We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, March 10. 2016
Restoring the world’s oldest library
Looking for Satan in All the Wrong Places - Some think the Devil can be found in the Hebrew Bible. Are they right?
Why Are Liberal-Run Institutions Such Hotbeds of Racism and Sexism?
Here is the test scientists use to see if you might be a conspiracy theorist
NPR AND HARVARD SAY: OBAMACARE IS A COMPLETE FAILURE
Record Number of Children Being Smuggled Into Country Over Southern Border
Will the Joint Employer Rule Hurt Franchises?
Trump Is Too Poor To Stage A Third-Party Run
NBC/WSJ poll: Clinton, Sanders demolish Trump in general election
The Queen wants out of European Union
Official Palestinian TV calls Jaffa terrorist a ‘martyr,’ victims ‘settlers’
Socialism Has Created a Humanitarian Disaster in Venezuela
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Last time I saw an NBC/WSJ poll where Trump lost to the Dems, it included a question on whether those polled were satisfied with the job the Muslim POTUS was doing and 50% said they thought BHO was doing just fine!
No bias there, nothing to see, just move along......
Oh, wasn't it NBC/WSJ that projected that PIAPS would curb stomp the Bern in Michigan?
The NBC/WSJ "polls" are designed by Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies. "Strategies" is the operative word as they are public relations specialists hired to impact elections; i.e. help their heavy-duty roster of politicians WIN elections or policy issues.
Remember that most of the media (TV, cable, radio, print, social media, etc.) are owned by very, very few conglomerates that would suffer greatly if their elitist stance was disrupted by someone who was actually working for and to protect the average citizen. They have expanded into octopus-like sub-companies around the globe to peddle influence and power.
Venezuela is a disaster right now - a family friend is bringing over her siblings and parents (she is a legal immigrant) from Venezuela because basically it is a war zone there right now.
No antibiotics available to buy anywhere, you wait HOURS in line for food, electricity on for only a few hours a day. It's a nightmare - you can't live your life as a human being when you are like an animal constantly struggling just to survive.
Wait! You mean that Sean Penn, Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon, Courtney Love, Oliver Stone, and even our very own Obummer were wrong (https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/2/25/7-famous-supporters-of-the-chavez-regime/1/)??!! Say it ain't true!!!
Of course, maybe they weren't wrong. Maybe they didn't care if Chavez's policies helped people in Venezuela and all they cared about is who had the power...
Regarding Venezuela, you probably have the same thing happening with "progressives" in the US as we do in Canada:
to cope with the shambles that their beloved "Bolivarian revolution" has become, they've gone on radio silence.
Venezuela simply no longer exists in their "dialectic". Too inconvenient now.
I have no doubt they believe the same story Venezuela's socialist plutocrats have been selling: that all the problems are caused by hoarders or some kind of shadowy U.S. plot to undermine their economy.
Other socialist paradises have been able to blame their failure on a lack of natural resources and/or international embargoes. Venezuela has demonstrated that even a country with fabulous natural resources and rich trading partners can destroy its economy as thoroughly as any Cuba or North Korea. But will it convince anyone? A belief in socialism is hard to kill with mere evidence. Millennials approve of socialism in astounding numbers, having been brought up to believe the term means "Everyone should be willing to share a little."
Other socialist paradises have been able to blame their failure on a lack of natural resources and/or international embargoes.
Of course, the Soviet Union couldn't make that argument, but then the Millennials never seemed to learn any history so they are ripe for being "useful idiots."
The 'demolish' of Trump. Right. So regular every day Americans are going to vote for the socialist. I call B.S. on that.
Plus, national elections are state by state elections. What is more important to me are the head-to-head match ups in the swing states and some that also might go Trump (like NY). And in that case, I did see a recent poll that Trump was the ONLY candidate who beat Hillary in FL (by 2 points, I think).
There is such a long time to go before the general election.
Looking for Satan in All the Wrong Places - Some think the Devil can be found in the Hebrew Bible. Are they right?
I don't quite understand the point of this. For Jews, how Christians view the Hebrew Bible ought to be entirely moot. Likewise for how Jews view the Christian Bible if you're Christian.
Notwithstanding their common ancestry, they're separate religions.
The Queen wants out of European Union
A very dubious piece and even more dodgy for having originated in The Sun.
The Queen doesn't do this sort of thing, believe me.
The "conspiracy theory" meme is used to end discussion of some valid concerns. While I agree that many of the better known conspiracy theories like the moon landing and Jews committing the 9/11 attacks are moronic some of the things labeled "conspiracy theories" need more investigation. I have always believed that FDR knew more than he admitted about the Pearl Harbor attack. I don't believe that Oswald was the lone shooter in the JFK assassination OR that he even pulled the trigger. I don't believe Vince Foster committed suicide. All "conspiracy theories" are not equal.
Agree completely. Conspiracy theories are not equal. "plots" may be the better word. I have no doubt some plots have escaped detection or have been only partially explained.
e.g. It is reasonable to wonder if there is more to be learned about Oswald, his contacts, and the JFK assassination. Or even about the killing of Lincoln or Napoleon's death on St. Helena.
OTOH it is, IMO, near madness to believe that about twenty Jews have directed the world economy for centuries.
Have to stop now. The Koch boys are on the phone and want me to overthrow Ducey in Arizona. And they want it now!
"FDR knew more than he admitted about the Pearl Harbor attack"
that FDR "knew" about the attack but did nothing to stop it makes no sense in an way an adult would reason. among the many, many cornspiracy theories out there, this is probably the most childish.
if FDR "knew", then the Navy in cooperation with the Dutch and British who developed the signals intelligence also would have "known". that the same admirals who had to fight the coming war would allow the destruction of the ships and aircraft they had to fight it with is an inconceivably stupid assertion.
bureaucratic bottlenecks in intelligence product distribution and false assessments and mistakes resulted in and reinforced the plausible belief that Japanese attacks would only occur throughout the SW Pacific, as indeed they did. That is why war warnings went to the Philippines while Hawaii's intelligence indicated security issues; that is why long range maritime aircraft and heavy bombers were sent to the Philippines and not kept in Hawaii.
if you think about this, for oh, a half second, you'd realize that "discovery" of a Japanese raiding force by long range air patrols while the raiders were out of striking range would be sufficient casus belli without the loss of most of the Pacific Fleet's capital ships. Note well: only routine supply missions and weather kept the carriers out of harm's way on Dec. 7; follow up raids by the Japanese would have resulted in damage an order of magnitude greater with the the probable result that the Pacific Fleet would have had to return to its west coast bases.
the Navy covered up its mistakes and errors in judgment and stymied several congressional inquiries (with the last of the pre PH signals (undecrypted) intercepts not being released until the 1980s), but this is not the same as these lunatic conspiracy theories.
I understand your reflexive need to blame FDR for everything, but there is no plausible evidence that FDR "knew" about the coming raid.
It makes perfect sense and in a way that actually gives FDR "props". I think it is as simple as this: FDR could see what was coming. Germany was taking over Europe and had bigger plans for the rest of the world. Japan clearly had similar plans for Asia and was saber rattling towards the U.S. At the same time the U.S. was anti-involvement. FDR knew that it would take something dramatic to get the U.S. into the fight in time to save Europe and much of Asia and the South Pacific. He assumed that battleships, even at anchor, could survive and even fight of an attack, certainly what he assumed would be a weak attack by Japan some 4000 miles away. He "allowed" the Japanese to think Hawaii would be vulnerable never for a moment thinking that Japan could wipe out the Pacific fleet in a single attack. But to be on the safe side he would move the two very vulnerable aircraft carriers out of the harbor to an unknown location. In my opinion this is exactly what happened and the only reason it isn't well known is FDR was smart enough to limit knowledge of his plan to very few of his aides.
sources or evidence for what FDR believed? your claims are absurd. if anything, FDR, who'd been assistant secretary of the navy, would know that ships at peacetime are not buttoned up with guns manned waiting for sneak attack; also, the Taranto raid involving a successful attack by carrier torpedo planes against battleships in harbor was a year before.
all three carriers were based in Hawaii. two were ferrying fighter aircraft to outlying bases, one was returning from a refit. Enterprise was due in port at the time of the attack but was delayed by weather. she would have been sunk but for weather. the Enterprise and Hornet went searching for the Japanese fleet after the raid, if they had successfully located them and attacked they probably both would have been sunk.
do you actually think FDR controlled the weather or routine orders of single ships? I'm asking because I think you might and because where and why the carriers were out of port is very basic information available anywhere.
i know you're not paid to think, but give it a try.
You are correct that there is no proof. Given what is known there is probably a 50:50 chance that FDR had no information about a possible attack just as there is a 50:50 chance he did have some idea that one could happen. BUT that is exactly what creates the doubt and consequent conspiracy theory. Just as there are supporters who will make claims that favor the theory you are making claims to refute it. Without those conflicting views there would be no conspiracy theory. So you are a part of it but like to believe you are above it all. The bottom line is you don't know but that does not stop you from having an opinion. Well, welcome to the club.
so.. you have no proof. you have no evidence. but there's a 50-50 chance.
because conspiracy k00ks don't need evidence, just a belief. even warmal coldists are more sane.
did FDR control the weather and keep Enterprise out of PH? I noticed you didn't answer the question. too inconvenient? or you just discovered something new in conspiracyland you people haven't accounted for?
Exactly! I have no proof and you have no proof so there is a 50:50 chance that FDR knew or had some intelligence about an attack. There is a large number of people who believe that FDR knew something and although there is no smoking gun it seems likely that he knew something about an attack.
the historical record speaks for itself, and it says your fantasy conspiracy is worth shi'ite.
so, did FDR have weather control as you suggest?
He certainly did.
During WWII, the whole weather programme was run by the Bush family and the Freemasons on behalf of the Zionists and the Vatican.
It still is, only these days they're using chemtrails. Who do you think is behind all this climate change stuff?
"We're through the looking glass here, people!"
- Milhouse Van Houten
If by "the historical record speaks for itself" you are trying to imply that no one, no historian believes FDR knew about a Japanese attack, then you are simply wrong. There are a lot of historians and others who do indeed believe FDR could have done more to save lives and had warning about a pending attack. It is also interesting the numbers of communist within FDR's administration. What are the odds of that happening by pure chance?
As for your question about weather it was childish and imbecilic so I assumed you hadn't thought it through as a real question. Was I wrong? Do you really believe in weather control?
only k00ks think FDR had foreknowledge of the PH raid, and there are plenty of k00ks on the internet who believe in flying saucers based on the same bizarre rationale you use. you haven't even attempted to refute any evidence I offered which destroyed your hidden aircraft carrier fantasy. nor have you offered any evidence of your own.
its completely astonishing that in 2016 someone is unaware that Enterprise missed the raid only because she delayed by weather, this evidence has been available since the 1940s.
so give me the names of the asshatted "historians" who think PH was a plot by FDR.
the real curious thing is what causes you to believe bullshit like this? the real story is far more interesting than this childish crap.
Your exuberance for FDR is exceeded only by your ignorance of the facts about FDR and Pearl Harbor. I don't intend to do your homework for you so if you need to learn more about this event research it yourself. However I will provide a interesting link to a Churchhill book: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/fdrknew.html
one of the quotes:"Churchill wrote in his Nobel Prize winning series on WWII that FDR knew about the Japanese plans to attack Pearl Harbor."
Most people don't think Churchill was a kook or an asshat.
For those who won't bother to follow the link I think this one quote of facts from the link is very interesting: ""A prodigious Congressional Inquiry published its findings in 1946 in which every detail was exposed ofthe events leading up to the war between the United States and Japan and of the failure to send positive "Alert" orders through the military departments to their fleets and garrisons in exposed situations. Every detail, including the decoding of secret Japanese telegrams and their actual texts, has been exposed to the world in forty volumes. The strength of the United States was sufficient to enable them to sustain this hard ordeal required by the spirit of the American Constitution."
It seems that a lot of kooks and asshats testified before congress about the prior knowledge that FDR had about the Pearl Harbor attack and were quite angry that he did not at least warn those people who would take the brunt of that attack. What a bunch of asshats, huh?
Nice selective, third-party, conjecturing fact-finding, Windy.
Not that Donnie can't thumb-rassle that kind of rank partisanship into submission, but wouldn't it be just a little more honest if you stopped relying on somebody else's analysis and ceased transparently conflating the prodding of political events for months beforehand with a specific claim of high treason re: PH?
They're not the same thing. You can say they're the same thing but they're not the same thing. Of course Japan was engaged in what eventually became a world war.
Never interrupt a deeply partisan Republican progressive when he's proudly making a mistake, Donnie. On his planet you can explain the entire universe by specifically limiting your view to not more than half of it.
Maybe it isn't that Liberal-Run Institutions are Such Hotbeds of Racism and Sexism.
But instead that Liberal-Run Institutions are gathering grounds for people who see Racism and Sexism everywhere, even when it doesn't exist. And of course must act on it because they are Liberals.