home

Friday Open Thread: 50 Years Ago Today

It was 50 years ago today that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. Today, the nation still pauses to remember.

One of my favorite JFK memorabilia items: Marilyn Monroe singing "Happy Birthday Mr. President" at Madison Square Garden on May 29, 1962.

The LeRoy Neiman painting of the event is one I had over my fireplace for years. I loved picking out all the politicians in it, from Bobby Kennedy and Ted Kennedy (and Ethel) to Lyndon Johnson and Lady Bird and Mayor Robert Wagner. Check it out below:[More...]

It came with a videocasette of Neiman describing the painting and pointing out who was who. It's one of the few paintings I'm sorry I sold.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< MA Lab Chemist Sentenced to Prison | Saturday College Football OpenThread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 195 (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    Reality bites, dude. Friday edition. (link)

    Vol. 194
    Vol. 193

    Peas and loave, mi amigas y amigos. Have lovely weekends, alla ya's

    Was it an original painting? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    Or a lithograph, serigraph, whatever?

    If it was the original painting, damn, it does suck that you got rid of it. My condolences.

    These two are seriously cute (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:01:23 PM EST
    Celebrating 81 years of marriage

    They look really good!

    And, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    Yet again, more delays.

    Convenient that it extends past the mid-terms.

    The Obama administration is planning to delay ObamaCare's second-year enrollment period until after the 2014 elections.

    The move, which the White House confirmed on Friday afternoon, will help distance the sign-up period from the Nov. 4 midterms, which Democrats fear will become a referendum on ObamaCare's botched rollout.

    It is possible that most consumers will not know their 2015 ObamaCare premiums until after they go to the polls because of the shift in dates.



    This would be (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:36:38 PM EST
    running "from" the record?

    Parent
    Picture this (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    Fingers in ears singing "la, la, la, la!"

    Parent
    Free (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:46:12 PM EST
    associating.

    Sigh. Lol.

    Parent

    OMG (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 01:56:31 PM EST
    I would say that this will actually backfire.  People don't trust them already....

    Parent
    Insurance companies (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    ...will have submitted their rate increases long before then so people CAN find out.  And no doubt, Republicans will help them learn how.  And it will just look like Democrats trying to swindle consumers -- again.  

    Parent
    When have Democrats... (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by unitron on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 06:02:56 PM EST
    ...tried to swindle consumers previously, and what products or services were involved?

    Parent
    Actually, I would also like to know (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 06:23:02 PM EST
    the answer.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 06:54:45 PM EST
    I don't know. Can't come up with anything...hmmm.

    I will say that....If you like your Democratic politicians, you may very well not be able to keep your Democratic politicians come November 2014.  

    Parent

    You seemed to manage... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by unitron on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 03:37:28 AM EST
    ...to come up with the accusation without difficulty.

    If you want to claim that Democrats have swindled the taxpayers, the voters, or the citizens, that's a topic we can explore, but you specifically said consumers, leaving me to wonder if there had been some commercial venture of which I was unaware.

    Parent

    couple (none / 0) (#29)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:01:08 PM EST
    years ago Obama raised everybody's taxes, but didn't change the withholding tables so people didn't notice the increase until after the election when they did their taxes and found out refunds would be smaller or taxes due.

    Parent
    They did tell you (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    that they represent you.

    Or maybe they didn't, but rather like many salesmen they just refrained from correcting their prospects erroneous assumptions...

    Parent

    We live in the worst possible (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 08:50:22 PM EST
    country. Our elected officials are the worst.

     

    Parent

    Better do something about (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 07:40:34 AM EST
    their enablers then...

    Parent
    That must mean (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:32:44 AM EST
    voting for third party candidates as was done very effectively in 2000.

    Parent
    Actually it means (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:35:06 AM EST
    "better do something about their enablers then".

    I know this language thing is complicated, but it gets easier with practice. For most people, anyway.

    Parent

    How about a first or second party (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 11:50:28 AM EST
    candidate who doesn't get down on all fours and put his or her tail between their legs whenever someone from Goldman Sachs walks into the room.

    The yuppie "moderates" in this country should acknowledge some reponsibility for the appeal of Nader in 2000, the way they want to blame Nader for helping Bush get elected.

    Parent

    So challenge Hillary from (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:10:47 PM EST
    the Left in the next primaries....Run Elizabeth Warren.

    But do you really think it was worth to vote for Nader when a President Gore might have avoided 9-11 in the first place--at least I have no doubt he would have paid attention to a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."  And not much doubt that a President Gore  would not have been goaded by his Vice President into invading Iraq.

    For those disappointed in U.S. economic policy, perhaps you should work harder during the Primary Season to address such issues.  

    Parent

    "Working harder" ... (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:16:58 PM EST
    ... doesn't cut it if enough gullible people are predisposed to believing campaign promises - open healthcare hearings, no backroom deals, a public option, allowing importation of cheaper drugs, etc., etc., etc.

    Parent
    "Gullible people" (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:52:56 PM EST
    Blaming the voters...

    Bottom Line:  If Hillary had not ceded the caucus states, she would have won.  Take it up with Mark Penn.

    Parent

    This is funny (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    Complaining of "blaming the voters" immediately after this:

    For those disappointed in U.S. economic policy, perhaps you should work harder during the Primary Season to address such issues.

    Heh.

    Besides, I wasn't blaming all the voters ... just the ones who were gullible enough to buy into all the empty, campaign promises.  If you want to be offended by that, I guess there's a reason ...

    Parent

    The "1" is for personalizing (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:48:15 PM EST
    this discussion right off the bat with an insult.

    You and your cohort routinely start discussions with insults and then complain when the response is predictable.  Fine by me if you want to proceed on that basis, but you guys should not complain....

    Parent

    Who's complaining? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 09:58:25 PM EST
    I'm laughing.

    Parent
    I wanted to (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 10:10:14 PM EST
    give you (and others) an explanation for the "1."

    Parent
    Thank goodness (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 10:15:17 PM EST
    Otherwise, I would've been up all night worrying about the fact that MKS gave me a "1".

    (sob) ...

    Parent

    America (none / 0) (#81)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    does not have 2-round or run-off voting system.

    I will therefore never vote for a 3rd party candidate in a GE.

    Those clamoring for 3rd party candidates can always organize and field candidates of their choice in the primary season.

    3rd parties are hardly a panacea for cleansing politics from the influence of money. Just look at what is happening in the UK. The Liberal Democrats formed a coalition with the Tories to support economic austerity but would not form a coalition with Labor. The multi-party electoral system in Israel has not slowed Israel from moving rightwards in economics and foreign affairs, year after year. Some of the cynical deals between political parties that occur in multo-party electoral systems to retain power, money and coddle egos are more often than not, too ugly to watch.

       

    Parent

    You won't find (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 04:21:23 PM EST
    too many people here far right wing nutty enough to think that Warren or anyone else who supports AIPAC and wants to bomb Iran can in any way be considered left, except maybe obots and anyone who would have voted for McCain.

    Parent
    I am quite sure (none / 0) (#83)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 04:34:53 PM EST
    that Warren does not want to bomb Iran, neither does BHO or Kerry.

    If the leadership in the Democratic Party wanted to bomb Iran they would never initiate negotiations with the leadership in that country. The negotiations involve considerable political risks.

    OK, we get it. Elizabeth Warren cannot be considered lefty enough for you. Why don't you find the candidate of your choice and have that candidate enter the Democratic nomination fray?

    Parent

    If you do not accept Warren (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 04:55:12 PM EST
    as Left or Progressive, you are not seeing reality clearly and no one will believe you.

    Parent
    Lol. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Edger on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:17:47 PM EST
    Oh, it's pretty clear. Thanks for clarifying. ;-)

    Parent
    More Drug War Nasty... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 03:22:41 PM EST
    Krokodil is starting to pop up in the US, and for those that ain't familar the sh*t is nasty beyond belief.  It's even led to an Ohio sheriff to plead with addicts to buy their heroin from a trusted source.

    I wish we'd legalize so addicts could buy from a trusted source like a pharmacy, but we ain't that smart.  So expect to hear more about Krokodil in the future...it's been big in Russia and Eastern Europe for awhile.  Makes "Faces of Meth" look like a beauty contest.

    You can watch (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 03:37:17 PM EST
    a livestream of CBS News' coverage of the entire weekend here.

    Thanks for the tip (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 05:28:35 PM EST
    I was just talking at a lunch today how I remember the first time we got a color television.

    Parent
    Lincoln and Obama (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 06:57:20 PM EST
    and the South's lost causes. link

    JFK assassination (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:13:47 PM EST
    I think I was in first grade and home watching TV, but 50 years and something like this how can you pick out the real memories? I remember the feeling of how could this happened, despair, but also the feeling that this was random and rare, that it would never happen again. Very sad, but not threatened.

    Bobby Kennedy was the more soul crushing event. The feeling was that we would not be allowed to pick the leaders we wanted, that powers existed to kill anyone they wanted out of the way. A decade later I worked with a company in that hotel and walked the same path in and out each time, creepy.

    10K a day (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:58:07 PM EST
    are signing for Obamacare in California.
    CNN

    From what I read today (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 09:02:33 PM EST
    The California numbers translate into @200,000 enrollees (the number doubled in the first two weeks of November.)  The significance in that number is that California is seen as the harbinger of the national program ... oh, and the percentage of young people signing up was over 21 percent.  Things seem to be moving in the right direction.

    Parent
    Paul Krugman has an article (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:45:57 AM EST
    in today's N.Y. Times showing how well the system works when you have a dedicated Governor, and, an intelligent, competent group of I.T. people.

    "....enrollment is surging. At this point, more than 10,000 applications are being completed per day, putting the state well on track to meet its overall targets for 2014 coverage.....Equally important is the information on who is enrolling....in October, 22.5 percent of California enrollees were between the ages of 18 and 34, slightly above that group's share of the population."

    Now, why Obama isn't pounding the podium, and pointing to California as an example of what a successful program this can be when you have everyone, from the Governor on down, cooperating is beyond me. Unfortunately, marketing & promotion of policies, instead of elections, has never been his strong suit.

    Parent

    And Vermont is using (none / 0) (#173)
    by Politalkix on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 08:12:00 PM EST
    a provision in the ACA to go for single payer.
    The ACA gives states the flexibility to design healthcare systems in ways that meet the needs of its people instead of pushing for a one size fits all approach.  

    Parent
    That 21% (none / 0) (#49)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 07:29:57 AM EST
    is equal to the percentage of people in that age group in the state.

    56% of health plan enrollees were 45 to 64, even though that age group represents only a quarter of the state's population.

    Parent

    What is the objective here? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:18:56 AM EST
    That those who need health care will have access to it at affordable prices, isn't it. It is only natural that the 45-64 age group will need health care more than younger people. It seems that a lot of people who were in the 45-64 age group did not have access to health care but will now get it through the ACA. How this positive development comes out as a negative for you will remain a mystery to me.

    The article also mentioned that the non English speaking demographics in the state has been harder to reach. That will get corrected in the coming months as word spreads about the ACA. A high percentage of younger people in California are Hispanics. So I expect the percentage of younger people signing up to rise in the future as word spreads about the ACA.

    Parent

    The objective (2.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:46:30 AM EST
    .

    The objective is overcharge groups outside the dependent constituency to subsidize members inside the dependent constituency.  As but one example, there is a very substantial marriage penalty. Married women tend to vote R and single women tend to vote D.  

    The political problem is that far too many people are discovering that they are the suckers being over charged.

    .

    Parent

    Interesting that you would ... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:03:10 PM EST
    ... single out (pun intended) unmarried women as a "dependent class".

    Married women tend to vote R and single women tend to vote D.

    They do?!?  Not in 2009, when according to Gallup Democratic married women outnumbered Republican married women by 4%.  Or in 2012 when Democrats outnumbered them by 3%.

    Parent

    Dependents (none / 0) (#57)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:57:17 AM EST
    Aren't married women who do not work to earn a salary also officially listed as "dependents"?

    Single women, who do not have kids also have to pay taxes for the education of children of "dependent", married women. Are you also going to complain about that?  

    Parent

    This has nothing to do (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 11:34:43 AM EST
    .

    This has nothing to do with women or children being tax code dependents.  A dependent constituency is a class of people that depend on the political class to transfer wealth or privileges to them at the expense of others.  Obamaphones are another example.

    .

    .

    Parent

    Another shining example (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 11:49:00 AM EST
    of someone that believes anything they hear. Here is your "Obamaphone"

    The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the Obama administration.


    Parent
    The point remains (none / 0) (#178)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 09:21:58 AM EST
    .

    Obamaphones as they colloquially known is an example of a dependent constituency provided with goods and/or services at the expense of others.  It matters nary when the program started.

    .

    Parent

    Then if it doesn't matter (none / 0) (#183)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 03:33:48 PM EST
    maybe you need to start complaining about Bushphones.

    Parent
    More wingnut lies (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 11:52:27 AM EST
    A dependent constituency is a class of people that depend on the political class to transfer wealth or privileges to them at the expense of others.  Obamaphones are another example.

    In reality, the Safelink program (free cell phones) was started under President Bush, so I guess you'll need to refer to them as "Bushphones".

    It's amazing how easily - and often - you people are duped into believing and promoting these silly lies.

    BTW - It's good to hear that you and Mrs. Abdul will be refusing your SS and Medicare benefits once you've matched your contribution level, so you won't be a member of a "dependant constituency".

    Heh.

    Parent

    In that case (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 11:54:34 AM EST
    The "dependent constituency" is mostly governments (or the political class) of Red States. link

    Parent
    Dependents for insurance purposes, though (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Towanda on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 09:23:42 PM EST
    is another matter -- and more relevant to this topic, no?  Married women are more likely to be able to be covered under spouses' family insurance plans, since single women don't have, well, spouses.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    CNN analysis: No Obamacare subsidy for some low-income Americans

    One of the basic tenets of Obamacare is that the government will help lower-income Americans -- anyone making less than about $45,900 a year -- pay for the health insurance everyone is now mandated to have.

    But a CNN analysis shows that in the largest city in nearly every state, many low-income younger Americans won't get any subsidy at all. Administration officials said the reason so many Americans won't receive a subsidy is that the cost of insurance is lower than the government initially expected. Subsidies are calculated using a complicated formula based on the cost of insurance premiums, which can vary drastically from state to state, and even county to county.

    That doesn't change the fact that in Chicago, a 27-year old will receive no subsidy to help offset premiums of more than $165 a month if he makes more than $27,400 a year.

    In Portland, Oregon, subsidies for individuals making just $28,725 a year phase out for those younger than 35 years old.

    SNIP

    But no matter where a person lives, premiums increase based on a customer's age, meaning this problem will disproportionately affect younger customers. Two exceptions are in New York and Vermont, where state laws require insurance companies to charge younger customers the same as older customers.

    "There's a lot of interest in getting young people to enroll in coverage because that helps bring down the average cost," Cox said, but these younger, healthier consumers might stay out of the exchange it they "don't have subsidies to incentivize them to enroll."



    Parent
    Maybe... (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:55:35 PM EST
    Subsidies are calculated using a complicated formula based on the cost of insurance premiums, which can vary drastically from state to state, and even county to county.

    ...they need to include the cost of living into their complicated formula.  The rates may be lower in big cities, but for the most part, everything else is more expensive.  I can't imagine trying to live on $50k in LA, whereas $50k in my little home town in Wisconsin would make for some comfortable living.

    Parent

    I just did the calculations (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:38:23 PM EST
    For DC. $50K.

    $0 subsidy for a 25 year old with no kids and no tobacco use.  Premium would be $2166 / year.

    At $50K, you're probably bringing home about $35K. $2166 is about 6.2% of your total net.

    Add to that the very high cost of living here (plus let's throw in student loans and some credit card debt), an you can see it doesn't go far.

    So, I completely agree - location does matter and somehow they should account for that.

    Parent

    I was (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Zorba on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:59:50 PM EST
    15 years old, a Sophomore in high school, in Algebra II class.  The principal came on the PA and announced the assassination.  All of the girls in the class, and some of the boys, burst into tears.

    The Senate looks to be very busy going forward (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:27:51 AM EST
    I had no idea of how many nominees were waiting to get a vote in the Senate. According to the Washington Post, 186 executive nominees and 50 judicial nominees are awaiting a confirmation vote now that the blockade has been dismantled

    I was 25 and in Naval Aviation and spent (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 09:34:15 PM EST
    several edgy days convinced that we would be at war. It sounds silly now but a great deal of the waiting time was spent in self analysis and accepting the fact that I most likely would not survive.

    It took me a few more years to fully understand that JFK was not a great president.

    JFK was elected based on hope and change. Many had feared that he would be under control of the Pope and try to establish the Catholic Church as a state religion. So he proclaimed that he wouldn't do that in a famous speech and he went on to win although many believed he was elected by dead people voting in Chicago.

    He wasn't successful as a President. He failed to keep our promise to the Cubans who were trying to overthrow Castro and by withholding air support he let many brave Cubans die on the beaches and swamps.

    Like Obama he felt that he would win any debate/argument with anyone. Although he was advised not to, he met with Khrushchev. Khrushchev thought him weak and immature and decided that he could, as Castro was requesting, install missiles in Cuba that would prevent us from countering any move the Soviets made.

    At worst, if we forced them to not be installed, Khrushchev knew that he could trade them for us removing missiles aimed at the Soviet Union that were installed in Turkey.

    Khrushchev acted and we went to the brink of nuclear war. The Soviet ships turned around. Our missiles were removed and Cuba was seen to be completely under Soviet protection.

    The press, carrying water for Kennedy as they have for Obama's many mistakes, declared it a great victory.

    Instead it was a resounding defeat.

    Kennedy knew that the Soviets now viewed him as weak. To bolster his image he started the escalation of troops to South Vietnam and allowed the CIA to arrange for the killing of the South's leader because he didn't meet our view of how South Vietnam should be run. We all know how that turned out.

    But the country was not impressed with him. Way too much pomp and way to much "King and Queen" was seen.

    His popularity was low, even in LBJ's home state of Texas. His trip there was to bolster support for the 1964 elections.

    He was murdered by a communist. The Left has never been able to accept that so we have had 20 years of them trying to claim he was killed by the "Right." Any number of wild theories have been spun and presented.

    And while Kennedy may have been for civil rights it was Johnson, a man that was disliked by Kennedy and all of the inner circle, who passed the Civil Rights act. To do so Johnson was supported by the Republican party and a few Democrats.

    I know all of that to be true. I lived it. I voted for Kennedy in '60 but would not have in '64. As I noted above, there was too much of "King and Queen" around him and his wife.

    Never the less his death broke my heart and finished what little belief I had left that we would automatically win because our system was the best.

    It's been a long grind since then with some losses and some victories. But I confess that I see us now facing greater internal and external threats than I could have imagined then.

    The most chilling thing (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:49:49 PM EST
    I have heard is Lemay's taunt of JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis that JFK was in fix.   At one point LeMay says "you're in quite a fix, sir." Kennedy replies, "what?" LeMay: "I said you're in quite a fix." And Kennedy replies, "Well, you're right there with me..."

    JFK resisted the military establishment's desire to nuke the Soviets, while we still had nuclear superiority.

    The rest of your JFK analysis is a series of right wing talking points....Republicans and a "few" Democrats supported Civil Rights....interesting rewrite.   Goldwater would disagree.

    Parent

    No, it's not an "interesting rewrite." (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:49:06 AM EST
    Rather, it's complete partisan revisionism of the historical record and nothing but a bunch of bull$H!+. See my comment below (#41).

    Parent
    These (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    are the "official" talking points for the GOP now. Apparently they are too embarrassed by their history or realize how pandering to segregationists is no longer popular. They always neglect to say that people like Strom Thurmond who vehemently opposed Civil Rights to the point of filibustering the bill numerous time and even ran on a platform of lynching African Americans BECAME A REPUBLICAN in 1964. Jesse Helms a Strom clone became a Republican in 1968. The list of Dixiecrat segregationists who joined the GOP   is quite long. Even Ronald Reagan was pandering those these same southern segregationists back in 1980. Just keep telling the truth about the GOP as Harry Truman said. The GOP really doesn't want you telling the truth about them as Jim's post shows.

    Parent
    Excuse me, My bad. It's #42. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:50:05 AM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    "A few Democrats"? Uh, not quite. (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:41:57 AM EST
    Jim: "And while Kennedy may have been for civil rights it was Johnson, a man that was disliked by Kennedy and all of the inner circle, who passed the Civil Rights act. To do so Johnson was supported by the Republican party and a few Democrats."

    While it is true that 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while 65% of Democrats did, that doesn't come close to telling the whole story. You misrepresent the both the historical and the congressional records when you state categorically that "Johnson was supported by the Republican party and a few Democrats".

    Because if you had bothered to break down and actually examine the vote, you would have noticed that the final congressional votes on the Civil Rights Act broke obviously and very distinctly upon regional lines, and not by political party. Not that you'll bother to read any further, but I'll explain it anyway in case others are interested.

    In 1959, Congress agreed to temporarily add two seats to the 435-member U.S. House to account for the admission of Alaska and Hawaii that year. In 1964, the Democrats controlled the House by a 262-172 margin, with three vacancies, and the Senate by a 67-33 margin.

    When you actually examine the final congressional tallies for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it initially breaks down per the following:

    • 19 House members were either absent or abstained from the vote that day, 15 Democrats and 4 Republicans.

    • In the House, the Act passed by a 289-126 margin. 153 Democrats voted in favor, joined by 136 Republicans. 91 Democrats and 35 Republicans voted no.

    • In the Senate, the Act passed by a 73-25 margin, with two members absent. 46 Democrats voted "aye," joined by 27 Republicans. 19 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted "nay."

    However, upon closer examination by region, i.e., the states comprising the former Confederacy, and those states and territories which remained loyal to the Union, we'd note the following:

    • 281 of the 313 House members (90%) and 72 of 78 (92%) Senators who represented northern and western states voted for the measure.

    • 94 of the 102 Representatives (92%) and 21 of the 22 Senators (95%) who represented the states comprising the former Confederacy voted against the measure.

    Further, when we examine that vote down by both party and region, we see the following:

    HOUSE

    • 144 of 152 House Democrats (95%) from northern and western states voted in favor.

    • 137 of 161 House Republicans (85%) representing northern and western states voted in favor.

    • 83 of 91 House Democrats (91%) representing districts in the old Confederacy voted against the measure.

    • All 11 House Republicans (100%) representing  districts in the old Confederacy voted against the measure.

    SENATE
    • 45 of 46 Democratic Senators (98%) representing northern and western states voted in favor.

    • 27 of 33 Republican Senators (84%) representing northern and western states voted in favor.

    • 21 of 22 Democratic Senators (95%) representing the states of the old Confederacy voted against the measure, joined by the lone Republican Senator from the region.

    Therefore, in conclusion, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80 pt. difference between regions is far greater than the aforementioned 15 pt. difference between the two parties.

    On this day of all days, a time of remembrance and reflection, I would have hoped that you'd have the common decency to forgo your partisan BS for one day at least. Alas, I apparently expected too much.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    "A few Democrats" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 07:15:34 AM EST
    Johnson was supported by the Republican party and a few Democrats

    This silly lie was disposed of by Donald.  But - like you - the Dixiecrats who opposed the CRA are today's southern Republicans.

    He was murdered by a communist.

    Oswald was a nutjob and a loner who denied he was a communist and called himself a Marxist instead.  All of which is irrelevant.  You might as well say murdered by a Marine (was he "in naval aviation?").

     But this - "...he went on to win although many believed he was elected by dead people voting in Chicago."

    followed by this - "Any number of wild theories have been spun and presented."

    ... was pretty amusing.

    Parent

    Whatever words, whatever suppositions, (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 09:30:27 AM EST
    whatever discussions or arguments, whatever theories ... the number of words about JFK's role, reality, rhetoric will never really be counted.  And, there is a reason for that; a reason that has to do with the overall, non-quantifiable measure.

    He inspired a nation in his own lifetime.  That reality for many, many in this country cannot be sought or bought.  History happens that way ... where the man transforms into a symbol that survives time.  Who knows from whence the inspiration philosophically started, whether from the man or the people.  Surely, his martyrdom embellished and sealed it.

    All I know is that yesterday and this week reminded me how vivid our memories and related sense of loss can be; and, I know that President John Fitzgerald Kennedy inspired me.

    Parent

    et al redux (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 11:00:55 AM EST
    I see the truth stirs people up. Let's start with Yman.

    This silly lie was disposed of by Donald.  But - like you - the Dixiecrats who opposed the CRA are today's southern Republicans.

    Okay, guess that explains all these black sheriff's, mayors, police and representatives. (Sarcasm alert)

    He was murdered by a communist.

    Oswald was a nutjob and a loner who denied he was a communist and called himself a Marxist instead.  All of which is irrelevant. You might as well say murdered by a Marine (was he "in naval aviation?")

    Let me see, he went to the Soviet Union and tried to become a citizen.  Must have been a displaced Democrat.

    And lots of Marines were murdered by the treasonous actions of the people who supported North Vietnam by protesting against our involvement in Kennedy and Johnson's war. That the  protesters may have not wanted them dead does not let them rise and return to the land of the living.

    BTW - Your sneer about "Naval Aviation" displays your ill concealed embarrassment at never being able to say you actually served your country.

    "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
    For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
    Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
    This day shall gentle his condition;
    And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

    William Shakespeare

    Okay Donald, only 65% of the Democrats voted against.

    (Republicans) ...Apparently they are too embarrassed by their history..

    Yeah Ga, they hide their faces whenever anyone mentions Lincoln and the Civil War. And then we have that well known Republican and ex KKK member, Robert Byrd. (Sarcasm alert)

    He inspired a nation in his own lifetime.  That reality for many, many in this country cannot be sought or bought.  History happens that way ... where the man transforms into a symbol that survives time.  Who knows from whence the inspiration philosophically started, whether from the man or the people.  Surely, his martyrdom embellished and sealed it.

    Chirstinep .... Partially true. He became a legend after his death. He was not particularly popular before he was murdered by a communist.

    And he had not accomplished very much in his first three years. The three things that define him are the failure to support the Cuban rebels, the self induced Cuban missile crisis and subsequent failure and the expansion of the war in South Vietnam.

    But the real bad that Kennedy did was that he created the "Cult of Personality" that was expanded and enhanced into Obama as God.

    "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."

    William Shakespeare


    Parent

    JFK will forever (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    be remembered for avoiding nuclear war.  In spite of the conservatives' desire to launch a first strike against the Soviets.  In spite of the sneering LeMay and others trying to goad him into a full scale war.

    Listening to the audiotapes gives one a true appreciation of how composed JFK was under the most extreme pressure imaginable.

    Parent

    Jim, it was the racist South (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:14:25 PM EST
    that opposed Civil Rights.

    Racist Southern Democrats ended up switching parties.  That was Nixon's Southern Strategy practiced so well by others for a generation including Lee Atwater.  Still extant.

    Parent

    et al and such (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 04:57:53 PM EST
    MKS,  you'd be more accurate if you actually were capable of understanding that racism thrived in Detroit, Chicago, Boston, LA and many other large cities.

    Instead you want to focus on a region while ignoring the rest. Juvenile and narrow minded at best.

    Did he avoid nuclear war? Yes, he did so AFTER being out maneuvered by Khrushchev. Had he kept our word to the Cubans and/or not met with Khrushchev he would not have had the opportunity to trade away our missiles in Turkey and become a hero in the mind of the Left.

    "Because despite all your words, the slant and your perspective result from your feelings about the man. "

    Christinep, remember I voted for him. I admire his bravery and his positions on civil rights. But facts are facts. His ego forced him to meeting with Khrushchev. And like Obama thinking he could apologize and all the radical Muslims would become our friends Kennedy's problems started there.

    ".. for civil rights, peace corps, his optimism, for presiding over the golden age of science and technology in America, for American leadership in space exploration and for inspiring future generations of leaders."

    Ah yes, we went to the moon but didn't stay. Our golden age of science and technology was transferred out of the country and I haven't seen an actual leader since Eisenhower.

    And no, Politalkix , I am  not in anyone's "church." I am a Social Liberal who has lived long enough to know  that you should worship no man.

    Try that sometimes. It'll help keep your head straight.

    "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
    I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
    The evil that men do lives after them;
    The good is oft interred with their bones;"

    William S knew some things.


    Parent

    You do understand (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    the irony in Antony's speech?  

    Parent
    It wasn't racists from (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    the North that perpetuated slavery and Jim Crow.  

    The South will have to come to terms with its despicable ideology and conduct that pervades its politics for over a hundred years.  Jefferson Davis, KKK, Jim Crow, Segregation, Strom Thurmond, whom Trent Lott praised not too long ago, Jesse Helms, Lee Atwater and now Birthers and Tea Partiers.....

    Parent

    Oh really?? (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:47:23 AM EST
    The North has had no racists?? Have you ever heard of Boston? Detroit? Chicago? LA??????

    The Civil War is long over and the South has moved on.

    As for the wild claims, I give you

    the lynching of Justice Thomas.

    The video has some wild very racist claims.

    Aren't you ashamed??

    Parent

    The South has moved on.. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:33:36 AM EST
    That explains all those "Hell No! We Ain't Forgot"
    bumperstickers you still see in the Deep South.

    And they'd probably be even more resentful down there if the authorities had actually made an honest effort to round up and prosecute all the church bombers, snipers, kidnappers, and lynchers from the Civil Rights era..

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by sj on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:38:11 PM EST
    The South has moved on.. (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:33:36 AM MDT

    That explains all those "Hell No! We Ain't Forgot" bumperstickers you still see in the Deep South.

    That's also why so many in the south still call the Civil War the "War of Northern Aggression". And why forced convicted inmate labor is still commonplace.

    Parent
    Jondee, like Yman (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    doesn't seem to understand that the Civil Rights Era was  50 plus years ago.

    Hey guys! Come on up from your basements. The weather's fine!

    Parent

    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:56:58 PM EST
    is that people in the south are still angry about the civil rights area much like they're still angry about the civil war. Time to get the boulder off your shoulder Jim.

    Parent
    How would you know? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:44:58 PM EST
    Did you finally climb out out that LazyBoy, Mr. Armchair Warrior?

    BTW - Just for you, Jim ...

    Map that shows how racism is concentrated in areas of the South that had most slavery - The majority of America's racists live where slavery was most common a new study has revealed.

    Parent

    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    One person screaming about Clarence Thomas somehow equals millions of people supporting slavery and still supporting to this day segregation? No one said there were not racists in other parts of the country and there sure are but people in the south like to ignore the sheer number of racists in the south and point to the existence of racists in other parts of the country to excuse their own racism.

    I really wish the south had moved on past the civil war but you know that's not true. People in the south continue to make up stories about how African Americans were better off in slavery and you hear it all the time in the discussions here in GA. NY didn't elect Saxby Chambliss to the senate. IL didn't elect Strom Thurmond to the senate. PA didn't elect Jesse Helms to the senate did they? Until people start taking responsibility for that kind of stuff and changing their ways the south is going to be left behind. You're not helping Jim. You're enabling those people. Being in denial of the problems is what has held the south behind the rest of the country. You can't solve a problem unless you acknowledge there is one.

    Parent

    One person? (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:10:57 PM EST
    hahahahaahahahahahaha

    You need to quit fibbing, or else admit you didn't watch the video.

    What you really need to do is recognize that racism exists throughout society. The South has elected mayors, governors, state and federal reps along with sheriffs, school boards, etc.

    Or did you miss Memphis, New Orleans, Atlanta????

    I think your claims are a smell coming from your upper lip. You disagree with Republicans so all Republicans must be racists.

    That goes beyond silly and is easily refutable, as I just did above.

    The country elected a self identified black man as President. Millions of us hoped he would bring what he promised yet when he ran to Egypt and apologized for things we had not done we recognized him for what he is and opposed his POLICIES.

    Yet you, and others, continue to worship him even though his economic policies have failed and now his foreign policy has culminated into letting Iran make nuclear weapons. (Note the plural.)

    So keep on making vacuous claims while your side yell for the lynching of Justice Thomas, placed on the court by Republicans, and recommend people defecate on Palin.

    My my, what examples of calm and reason you are.  

    Parent

    "A self-identified black man" (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:36:47 PM EST
    Uh-oh. Cover blown!

    Parent
    What, Obama didn't self identify?? (none / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    The things I do learn.

    Parent
    That (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:56:06 PM EST
    video is stupid. You think that proves something? Let's see you've got one video vs. MILLIONS of people who you support voting for Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Saxby Chambliss.

    Did Strom run for office on lynching people?
    Was Strom an avowed segregationist?
    Was Strom a racist?
    Was elected for decades as a senator?
    I bet you will refuse to answer those questions.

    Where did I say all Republicans are racists? I did not. YOU are the one saying REPUBLICANS are racists not me. I guess that must be a Freudian slip on your part. I named three senators that are avowed racists who are current or recent senators two of which were elected to office for DECADES as REPUBLICANS. The GOP sat silent on people like Helms and Thurmond even to the point of praising the jokers.

    I live outside Atlanta. Certainly things have changed but the attitudes still exist just not to the extent they did previously. I was in the doctor's office the other day and one of your fellow political travelers was talking about how Obama could not be an American and how he had to be from Kenya. Look at the polls on that subject for Republicans in the south. It's amazingly high.

    Yes, the COUNTRY elected a black man but your state and my state did not vote for him did they? Nor did most of the old confederacy.

    If you think I worship Obama you have truly jumped the shark into crazy land. I really don't think you even read what I have said or you wouldn't make such a stupid comment.

    Your statement on Iran says exactly why no one wants the GOP to control foreign policy. That sounds like something that would come directly out of crackpot Dick Cheney's mouth. The GOP wants another ground war with Iran and that's the reason they are screaming about Iran being nuclear.  And actually if you had read the news recently you would not even be making such a ignorant statement.

    Oh, you want to tit for tat on statements. I think Rush Limbaugh has everybody beat and what about your person that advocated Hillary Clinton be murdered? And the tea partiers who are all advocating for the murder of Obama almost daily? And when faced with the facts you then come back with "both sides do it". you can't have it both ways Jim. Apparently it's okay for tea partiers to advocate for murdering the SOS and the president. You don't have a problems with that.

    And these people advocating for murder are basing their calls on conspiracy theories too boot.


    Parent

    Of COURSE there are racists ... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:37:18 PM EST
    ... in the north - no one claimed otherwise.

    The difference is that - in the good old South - it's accepted and even institutionalized.

    Parent

    The truth and nothing but the truth (none / 0) (#62)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 11:31:53 AM EST
    Jim says.."And he had not accomplished very much in his first three years. The three things that define him are the failure to support the Cuban rebels, the self induced Cuban missile crisis and subsequent failure and the expansion of the war in South Vietnam."

    Poor Jim. Totally lost like a 5 year old in the woods.
    We remember JFK for civil rights, peace corps, his optimism, for presiding over the golden age of science and technology in America, for American leadership in space exploration and for inspiring future generations of leaders.

    link

    And Jim says "But the real bad that Kennedy did was that he created the "Cult of Personality" that was expanded and enhanced into Obama as God."

    Are you not part of the devout flock in the Church of St Ronnie?

    Parent

    Probably more like St Barry (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    and a few years later, St George from the great state of Alabama..

    Parent
    So sorry that you feel that way, jim (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 11:40:38 AM EST
    Because despite all your words, the slant and your perspective result from your feelings about the man.  

    BTW, indeed, I recognize that JFK had his detractors ... most notably in the South and among those who had a strong religious antipathy regarding him.  And, yes too, we all get that there can be downsides to focusing only on personality. But -- you miss that JFK's personality and the attendant attitude of hope that his Presidency conveyed were bound together by the clarity of his call to public service.  His challenge to everyone was both personal and community inspired ... be your best through fitness, give of yourself to help the less fortunate (see Peace Corps), contribute to your community and company through service (and ..."ask not..."), and, move together in the most challenging way to overcome any obstacle (even the frontier of space.)  

    It may have to do with our surroundings, the people in those surrounding, and what we seek to find.  What I experienced and saw--and those with whom I talked, then and now--shows a very different perspective on the man than the one that you describe.  That is why the loss was felt/experienced so greatly then and remembered 50 years later ... not only the horror of assassination, but the loss of the individual that most of the nation felt very good, very hopeful about as his presidency took root.

    Parent

    The Cult of Personality (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    is as old as Tippecanoe And Tyler Too..

    Parent
    Angels on pinheads (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    Where a strong person starts or a personality cult begins can become circular quite quickly.  In many cases, "eye of the beholder" and "we see what we want to see."  History is crowded with all manner of strong or supposedly larger-than-life persona.  

    I don't think that we will be treated to "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" (well, maybe George the Father will reprise it one more time.)

    Parent

    The John Steinbeck theory (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    of leadership.

    In the Log from the Sea of Cortez, Steinbeck compares leaders to amoebas.   And more specifically to the foot or portion of the amoeba that appears to be leading or ahead of the rest of the amoeba as it moves.  But in reality, the leading edge of the amoeba just happened to be where the rest of the amoeba wanted to go.  The leading edge of an amoeba is being pushed by rather than leading the rest of the amoeba.  So much for the Great Man theory of history.

    Parent

    Joseph Milteer, one of your (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    Bircher-Right soul brothers, was taped by an undercover FBI agent saying that Kennedy would be shot with a high powered rifle from an open window..

    And the Cold War jihadist element of the joint chiefs had already treasonously proposed that terrorist attacks be staged in order to get the U.S populace behind the idea of a declaration of war against Cuba..

    Who was putting up those Wanted For Treason posters in Dallas? The Left, or was it the 1963 precursors to the Teabaggers?

    Parent

    jondee, your outrageous attacks have become (1.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    ever more nasty and aggressive.

    And speaking of buds, do the ghosts of all the American soldiers who died because of you and your buds support for the communists in North Vietnam show up at the foot of your bed at night??

    Parent

    Do they show up at yours ... (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:20:31 PM EST
    ... along with all the people who died in Iraq - since you supported both of these pointless wars from the comfort of your LaZ-Boy?

    Parent
    George McGovern (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:36:00 PM EST
    opposed the War in Vietnam.  He was a bonfide War Hero....Recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross.

    The casualty rate for the Army Air Corps in Europe was horrendous.

    On your side, we have Ronald Reagan who made war movies.  And you have John Wayne who avoided service during WWII altogether, and, according to his wife Pilar, spent the next decades guiltily trying to live that down as many other Hollywood stars volunteered and faced combat.  John Wayne thus was a tough guy in the movies because he wasn't in real life.

    Your version of support for North Vietnam is a relic of McCarthyism.

    Parent

    I have long admired McGovern's (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:07:34 PM EST
    war record.

    Unlike you I can accept the fact that people can do good yet be on the wrong side politically.

    It is called being am adult.

    Try it sometime.

    Parent

    And yet ... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:18:59 PM EST
    ... you blame the deaths of American soldiers on those who - like McGovern - opposed the war, as compared to those of you who cheered or war from the comfort of your LaZ-Boys.

    Parent
    Both McGovern and (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:23:23 AM EST
    our troops were fighting a just war.

    My Laz-boy???

    I served 10 years in Naval Aviation while you hid under your bed.

    You can't escape that fact.

    How does it feel to know that others have died so you can be free??

    Do you have no shame??

    Parent

    Shame.. (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    when is the shame going to kick in for tossing your lot in with the Nixonian dirty tricksters and smearing John Kerry's service?

    All because he had the guts to go where you didn't and then come back and tell the truth about it.

    Parent

    Now jondee (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:17:39 PM EST
    don't lie.

    My comments about Kerry was always that I honored his service but found his post service actions despicable.

    And you know that. So I repeat. Don't lie.

    As for Nixxonian....

    "If you want to keep your insurance you can keep it. Period."

    "Your premiums will go down."

    hahaahahahahahahaaha

    Parent

    Saying "I honor his service" (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 07:12:42 AM EST
    before linking to a Swiftboater site is like shaking hands with someone before you knee them in the groin..

    "jondee's lies". Pretty pathetic, Jim. Pretty pathetic. Obviously on some level, you're ashamed of what you did and are now trying to cover your ass.

    What was that about really? Did the Heritage Foundation send you a dollar every time you posted one of those links?

    Parent

    Yep - your Laz-Boy (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:49:15 PM EST
    Not to mention the fact that I wasn't "hiding under my bed" - I was sleeping in my crib.

    How does it feel to know that others have died so that you could get cheaper gas in order to have more money to play poker?

    Parent

    Who did you actually fight (none / 0) (#103)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    on "St Crispin's Day", Jim? I keep forgetting..

    You happy few: you, Cheney, Rush, Newt..,

    Parent

    I speak not for them but for me (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:05:08 PM EST
    I went. I served.

    You stayed and whined.

    Parent

    You "served"? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:20:56 PM EST
    Many of us have "served" (in various capacities).

    Did you actually put your money where your mouth is and fight?

    (No need to answer, Jim - it's rhetorical.  Given all your dancing around this question, the answer is obvious).

    Parent

    I served 10 years (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:25:01 AM EST
    in Naval Aviation.

    You did not serve.

    You hid under the bed.

    Dance around that, dear Yman. And think of all who died so you can be free.

    Parent

    My Dad readily (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:35:13 PM EST
    volunteers that he never served in combat and has little fruit salad.  I knew that when I was a kid.

    I have learned more recently he did save that kid from Seattle who had been hit and was bleeding profusely and took him off the battlefield while under fire.

    He had surprise TDY with Special Forces and was jumping out of helicopters on live missions--but that didn't count because he was just a communications trouble shooter.

    He did leave the jeep he was driving to take a trip to the outhouse and came back to find it hit by enemy fire.

    And so forth and so on.....

    I have told him he should have a CIB, and said I would take a run at it (I got my cousin a belated Bronze Star he was entitled to), and he thinks the idea funny.

    Pops has no problem saying he never fought.      

    Parent

    Did you ever notice ... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:53:36 PM EST
    ... that the guys who get completely decked out in their ex-military gear and act the most self-righteous are the same ones who manned a supply desk in a rear area - or pull strings to get a cushy slot in a Champagne Squadron?

    Somehow, your comments ("I served 10 years in naval aviation!") always remind me of that.

    Parent

    And then you (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 02:49:59 PM EST
    came back and waved purple Bandaids at other men who served. Because General Roger Ailes ordered you to.

    Class and dignified behavior isn't something they necessarily teach in the military..

    Parent

    Jondee, like Yman (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:26:22 AM EST
    you didn't serve.

    You hid under the bed with Yman.

    Was it crowded under there??

    lol

    Parent

    I Served... (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    ...and for the 100th time, what did you do and where where you stationed ?  I know, what makes me think a man who so freely uses his service to slam others, but won't give any actual details, would be compelled to answer today.  You refusal to answer is standard operating procedure for R's who shuffled papers in Omaha, they want people to know they served but not what they actually did.

    A better question might be, did you ever receive hazardous duty, combat duty, or not been required to pay income taxes in those 10 years ?  

    I can answer yes to all three, how about you ?

    Parent

    i'm (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    willing to bet you are right. He had some sort of TANG type service but he like Bush wants to make fun of those people that actually got shot at and still have shrapnel left in their body.

    Parent
    I am not commenting on me (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    but I will point that many National Guard Units served in Vietnam.

    And when Bush joined he had no way of knowing if his unit would go.

    Why you seek to dishonor those people only you know.

    But I can make a good guess.

    Parent

    Everybody I know who served in the military (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:52:58 PM EST
    during the Vietnam war has been pretty forthcoming with me about where they were, when they were there, and what they did, whether they were in combat or not.

    So maybe it's because we don't know you personally that you're so secretive about it. The problem for you Jim, is that you are the one who is constantly bringing up your "service" and using it as a way to elevate yourself in comparison to others who didn't go into the military. And, even with Scott, who served in combat in Vietnam, you're refusing to elucidate on your claims. Makes you look like a fibber, Jim. And it's of your own doing. The constant refrain "I served in Naval Aviation" sounds hollow.

    Parent

    shoephone (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    Come on, don't put me in the jungle.  I was in during Desert Storm and in the Navy it would have been virtually impossible to be in combat.  Getting combat pay in the Navy means your carrier group was designated part of the combat, it doesn't in any way mean you were actually in combat.

    And hazardous duty pay is generally given to people who work around aircraft.  If he didn't get that then his aviation work was more abstract, as in he didn't actually work with aircraft.  Something in supply, aka as a paper shuffle.

    And although my discharge was honorable, they were delighted to see my go, almost as delighted as I was to leave.  Anyone who thinks force is how you get people to do what you want, should sign up.  There is a reason they make everyone sign an 8 year contract and why they blackball folks they 'fire', and it ain't the great pay and benefits, it's under threat of screwing up people's futures.

    Which brings me back to Jim, he either left voluntarily or got pushed out.  Since he acts like it was the cats meow, it's hard for me to believe he left what he views a very noble institution, voluntarily.  The only other option is he realized that is sucked balls and got the F like most people.  

    But we will never know since Jim has pulled a GWB and decided that 'no comment' is how he will handle service related questions.

    Parent

    I appreciate the clarification, Scott (none / 0) (#156)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:03:14 PM EST
    I wouldn't want to attribute anything to anyone that isn't true. And the main point still stands, which is that you have been forthcoming about your service, where you were, what you did. Jim has not been forthcoming, and his dissembling is not putting him in a good light.

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    Obviously you weren't one of the ones that actually went.

    Bush KNEW that TANG had ZERO chance of going to Viet Nam that's why he was put in that unit.

    You're the one dishonoring people WHO ACTUALLY got shot at and have shrapnel in their body. Serving state side is/was more Honorable than those in the jungle. You live in some kind of fantasy world.

    Parent

    Not true (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:56:05 PM EST
    You are commenting "on you" - as you do repeatedly.  You just never go beyond vague statements of having "served 10 years in naval aviation".

    Guess there's a reason for that ...

    Parent

    And for the 100th time (1.33 / 3) (#127)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:24:53 PM EST
    I have never commented on my service beyond the fact that I served in Naval Aviation for 10 years and don't intend to say more because it would serve no purpose. If you don't believe me now you wouldn't then.

    So if you chose not to belief that is your right.

    My point is, has and will be that Yman, jondee and others never did anything. Heck, they didn't even "shuffle" papers.

    And that includes Clinton and Obama.

    lol.

    Parent

    You won't say because (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    you've been busted... and busted by Scott, who was in combat and thinks you were a paper shuffler. Instead of foisting your venom towards jondee and Yman, how about you answer Scott's direct question to you? Hmm??

    Parent
    shoephone (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    Beyond the fact that Scott's claims are just claims your comment is stupid.

    I repeat. I served 10 years in Naval Aviation.

    If you won't believe that then you wouldn't believe no matter what I responded to.

    As for Scott, neither of us have any way of knowing if he is lying.

    So take your nasties and stuff'em in your left ear.


    Parent

    Scott sounds totally credible (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 01:53:44 PM EST
    You do not.

    Parent
    As I said, (1.00 / 2) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    there's nothing I can say that you would believe because you are a dedicated Leftie and you will never agree/believe what I have to say because I am anti-Obama...

    However, I will try one more time. From 2006:

    I am the son of a southern share cropper who had an opportunity to view the shortfalls and strengths of the south, and who escaped into the military as a way into higher education and a better life. I have never spoken of my own service except to note that I spent ten years in Naval Aviation, doing so to chide those on the Left who criticize and blame the military will enjoying the security and free society that the military has brought them. I have never spoken of specifics, nor will I beyond saying I was lucky and, looking back, consider myself fortunate to have been accepted and fortunate to have served.

    Link

    And remember when I was accused of never supporting single payer health insurance I provided ample evidence of doing so.

    Just go look at Jondee's lie about what I said about Kerry's service. Here's one of my previous comments about McGovern and Kerry.

    Well, TeresaInPa (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 05:53:59 PM EST
    ..........But, as I said, he was a hero. Very much so. Kerry was not a hero, but I commented here on this blog, that I honored his service and whatever he did or didn't do in Vietnam it was more than most people did and more than Bush did although I also honor Bush's service. Flying combat jets isn't easy and the 102 wasn't called the widow maker for nothing.

     McGovern, possibility due to his exposure to what war is really like, became anti-war.  His politics became increasing strident and I feel that he, like Fonda and other well known protesters, harmed the effort and caused the war to be prolonged, thus causing American soldiers, as well as others, to be killed. But he intended well. Motive in things like his are always important.

     I think Kerry became anti-war because it was politically the right thing to do. And I think his actions were disgusting.

    Link


    Parent

    Nobody cares what you said in 2006 (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:36:06 PM EST
    because it's the same cr*p you post here all the time. "I served in Naval Aviation for ten years." Blah. Blah. Blah. Rinse, repeat. It  illuminates nothing. It doesn't impress anyone. And your usual derailing tactic of accusing "lefties" of hating the military has even less meaning, especially because some of the "lefties" here have served, and because so many friends and family members of commenters here have served.

    You can keep your repeating your same old nonsense. It still won't mean anything.  

    Parent

    Facts don't change, shoephone (1.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    And you don't have to be embarrassed about your lack of service, even though William S had a point.

    "And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
    Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
    That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."

    Parent

    I'm not a "gentleman" (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    I was a six-year old girl when the Vietnam War started.

    Good try, Jim! Just not good enough. You've lost the narrative.

    Parent

    And you didn't grow up and (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:52:19 PM EST
    the military stopped taking females??

    Wow.

    Now that I did not know.

    The things I learn.

    lol

    Parent

    Quit stalling, Jim. (none / 0) (#175)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:26:34 PM EST
    Whad'dja do in the war?? Scott was forthcoming and pretty specific about what he did in Desert Storm. What exactly did you do in 'Naval Aviation'?

    Parent
    If William S "had a good point" ... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:25:56 PM EST
    ... about those who didn't actually fight, I guess you don't mind having his comments applied to you, since you're part of that group.

    Parent
    And since (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 04:51:08 PM EST
    we are discussing relatives with combat experience, I do not think my grandfather ever faced combat, either.

    He was a career pilot with the Army Air Corps.  I have a gold watch that he won, taking first place in a 1924 Tucson air show.  He was a pilot's pilot and could fly anything and did.  He was a minor league baseball pitcher in his spare time. His flight instructor was Chenault--I have seen his signature on my grandfather's pilot log.  By WWII, he had some huge number of flight hours, tens of thousands of hours.  He was deemed too senior for combat service.  He also was not a college graduate, but was on track for General Officer.

    He did serve in the Central Pacific in WWII, in command of the airfields in the area. In 1946, after the war, he was killed in an accident at Tarawa. My Dad got the Pentagon Report that was done.  My grandfather was on a C-47 cargo plane with several other pilots and officers.  Someone else was the original pilot--trying to give others the flight hours to boost their experience.  The plane on take-off experienced a fire that ruptured the hydraulic line under one wing and the landing gear on one side of the plane dropped, ruining the aerodynamics of the plane, which tumbled into the lagoon.

    The Pentagon report said my grandfather was at the controls when the plane went in--he had apparently taken over.  He was about ten feet off the surface of the ocean and had almost landed it, so to speak.   The Pentagon spent a lot of time investigating this incident as a lot of people were killed.  They sent in Navy Divers, which was before scuba and really interested me (I guess they had the big helmets on.) What they were most interested in was why everyone except my Grandfather had on a Mae West life preserver.  The answer seemed obvious to me--he was too busy trying to land the plane.

    I have in our garage an original document signed by Harry Truman saying that my grandfather is a true patriot and hero.  It is a form document with the name typed in.  I researched the use of the autopen, and talked to a historian at the Smithsonian who said that the autopen was first was used by Eisenhower.  The blue ink signature is Truman's.

    My grandfather was never in combat, and no one in my family ever said anything different.  He had just one row of fruit salad, but so did Ike. It was always easily and readily admitted that he was never in combat.  

    Parent

    If you're granddad had been a bit younger (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:16:00 PM EST
    he probably would have crossed paths with my stepdad, who flew over France in the Army Air Corps. He was a tail-gunner, and received his final medal from the French government this year (just watched the video of his ceremony last month...it was hilarious because the French foreign diplomat who awarded him the medal had such a thick accent, stepdad couldn't understand most of what he said!) for a skirmish in 1943 when his plane got hit, and they had to turn around and get to an airstrip before falling into the water. They were still carrying a huge payload that they'd been just about to let loose when the hit occurred. Somehow, they landed the plane without getting blown up by their own bombs upon impact.

    And after the war, he was a catcher in the minor leagues...the plot thickens...

    Parent

    Do you really think ... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:22:31 PM EST
    ... you're fooling anyone with the "10 years in naval aviation" bu//$hit?  Seriously?

    The reason you will never answer the straightforward, simple question is because you can't.  As long as you give no details, you can allude to your "service" being something more than it actually was.

    Not that anyone can't see right through it ...

    Parent

    Maybe the 101st time you have an (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    opportunity to throw your alleged military service in people's faces, you'll stop and decide that whether or when someone did or didn't serve in the military is no measure of character or essential humanity, and that using your alleged service as a way to belittle and besmirch those whose age and life circumstances are unknown to you just keeps making you smaller and smaller.

    There have been a lot of fine people who have served our nation, but if you're honest and willing to take the bad with the good, you'll admit that the military has also been the last refuge of some pretty bad scoundrels.  It's been a place where judges send gang members, where the homeless and the dropouts and the petty criminals get a job.  It's not all shining brass and hearts of courage and sterling character.  Given some of the things we've heard, it seems like people who like the idea of killing and hurting people join up, people who like power and who feel bigger wearing a uniform than they would if they had to get by on who they really are.

    So, just STFU about it.  I don't find you to be a better person by reason of your "serving" for 10 years, and I don't find your "service" makes your mind work better or your logic less twisted or your prejudices more tolerable.

    Until you can quit hiding behind the flag, quit characterizing those who didn't serve as "hiding under the bed."

    Do us all a favor and save your narrow-minded, petty, bitter little tirades for people who think that kind of thing passes for deep thought.

    Parent

    Dear Sweet Anne (1.33 / 3) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:38:41 PM EST
    I don't intend to STFU and your vulgarity is not unusual for someone on the Left.

    But if you want to know who started it, I direct you to:

    "A few Democrats" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 06:15:34 AM CST "

    Oswald was a nutjob and a loner who denied he was a communist and called himself a Marxist instead.  All of which is irrelevant.  You might as well say murdered by a Marine (was he in naval aviation?").

    And I don't have to hide behind the flag. I actually defended it.... and you.

    Parent

    Anne's husband served in Vietnam, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:40:15 PM EST
    so she's right: you really should just STFU.

    Parent
    And my dad served in WWII, (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:48:46 PM EST
    and my uncle in Korea.  My grandfather was awarded a Bronze Star, and my other uncle, who was terribly injured in the South Pacific, was awarded a Silver Star.

    And not a single one of them ever threw their service in anyone else's face.  Not a single one of them felt they were better than, or more special than, or entitled to more than, anyone else.

    Here's the description from my uncle's Silver Star award:

    "...for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity as Executive Officer of Company G, Second Battalion, Twenty-first Marines, THIRD Marine Division in action against enemy Japanese forces on Iwo Jima, Volcano Islands, 22 and 23 February 1945. Assuming command when his Company Commander became a casualty First Lieutenant [redacted] constantly exposed himself to the hostile machine gun and mortar fire in order to place men and weapons in defensive positions to hold bitterly contested ground and to maintain liaison with units on his flanks. Although his company was reduced to half strength by the Japanese fire, he received orders to attack and rallying his men led them against the enemy's most heavily defended position. When cross fires from hostile bunkers and pillboxes delayed his assault platoons he personally led them in a furious hand to hand assault of these positions until severely wounded. His indomitable fighting spirit, courageous leadership and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

    They were (and are, in my husband's case, since he is still living) men of great character, whose service was just one facet of who they were - husbands, fathers, with a solid work ethic, who were great friends, who didn't stop thinking and growing when they left the service.  They evolved.

    I don't know jack squat about jim, other than that he talks out of both sides of his mouth, and doesn't understand the difference between the vulgarity of language and the vulgarity of actions.

    I'm sure if jim had his way, we'd re-fight the War of Northern Aggression until the South was victorious.

    Parent

    And I am sure you specialize (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:07:58 PM EST
    in making nasty remarks and false ones at that.

    If I was so inclined I would say you are in the same category as jondee.

    BTW - all you folks out there waving your parents, relatives, etc., service.....

    What does that have to do with this??  I served, and if you didn't, you didn't.

    Now, would you really like to visit my throwing my service in anyone's face?? The dastardly comment made when I was commenting on JFK???  Here it is.

    I was 25 and in Naval Aviation and spent several edgy days convinced that we would be at war. It sounds silly now but a great deal of the waiting time was spent in self analysis and accepting the fact that I most likely would not survive.

    Wow!!!!!!!

    Now, would you really like to visit the real reason why you and others got your underwear in a wad and went into the attack mode?? Here it is.

    It took me a few more years to fully understand that JFK was not a great president.

    Disbelievers must always be stoned.

    Parent

    Maybe you're the one who's stoned... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:00:30 PM EST
    because that's some fantasy you're having about what people are "really" wound up about.

    I really don't give a hoot what you think now or thought then about JFK, because your opinion simply doesn't matter to me.  I just don't care what you think.

    What got my attention is this constant and juvenile refrain of "I served - you didn't" that you can't seem to stop singing.  Ever.  

    Did you really think you'd get the stage all to yourself once you started using your alleged and vaguely generic military service to slap people around?  Did you really think, once you started doing that, that you'd not be challenged to provide some detail about what, exactly, that service consisted of?  

    Maybe you should quit smoking whatever it is you're smoking and stop thinking you have the inside track on what people are thinking or why they're saying what they're saying.  You clearly don't.

    Maybe someone else is fooled by your shtick, but whatever credibility you could have had, whatever points you'd get for being genuine, you've lost or squandered over and over again with your pissy little hissy fits that show who you really are.

    Parent

    heh - If my opinion doesn't matter (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:21:26 AM EST
    then why all the attacks because I pointed out my personal experiences during the Cuban Missile crisis   and how history showed us the weakness of JFK?

    Yman couldn't just disagree, he had to bring up my service. When I objected others joined him. When I objected to them you joined them.

    Yman could have disagreed without the personal attack. The others, including you, didn't have to join in just because I pointed out that neither Yman or Jondee had served and as such should not be attacking me for my service.

    You might as well say murdered by a Marine (was he "in naval aviation?").

    So as I wrote to Scott, I don't care what you think, or believe.

    And I wasn't referring to dope when I wrote:

    Disbelievers must always be stoned
    .

    I was thinking of this.

    Parent

    So because Anne's husband (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 02:51:02 PM EST
    served in Vietnam she has the right to say who can speak??

    heh

    By that logic McCain should be President.

    Parent

    No, actually, your statement has no logic (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:04:22 PM EST
    Surprise, surprise. You've totally lost the narrative, Jim. You've made yourself look awfully foolish here in the last few days.

    Unless you have real information to impart about your "service," you should probably refrain from further embarrassment.

    I've got decorated war heroes in my family. I laugh at your silliness.

    Parent

    And, funny thing about those decorated war heroes (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    ...they're all Democrats!!

    Parent
    So, let me see (1.00 / 1) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 05:57:04 PM EST
    having people in your family meant you don't have to serve??

    heh

    By that logic my dad wouldn't have had to go...

    BTW, shoe. When you have to declare yourself a winner it is usually because you have lost.

    And I will continue to point out that I served 10 years in Naval Aviation whenever I feel the need to. Especially after Yman and/or Jondee have sneered at the military.

    Parent

    More lies, huh, Jim? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    Just to clear up your confusion, I haven't remotely "sneered at the military".  the point of my comment was to point out the flaw in your logic where you try to blame Oswald's assassination of Kennedy on the fact that he was a "Communist".  The "naval aviation" comment wasn't a "sneer at the military".

    It was a sneer at you and your pretentious armchair warrior bu//$hit.

    Parent

    I think I've got it figured out! (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:43:41 PM EST
    Maybe Jim really was in "Naval Aviation." And for ten years, at that. But it's looking more and more like "Naval Aviation" was a 1960's TV show, on a local (not network) channel, and it ran for ten seasons. Apparently, Jim played numerous roles, including a submarine admiral! The only reason none of us can recall the show is because it was on during the same years as "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" and everyone wanted Richard Basehart as their submarine admiral, and all the girls had huge crushes on David Hedison (well, I did anyway). Just a stroke of bad timing, I guess. Coulda been Jim's big break.

    So, it's a lot like that other actor, Ronnie Reagan, who told the folks on the campaign trail that he served in WWII...when, in fact, he only played a military man in the movies. Weird entertainment trivia: when Jim was starring in the first two seasons of "Naval Aviation," Reagan was starring in (perhaps) the most boring TV show of all time--"Death Valley Days."

    Parent

    I come from a military (none / 0) (#177)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 11:23:22 PM EST
    family and they'd all sneer at your self-romanticizing Hannityisms more than I'd ever care to.

    Parent
    I Believe You Jim... (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 03:54:26 PM EST
    ...always have, but you throw it in people's faces like you put your life on the line.  I am simply trying to determine if your self importance is real or another one of your delusions.

    I will take the answer about pay as 'no'.  There is no valid reason for you not to answer about the special pay other than it would indicate your service, at least in the military's eyes, was never life threatening.

    I worked on a flight deck and was involved in several skirmishes including Desert Storm.  But let's be clear, like you, I was in the Navy, which is about as far from combat as one can get in the military.  I certainly never been fired at, never been in a situation that would qualify me to throw my service in people's faces as proof that I am a bigger man than them.

    My service was about as risky as anyone working on the tarmac at any big airport, there were/are dangers, but in reality, the dangers were pretty slim.  It was a job.

    I suspect you weren't even in that sort of controlled danger, that you shuffled papers.  And while I commend that service, it's not the kind of service that gives you the right to throw it in people's faces.  

    You are diminishing the value of people that actually sacrificed because you seem to be confused what the term sacrifice actually means.  Working 8 hours a day in an office setting isn't a sacrifice, it's what a lot of us spend our entire working lives doing.  And you sure as hell shouldn't think that shuffling papers in your Crackerjacks is some how more noble than me shuffle papers here in my slacks.

    So if you are going to throw it in people's faces, you should have the courage and character to reveal what you actually did for the military or STFU about it.

    FYI, 'Naval Aviation' is not a designation the Navy uses to describe what one does.  I was an ABH(Aviation Boatswain Mate), what was your job ?

    Parent

    BTW - Naval Aviation is (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:17:57 PM EST
    Naval Aviation and I am surprised you don't know that.

    BTW - do you know what you call a submarine??

    And no, I don't share anything but the bare minimums with people who write:

    " I am simply trying to determine if your self importance is real or another one of your delusions."

    As Rhett said, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a man."

    And I can hear the "Look!!! Look!!! He remembers GWTW! Racist! Racist!"

    lol

    Parent

    Never never never (none / 0) (#164)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:46:51 PM EST
    not proof read....

    "I don't give a damn!"

    Parent

    I thought you were deliberately (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 06:54:46 PM EST
    misstating the quote to be ironic....I liked it better the other way.

    Parent
    You were on a submarine? (none / 0) (#174)
    by shoephone on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:22:46 PM EST
    Was it the Yellow Submarine? Were there Blue Meanies?

    Parent
    shoe, (1.00 / 1) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    go over to Bellevue Community College and sign up for a reading comprehension course. You need one.

    Here, let me help you. I wrote:


    BTW - Naval Aviation is Naval Aviation and I am surprised you don't know that.

    That was telling Scott that Naval Aviation is one the branches of the US Navy. It is not a description of what a member does. Scott was an Aviation Boatswain Mate and he served in Naval Aviation.

    I then ASKED him.

    BTW - do you know what you call a submarine??

    That is called a QUESTION.

    I am waiting for his answer.

    Parent

    No Idea What a Submarine is Called... (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 02:01:36 PM EST
    ...you got me Jim, I can't remember 20+ later what a submarine was called.  

    Back to important stuff.

    That was telling Scott that Naval Aviation is one the branches of the US Navy. It is not a description of what a member does. Scott was an Aviation Boatswain Mate and he served in Naval Aviation.

    There is no branch in the US Navy called Naval Aviation.  Do you mean NAVAIR, Naval Air Systems Command ?  My point wasn't that I didn't know what you meant, it's that the phrase isn't used in the Navy, more of a civilian interpretation of NAVAIR.

    NAVAIR is with Shore Establishment because all the Air Wings are located on land.  

    I was in the Operating Forces, Fleet Forces, Atlantic.  So a civilian might say I worked in Naval Aviation when in fact I did not.  I did worked in the Air Department of my ship, but still considered part of the Fleet.  And I am sure you know that the only aircraft to reside on any ship is the SAR helicopter whose only function was rescue.  

    The Air Wing(squadron) would board the ship once it was underway, and I my case, that was a MAG, Marine Aircraft Group.  I made several cruises, each time with a different MAG.  1000 sailors and 2000 marines is what we left the US with, about 500 of them being part of the MAG, and the rest being grunts.

    So Jim, I believe you were in, but what I can't figure out is why you refuse to expand beyond the one sentence what makes you look good, yet is factually inaccurate.  You are obviously proud of it.  Or if your involvement was so detached, as in the reserves, that you simply never learned the military vernacular of where you actually reported 2 days a month.  Or worse, you were some sort of contractor that worked with the military whose trying to pass proximity as membership.  Because no one with 10 years of active duty experience would refer to working in NAVAIR as working in Naval Aviation.

    Were you enlisted member of the US military ?

    That was my point about you using the phrase Naval Aviation.  And I don't blame you for not expanding, so far the little tidbits that have escaped, have done nothing but lead me to believe that whatever you did, it doesn't in any way qualify for you to act like you have done something so monumental, that you earned the right to refer to folks who didn't do it as 'hiding under their beds with all the other libs'.

    Yes Jim, this 'lib' calling you out as purposely being misleading in you 'Naval Aviation' career to facilitate some sort of image that wasn't anywhere near reality.

    And lastly Jim, I can snap a pic of my DD214 anytime if you feel the need to question my service, again.  I can and will prove my military service history.

    Parent

    Scott, (none / 0) (#182)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 03:16:23 PM EST
    Naval Aviation is the usually used term referring to  aviation... It is also called the "Brown Shoe" navy.. Both are general terms recognized by every person in Naval Aviation that I ever knew. So your attempt to find an official designation is as useless as your attempt to find the golden spike in the tail of your squadron's aircraft.

    And did you get a good look at the Sea Bat they had captured under that box??

    ;-)

    So I spent 10 years in Naval Aviation. During that time I did various things and served in various commands. Spewing alphabet soup like CinLant... etc is useless.

    It might also interest you that navy pilots like to be referred to as "aviators" rather than pilots. I have no idea where that started or even if it still is vogue.

    And submarines are called "boats." I have no idea as to why. But I am surprised that you didn't know that. Guess you never had a drink around Submariners.

    And I wrote that you were an Aviation Boatswain Mate. Did I just assume that from your comment that you worked on the flight deck??

    Do you know the difference between Rate and Rank?

    So call out all you want. My statement has been and will be very simple and impossible to misunderstand.

    I served 10 years in Naval Aviation.

    As for a DD214, that could be faked as easy as anything else so thanks but don't bother.

    And again, I wouldn't share a cup of coffee with you and 90 plus percent of the other bloggers here so why should I share any personal information?

    Parent

    Wow... (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 04:17:29 PM EST
    ...they are called boats, yeah on the another thread I refereed to a catamaran as a boat, didn't realize that was some secret thing.

    But back to the point, I asked:

    Were you enlisted member of the US military ?

    You replied:

    I served 10 years in Naval Aviation.

    And you wonder why no one believes you.  It's getting hard Jim when you answer a yes or no question with your Naval Aviation non-sense.

    FYI, you need to seriously change your meds if you think someone would forge a government document to prove to someone they never met in blog, that they have been in the military.

    Last time Jim, where you a member of the US military ?
    Yes or No.

    Parent

    As often as need be, Scott (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 08:51:10 PM EST
    I served 10 years in Naval Aviation.

    And you didn't grasp the significance of subs being called boats.

    Okay.

    And you don't know the difference between Rate and Rank???

    Thanks for the laugh.

    Parent

    So... (none / 0) (#184)
    by sj on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    ... you learned that submarines are called "boats" by ummmm... having drinks. With Submariners. Okey-dokey.

    Parent
    Hmmmm you again make things up (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 26, 2013 at 08:56:47 PM EST
    I said:

    Guess you never had a drink around Submariners.

    If he had and if listened he would have known that.

    Oh well, enough time wasted in trying to educate you.

    Parent

    Why won't you say? (none / 0) (#188)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 12:35:44 AM EST
    Were you in fact a pilot?  A contractor? Enlisted?  Officer?

    If you are going to blast opponents of the War in Vietnam as traitors, which is where this discussion began, and use your service as a debating point, it is really curious why you keep the details so vague.  No one is asking for your actual name or anything too specific, yet you remain evasive.  I have been around a lot of military folks and they generally have no problem giving you some detail, etc.  They are generally proud to do so.

    What's up with the evasion?

    Parent

    Scott, since (none / 0) (#190)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 12:43:52 PM EST
    I wouldn't have a cup of coffee with you, and some other commentators here, I see no reason to tell you anything beyond one statement of fact.

    I served 10 years in Naval Aviation.

    Now, the details aren't vague, there aren't any.

    And why should there be? That alone should be enough for anyone to understand by disdain for the Vietnam war protesters and how they helped extend the war.

    BTW - the discussion began with my comment #38 and Yman's very nasty personal attack in his #42.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#191)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    you wanted the war to end but you didn't want anyone to publicly say that the war should end -- because that would've extended the war..

    That's one perversely contorted thread of logic you've got yourself tangled in, Jim.  

    Parent

    jondee (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 09:52:02 PM EST
    your critical thinking ability is zero.

    I wanted the war to end with a victory. To do that we had to defeat the North. The demonstrators helped the North by telling them they could win a political victory.

    How many times must I post this??

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

    A:  It was essential to our strategy.  Support of the war from our rear was completely secure  while the American rear was vulnerable.  Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m.  to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.  Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence  that we should hold on  in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

    Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

    A: Keenly.

    Link

    And our enemies learned well.

    Parent

    The Vietnamese had kept their (none / 0) (#193)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 27, 2013 at 10:45:09 PM EST
    morale up all through the forties, fifties, and early sixties. What makes you think that they wouldn't have continued to persevere without the U.S anti-war protests?

    Your revisionism is a distortion based on the petty tyrant's inability to accept events in the world beyond his control.

    Parent

    jondee (none / 0) (#194)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 28, 2013 at 12:14:02 PM EST
    so had Germany and Japan...

    Past success is no guarantee of future success in any endeavor.

    ....Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [lloks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]

    Q: What about the results?

    A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

    Link

    Yet the press, especially Cronkite who only later revealed his true bias, said that we had lost.

    That, as Bui wrote, greatly encouraged the North and extended the war.

    Cronkite lied and men died.


    Parent

    What was the point? (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 09:06:35 AM EST
    Assuming the U.S. could "win," whatever that means, so what?  And at what cost?

    There was no point to the war.

    Parent

    "lied" (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 01:22:57 PM EST
    Lets see a link that substantiates your claim that Cronkite had said the U.S "lost"..

    What Cronkite accurately reported was that the U.S was ill-prepared and had grossly miscalculated the North's capability. Which was true. True all day long.

    Unfortunately, there are always sideline cheerleaders aka "patriots" like you who want nothing but Fighting Seebees movies during a war that others have to fight. Because truth and accuracy are bad for morale -- in particular, for the morale of the aforementioned non-combatant cheerleaders.

    Parent

    For Jim, not me (none / 0) (#199)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 05:50:43 PM EST
    But you weren't interested (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 12:29:35 PM EST
    in halting the "extension" of the war. You wanted "peace with honor". Peace with as many dead men, women, and children of the uppity little yellow people as possible. A Savage Peace.

    If it was worth all those lives and billions of dollars in resources, why didn't you go? Hannity.

    Was it anal cysts, like Rush had?

    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#197)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 29, 2013 at 12:33:07 PM EST
    what's next at your website? portraying Obama barefoot and sitting on a fence rail eating watermelon?

    Parent
    Bui Tin (none / 0) (#200)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 02, 2013 at 09:17:55 PM EST
    It's funny how the only guy you can cite to support these silly fairytales is a former, North Vietnamese communist turned rightwing capitalist.  The same guy who claimed to be the first to smash through the Presidential Palace gates and managed to do it without a single witness.  The same guy who said no American POWs were tortured.

    But I guess if that's the only evidence you got ...

    Parent

    "Serve" (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    implies that something good came of it.

    How does going in an ignoramous and coming out one help this country?

    Parent

    Ah yes (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:00:43 PM EST
    Now I realize how you know so much jim, (none / 0) (#102)
    by fishcamp on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 08:02:26 AM EST
    you're two years older than me.

    Parent
    I dunno, fishcamp (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Nov 25, 2013 at 09:28:25 AM EST
    Maybe I'm just smarter, period.

    (One snark deserves another.)

    Parent

    My wife is a Kennedy baby (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:47:16 PM EST
    I am an LBJ infant.

    But that day seems as clear and close to us more than makes sense. We were talking about it this morning. Some events transcend time slash temporal existence, even preceding it in a quantum sort of manner. If that makes sense.

    I was in grade 6 (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 12:52:34 PM EST
    in Arlington, just outside of Washington.

    Teacher wheeled in a TV, turned the news on for a little while, then told us to go home, saying "If you see any bombers coming, RUN!"

    Dang Russians were everywhere those days....

    Fifth grade for me... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 03:49:27 PM EST
    I remember the principal coming over the intercom to make the announcement, and to tell us school was being dismissed early and we were all going home.

    I remember running from the bus stop to my house, for some reason thinking that my mom wouldn't know what had happened and I needed to get home fast to tell her.  Of course she knew - everyone knew.

    Weird thing is that I have no recollection of my younger brother being with me - he would have been in the first grade, I think.  

    I do remember being just glued to the TV, watching the funeral, and thinking the riderless horse was just the saddest thing I'd ever seen - something about it just really got to me.

    As a 10 year old, I suppose I appreciated the gravity of the situation by the reaction and the demeanor of the adults around me, but there was definitely a feeling of vulnerability.  The attacks of 9/11 brought that back for me, and I remember thinking that the fear I was feeling, as I was thinking about my family, must have been what my own parents felt that day in 1963.

    Parent

    It sure doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 05:57:13 PM EST
    feel like 50 years ago, does it?

    Parent
    I think many who are African American (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:28:24 AM EST
    Female or Gay are grateful that it doesn't feel like 50 years ago.

    Parent
    Not surprising (none / 0) (#56)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 08:51:29 AM EST
    .

    JFK was assisinated by a Comunist that had defected to the USSR, returned to worship Castro.  Thinking that the commies were involved was not that far fetched.

    .

    Parent

    Think about it (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    if you were in the precarious position Castro was in, would you risk assassinating an American president?

    You'd have to be completely and utterly unhinged.

    Parent

    Yes, they were. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:14:01 PM EST
    But you could rest assured the everywhere the Commies went, J. Edgar Hoover was sure to follow, even though his personal driver had to make three consecutive right turns in order to ultimately head in a starboard direction.

    In retrospect, it's rather scary to consider how many presidents and public officials -- the Kennedys included -- deferred repeatedly to the increasingly flawed judgment and egomaniacal whims of that nasty old queen. JFK had actually considered forcing him out in 1961, but then thought twice about it upon considering the potential political fallout.

    :-|

    Parent

    "Potential Political Fallout"... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:35:47 PM EST
    that's a diplomatic way of saying surefire blackmail Donald.  

    Parent
    Maybe, maybe not. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 04:09:37 PM EST
    I think that 41 years ex post facto, we sometimes tend to forget that J. Edgar actually enjoyed pretty robust popular support during his nearly five decades at the FBI's helm. He was a master at branding the agency's image and with it, his own.

    Therefore, the public fallout over Kennedy giving Hoover his walking papers would've probably not been unlike that over President Truman's firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Sure, history itself would eventually exonerate that decision as absolutely the right thing to do, given the evidence. But in the meantime, hey, how about that cratering 30% approval rating -- not to mention all the inevitable hearings over that dismissal in front of the staunchly segregationist Sen. Richard Russell (D-GA)?

    (It should be noted that the opportunistic Sen. Russell had earlier led the Senate investigation of MacArthur's firing by Truman, and he was already ticked off by Kennedy's tacit support of the civil rights movement.)

    But knowing what we know about Hoover now, I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility -- make that probability -- that he knew where a few Kennedy bodies were buried, and wouldn't have been at all hesitant to wield that information as a weapon to get his way.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Wouldn't 3 consecutive rights leave him (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    heading left/port?

    Parent
    You are right, right, right. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 03:38:09 PM EST
    I stand corrected, and listing to port.
    ;-D

    Parent
    Must always remember (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    two wrongs don't make a right but three rights make a left

    Parent
    fallout... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 02:31:47 PM EST
    This book is not about assassinations, at least not solely about assassinations. It is not just another book about who murdered President Kennedy or how or why. It is a book about power, about who really controls the United States policies, especially foreign policies. It is a book about the process of control through the manipulation of the American presidency and the presidential election process. The objective of the book is to expose the clandestine, secret, tricky methods and weapons used for this manipulation, and to reveal the degree to which these have been hidden from the American public.

    Assassinations are only one of many techniques used in this control process. They have been important only in the sense that they are the ultimate method used in the control of the election process. Viewed in this way, an understanding of what happened to John or Robert Kennedy becomes more important because it leads to a total understanding of what has happened to our country, and to us, since 1960. But the important thing to understand is the control and the power and all of the clandestine methods put together.

    The Taking of America, 1-2-3
    by Richard E. Sprague, 1976, 1979, 1985

    Parent
    I never really cared for Leroy Nieman. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    Personal taste and style, I guess. But I can still appreciate his place in art and pop culture, because one doesn't necessarily have to like his art personally to still grasp his inherent creativity and genius.

    From my perspective, there's a vivacious, garish and even vulgar quality to Nieman's work, with which he was really able to capture the irrepressible but often transient essence of our mid-20th century American society. He's a study of movement, scale and spontaneity, a full-frontal assault on the visual senses which can often overwhelm, but which can nevertheless also offer us a bedazzling glimpse back to our own fairly recent pop culture past, if we're but observant and patient.

    So, yeah, I'd be sorry to have sold one of his original paintings, too. Now, that he's passed on, I believe his works will only increase in value.

    The very first F&B establishment I ever worked in was F.X. McRory's on Occidental Ave. in Seattle, just south of downtown near the site of the old Kingdome, which is now Century Link Field. (I still can't believe that was nearly 30 years ago.) The place was immortalized by Nieman's painting of its 1979 St. Patrick's Day celebration, a huge canvas which still hangs in the place.

    Aloha.

    Aw, c'mon Donald (none / 0) (#68)
    by ZtoA on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 11:50:33 AM EST
    He's just a topical happy James Ensor.

    Parent
    Carrot and Stick-Now comes the stick (none / 0) (#26)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 06:46:14 PM EST
    I cannot imagine... (none / 0) (#32)
    by desertswine on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 07:49:10 PM EST
    17 inches of rain in 90 minutes on the island of
    Sardinia.  It must have been like standing under a waterfall.

    That's a lot of water. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 22, 2013 at 11:04:41 PM EST
    I can't imagine what 12"/hr. looks like; you probably couldn't see two feet in front of you. What a disaster! We've had our share of violent cloudbursts in which one or two inches will fall in 15 minutes, but then it stops. Nothing like what happened in Sardinia.

    The worst sustained deluge I've even seen or experienced personally was our record-setting New Year's Eve Flood of December 31, 1987-January 1, 1988. It was my very first experience with a Pacific monsoon, and it proved quite memorable to say the least. A storm front stalled over the east Oahu mountains that night, and we received 21" of rain in an 6-hour period.

    My roommates and I were going out to party in Waikiki that evening, but we never made it, and what had been anticipated as a night of fun quickly got short-circuited -- literally, because the power ended up being out for nearly 36 hours. In retrospect, it was good we were home, and not out on the road. There was no wind that night, and no thunder and lightening. It just poured and poured and poured, and it wouldn't let up. I don't ever want to see it rain like that again in my life.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Memory from Nov. 22, 1963. Graduate student (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 02:31:20 AM EST
    seminar. We all showed up, as did our Cuban ex pat professor. We asked if the seminar was cancelled in light of the assassination of President Kennedy. She crisply replied, "No. Why would it be?"

    Castro on the assassination (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 05:22:35 AM EST
    Link

    Then Castro began talking about JFK's assassination. "It is a very sad story," he said. "It was a very sad day when it happened." He remembered the moment he heard of the shooting. "I won't forget it. As soon as we heard, we all rushed to the radio to listen."

    Self-preservation was on the Cuban leader's mind in the days after the assassination. He understood that he would be blamed for JFK's death, especially after it was learned that Oswald had vociferously opposed American policy toward Castro's Cuba. Castro tried hard to communicate to the Americans that he had nothing to do with JFK's death.

    As Philip Shenon reports in his new book, "A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination," Castro even arranged to be interviewed by a Warren Commission staffer on a yacht off Cuba. "Immediately after the assassination, Castro very justifiably worried that he would be blamed, and he was worried that if he were blamed, there would be an American invasion of Cuba," Shenon told me. But Castro's denials were credible. Despite the many arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists, he said, "There is no credible evidence that Castro was involved personally in ordering the assassination."



    Parent
    I always thought my professor probably (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 09:51:00 AM EST
    harbored ill-will toward the Kennedy administration b/c it bungled the Bay of Pigs invasion.

    Parent
    That was the whole idea: (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    that Castro be blamed for it, and next stop Havana-or-Bust..

    Parent
    A Battista supporter, she was, perhaps? (none / 0) (#65)
    by christinep on Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    Maybe so. Julliard-educated. Pre-Castro (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 24, 2013 at 07:30:49 AM EST
    revolution.

    Parent