Thanks for this, Mr. Gitlin. I seem to always forget the mindset back then when I see the images of that awful incident and it's aftermath.

Well ... then the only alternative is to be good little citizens like the "silent majority" were and just go shopping.

Went to the well but the water was dry
Dipped my bucket in the clear blue sky
Looked in the bottom and what did I see?
The whole damned world looking back at me

Robert Hunter

~OGD~

ps: Hunter's liner notes to his release of the song Liberty carried this quote:

We must all be foolish at times

~Walt Whitman~

But more importantly Whitman also wrote:

TO The States, or any one of them, or any city of The States, Resist much, obey little;

Once unquestioning obedience, once fully enslaved;

Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city, of this earth, ever afterward resumes its liberty.

Those damn smelly "hippies"...

I'm sure there are many unknowing folks out there. -- although not Professor Gitlin -- that believe it was a bunch of radical "hippies" and violent prone individuals that were shot and killed at Kent State too ... Myths have a way of doing that... And it's not only the "black magic of movies" that are at fault.

~OGD~

Todd,
I like your last line. However, in 1968 I was headed off to Vietnam and in looking at the mess we have today our ability to learn is measured by the half of the electorate that didn't vote for Bush. As for the other half...

As learning goes the country gets a failing grade.

thepeoplechoose

I had left the United States by 1968, but I do remember specifically knowing that I could never vote for Humphrey. I had written to him, probably early in 1967, and gotten a platitudinous reply supporting the war and so filled with nonsense that I was angry for a week.
I am just confirming what you say, with Humphrey as the candidate, the choice for those adamantly against the war was depressing. Many probably voted fringe and didn't bother or at least did not work hard on the election.

I am still happily in Canada, a dual citizen.

global citizen

I hope you are right, Todd. If we could intelligently and strategically stop this war in 2007, it would have gone on for 4 years, as opposed to America's roughly dozen years involvement in Vietnam, and at a cost of far fewer American, and possibly Iraqi, lives. Much as parallels between Iraq and Vietnam seem obvious and inescapable, all of us who oppose the current war must face the fact that it could be far far worse.

Now, if only we could learn how not to start these things in the first place.

. . . why did the Jews in Germany seemingly acquiesce in their own demise. Larry H

Larry. Larry. Larry.

Quaere: Is there anyway -- anything we can do -- to lay this old canard and slur to rest?

Street protests are intended to demostrate the power of an idea or movement that has been ignored by the mainstream media and the ruling elites. I think that right now both the mainstream media and the ruling elites are more than aware of America's disapproval of the war in Iraq. I think that politicians from both parties are working hard to end the Iraq war. They are being stalled by an administration filled with incompetent deadenders.

Violent street protests are not needed right now. Right now we need to buck up the anti-war politicans and to continue reminding the press that we want peace (and a smart foreign policy) by using the most powerful communications tool ever widely available to ordinary people--the internet.

Of course, I don't agree with the President about much, but I do agree that a hasty, poorly planned and badly organized retreat would probably lead to the worst possible result for America. Sadly that is probably what will happen given the administration's track record of being unable to do anything that isn't hasty, poorly planned and badly organized.

Ron Byers

Ellen says: "anything that went on that August outside the International Amphitheater in Chicago, little of which was televised at the time."

Little of which was televised?? Um, which television were you watching? All the networks in those days carried the national conventions not just "gavel to gavel" but, but an hour or more of lead-in and another hour, at least, of analysis afterwards every night. All three television networks on those nights -- and with no cable and little UHF, there was literally nothing else to watch -- carried *extensive* coverage of the Chicago violence. (If you're a TV director, which are you going to choose, endless boring speeches by minor state figures or hippies and police literally having a war in the streets?)

It was on *everybody's* television screen, hours and hours and hours of it, up close and personal.

But the main point is that the situation is entirely different now. There isn't the yawning cultural and age gap between demonstrators and the rest of the country, and the population is pretty well united in its opposition to this war.

So I don't know what Gitlin's worrying about, frankly. Anti-war demonstrations these days are utterly different, polite, overwhelmingly middle class and respectable. The police generally aren't hostile, and while the general public may think they're a bit silly, they don't see them as a threat to their very way of life, as they did -- with some reason -- back in the '60s.

In the '60s, they were literally the only way dissenters' voices could break through to the body politic, and Martin Luther King showed they could be effective in raising consciousness.

That's not the case with the war now, but it was in the first year or two after 9/11. But this time, instead of pouring into the streets to find kindred souls and express our anguish and rage, the disaffected and the frustrated were able to turn to the Internets, where we found information that breaks through the MSM conventional wisdom stranglehold, as well as those kindred spirits, and good candidates to support around the country and groups to join and causes and email addresses and phone numbers to contact politicians and news organizations, etc.

At least for the time being, although the Internet is a great organizing tool, I think it's also significantly drawn the teeth of public anger.

Folks who weren't around in the '60s can't even imagine how totally isolated those of us who opposed the war, and all that it stood for, were outside the big urban college campuses.

I'm not too worried. Then a lot of people genuinely felt threatened by a youth culture and loud music they didn't understand, whereas now youth culture is commercial and the popular musical idiom hasn't changed at heart since then. Then the increasing visibility of blacks threatened people, and now that's not relevant to the antiwar march. Then many people wondered what to make of a floundering war and whether their own identity as part of a triumpant America was being insulted, and now most people see just disputes over the best way to extricate ourselves. Then the police took sides, and now they won't. Then blue-collar workers associated their loss of jobs with the same white kids coming out to march, as work grew to depend more on a college education, and now that debate has shifted to outsourcing, not at issue in the march, and the march won't be a youth movement anyhow.

I doubt we'll gain a darn thing, since only another message from God will alter Bush's conduct, but if it makes it easier for the more progressive Democrats in Congress to build momentum as the mainstream party, great!

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

madison idea,

The concurrent demonstrations in Paris were about socialist revolution, not anti-war. It was easy therefore for right to label them as Unamerican and traitors.

Protesters also chanted "Prague" in Chicago.  Not exactly fellow-travelers there.

The isolation is why the counter-culture flourished in order to overcome that sense of alienation that came with it.

Tom

I am laughing out loud. You think by recreating the protests of 1968 that castrated the Democratic party for 40 years is something to imitate? The reason the majority of Americans turned away from the protestors is because they were all anger and no plan for our foreign policy. Americans are smart enough to know that foreign policy matters, and a group of petulent screamers might give a moment of satisfaction to the frustration we might have over the struggles we face, but not having a long term plan to face the problem will not make it go away. The left is in a time warp. Not only do they not learn from the past, they blindly imitate a 40 year old playbook not realizing that the world changes from time to time. Santyana applies to the left as much as the right. In this case the stakes have never been higher. Chicago 68 was a disaster for the party that pushed it into a rear guard defensive fight on foreign policy that it still struggles with.

This is exactly right, Devon. We can take the President's advice to go shopping, or take our families on vacation or demonstrate and protest but in either case, just as in the 60's we're left with the same system failure that occurred then - and the same damned mechanism in place that caused the failure. Whether it's a "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" or the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" you cannot give one person the unlimited power to wage war as that person sees fit. No matter how much "oversight" or "control" congress thinks it placed in the resolution, they are superceded by the unlimited power authorized to any president by these kinds of resolutions.

It's one thing to expect the President of The United States to act rationally and to refrain from the overreach of power, but to depend on it is utter madness and completely anathema to what we believe in as a nation - that power can be exercised to the benefit of the people only by a system of checks and balances, that unfettered power always results in catastrophe for the people.

If we believe that we have a president divorced from reality, then what do we believe of a congress who again and again make these kinds of resolutions and expect different results each time? Isn't that a definition of insanity?

How people like Biden, Clinton, Edwards, my Rep then Joe Hoeffel, and others could give an obvious mental midget like Bush a blank check is beyond me. Cowardice and/or lack of perceptiveness (also known as stupidity) are the only possible explanations.

By the way, this is another piece I would submit to the Letters to the Editor or op-ed sections of papers, if I were you. I get in the Philadelhia Inquirer Letters to the Editor section quite frequently so I feel confident that I'm a pretty good judge of the type of thing that gets in papers.
Tom

All the networks in those days carried the national conventions not just "gavel to gavel" . . . . jstein

Indeed, they did -- all the proceedings from inside the International Amphitheater. And that's why the nation saw Abe Ribicoff facing off against Mayor Daley.

What the nation didn't see was the smoke of tear gas or the paddy wagons rounding up the demonstrators at the intersection of Balbo Street and Michigan Avenue. Nor did it hear the sound of police batons (billy clubs in those days) hitting heads.

They chanted "The whole world is watching" but it wasn't.

As an aside: With the technology available in 1968, could TV have shot live video at night on streets lit by street lamps?

Is what we're seeing today of the Chicago police riot archival 16mm film shot by independents and whose broadcast would have been delayed because the film had to be developed -- and further delayed before anyone with authority could be convinced to actually air the edited version?

I'm glad to learn that nothing Mayor Daley could have done would have affected the debacle that was the 1968 Democratic convention. It was all the fault of those pesky demonstrators, inside and outside the convention halls.

Bluebell Says:

I shudder to think of what they're going to do here in the Twin Cities when the Republicans come to town in 08 

Rumor has it that Father Emil of Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibilty and Pastor Nordquist of the Lutheran Church will bring an ecumenical busload of Lake Wobegoners down, and if that isn't enough to keep the Republicans responsible, Guy Noir, Dusty, and Lefty, will be there to assist.  Nordeast will come out in force, and Garrison Keillor and Al Franken will have them all saying uffdah!  (Guess where I'm from?)  :-)

aMike

TJKING,

You think by recreating the protests of 1968 that castrated the Democratic party for 40 years is something to imitate?

You really think that what anybody really thinks?  I'm laughing pretty loud myself.

thepeoplechoose,

That other half is now down to 30%. The deadenders.

Hey Now you Golden Oldie Decoy. I'm giving you a 5 just for quoting a Hunter lyric post Touch of Grey. Me, I like this one ....

Standing on the moon
I see the battle rage below
Standing on the moon
I see the soldiers come and go
There's a metal flag beside me
Someone planted long ago
Old Glory standing stiffly
Crimson, white and indigo - indigo

I see all of Southeast Asia
I can see El Salvador
I hear the cries of children
And the other songs of war
It's like a mighty melody
That rings down from the sky
Standing here upon the moon
I watch it all roll by - all roll by

Goofed again. Meant that top message for OldenGoldenDecoy.......

Mr. Gitlin, care to take a guess at what Abbie Hoffman might be doing/thinking had he made it to the millenium?....And what's Jerry Rubin's stock portfolio doing these days???? I'm guessing Park City felt a long way from Woodstock and Chicago ...P.S. I like your new headshot. I'm guessing the future's so bright, you've got to wear shades.

G C  Wall
Yes there were drugs and rock&roll, but that view only perpetuates the myth. The merchants could cope with those behaviors, what it hated was the anti-consumer, anti-fad, self-reliance, spirituality more than self-righteousness, individuality, creativity, sustainable lifestyles, integrity, charity, kindness, growing your own food, making your own clothes, turning to yourself for entertainment rather than passively absorbing garbage, durability, don't tread on me, self-expression, mental and emotional health, helping, paths, community and more. These concepts represented a threat to the system as we know it under capitalism. How can there be avid consumers to manipulate if they aren't watching television or listening to radio? What if everyone grew their own food? What if people had tolerance for those they were taught to hate? Who do they sell clothes to if people are making their own clothes? What if they are generating their own electricity? What if they start riding bicycles?

The Chicago peace march became a police riot as all the propaganda the establishment had been pushing for years exploded against those who knew that the war was wrong. Whether they knew the war was wrong intellectually or emotionally was not as important as the conclusion that it was wrong, and we needed to get out before more American soldiers were killed for no good purpose, unless one considers gratifying paranoia a good purpose.

Don't forget, Humphrey was the Dems 3rd choice as M.J. Rosenberg points out in his interesting post: "Please, No Repeat of '68"

I disagree with your last paragraph. Both political parties were for the Vietnam War at the start. It took a massive effort to get Nixon to start to withdraw his troops. According to Seymour Hersh's book on Kissinger, Henry the K talked Tricky Dicky out of using nukes on North Vietnam because the protest movement was already so large. So Hoffman and other protestors stopped the Vietnam War from being an even worse disaster, and they forced the beginning of the withdrawal of American troops.

Tom

There were some old leftists and Communist Party USA members involved, though not many as far as I could tell. I realize the whole thing is used as "red" herring by the right-wing.

Tom

You don't think conservatives read what you guys talk about? All you hear amongst the left is how can we make it look like we are strong on defense and that we have a foreign policy strategy without the far Right accusing us of being weak on defense. Since John Kennedy said, "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." the Chicago convention cut that philosophy out of the platform.

" .. You ask if anybody really thinks that? ..."

You don't think the rest of America watches your political analysts on TV, claiming that if John Kerry runs as a War hero and walks into the convention and says "reporting for duty" that it will inoculate him from the perception that the party is weak in defending our country. Who is your latest inoculator, Webb?

You had analysts with a straight face saying Kerry had more experience running a war than Dick Cheney!

These are your analysts saying this. They believe there is a perception problem. Many might say its the Republicans fault for twisting the image of the party, but 40 years of lame attempts to counter it with symbolic gestures? That gives way too much credit to the GOP. You say you are laughing, well, laugh it up. Keep laughing.

Now, the latest inside the left chatter is how they need to expedite the end to Iraq as quick as possible so a Democratic president doesn't have to choose between looking weak as they preside over a pullout or worse yet, looking like Bush as they adopt some of his policies in order to "appear" responsible regarding foreign policy. Oh Brother! How about do the unthinkable? ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOUR PLAN IS NOW regarding the need to combat radical Islam.

Yes, Chicago '68 castrated the party and the constant bickering in the party how to combat the image of weakness proves it...after 40 years.

.> You had analysts with a straight face
> saying Kerry had more experience running
> a war than Dick Cheney!

Interesting in three respects:

1) Per "your" philosophy, the President, George W. Bush, is supposed to be the "Commander-in-Chief" and therefore also the "Decider-in-Chief". In this post you outright admit that your side believes VP Richard Cheney is running the Iraq war. In neither 2000 nor 2004 did your side run on this platform, and IIRC when Mr. Cheney did run for President himself he didn't last past the first five /Republican/ primaries.

2) The small fact that the statement quoted, which _you_ made, turns out to have been true doesn't seem to bother you - you still seem to think it is a stick with which you can beat the "Democrat Party".

3) In relation to the Iraq war, you appear to be thinking in Rovian terms of "your side" and "my side" rather than "the best interests of the United States of America". With the USA facing utter (perhaps empire-ending) disaster in Iraq, all you can think about is how to get McCain and Jeb elected. Good work.

sPh

My condolences regarding your loss. Cancer is a deadly disease that we should continue to make every effort to deal with.

Although combating the tragedies of medical ailments and the man made atrocities of murderers require vastly different tactics, I'm afraid the destruction of our country would also destroy our ability to combat the former.

Again, my condolences.

Mr. Gitlin, Seeing you wax nostalgic for '68 and then hopeful that 2007 will be a big year of protests, begs the question: Do you thrill to the spectacle or do you actually support the politics of the Hezbollah supporting, KGB helping, Castro cronies and Communists that organize these events.

The UFPJ, Global Exchange and the Communist Party (CPUSA) that organize these events have very specific views and goals. Are you hoping they have a successful rally because you just like to watch the fun, or because you have a political goal in mind?

A friend who lived in Portland (Oregon) - circa 1968 - was walking down a street with two other firends, and they passed by an old woman who was sweeping off her walkway. When they were near she stiffed-up, drew her broom into striking position, glared at them and said: "You guys ain't fooling me! You ain't nothing but a bunch of Hoppies, and I betcha you're up on L.O.D!"

Neoboho

G C  Wall

Do you thrill to the spectacle or do you actually support the politics of the Hezbollah supporting, KGB helping, Castro cronies and Communists that organize these events.

Link please.

The UFPJ, Global Exchange and the Communist Party (CPUSA) that organize these events have very specific views and goals.

Link please.

:et me preface my remarks about Vietnam with my belief that the wisest strategy would have been to accept one of the forms of coalition offered by Ho and others to the OSS Patti Mission in 1945-1947. These options included a US-brokered return of the French but with a plan for Vietnamese nationhood, with economic consideration for French investment. Another option was that the US take on then-Indochina as a protectorate much like the Phillipines, with an eventual goal of independence.

That being said,

The left had a plan... get out. The lesson of Vietnam is that an invader is not a liberator when the civilian population sympathizes with the guerrillas.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Have you been watching Star Trek IV again, after you and Spock had too much LDS? It was little known, before that movie, how Salt Lake City was the haven of a very strange drug cult.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Who has learned what? Checks out the lead story in this Sunday's NYTimes Week in Review section and in particular the illustration;

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin

While the story is about Obama transcending the divisive politics of the "boomers" the caricature makes plain who the primary offenders are; hippies, hippies, hippies.

The Gang of 500 and the reactionary right will portray the netroots as hippies no matter what they do. And Republicans will run against these hippies in ’08 no matter who runs, including Obama, who will just be a Muslim hippy in their eyes.

Let them. The lesson of ’06 is that a growing segment of the electorate understands that hippies now only exist in the fevered imagination of the right and their toadies in the press.

Um, the Pope?

Yeah, but he's really hung up on the other materialism.

I took Dr. King to be concerned less about whether we are but atoms in the void, and more about whether we take notice of social problems only when they are reflected in the shop windows we gaze through.

According to Wikipedia Mayor Daley "took a particularly hard line against the protesters, refusing permits for rallies and marches, and calling for whatever use of force necessary to subdue the crowds."

I find this story that T alludes to to be rather tiresome, but my understanding is that ANSWER, which organizes a large number of anti-war demonstrations, is a communist group, and that United For Peace and Justice is not, and in fact started up as a counterbalance to ANSWER.  Pardon me for my linklessness, as well - as I say, I get some exposure to this schism in my offline life, and it causes me a curious, really enervating mixture of frustration and boredom.

The reason the majority of Americans turned away from the protestors is because they were all anger and no plan for our foreign policy. Americans are smart enough to know that foreign policy matters

So, what do we Americans know about anything overseas,
much less foreign policy?

Foreign policy is myth and used to control us about internal issues.
Foreign policy discussions are intended to manipulate.
Foreign policy is there to reinforce the existing power.

Lets have a call and refrain moment.

Lets sing:
“Democrats have to be projecting American power overseas to win”
What is this about? Power and Control!
What is this about? Power and Control!
What is this about? Power and Control!

Please, repeat until understanding occurs!

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

Don't worry there John -- I caught it!

~OGD~

"they want us dead and have the means to do something about it"

There's the problem in a nutshell, you nutcase. You actually fell for that crap. What ever gave you the idea Al Qaeda planned attacking the U.S. until they somehow killed all of us? Huh?

You ever read anything published by Al Qaeda's theoretician Ayman al-Zawahiri? Of course you haven't. Neither has Georgie or Dickie. If you had you would see that you've fallen for the trap they laid for you. Their intention was to provoke the "far enemy" into invading Asian countries, the "near enemy", so they could fight us in exactly the war we are now engaged in. They knew you "cowboys" would play their game - and you did!

Professor Gitlin:

Please do not overlook my response... to your earlier comment

~OGD~

Devon:

Apparently, because you did take the time to respond, at the very least my sarcasm device did stimulate discussion and had the positive effect of causing further thoughtful, albeit a meandering comment on your part.

Group think, when related to deluding oneself that a select group of people have the only answers to very complex problems, can be as negative a force for "smart" people as that of the seemingly "black-and-white" stance exhibited from those on the extreme left and/or the extreme right. Neither of which I am on, no matter the perception one may have. To expand on this, please avail yourself to my my comment directed to Professor Gitlin.

~OGD~

After all these comments, I finally realize that this is about more street protests.  I guess I am thick.

I have been in street protests in the 70s (too young in the 60s).  And I have been in street protests lately and provided protesters a refuge or resting place after the protest.  So, I don't dismiss protests.

Still, I see protests as a very weak political method.  I have never seen 1% of the US population in street protests at the same time.  Many protesters are not voters, but if we assumed they were and processed 1% through the voter calculus (eligible and actually voting) you would still have less than 4% of voters.  That is the problem.  Until street protests actually represent 10-20% of the voting population, politicians really don't care.

That is where netroots can be a significant change.  But the work hasn't been done yet.  There is more to be done.  I would like to see some concrete proposals on how to reach 20% of the voting population to move together to reach these idiots elected officials. 

Tom, notice I didn't say that I object to street protests.  I said they are weak.  If the netroots thing can be of benefit, it is to nit together a wider population.  Otherwise, it is just UMC (upper middle class) locking down one more form of political access.

So your contention is that those that want to come and fight Dr. Al-Zawahiri are "nutcases" and he is a genius with an infallible plan that will trap us. I believe your admiration and confidence is misplaced.

I have read Al-Zawahiri. He is psychopath that enjoys seeing small boys sodomized and babies vaporized. You can admire him all you want, but for me, I would consider it a privilege to be the cowboy to put the bullet in his head.

The Christian group AFSC received its Nobel for working in support of the soldiers and the war effort during WWII. The AFSC of today that is supporting the communists that they once fought against does not have the same values they once did.

Know anyone from Goddard SFC in the 70s?

Lots of people were in and out of the contracting firms I worked with. Mostly IBM OS 360 system programmers, and some FORTRAN mathematical types.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It may be tiresome to you, because you don't have an answer to my question.

Your "exposure" to these issues, as you put it is apparently an underexposure, because UFPJ is a communist group run by communists and UFPJ came before ANSWER which started its plan to oppose the US in an office just blocks from the smoldering yet still standing WTC on 9/11/01. As Americans fell from the sky like rain, these activists were making phone calls not to help but to pre-empt any action our government might do to bring the murderers to justice.

I could see why a story like that would make you frustrated and bored. Have fun at their rally.

If Dan Rather said it, that settles it

I think understanding has occured.

The fluoride in the drinking water is for mind control. There is a bat cave of petroleum pirates in the basement of the west wing. The Jews didn't show up to work on 9/11, a missile hit the pentagon, The tin foil on your head will protect you from the frequencies that Kenneth is beaming at you from the mothership hiding behind Hale Bop comet.

Maybe you should change your name from thinking to reasoning. Try it some time.

Related to that lingering residue of noxious gas . . .

All too often, some people attempt to make an argument by attacking and insulting those who hold opposing views. TJKing's protests are a perfect example. I would like to start by discussing TJKing's sophistries, mainly because they amuse me. The thing I'm the most amused about is that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of TJKing's babbling in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must set the record straight. TJKing recently claimed that his self-fulfilling prophecies are our final line of defense against tyrrany. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from wackos just like him a thousand times before.

True, TJKing is guided by the illogical ethos of particularism, but TJKing's actions are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, I recently overheard a couple of pea-brained ideologues say that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this TJKing-induced era of slogans and propaganda. He just reported that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on TJKing's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to evade responsibility.

We have a life-or-death situation on our hands. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that his arguments will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. TJKing says that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely callow and infernal lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by TJKing's disciples.

I may not be perfect, but at least I'm not afraid to say that TJKing's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. TJKing's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are his promises. In fact, evil and balmy, TJKing's imprecations resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that TJKing teaches workshops on separatism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a authoritarian re-education camp. TJKing holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who overthrow democratic political systems.

Anyone who follows today's debates on cronyism and, by happenstance, is also familiar with TJKing's violent philippics, is struck by that old truism: There's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will indubitably persist as long as TJKing continues to ransack people's minds. He doesn't want us to shatter his adage that antagonism is the key to world peace. He would rather we settle for the meatless bone of immoralism.

The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, because of TJKing's obsession with anti-intellectualism, he is reluctant to resolve problems. He always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that he has stated that intolerant carpetbaggers and frightful talebearers of one sort or another should rule this country. That's just pure terrorism. Well, in TJKing's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that TJKing does not merely make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. The salient point here is that I, not being one of the many uneducated autocrats of this world, don't see how TJKing can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that what TJKing is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a lascivious activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly disorganized activity. This raises the question: Why can't he value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that he has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him and those who he considers his leaders. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will grant a free ride to the undeserving faster than you can say phenol-sulpho-nephthalein. TJKing can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the people all of the time.

You may be worried that TJKing will use cheap, intemperate propaganda to arouse the passions of incorrigible smart alecks eventually. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that when I say that the consequences of King's featherbrained, obdurate ramblings, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that the sun rises just for him. This is a common fallacy held by incoherent nit-picky-types.

TJKing has a strategy. His strategy is to strip the world of conversation, friendship, and love. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with a TJKingite.

I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for vile, perverted rumormongers to feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. But now I know that I'm at loggerheads with TJKing on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that his exegeses prevent genital herpes. I take the opposite position, that one does not have to make bigotry respectable in order to oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. It is an adversarial person who believes otherwise. His reinterpretations of historic events are the opiate of the rambunctious. But there are other strains of blinkered Fabianism active today, and the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize unruly, snivelling troublemakers whose shameless fervor blinds them to historical lessons. TJKing claims that the sky is falling. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist.

When I first encountered TJKing's fairy tales, all I could think of was, "King has garnered enough support to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers but not enough support to twist the teaching of history to suit his namby-pamby, unrealistic purposes." How many of his fellow ding-bats are content to sit around doing absolutely nothing to contribute to the world around them? I'd hazard to guess that the number is pretty high. In short, all of TJKing's views about life come straight out of "Teach Yourself Voyeurism in 30 Minutes". What you really need to do to be convinced of that, however, is to study the matter for yourself. I'll be happy to send you enough facts to get you started. Just write to me.

I'm afraid I am finding a shred of truth, but more emotion in both your position and TJKING's. Perhaps writing style is getting in the way of communication.

Not all foreign policy is about power and control. In a utopian world that has multiple states, something not at all at odds with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, then the interactions between states have to be defined by a foreign policy.

It is also a reality that while some demonstrations radicalize, or at least energize the true believers, they also may attack enough social institutions to cause some potential allies to turn away from their argument.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I have read Al-Zawahiri. He is psychopath that enjoys seeing small boys sodomized
Are you sure you don't have him confused with Mark Foley?

!

Wa-a-a-a-ay better than OK.

Getting funnier...LOL

Oh, that clears everything up--UFPJ is the group responsible for diverting us into Iraq, so we would fail to bring the murderers to justice.

And here I've been blaming the White House. I hang my head in shame.

I guess there are a few aging hippies on the left. My guess is most of 'em were wannabe hippies. As far as I can tell, the real hippies were libertarians. They are ON THE RIGHT. I am so damn tired of being smeared with a label that better applies to the people doing the smearing.

Long hair? - check, but who didn't have long hair for a few months or years between 1965 and 1980?

Allergy to the tub? No. Skin prefers a bath every day.

Weed? - Look at the right wing high schools to find out where that is most common.

Sex? - Not enough.

Non-designer clothing? - One thing the 70s did right was kill that form of patronizing behavior.

Back to earth? - First step to becoming a republican (if you weren't one already).

Libertarian? - Civil liberties, check. Economics, I understand the interdependency of the economy and dare those rich bastards to try to live WITHOUT anyone else around AT ALL. It will be funny.

There are only emotions, varied by time of the year, using seasonal storyboards, for the purpose of stimulating spending (charging) on lifestyles and products in the articles and advertising. -A little over kill- maybe?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I am absolutely enthralled by Kohler's European version of the tub & shower products... ahem...

~OGD~

No, the award of the Nobel Peace Prize was for service in DP and Refugee camps, it was shared with the British Friends, and it also included the very extensive network of services directed toward migration of European Jews beginning in 1934. They also provided massive feeding stations for children in areas where famine was present, just as they had during and after World War One. In fact the AFSC was created as the administrative structure to support Herbert Hoover's World War One efforts in 1917, -- and then after the war, his child feeding program in post Revolutionary Soviet Union.

Quaker practice is never to identify with a combat army, and to minimize association and dependency in a conflict zone.

As far as the anti-war demonstrations in the late 1960's, the AFSC had begun to withdraw from direct sponsorship by early 1968, though individuals of course continued to participate. The AFSC came back into the anti-war movement about 1972 focused on the work of the Friends' Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and between then and 1975 they focused on defunding the war. After the draft ended, defunding became the core objective.

In Vietnam, the Quakers focused on establishing an industry that made artificial limbs. They taught salvage of metal from shot down planes, and the process for refashioning it into modern limbs -- they sent experts who could teach the Vietnamese the trade, they did not really make limbs themselves. Since Vietnam the people trained by the Quakers have gone to other conflict zones (Angola, Afghanistan) to teach the same trade. The idea is swords into plowshares.

What do Wahhabiists and Hojjatieh have to do with this? Are they the replacement for communists?

While I might have some sympathy for the ideal of communism, I have none for a religious foundation for political power.

Sara,

Many of the people were the same (you and me for instance). Plus most of the anti-War movement was not violent (except for fringe elements such as the Weathermen).

Tom

Well, whether you have sympathy for their ideals or goals, the communist movement is now solidly entrenched just south of our border. I spend a great deal of time in Latin America and have seen the transformation first hand. The Communists and Jihadists communicate regularly, they share ideals, they share goals, and they have worked together before, and they will do it again.

When Chavez this week announced his attempts to "rule by decree", is it any surprise that his ally Ahmedinijad who was in Venezuela at the time, also has been trying to put his mentor Yasdi in control so he could rule by decree. The Sunni Jihadis also want a totalitarian expanding caliphate. Communism is a religion that worships the state. Wahhabiist Sharia is a call for worship of the state as a material manifestation of god.

Both hate freedom and all the American ideals I mentioned above. The destruction of the US is one of their primary and common goals. Anyone that says Arab or Latin American dictators can't cooperate with Jihadis because of ideological differences doesn't understand history. Hitler allied with Stalin and FDR later with Stalin who was previously allied with Japan who was at war with China who would soon be allies with Stalin. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is alive today as it always has been.

If Americans believe in the above American cultural ideals handed down from the same Greeks that defended Democracy at Salamis, and realizes that for our differences, we do at least share those ideals, then one must realize who it is that wants those ideals of freedom totally snuffed out. It is a common misconception amongst many Americans that western liberalism is an organic characteristic that just pops up in any culture if they are exposed to it. It must be defended and given time to take root. Freedom has more enemies than anyone can imagine. It can only take root when cynicism and special interest are beaten back.

Everyone can see the attractive nature on the surface of Marxism, but underneath is statism and totalitarianism and a denial of the significance of the individual and a philosophy of slavery that is reaching out to the Jihadis.

We need to decide if we even know what American culture is and if it is worth fighting for.

Communists are not a birdwatching club. They hate our form of government, our freedom, and they want it destroyed. They are running the January 27th Rally this weekend, and if people don't consider that significant, then I think thats scary.

Just to clarify what goes on my permanent record here, when I said the allegation has some substance, I mean it's more than just a slur - it's a verifiable claim subject to substantiation of falsification by facts (that aren't on the table).

If you read the 1947 Proclamation by the committee they retell the entire history of the Quakers, then they remark on how in England and the US the conscription laws allowed them to work in relief operations in a non-military capacity. Many of the relief and evacuation efforts were clearly operations that would have been done by uniformed military in England and in Europe. Since the time Hoover constructed the framework for the AFSC it is clear they were in favor of American ideals and opposed to the German goals in WWI and WWII. In WWII, when Germany tried to tell them who they could and could not lend assistance to, the AFSC refused to be manipulated by an evil empire. The Proclamation by the committee goes on to point out with a broken Europe and refugees around the globe how important it is to recognize their efforts.

If you think by my saying they worked in support of the war effort that they were handing ammo to gunners, I think you are looking at an overly narrow interpretation. The whole point of Hoover's efforts was to allow them to serve their country and the goals of their country in the war without actually engaging in military operations.

The AFSC in between World Wars was aware of the importance of the survival of America as the cradle of the freedom that they had flourished under. They acted in a humanitarian sense in sympathy with American ideals and not in sympathy with the Statists that would enslave them. Anyone that denies that is rewriting history in hopes of perpetuating a post-modenist image of peace workers that would see no difference between the Gestapo and the Americans that liberated Aushwitz.

Today the AFSC is doing the opposite of what they once were. They function under an umbrella group of Communists that they once opposed and they have no neutrality regarding the country under attack, which is the United States.

I am hoping to hear that when the IAC and UFPJ were planning their attack on our government on 9/11/01, that the AFSC was formulating a plan to visit each family that was victimized by the 911 attack and lend them support. I hope to hear that. I have a feeling I will not. It is clear from the UFPJ literature that they would be more likely to offer assistance to Hezbollah.

On 9/11 the Jihadis used Plowshares to kill thousands of Americans, Condemning us for defending ourselves with swords would be ridiculous. My point was they have deviated from their original ideals.

How a Christian group of Quakers could be associated in any way with Islamic terror groups that have killed and tortured hundreds of americans is disturbing.

I agree with your final statement. There is a threat because we are being pressured to surrender. If the threat was static by us retreating or doing nothing we would lose. But the threat is growing.

Al Qaeda argues the same thing as many Islamic terror groups, that the womb of the Arab woman will be their greatest weapon. Their birth rates are in some countries a s high as 7-8 per couple. Italy is less than one!

At current fertility rates combined with the right to vote, the continent of Europe will be majority Islamic in my lifetime. The Russian Army will be Islamic within the decade. Japan is aging and shrinking. Who will be our allies in 2040. In my children's lifetime Will our latin American neighbors be our allies or will they be persuaded to side with an Islamic EU with Nukes and Battleships. Who will be our friends?

If one admits that no playing nice or bribes or being friendly will satisfy their desire to destroy the American model, then that begs the question. Do you start now or do you wait until French built Islamic nukes are flattening Manhatten and Brooklyn.

I say we go find the Jihadis now before they follow us home. The USSR didn't want to get hit with Nukes, these guys pray to see nukes go off in the Middle East. The Hojjatieh apocolytic cult of Ahmedinijahd is built on the premise that it is your DUTY to cause a nuclear war in order to hasten the messiah.

No, the Cold war was child's play compared to this.

The cold war was a confrontation that was highly dependent on technology. Their German rocket scientists versus ours, our nukes versus theirs, our satelites versus theirs, our military budget versus theirs.

Assuming that technology is our fail safe or our escape hatch is just folly.

They have youth and will. They attack us because they believe we have neither. The calls for redeployment now are proving them right.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

While I haven't seen the European versions, I can think of at least one US version of a shower ad which tends to put one in need of a cold shower.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I continued to be flattered by those that attribute devious and clever conspiratorial characteristics to the most simple remarks I might make. Truly flattered.

Sometime OK, just means....OK.

OK

Back in the 1930's representatives of AFSC frequently visited Berlin, arranged meetings with Himmler and Goering and arrived with lists of people for whom they had visas for immigration, but who had been denied exit papers by the Nazi officials. They would go into the meetings with all the Nazi pomp on offer, and then request time before beginning to talk for a time of silent meeting. They would then just sit with their lists on the table. Finally they would shake hands with all, and begin the business meeting.

They usually walked off with all the exit permits they requested, as the "biggies" really did not appreciate that little period of silence in search of a mite of truth before taking up the matter of the lists.

As to the Quaker relationship with Palestinians... the relationship dates back to the 1880's when the American Quakers were invited by the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire to found primary and high schools in what is now West Bank, Israel and Gaza for Arab Speaking children. This was a modernizing effort -- at the same time the Sultan gave title to land in Beruit and Cario for the American Presbyterians to establish American style liberal arts colleges, (the model was Princeton and Columbia) and he invited the Germans to build technical high schools, and the French to build a Military Academy in what is now Syria. All of these invitations involved a deed to land for these institutions. The American Quakers put the trust for these lands into American Yearly Meetings where they still are held, held in trust for the Palestinians. Quaker educators have a more than 100 year history of work in these schools (all of which are currently closed by the Israeli occupation -- one is used as a tank park), and many graduates of these schools over the years have received full scholarships to Quaker colleges in the US, or have been sponsored at US Universities by various meetings. In otherwords, the relationship is multi-generational and has very little to do with the current state of play in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Do they meet with the various radical factions of the Palestinians -- I would hope they do. If you are into Conflict Resolution it is necessary to talk with all parties afterall. Does talk suggest approval? not at all. Do you think the AFSC reps in Berlin in the 1930's approved of Himmler? No, not at all -- they wanted favorable discussion about exit permits, just as today the hope is that the Israeli's will stop shelling the schools, remove their tanks from the athletic fields, and let the Quakers re-open their schools.

Did they meet with 9/11 families? I haven't heard about any effort to do that, but I do believe those families got considerable help and attention. No -- they sent representatives to the refugee camps in Pakistan, and later into Afghanistan looking for ways they might do something about conflict resolution in those parts. The women owned and operated bakeries that existed during the Talaban period, and were expanded after November 2001 are partially supported by Quakers -- as are some cooperatives that allow widows to sell handicrafts so as to support themselves and their kids Quaker projects. The hope always is to use projects such as these to dialogue about non-violent ways to resolve conflict.

I read your link and relatively speaking, our country is in less trouble with resident muslims than they are, but nonetheless, how does an Islamic EU in our lifetime affect our ability to turn to allies that share a western culture. Whose left Australia/NZ and the western hemisphere.

The Birthrates are a serious problem if the nations they are born into are not democratic and their economies have no jobs for them. The average age in Gaza is 14.8 years old. The average American is about 45 and his parents need a nurse and a gardener. Where do aging western style democracies get young workers? We import Latinos and they import muslims. Most western european countries have more muslims than we have African americans. Jacque Chirac and the gang must pander for their votes like any other politician. What happens when this population that hates Western Culture in the French ghettoes surpasses 20% and in a decade 40%. The French will have to make the same choice the Vichy made,...join them or not join them. Makes one consider ourselves blessed by the fact that we have Mexicans coming here illegally (as opposed to Yemenis-generally speaking).

Theo Van Gogh is not the first nor the last. I know what you mean about they blend and assimilate, but not the same as other groups and religions. In another thread someone was bringing up Barack Obama's security during the campaign and that his life may be threatened. The news story was implying that some angry white male might be the threat to him.

The next day the Hillary/Obama Madrasa brou haha broke out saying when Barack Obama moved to Indonesia his mother put him in a madrasa for two years. Now there is a huge debate over whether it is true because everybody is afraid of what Rednecks will think of Obama. Forget that. Whether it was a madrassa or Muslim school or whatever ...what are the Islamic radicals going to do about it. Whether this is true or not, Obama is a christian now and the Islamic fundamentalists believe it is your duty to seek vengence on anyone that was once muslim and turns away from the faith. We all have confidence in the professionals to protect him, but does anybody really consider a white redneck racist in America more of a threat to his life than an Islamic Jihadi. These guys killed a few hundred people over a cartoon.

Every war exposes how most of us are still thinking in terms of the last war. We should stop thinking like 1968 and think like 2008.

I enjoyed your post. Don't get hit by the reverse drag racers.

You write...

"Although they have done admirable things in the name of non-violent conflict resolution, most americans are aware that a strict adherence to non-violent conflict resolution only works when it is used against a regime with a conscience or if the regime it is dealing with has reason to fear reprisals from a nation with a conscience. Josef Stalin did not face many Ghandis in Moscow."

Quakers do not adopt projects for political or ideological reasons -- to understand, try to read about the Quaker ideas about "Witness" as a principle for action. In that respect the question of what most Americans are aware of at any particular time (can we call it conventional wisdom) would probably weigh little in a discussion regarding whether to undertake one or another project. The whole point of "witness" is to reveal inner truths about people or things -- not to be a political spokesperson.

And I don't think AFSC relations in the Soviet Union post revolution were with Stalin. They did have regular conversations with Lenin. The post revolution famine was in the early 1920's.

I am not aware there were Quaker schools in Lebanon -- the ones founded in the 1880's were in Palestine. Of course it could will be that alumni might have founded others based on the model, but the ones that concern are those founded during the Ottoman period in the 1880's, and they are under Israeli occupation.

I have no intent to diminish the suffering of those who died and the families left behind as a result of the 9/11 attacks, but the competition was intense for helping these people. Quaker principles would not encourage getting into such competition, rather they would seek out those without support. Widows trying to feed children in Afghanistan after years of war, losses to landmines, tribal revenge killings and all are in much greater need. I believe, after 9/11, some Meetings in the US met with various muslim groups that felt themselves under attack in the aftermath, and initiated rather extensive dialogue.

one thing is for sure,...the organziers of the modern anti-war rallies are communists and they do support terrorists.
I'm sure you have some factual support for this breathtaking claim. I am quite sure that, for example, members of the faith-based Thomas Merton Center in Pittsburgh, which has organized a number of anti-war rallies, will want to know that they have been co-opted by commies and Al Qaida.

This Saturday in D.C. is Karl Marx on parade and we will also see the supporters of Hezbollah, a group that has killed hundreds of Americans.
That's nothing. Turn on your television at 9 o'clock tonight and you will see George Bush who has killed thousands of Americans, disabled tens of thousands, evesdropped on millions, and threatened the liberties of hundreds of millions.

I don't know what unamerican means
We can help you with that: First figure out what America means.

...and sometimes monkeys swallow diamonds, but that doesn't mean we should waste our time sifting monkey shit.

That's right Dan Rather reported it on CBS's news coverage, the highest rated and most widely respected TV news org of the time.

I was a kid with long hair from 1970 to 1977. I otherwise looked and dressed like any other typical teenage suburban white kid. Old ladies used to cross ths street when they saw me coming. In 1977 I got tired of being treated like I was black so I got a haircut. The next day a Army recruiter whose office I had passed everyday on the way to school for a couple of years came trotting after me trying to get me to enlist. I told him my brother was in Baumholder Germany passing out basketballs in a army gym waiting to get blown up by Russians. I'd ask him if he was interested in re-upping but that's the best I could or would do.

As for the police taking sides remember NYC rounding up all those people in 2004? How about Seattle and Philly earlier? The cops aren't out there to beat in heads like they were in 1968 but thanks to guys like Guiliani and Kerik they will preemptively arrest and detain people without just cause if they think there's going too be trouble.

Back in 1968 manufacturering was robust. The whole damn country was. We were still living off being the untouched country of WW11. You couldn't buy a Japanese made car or TV set here.
LBJ was able to easily enact his 10% guns and butter tax because life was so good. Blue collar workers weren't worried about losing their jobs.
Millions still made a good living in Detroit,
Chicago and Pittsburgh with a high school education in a steel mill or car factory. Yeah there was a lot of poverty but it didn't really reach down to most urban or suburban whites.

I am far more afraid of random street crime by Ordinary Decent Criminals than those who go after a Theo Van Gogh. I am as afraid, on an engineering level, of accidents as sabotage to chemical plants. I am certainly more afraid of aggressive drivers looking for accidents to happen than jihadis on the Beltway.

When terrorism, and even fairly pessimistic predictions of terrorism, is being flogged as a critical threat when I have hard evidence that it is a relatively unlikely cause of death than many treatable conditions, I hear a lot of FUD about the Radical Muslim Threat.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

This sounds familiar. Where have I not yet heard it before?

No, many things might be your fault, but the only thing that is your fault here is feigning ignorance on this. You know exactly what I mean. Still, I'll give you another crack at it.

The Merton Rallies that they have put on are attended by hundreds. The Major rallies that are put on by UFPJ, ANSWER, IAC and the other communist umbrella organizations number in the hundreds of thousands. I am sure we could find a rally put on by Pat Buchannen or somebody that opposes the war and is not orgnaized by communists, but the major protests, including the one that we are talking about coming this Saturday is put on by one of the major organizations, UFPJ. UFPJ, is a communist organization, founded by Leslie Cagan who has worked for Marxist groups that have aided Castro and the KGB. Cofounder Medea Benjamin, a communist, is also founder of Code Pink and Global exchange and is responsible for their pro-hezbollah support. Judith Leblanc, chair of Communist party USA is co chair for this saturdays event. ANSWER, NION, AWC, etc. look em up.

The Merton Center is a small fry in the organizing of rallies, and I am not claiming they are communist, but they are promoting Saturdays event and claiming to be a member of the above coalition. So as I said before, and I will direct this at your favorite religous group, if the Merton group or anyone else wants to march under the banner of these communist groups, they should be aware of whose bidding they are doing, and they should not call foul when someone truthfully states that the organization they are supporting is communist and supports terrorists.

I am sure you can find an anti-war rally that is not organized by Communists or does not coordinate with the ones that are, but when you do, give me the heads up.

So to, again, answer your faux questions in order.
1)No...2)No...3)No...4)...no, but they claim membership in a communist organization, UFPJ....5)No, I am concerned about other communist organizations too, that I have not mentioned...6)The question is based on a false assumption, but yes it is still wrong for them to protest the war, because although they have that right, it is possible to have the right to protest and yet still be wrong in your choice of what to protest and why. ...7)No, they would be right in action to support the defense of freedom and this country, but still wrong in their support for evil imperialistic ideologies (communism and islamic terrorism) whose ultimate goal is the destruction of liberty and the enslavement of all of mankind.

and...

8) It would only make me a Liberal if I was accusing you of being unamerican, which it is clear from my quote which you linked, I was not. I was clearly stating that you had told me I didn't know what it was to be american, which I was asking if that should be construed as either I am intentionally unamerican or through actions or accident unamerican. Nonetheless, you clearly were insinuating something to that effect. Thats your right...even though, as usual , you were wrong.

Thank you for not capitalizing the L in liberal, that would have been an epthet that WOULD have been a horror.

This false argument is thousands of years old. In the 20th century, America first would say something like, "If Imperialist Japan is invading other countries, Polio has killed many more people than the Japanese, so why don't we stop spending money on ships and weapons and spend money on a cure for polio."

Polio does not have a committee making plans to destroy the constitution. Polio is a killer in the material world that kills indiscrimnately regardless of ideology. Tojo was a human being that wanted to destroy a philosophy and a way of life by effecting the material world through war.

If you want to take a crack at some sort of malthusian argument that past terrorist attacks will continue indefinitely at the same rate even as we do nothing to respond, then I'd like to see it. This was the philosophy of the 90s that terrorism is like bad weather, it hurts some americans that you don't know and there is nothing that can be done about it so learn to live with it. That is like Buffaloes who are too busy grazing to care that their fellow beast has just collapsed from a gunshot to the head. I expect that lack of compassion from an animal, but you should consider the consequences if your civilian death count projections are inaccurate. Take a chance with your children, not mine.

Please show me your magic numbers of the number of civilian casualties that we should just tolerate. I don't like seeing soldiers die and I don't like seeing civilians die. Where is your "Hard Evidence"?

I can't help but respond to this gem out of sequence.

Polio does not have a committee making plans to destroy the constitution.

If you want to take a crack at some sort of malthusian argument that past terrorist attacks will continue indefinitely at the same rate even as we do nothing to respond, then I'd like to see it.

Please show me your magic numbers of the number of civilian casualties that we should just tolerate.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

OK, so you will not respond. If you can't tell the difference between human threats and natural threats then your obvious evasion about Bhopal and Polio prove how vaccuous your argument is. Are you one of these conspiracy theorists that believe Katrina has a steering wheel and natural phenomenon have anthropomorphic spiritual forces, oh boy! Human beings in the middle east want you dead. They can plan and move and communicate and strike. They are in human form. They are a dynamic threat. Our military protects the country that makes it possible for us to combat the non military threats that you mention. I can't believe I'm even having this conversation.

I was very clear and you pretend to not have read the question. You said you had hard evidence that terrorist threats against American civilians will not become an intolerable threat. In reality you have no projections of this nor could you provide "hard evidence".

You made it up.

You also clearly convey that a certain level of civilian victims is tolerable and you are more scared of engineering accidents,etc. I asked what number of civilian deaths to faceless people in Manhatten or where ever are tolerable to you. You evade and try to ask me questions about stances for which i made no claim. If you can't answer challenges to your reckless and nihlistic comments then it only shows that you are unserious about these defenseless views.

I answered in considerable detail, but I answered questions other than "have you quit beating your wife". As far as I can tell, you are trolling. You present no hard data about military operations or any evidence you understand them. I'll give you a 1 for this response only so it can be seen, but your deliberate lies about what people actually say come across as trolls.

You said you had hard evidence that terrorist threats against American civilians will not become an intolerable threat.

You also clearly convey that a certain level of civilian victims is tolerable and you are more scared of engineering accidents,etc. I asked what number of civilian deaths to faceless people in Manhatten or where ever are tolerable to you.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

What are your definitions of "winning" and "losing", and against whom in what war?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I think I see what you are failing to understand, deliberately or not.

"When terrorism, and even fairly pessimistic predictions of terrorism, is being flogged as a critical threat when I have hard evidence that it is a relatively unlikely cause of death than many treatable conditions, I hear a lot of FUD about the Radical Muslim Threat."

I am not misquoting you and I fully understand your concept of cause and effect. I just think your body count cause and effect argument is a misguided and dangerously irrational delusion.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It seems Liberals are CONSTANTLY calling people unamerican.

I appreciate the courtesy.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Other things being constant, our definition of winning in any situation depending on scope of time is securing our ideals for the future and losing is a failure to do so.

Here are some examples but not the only examples.

If Hugo Chavez is an example of the communist wing of the alliance and the hojjatieh or Al qaeda is an example of the Islamic radicals, I would imagine their definition of America winning would be for their goals of imperialistic expansion be thwarted and their ability to threaten our liberty neutralized and their definition of our losing would be for our government to collapse and for our people to live under a totalitarian regime of their choosing or annihaltaion. I would consider either one of those descriptions of outcomes winning and losing in that order although whether the regime is one of Chavez's choosing or Ahmedinijahd's doesn't matter, its still defeat. These are not the only enemies we face nor the only potential outcomes only examples.

Winning or losing is a dynamic concept describing a function not a destination. Either one of the examples explained implies that moving in the direction of either outcome is the function.

Dunkirk would be considered losing in the course of winning a war. The Battle of Coral sea would be considered losing in the course of winning a war. First Bull Run would be an example of winning for the South in a losing effort. War is a conflict of cultures. We can tolerate the existence of these two cultures, but because of their imperialistic natures they can not tolerate our existence and will continue to seek our destruction.

Please tell me who you think our enemies are and your definition of winning and losing.

CT:

I welcome your first active participation here at the cafe.

Be it that I have waited 3 days for Mr. Gitlin to respond to your comment, and seeing no reply from Todd either denying the incident or placing it in a different context from that of your memory, I've decided to comment on this.

Couldn't help but notice your personal experience and eyewitness account:

But back then in 2004, at that panel discussion, there was Todd Gitlin--who I had long admired--wagging his fingers at protesters who were going to come to NYC and create mayhem that would backfire on progressive politics. I stood up and asked him what evidence he had. I told him that I saw a police disinformation campaign similar to that in other American cities in years previous (and I was right). His answer? He had heard some loudmouth on a call-in radio program spew some revolutionary testosterone bravado about doing something or other against the Man.

Having duly waited for a response here from Mr. Gitlin, I guess he's not interested in discussing this particular encounter. Although, we should at the very least give Todd the benefit that instead of using some excuse such as, "some loudmouth on a call-in radio program" -- he's now expanded to using this current film or as he said, "....black magic of the movies.." about the '68 Chi-town riots as his fulcrum to make it his big "A-ha!" to expand on his position about the negative effects of that riot. Of course, this is not the first movie he's used for his fulcrum.

Oh ... and one should not overlook that Todd himself mentioned agents provocateurs. I can only guess that that was inserted just to make sure everyone keeps that in mind and looking over one's own shoulder. You just never know who may be watching, or in some cases spreading disinfo. Now there's some black magic, and it's not in the movies.

Remember ... It's all about the 'A-ha!' Business . .

~OGD~

I'm pretending nothing. If you answered my question, I didn't understand your answer. I do understand that your refuse to answer others, and I understand why you refuse.

The question of which groups I belong to has nothing to do with rational argument, as you should know; but it amuses me to inform you that I belong to only one political organization: the ACLU. I am a registered Democrat, but often vote otherwise. How about you, Mr. King? Care to declare your political affiliations here?

For what would you have me take responsibility?

The people on the right side of the aisle have dominated the legislature for twelve years, the executive for six; not I.

They have managed to keep the economy afloat only by mortgaging our grandchildrens' future to the Chinese; not I.

They have lied us into a war that has claimed more victims than the 9/11 terrorists, Oklahoma City, and the Vietnam War combined; not I.

They have rejected every reasonable attempt to save our planet from imminent climatic catastrophy; not I.

They have pissed on the very constitution they swore to defend, dared us to challenge them on it, and enjoyed the support of frightened, deluded false patriots like you; not I.

When they were caught "losing" $8 billion here, or exposing undercover CIA agents there, did they accept responsibility? Hell, no! That's just the way it goes. Halliburton can't be expected to keep track of every little billion dollars we throw at it! Oh, and Scooter did it.

When there were no WMDs in Iraq, it was the world intelligence community's fault. When jet airliners slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was the fault of the former Administration, even though their very first terrorism meeting waited eight long months. Even though they had a PDB that told them it was going to happen. Even though they demoted Clinton's terrorism expert because he was making too much noise about terrorism.

Take responsibility? You're talking to the wrong people, Mr. King.

KJ, Although I would admit your remark about who has held the reins of power in the legislative branch has not been to my liking it is not that I have disliked the Republicans in general, but that I think that some have succumbed to the pressure of the left and in doing so muddled the ability to accomplish the goals that they could have. The Democrats as is their duty played the role of the loyal opposition well and created enough stumbling blocks to make sure nothing got done.

You know the saying, "Republicans complain that government can't solve any problems and then when they win over the power to do something about it they prove that to be true".

[BTW, we like when Government doesn't do anything for the most part]

You are tossing out the shotgun approach again so lets just hit one problem here at a time. When did Bush expose an undercover CIA agent? since when did you start caring for the CIA so much and why should Bush accept responsibility for exposing these secret agents?

Your right someone should take responsibility for this? Please share the details.

Regarding military events mentioned I don't think we do see them much differently. I think we agree on all three. One of the common themes of all three is that the consequences of each were difficult for either side to see in context at the time.

I also agree that intangibles(maybe not exactly the ones you mentioned) play a much larger part in the current conflict than previous dependence on industrial or in the case of the cold war, technological expertise.

I disagree to a certain extent regarding Venezuela and Iran. In and of themselves, gauging their offensive military capabilities might argue they lack the ability to , as you say, threaten us in "conventional battle", but the threat that attacked us on 911 and other similar threats have enjoyed the advantage of a stateless base and unlike the Soviets that in a Nuclear world are left exposed, Al Qaeda maintains a philosophy of aggression that it spreads across borders and minimizes its available targets. Venezuela is not a banana Republic. (For anyone that cares, it may come into play in 4 years, but Jeb Bush was a major business player in Venezuela in his youth.) Their military might is not important, but carrying the mantle of the non aligned movement from Castro and in essence the Communist mantle as well, once held by the Soviets, places him in a prestigious position as a persuasive player on the world stage. Having as much oil as he does and on the verge of "rule by decree" dictatorial powers, he will be able to bully his neighbors and interject himself into every one of his neighbors policy decisions. If you have followed his cat fights with Fox and Peru, and the rest of Latin America you know what I mean.

Regarding Iran, they are only a harmless regime if you ignore everything they promise to do. If you take the things they swear they want to do and say , "oh they would never invade the Sudatenland" then maybe they can be ignored. But who in the world can be ignored once they have Nukes. He spends his leisure time holding conferences of the fallacy of the holocaust, he swears he wants them wiped from the map forever, he claims that America is also on the verge of annihlation, he is a member of a cult that considers it not a preference for chaos, but an obligation to create as much chaos as possible to hasten the return of the messiah. It is hard for us to fathom that he is any more than Kruschev with a banging shoe, or that he is as determined as OBL, but why wouldn't he be as suicidal as OBL, because he is theologically more escatological.

When Republicans and yes, nearly all Democrats say as well, "Iran can not be allowed to obtain Nukes", who will allow or disallow this and how?

I agree about the multigenerational aspect of the conflict, but I believe I differ in the fact that I believe we will have soldiers on the ground for a multigenerational time period as well. Maybe less if we push hard on the intangibles that are necessary.

You are tossing out the shotgun approach again so lets just hit one problem here at a time.
Shotgun? If I'm not mistaken, it was you who raised the subject of responsibility. My entire comment was focused, laser-like, on responsibility.

When did Bush expose an undercover CIA agent?
Where did I say he did so? However, we have this quaint custom in our country where we expect the President to take resonsiblility (there's that word again) for the actions of his administration. What's the custom in your country?

since when did you start caring for the CIA so much and why should Bush accept responsibility for exposing these secret agents?
Mr. King, your concern for my personal sensibilities is quite touching, really. You ask and speculate about my feelings, about my political affiliations, about my religion... I will sometimes acquiesce to these inquiries, even though I can't imagine what they have to do with our debate. When you start asking about my preferences in undergarments and nightwear, however, I will stop responding. I have heard where these sorts of questions lead when they come from conservatives.

For the record, I rated the parent post a "1" because it consisted solely of an attack on another poster, without any attempt to engage the argument.

It seems as though you and I agree on the bipartisan statement, "Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon."

First of all, there those, not you apparently, that have argued, either, "He really isn't capable of builing a bomb so stop worrying about it". Or the other one, "He might say he wants to exterminate every Jew or bring the US to its knees, but he is just saying that silly stuff, he doesn't mean it, that's crazy".

I think that is whistling past the graveyard and sounds a lot like the river in Egypt.

As Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you". Ahmedinijahd is interested with Expansion and war with "someone" at the very least. Either One of his two neighbors that we currently occupy, or Israel, or us or all of the above. In the end any of those scenarios include us.

If you are hoping that our intelligence agencies are investigating all of the optimal scenarios that you have proposed, I also hope they are putting in overtime. Unfortunately, I think our Intelligence agencies are not yet mended. Some of that might be the fault of the bureaucracy itself, but some of the blame falls at the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

I am neither saying Iran must not, nor must, obtain a nuclear weapon. I am saying that Iran, even with aggressive development, is incapable of developing a significant nuclear capability in the moderate term.

Whether or not there is any advantage of their developing minimal capability gets into a very complex analysis of deterrent theory, the same sort of theory that went into both weapons systems production and arms control vis-a-vis the Soviets. I am not sufficiently expert in Iranian internal politics to estimate who would have control of nuclear weapons, although I would observe that their longer-range missiles are now under the control of the Pasdaran rather than any of their regular military branches.

Make no mistake that the Soviet Union was a secular theocracy. Control over their nuclear weapons always involved at least two major power centers, the military and KGB. Iran has a complex governmental structure with multiple power centers, and it is not at all inconceivable that a very broad consensus would be needed to commit weapons, regardless of public statements. This needs analysis.

Based on principles from Kissinger, I am not convinced Ahminejad necessarily want expansion, or, for domestic political reasons, is more concerned that he be perceived by the West as an expansionist lunatic. We don't really know the positions of Khamenei, Meshkini or Jannati. All their positions are relevant to Iran's actual intent. On the other hand, Ahminejad may be an expansionist lunatic.

Whichever of these it is, I cannot rationalize any current scenario that justifies an attack in the short term. There are multiple reasons for this, one of which is purely one of targeting such that an attack does maximum damage to the centrifuge cascades.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Shall we remember when the president announced that anyone involved in leaking Plame's identity would be fired? Shall we consider his narrowing that to criminal involvement? In neither case was the promise delivered. Libby only left after the public indictment.

Shall we remember "no one could have anticipated airplanes flying into buidlings"? Or the unsurprising insurgency in Iraq? Neither of these was acknowledged as a failing by the administration. The defense is simply "we didn't think that would happen." This squirming is why younger people are not given weighty responsibility. It is a failing on the administration's part, since they are responsibile even if they dodge it.

Things will happen that can't be avoided, but that does not absolve the responsible parties. In other settings leaders resign, sometimes from a corporation, sometimes from a Prime Ministership, sometimes from a cabinet post. Not here.

Ramsey Clark is my man! Even more than Chomsky, I can safely assume that anything Clark supports is something I will oppose. There's little enough certainty in these times, and Chomsky did make some valuable contributions to computer science.

While I find it equally plausible that anything supported by Ann Coulter will be something I oppose, I do not believe it incredibly sexist to consider a comparison between Coulter and Clark, with Clark in a kilt.

For the record, while my Scots connection is by marriage, I look OK in a kilt--but please, Hunting Bell rather than Dress Bell tartan. I have taste. True enough, I may not be able to wield the classic Claymore, but I suppose a M18A1 can make up for it. Would have been damned useful at Culloden.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

There are some supporting factors for your argument, such as the member of the council of experts this week that criticized Ahmedinijahd's spending too much time in Latin America and too much effort stirring up unnecessary hostility from the west. And yes the governmental structure is complex at this time. If Yasdi were to get control through some underhanded means, Ahmedinijahd and his mentor would have a lock on both power structures.

Yes, the soviets were a secular theocracy, but detterent theory based on numerous economic studies and models assumes certain conditions of "Rationality", such as the "deterred" is expected to desire survival over martyrdom. The Hojjatiej, like Yasdi and Ahmedinijahd, truly believe that the path to Heaven is to do ones duty to create apocolyptic "chaos" in order to hasten the coming of the 12th Imam, their Messiah. It may be irrational to us, but if we can follow the requests of the American elite and set aside our cultural perspective and learn what these people truly believe, we will see this guy is bonkers, he is megalomaniacal, he is suicidal and he is commiting an Atomic version of "Suicide by cop".

I understand your arguments downplaying the threat, but you imply that there is some date in the future that they WILL be able to get a usable nuke. What is it is 5 years or 10 or 15. 15 years is a minute in time in the long view of Nuclear containment.

In the world of Nuclear containment, a desire or attempt to acquire is actually more dangerous than the existence of the engineering capability to build it.

I am not advocating ICBMs launching on Tehran tomorrow, but if I looked out side and saw a crazy drunk in the street shooting a pistol in the air. I wouldn't feel comforted if someone told me he has bad aim or might not have any more clips in his pocket or that he really doesn't want to shoot us.

Someone has to deal with it and maybe not tonight, but sooner is better than later at some point.

In our time, no foreign army has ever occupied American soil. Until now.

Red Dawn.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Try again. I said "publicly indicted" and we both know the charge.

Fitzgerald said he could not proceed to an indictment on the foundational charge because of obstruction. Whether the leak meets the standard of criminality is one issue, whether it occured is another. It did occur, White House personnel were responsible, end of story.

Guess you concur on the other points.

While the period may be open to debate, I sense we are in some agreement that the apparent urgency to attack is misplaced. Even if I were absolutely certain the Iranians were intent on building and using weapons, I would wait until the targets became much more clear. I'd want to know where the centrifuge cascades were located. I'd want to have the most accurate possible intelligence on the multiple electrical power generation and distribution systems that have to be powering the centrifuges, so when I hit the centrifuges, I hit the system in a way optimized to make them self-destruct.

I'd be trying very hard to find out if the Iranians have hydrodynamic test facilities, absolutely critical to developing miniaturized designs in the absence of full weapons testing. These are very large test chambers with extremely high speed X-ray cameras, in which the high-explosive components of a bomb can be tested with nonfissionable material, so the engineering art of maximizing compression and other yield-increasing and weight-lowering techniques can be evaluated.

Meanwhile, I'd be looking at the possible defection or even assassination of key engineers, and at their missile development program.

Attacking in the next weeks or months would not have any of this information, and the targets would not be "ripe."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I think you missed the reference. Maybe it's more obscure than I thought...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Howard, a tip of the wing to ya
See, it’s fun using plane words,
but remember we must keep our Bering’s sea

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

I had a feeling after tossing that grenade and then trying to slink away, you would sit this one out till the water warmed up enough for you.

Come on in, the waters fine, KJ.

Did Pony boy say that or Patrick Swayze?

These are very interesting propositions. I will keep my eyes out for more information on these.

Even if there was some urgency. It makes sense that the current crack down on Shias and border harrasment would be necessary before an attack.

I've heard that Rand or Jane's is saying that We have special forces in Iran in surprisingly large numbers for recon.

Russia delivered new defensive missiles to Iran today.

Remember the old Irish line, "Is this a private fight or can anyone join in".

All hail the human capacity to learn.

Amen, brother, keep the faith. :-)

P.S. Partly selfishly, a retro revival of the country's actual mood circa '70-'72 is not something to look forward to in one's dotage. It might look pretty in movies and some memories, but on closer look or with more objective memory dredging, it turns quite ugly. Little good comes of visceral virulent hatred of fellow citizens because of their political and cultural leanings, the wounds from it heal ever so slowly (almost diabetic in their nature,) and the blowback potential is enormous. There's got to be a better way. I believe later groups like Act Up offered some inspiration in that vein.

While never one to discourage high quality historical narratives, no matter how inaccurate, I also agree with your worry that the successful romanticization of the period by this film might have some bad mojo. Not the least of which is that the current younger generation excoriates themselves for not having the same attitude. I pray they never do, never get the curse to repeat history--they should of course be setting about doing something new and better.

Rats. True Lies is a hallowed political theme as well as a hysterical movie, and I really liked the tango with Ah-Nold and Jamie Lee Curtis.

Can't you both find tango partners?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

What argument was that? That Dan Rather is a poopy pig?

Again KJ, you are starting to look silly. You brought up the issue of responsibility and "ASKED" in the context of several specific examples why responsibility was not taken. Are we still on the same page here.

I accepted your challenge and said I would respond by taking one of your examples first, since you listed so many. I asked you to elaborate on what your accusation was regarding an undercover CIA agent. It was at that point that you decided to NOT take responsbility for your own accusation. You threw a grenade out and then ran for cover when someone takes your accusations serious and agrees to discuss it rationally.

First you evade by claiming that you weren't refering to Bush taking responsibility, so we stipulated that it could be an issue of his administration taking responsibility, now in this post you are back to making the issue of Bush taking responsibility.

The longer you scurry around avoiding the issue, the sillier you look.

You did a drive by, you tossed out a bogus accusation, and you realize your accusation can't be defended and now you want to run away.

I have continued to offer to discuss your issue of responsibility in the context of the examples you offered, yet you refuse. I think this clearly establishes that Bush can't take responsibility for things that you can't even describe coherently.

If you can't defend the bombs you throw and "take responsibility" for your accusations, then either don't make them or accept that you are going to look silly running away from your own words.

The initial mistake was giving a bone to the French in the first place. Maybe someone in war weary 1945, thought of it as outsourcing, but the French as usual take a bad situation and make it worse.

As I said, I expected you to scuttle down a rat hole rather than actually debate the topic you introduced. You have made my prediction into reality by attempting to argue about the way I am arguing.

This is my premise: The Bush Administration has created or permitted about a dozen disasters and has not taken responsibility for any of them, always blaming someone else. I gave any number of examples.

You now have a choice about how to proceed. You may give examples to the contrary or counter my argument any way you find appropriate. Or you may instead continue attack me, my motives, my debating style, or my manhood.

Whatever you do, I will do my very best to go on living, worrying about whether I fit some Wingnut's definition of silly. It will be tough.

It seems like you are saying that since you believe the Albanians are secular that they are a benign threat or would not ally themselves with the radicals. The Albanian take over of Kosovo with the help of the US and Al qaeda puts that assumption off the table.

Former leader of the KLA that recently became an elected leader in Kosovo has also been dragged to the Hague on war crimes. Joe Biden resonded to the news by saying he's a really nice guy.

I'm glad that we have established that your accusation of the so called "Plame affair" was bogus.
I guess I missed that.

Since we both know that it was a politicially motivated media campaign to smear bush with no legitimacy
...and that.

I am glad we can admit that the 3 years of lies and misrepresenations has been a waste of time for the American people.
Have you wasted three years? Not I. I've spent them spreading liberal lies and "misrepresenations".

You do have quite a network of little rat-holes, don't you? And it seems they are all connected.

But getting back to the topic of our debate: You don't have a single counter-example, huh? I guess we agree then, that the Bushies comprise the most irresponsible administration since, who? Harding? Maybe Grant? It's so hard to keep these irresponsible Republican administrations straight.

Yup

CIA took it seriously--that's why there was an investigation.

Enjoy the trial.

Ahem...

~OGD~

You might read "The Making of the President, 1960," but I don't suppose Teddy White is a sufficient source for you, is it, Mr. King?

Nah, insufficiently Wingnuttian.

Hey! You forgot to ask Mark about his gutchies!

Just can't get your mind off my scanties, eh?

Once again, I must apologize. I didn't realize that you were unaware that books are printed on paper. Your link is your public library. Careful, what you check out, though. Once the FBI finds out you are borrowing books written by liberal ass-kissers, you could find yourself on an all-expense-paid vacation in an open-air accomodation for one in Cuba.

You still owe me a few answers though:
-- Which Bush administration chickenhawk was it that convinced his draft board that he couldn't defend his country because of his bad knees but continued to play football?

-- Which right-wing chickenhawk was it that couldn't defend his country because his butt had a cyst on it?

-- Which neoCon chickenhawk was it that couldn't fight for America because he had other priorities?

-- What was your highest rank in the Armed Forces?

-- And here's a new one about Mr. Rumsfeld's Presidential Medal of Freedom: As I understand it, that was second prize. First prize from Jerry Ford was a Presidential Pardon. Is this correct?

I want to be sure I'm understanding you correctly, Mr. King. You are claiming that books don't count? Truth is found only on the web? I don't think even the Bush Administration's War on Science has gone that far...yet!

But we still have a couple of unanswered questions, no?

-- Bad knees = chickenhawk. Which?

-- Butt cyst = chickenhawk. Which?

-- Other priorities = chickenhawk. Which?

-- Your service rank.

Waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting..........

Hey Cowboy...

Did someone say link? Why am I not amazed to see you're still fighting the off-subject brush fires in the box canyons of your mind.

Do you even remember what the subject matter of this thread was about?

If the problem is, that you've run out of one-liners and digs related to the subject of demonstrations -- hippies -- commies -- boomers -- pot-smokers -- etc., etc., etc., please avail yourself of the information I have kindly provided over at my personal TPM-Cafe blog here...

With guarded optimism -- Your fellow ">http://yohoyohoasailorslifeforme.blogspot.com">shipboard buddy...

~OGD~

Just in case you don't make it back to this sub-thread.

\/ \/ Look Down Here \/ \/

Mmmm...well, yes. And one of Anne Bancroft's age at the time is a now a younger woman, but old enough to be interesting.

I'm an insomniac on Eastern time. Are you referring to something along the lines of how they tell time on the San Diego radio station:

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

How high do they know how to count? :-)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Deleted, because I changed my mind.  Just know that my reply was off-topic and rather snippy, though wonderfully eloquent, of course.