ball and carry it.
In listening to Elmer Davis's CBS newscasts from 1936-40, I notice a strong emphasis on specific treaties, agreements, and the Monroe Doctrine. When Japan violated the Naval Construction Treaty, it made news and told us something about Japan's intentions. When Germany tried to use the Monroe Doctrine as a propaganda tool against South American countries, it made news and told us something about Germany's intentions.
You won't hear any of this in modern newscasts, even from the more serious ones that can spare a few seconds from the truly important matters like Breast Cancer, OJ, Sex With Teachers, and Missing Blondes, to discuss tiny trivialities like war and peace.
This missing subject isn't just the fault of the media. Obviously treaties and doctrines still exist, but they no longer carry the same weight, and no longer have the same signal value.
In earlier times, treaties were contracts between two parties. Each country's foreign ministry watched the other like a hawk to detect violations. This continual two-sided tension kept both sides honest, and gave immediate information to both sides.
Even non-participation in treaties had a specific meaning. Neutrality was the prime subject of discussion in Congress during 1939, and every attempt by FDR to weaken our neutral status by joining with England and France met with considerable resistance. Countries like Switzerland and Spain that declared neutrality remained [relatively] unharmed by both sides.
The entire concept of neutral vs belligerent is completely dead now, and its importance seems weird from a modern perspective.
Modern treaties are mushy and multilateral, and they have buildings and bureaucracies of their own. This means that nobody is really watching; when Country X violates Treaty Y, the countries that could use the information may never get it. The only benefit goes to the bureaucrats who can use their connections to get rich, and use their power to force pointless regulations on Western countries, thus giving more profit to the third-world dictators who will then further enrich the bureaucrats.
= = = = =
Afterthought on neutrality: Wouldn't it be truly wonderful if you could simply declare by word and deed that you were strictly out of the game, and then all the belligerents would respect your decision? It really did work that way in WW2, so it's not hard to see why the isolationist position was so popular in '39! Unfortunately it doesn't work that way now, so Ron Paul's modern isolationism is nonsensical and suicidal. ¶ 8:08 PM
In listening to Elmer Davis's CBS newscasts from 1936-40, I notice a strong emphasis on specific treaties, agreements, and the Monroe Doctrine. When Japan violated the Naval Construction Treaty, it made news and told us something about Japan's intentions. When Germany tried to use the Monroe Doctrine as a propaganda tool against South American countries, it made news and told us something about Germany's intentions.
You won't hear any of this in modern newscasts, even from the more serious ones that can spare a few seconds from the truly important matters like Breast Cancer, OJ, Sex With Teachers, and Missing Blondes, to discuss tiny trivialities like war and peace.
This missing subject isn't just the fault of the media. Obviously treaties and doctrines still exist, but they no longer carry the same weight, and no longer have the same signal value.
In earlier times, treaties were contracts between two parties. Each country's foreign ministry watched the other like a hawk to detect violations. This continual two-sided tension kept both sides honest, and gave immediate information to both sides.
Even non-participation in treaties had a specific meaning. Neutrality was the prime subject of discussion in Congress during 1939, and every attempt by FDR to weaken our neutral status by joining with England and France met with considerable resistance. Countries like Switzerland and Spain that declared neutrality remained [relatively] unharmed by both sides.
The entire concept of neutral vs belligerent is completely dead now, and its importance seems weird from a modern perspective.
Modern treaties are mushy and multilateral, and they have buildings and bureaucracies of their own. This means that nobody is really watching; when Country X violates Treaty Y, the countries that could use the information may never get it. The only benefit goes to the bureaucrats who can use their connections to get rich, and use their power to force pointless regulations on Western countries, thus giving more profit to the third-world dictators who will then further enrich the bureaucrats.
= = = = =
Afterthought on neutrality: Wouldn't it be truly wonderful if you could simply declare by word and deed that you were strictly out of the game, and then all the belligerents would respect your decision? It really did work that way in WW2, so it's not hard to see why the isolationist position was so popular in '39! Unfortunately it doesn't work that way now, so Ron Paul's modern isolationism is nonsensical and suicidal. ¶ 8:08 PM
Friday, November 02, 2007
Bilevel economy, part 2
Must admit I don't waste any sympathy on the Hollywood figures who were 'suspended' by the Inquisition, either the 1950 or the 2007 version. The rules in both cases are obvious even to an outsider, so they must be even more obvious from the inside. And for heaven's sake, it's not hard to obey the rules. In 1950, you simply didn't work for the Soviets; in 2007, you simply don't say nigger in any circumstances.
Omitting an activity is by definition easier than performing an activity, and the rewards for staying inside the lines are unimaginably great! Paul Harvey mentioned this morning that Britney Spears's income was made public in some sort of divorce hearing. She grosses $780,000 per month, and doesn't save or invest any of it. Spends it all and more.
$780 K each month. That's enough to pay a chauffeur to avoid all those DUI arrests; it's enough to pay a nursemaid to buckle your damn kids into those carseat things. It's enough to pay an assistant whose sole job is to figure out that you need to hire a chauffeur and a nursemaid.
$780 K each month. Equal to my entire lifetime earnings adjusted for inflation, and it's twice my lifetime earnings in original dollars.
We are indeed moving toward a Peru-style bilevel economy.
But am I jealous? More puzzled and astonished than jealous. Spears doesn't appear to be happy, and I'm happy. Or as close to happy as an essentially melancholy character can get. Call it contented. My crappy little house is entirely paid for, and it's in a safe neighborhood. I don't really have to work, because I did concentrate on saving; aimed to become "independently poor", and made it.
Omitting an activity is by definition easier than performing an activity, and the rewards for staying inside the lines are unimaginably great! Paul Harvey mentioned this morning that Britney Spears's income was made public in some sort of divorce hearing. She grosses $780,000 per month, and doesn't save or invest any of it. Spends it all and more.
$780 K each month. That's enough to pay a chauffeur to avoid all those DUI arrests; it's enough to pay a nursemaid to buckle your damn kids into those carseat things. It's enough to pay an assistant whose sole job is to figure out that you need to hire a chauffeur and a nursemaid.
$780 K each month. Equal to my entire lifetime earnings adjusted for inflation, and it's twice my lifetime earnings in original dollars.
We are indeed moving toward a Peru-style bilevel economy.
But am I jealous? More puzzled and astonished than jealous. Spears doesn't appear to be happy, and I'm happy. Or as close to happy as an essentially melancholy character can get. Call it contented. My crappy little house is entirely paid for, and it's in a safe neighborhood. I don't really have to work, because I did concentrate on saving; aimed to become "independently poor", and made it.
Labels: the broken circle
¶ 8:03 PM
Mirror universe
In the late '40s and early '50s, as it became obvious that Stalin was working hard to sabotage our government and culture, Congressional committees made a big point of requiring loyalty oaths of just about everybody, and making lists of suspected Commies. The oaths were rather silly, because a devoted Communist has no compunctions about lying or swearing false oaths to help defeat the West ... but the blacklists were important and useful. Jack Kennedy and Dick Nixon were major players in this oath-forcing and blacklisting; Reagan, as head of the Screen Actors Guild, applied the same principles in Hollywood.
Later, Communists found a way to permanently sabotage the blacklisting process, when the superlatively vicious and brutal little Satan-snake* named Roy Cohn manipulated Joe McCarthy into reckless overuse of blacklisting.
Since that time, our Communist masters have used the name of McCarthy to stifle any tiny half-baked attempt to dislodge their brutal rule.
Oddly enough, they haven't simply reversed the process until very recently.
Look at the comments made by Soviet Agent T. Kennedy and Soviet Agent A. Specter on the confirmation of this rather drab and non-ideological Mukasey fellow.
Think about it. These Soviet Agents are voting against Mukasey because he will not promise strongly enough to avoid using "torture", whatever the hell that actually means.
In other words, Mukasey will not REFUSE TO DEFEND THE UNITED STATES.
He will not SWEAR A DISLOYALTY OATH.
Enemy Agents Specter and Kennedy will only approve nominees who PROMISE TO COMMIT TREASON.
The reversal is now complete.
= = = = =
And how about the blacklisting? Have we reversed it yet? Yes, especially in Hollywood, and the new form happens to involve the same color. Let's call it niggerlisting.
This new and inverted list is not as objective or meaningful as the 1950 version. The Reagan version of blacklisting was strictly based on actual Party activity, or associating in a conspiratorial way with active Communists. It didn't matter if you were light or dark, male or female; if you worked for the Soviets, your career was suspended. Hollywood hated it, and gained its revenge after the sabotage of McCarthy, but loss of career was actually a mild punishment for disloyalty that often deserved prison.
The new niggerlist is much less objective and much more disproportionate to the offense. In fact, it's an enforced aristocratic speech code, depending on your skin color and your Authenticity. If you are black and Authentic (which means either an actual violent gangster or a strong supporter of gangs) you are free to say nigger, ho, bitch, nappy and dozens of other Holy Words. In fact, if you are dark and Authentic, your use of these Sacrosanct Words will be Celebrated as Transgressive Diversity.
But if you lack sufficient melanin, or even if you have dark skin but dislike gangsters, you will be totally niggerlisted for using any of the Sacred Words even once. Privacy is no defense: wiretapping to detect Desecration of the Words is perfectly fine, as yesterday's niggerlisting of the Bounty Hunter demonstrated.
At this time the punishment associated with the niggerlist is not permanent; if you apologize on your knees several billion times and show your support of gangsters in a concrete way, you may be allowed to resume your career after a year or two in Purgatory. I assume the process will become more solid and permanent as it continues.
= = = = =
* Profound apologies to Satan for mentioning him in the same sentence as Roy Cohn. I couldn't think of a different comparison that would be understandable. ¶ 12:17 PM
Later, Communists found a way to permanently sabotage the blacklisting process, when the superlatively vicious and brutal little Satan-snake* named Roy Cohn manipulated Joe McCarthy into reckless overuse of blacklisting.
Since that time, our Communist masters have used the name of McCarthy to stifle any tiny half-baked attempt to dislodge their brutal rule.
Oddly enough, they haven't simply reversed the process until very recently.
Look at the comments made by Soviet Agent T. Kennedy and Soviet Agent A. Specter on the confirmation of this rather drab and non-ideological Mukasey fellow.
Think about it. These Soviet Agents are voting against Mukasey because he will not promise strongly enough to avoid using "torture", whatever the hell that actually means.
In other words, Mukasey will not REFUSE TO DEFEND THE UNITED STATES.
He will not SWEAR A DISLOYALTY OATH.
Enemy Agents Specter and Kennedy will only approve nominees who PROMISE TO COMMIT TREASON.
The reversal is now complete.
= = = = =
And how about the blacklisting? Have we reversed it yet? Yes, especially in Hollywood, and the new form happens to involve the same color. Let's call it niggerlisting.
This new and inverted list is not as objective or meaningful as the 1950 version. The Reagan version of blacklisting was strictly based on actual Party activity, or associating in a conspiratorial way with active Communists. It didn't matter if you were light or dark, male or female; if you worked for the Soviets, your career was suspended. Hollywood hated it, and gained its revenge after the sabotage of McCarthy, but loss of career was actually a mild punishment for disloyalty that often deserved prison.
The new niggerlist is much less objective and much more disproportionate to the offense. In fact, it's an enforced aristocratic speech code, depending on your skin color and your Authenticity. If you are black and Authentic (which means either an actual violent gangster or a strong supporter of gangs) you are free to say nigger, ho, bitch, nappy and dozens of other Holy Words. In fact, if you are dark and Authentic, your use of these Sacrosanct Words will be Celebrated as Transgressive Diversity.
But if you lack sufficient melanin, or even if you have dark skin but dislike gangsters, you will be totally niggerlisted for using any of the Sacred Words even once. Privacy is no defense: wiretapping to detect Desecration of the Words is perfectly fine, as yesterday's niggerlisting of the Bounty Hunter demonstrated.
At this time the punishment associated with the niggerlist is not permanent; if you apologize on your knees several billion times and show your support of gangsters in a concrete way, you may be allowed to resume your career after a year or two in Purgatory. I assume the process will become more solid and permanent as it continues.
= = = = =
* Profound apologies to Satan for mentioning him in the same sentence as Roy Cohn. I couldn't think of a different comparison that would be understandable. ¶ 12:17 PM
No new nukes, says George the Hippie
George W. Gore, serving the clams instead of the people as usual, has vetoed HR 2641 for having "excessive spending". Here is C-Span's summary of the bill. When I look through it, I don't see anything excessive or 'porky'. Most of it just continues existing departmental expenses at flat levels.
It does contain one emphasized new expenditure: about 200 million to get the Yucca Flats nuclear waste repository moving. This is critical to the resumption of nuclear power in the US.
A few days ago, Gore's Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman, was asked about Yucca Flats, and he responded that the process would "inevitably" take at least ten years because of litigation.
Well, litigation is not a law of nature like gravity. In fact, Sovereign Immunity means that the government can only be sued when it explicitly allows or invites a certain type of lawsuit. Therefore, Bodman (and by extension his boss GW Gore) was telling us openly that the Gore Administration doesn't want to build Yucca Flats, and Gore's veto of this spending bill reinforces the message.
The only thing in HR2641 that looks excessive to me is the expense for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Activities. One billion??? Where does that go? ¶ 9:21 AM
It does contain one emphasized new expenditure: about 200 million to get the Yucca Flats nuclear waste repository moving. This is critical to the resumption of nuclear power in the US.
A few days ago, Gore's Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman, was asked about Yucca Flats, and he responded that the process would "inevitably" take at least ten years because of litigation.
Well, litigation is not a law of nature like gravity. In fact, Sovereign Immunity means that the government can only be sued when it explicitly allows or invites a certain type of lawsuit. Therefore, Bodman (and by extension his boss GW Gore) was telling us openly that the Gore Administration doesn't want to build Yucca Flats, and Gore's veto of this spending bill reinforces the message.
The only thing in HR2641 that looks excessive to me is the expense for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Activities. One billion??? Where does that go? ¶ 9:21 AM
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Party like it's 1997!
Bush's latest speech, quoted via NRO:
History teaches that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake. In the early 1900s, the world ignored the words of Lenin, as he laid out his plans to launch a Communist revolution in Russia — and the world paid a terrible price. The Soviet Empire he established killed tens of millions, and brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war.
In the 1920s, the world ignored the words of Hitler, as he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany, take revenge on Europe, and eradicate the Jews — and the world paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers, and set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives and treasure.
Yet another false comparison. I must confess, I was fooled by the false comparison between the Marshall Plan and nation-building in Iraq; and I was fooled by the notion that "Democracies don't war", until 2004. (In other words, until writing this blog helped me to organize my thinking better.)
I'm not going to be fooled again.
What's false here?
Well, the first premise is true enough. We didn't pay attention to Lenin before 1920, or Hitler before 1938.
But we did pay attention after their plans came to fruition and affected us directly.
The false part: Osama's war is NOT in the warning stage. We are past the Russian Revolution, past Anschluss, past Pearl Harbor. By now we would already have defeated and killed Osama and his movement, if we were operating in the same way as FDR.
This speech would be quite proper and meaningful in 1997. We needed this speech in 1997. It makes no sense at all in 2007.
= = = = =
Here's an interesting bit of comparative evidence. Were we really so unaware of the danger before Pearl Harbor?
The date is June 19, 1940. At that point the European war had suddenly ramped up. The government (but not the people) of France had surrendered to Hitler the day before; Chamberlain was handing the reins to Churchill; and the Blitzkrieg bombing of London was getting under way. FDR was building up our war machine, but all his public statements were neutral and it's not clear that he really wanted to join the war at that time. Nevertheless, FDR knew how to handle internal dissension. On that day he appointed several prominent pro-war Republicans to his cabinet, thus removing them from consideration as Pres candidates and leaving the remaining R leaders to be marginalized as isolationists when war sentiment grew, as Roosevelt knew it would.
How did the Republicans respond? Here's a one-minute segment from an Elmer Davis CBS newscast on that day.
Those R politicians sound amazingly like today's D politicians, don't they? And I'm sure the team players will neatly switch talking points again when Hillary takes power. Goddamn both teams. ¶ 7:54 PM
History teaches that underestimating the words of evil, ambitious men is a terrible mistake. In the early 1900s, the world ignored the words of Lenin, as he laid out his plans to launch a Communist revolution in Russia — and the world paid a terrible price. The Soviet Empire he established killed tens of millions, and brought the world to the brink of thermonuclear war.
In the 1920s, the world ignored the words of Hitler, as he explained his intention to build an Aryan super-state in Germany, take revenge on Europe, and eradicate the Jews — and the world paid a terrible price. His Nazi regime killed millions in the gas chambers, and set the world aflame in war, before it was finally defeated at a terrible cost in lives and treasure.
Yet another false comparison. I must confess, I was fooled by the false comparison between the Marshall Plan and nation-building in Iraq; and I was fooled by the notion that "Democracies don't war", until 2004. (In other words, until writing this blog helped me to organize my thinking better.)
I'm not going to be fooled again.
What's false here?
Well, the first premise is true enough. We didn't pay attention to Lenin before 1920, or Hitler before 1938.
But we did pay attention after their plans came to fruition and affected us directly.
The false part: Osama's war is NOT in the warning stage. We are past the Russian Revolution, past Anschluss, past Pearl Harbor. By now we would already have defeated and killed Osama and his movement, if we were operating in the same way as FDR.
This speech would be quite proper and meaningful in 1997. We needed this speech in 1997. It makes no sense at all in 2007.
= = = = =
Here's an interesting bit of comparative evidence. Were we really so unaware of the danger before Pearl Harbor?
The date is June 19, 1940. At that point the European war had suddenly ramped up. The government (but not the people) of France had surrendered to Hitler the day before; Chamberlain was handing the reins to Churchill; and the Blitzkrieg bombing of London was getting under way. FDR was building up our war machine, but all his public statements were neutral and it's not clear that he really wanted to join the war at that time. Nevertheless, FDR knew how to handle internal dissension. On that day he appointed several prominent pro-war Republicans to his cabinet, thus removing them from consideration as Pres candidates and leaving the remaining R leaders to be marginalized as isolationists when war sentiment grew, as Roosevelt knew it would.
How did the Republicans respond? Here's a one-minute segment from an Elmer Davis CBS newscast on that day.
Those R politicians sound amazingly like today's D politicians, don't they? And I'm sure the team players will neatly switch talking points again when Hillary takes power. Goddamn both teams. ¶ 7:54 PM
Wide Stance Junior
A Wash state legislator came to Spokane for a conference and decided to hook up with a male prostitute for some cross-dressing fun. It's not quite clear what happened next, but it appears that the male prostitute decided to blackmail the legislator for a big extra payment. Oddly, the legislator called in the police, who arrested the prostitute for extortion.
One important difference from Wide-Stance: this legislator immediately did the normal and sane thing. He resigned from his office decisively and instantly after the scandal went public. This doesn't help him any, but it does serve the state well, because a new and non-blackmailable rep can now be appointed or elected. So I'd go a step beyond 'normal and sane'; maybe not quite 'noble' but certainly showing a decent loyalty and respect to his constituents.
Meanwhile, Wide-Stance Craig continues to stay in the Senate as the Anti-Civilization Lawyers Union defends him. Thus verifying beyond all possible doubt that he had been blackmailed by ACLU for a long time, and that he continues to serve ACLU. Thus verifying beyond all doubt that he does NOT serve his state or the country. And the rest of the Senate is equally culpable: by not kicking him out, they verify beyond all doubt that the Senate's sole purpose is to serve Communist extortionists. ¶ 9:05 AM
One important difference from Wide-Stance: this legislator immediately did the normal and sane thing. He resigned from his office decisively and instantly after the scandal went public. This doesn't help him any, but it does serve the state well, because a new and non-blackmailable rep can now be appointed or elected. So I'd go a step beyond 'normal and sane'; maybe not quite 'noble' but certainly showing a decent loyalty and respect to his constituents.
Meanwhile, Wide-Stance Craig continues to stay in the Senate as the Anti-Civilization Lawyers Union defends him. Thus verifying beyond all possible doubt that he had been blackmailed by ACLU for a long time, and that he continues to serve ACLU. Thus verifying beyond all doubt that he does NOT serve his state or the country. And the rest of the Senate is equally culpable: by not kicking him out, they verify beyond all doubt that the Senate's sole purpose is to serve Communist extortionists. ¶ 9:05 AM
