It's been a long time since I was in the army, but I seem to remember it goes something like this:
First you establish air superiority, which means you need to be able to put more planes into the air than they can. I don't know if North Vietnam even had an air force but, if they did, it must have been neutralized early on because our guys were able to bomb Hanoi effectively. Bombing alone usually will not win a war, however. In the case of Japan, the two atom bombs only shortened the war, they alone did not win it. If those two bombs had not been used, the next step would have been an amphibious landing, but we can skip that step because our guys already had a beachhead established in South Vietnam.
As soon as your planes are out of the way, you start the artillery shelling. The big guns are usually located behind the infantry and fire over their heads. Of course, the bombs and artillery inflict considerable damage, but their main value is that they cause the enemy to keep their heads down so your infantry can advance. Tanks and infantry usually advance together, but not always. Sometimes the tanks sit back and act as artillery, lobbing shells over the heads of the infantry. However you do it, the war isn't over until the enemy has been killed, captured, or driven from the objective and your guys physically occupy the ground. At some point, the enemy may surrender, but you still need to put your boots on the ground to make sure that it isn't just a delaying tactic. After the war, you still need to occupy the ground until a new civilian government has been established and you're sure that the old guys aren't coming back.
That's the way they won World War II. I think the reason it wasn't done that way in Vietnam is that they didn't want to defeat communism, they just wanted to contain it. Korea was fought pretty much the old fashioned way, but they stopped short and allowed the commies to retreat behind their own lines and stay there. The objective seems to have been to get them out of South Korea, but not out of North Korea. I can only speculate about why. I could assert that they wanted to keep communism alive so they would have a convenient scapegoat for everything that went wrong in the world, but that would be just paranoid. I was against that policy at the time but, looking back on it, maybe they were right. If you've got to have an enemy, better a semi fake enemy like international socialism than those Islamic fanatics we are facing today. They seem to have arisen to fill the void created when Russian communism collapsed of its own weight. Maybe our guys should have given the Russians more foreign aid.
Friday, September 29, 2017
Man, the maker of alliances
I am ashamed to admit that I was a follower of Survivor for many years. It was a little better than most of the reality shows because the contestants themselves voted each other off, rather than some committee whose ass was constantly being kissed. So it was all backstabbing and plotting. The backstabbing and plotting continued in the later years but now it was accompanied by long speeches of how the experience of Survivor had made them all better people, and I stopped watching it.
I think at first it was supposed to be some rough democracy with all joining together to vote each other off, but two episodes into the first showing alliances showed up, and they have been a mainstay ever since. What Washington warned against was political parties and I think they popped up their heads in a dozen years. It is just the human natural, it is in our genes to talk someone else into, or to be talked into by somebody else, to join together to make a buck or steer the ship of state.
And I'm sure that ever since we were growing onions on the plains of Sumer there has been talk of secret societies pulling the strings behind the scenes. I'm not buying it because there are always more reasonable explanations for what goes on. I know about Bohemian Grove, I've heard of Bilderberg, why not throw in the Trilateral Commission and the Illuminati, and the Rosicrucians too while your at it, toss them all into a cocked hat and walk the razor straight path of logic and reason my sons.
When Woodrow Wilson strode into Versailles his stoopid American idea was that all countries that wanted to be independent should be made so, but it turned out that there were so many separatist movements that he had to shake his head, and while his head was shaking and the other diplomats, who knew what was really going on. shoved him aside and fought over the biggest piece of pie.
We love the Kurds, or used to, because unlike the other guys who were tossing down their weapons and running mostly because they were riven by that Sunni Shia split, the Kurds stood and fought, and won frequently. But you know what? They were not fighting because they loved Uncle Sam, they were fighting because they were building a bigger Kurdistan. And now they want to declare their own country and the US is against it because for some reason we cherish the idea of an intact Iraq. I'm not sure why this is. There is the factor that along with land the Kurds are talking a lot of the oil. I'm sure you've all seen the Treasure of the Sierra Madre (if for no other reason than to turn a phrase on we don't need no stinking badges, which, I know, they never actually said) and you have to think the mideast would have been way better off if there had never been any oil there.
Old Dog, you are nearing seven decades and you are shocked that the US talks out of both sides of its mouth? Don't you remember the red man talking about our forked tongues? Don't you remember the Lesson of Vietnam? This shit happens all the time, get used to it.
Speaking of mountains being made out of molehills the Packers and the Bears and the audience all locked arms last night to support the fight against injustice or maybe it was solidarity or maybe it was the troops, nobody was sure and nobody cared much, because, I don't know, do I dare say that the American people are too smart for this shit? Probably not. Probably it has something to do with the Bilderbergs.
I think I've made this mistake about Beagles being in the NRA before. I guess I remember that you applied but I misrember the part of them rejecting you.
This beating North Vietnam into submission sounds a lot like what Trump talks about for ISIS and N Korea. Sounds tough, but where are the details? What would Beagles have done specifically? Thrown more bombs and lives into the maw that had not worked in the past? Sicced Them on them?
Happy weekend guys.
I think at first it was supposed to be some rough democracy with all joining together to vote each other off, but two episodes into the first showing alliances showed up, and they have been a mainstay ever since. What Washington warned against was political parties and I think they popped up their heads in a dozen years. It is just the human natural, it is in our genes to talk someone else into, or to be talked into by somebody else, to join together to make a buck or steer the ship of state.
And I'm sure that ever since we were growing onions on the plains of Sumer there has been talk of secret societies pulling the strings behind the scenes. I'm not buying it because there are always more reasonable explanations for what goes on. I know about Bohemian Grove, I've heard of Bilderberg, why not throw in the Trilateral Commission and the Illuminati, and the Rosicrucians too while your at it, toss them all into a cocked hat and walk the razor straight path of logic and reason my sons.
When Woodrow Wilson strode into Versailles his stoopid American idea was that all countries that wanted to be independent should be made so, but it turned out that there were so many separatist movements that he had to shake his head, and while his head was shaking and the other diplomats, who knew what was really going on. shoved him aside and fought over the biggest piece of pie.
We love the Kurds, or used to, because unlike the other guys who were tossing down their weapons and running mostly because they were riven by that Sunni Shia split, the Kurds stood and fought, and won frequently. But you know what? They were not fighting because they loved Uncle Sam, they were fighting because they were building a bigger Kurdistan. And now they want to declare their own country and the US is against it because for some reason we cherish the idea of an intact Iraq. I'm not sure why this is. There is the factor that along with land the Kurds are talking a lot of the oil. I'm sure you've all seen the Treasure of the Sierra Madre (if for no other reason than to turn a phrase on we don't need no stinking badges, which, I know, they never actually said) and you have to think the mideast would have been way better off if there had never been any oil there.
Old Dog, you are nearing seven decades and you are shocked that the US talks out of both sides of its mouth? Don't you remember the red man talking about our forked tongues? Don't you remember the Lesson of Vietnam? This shit happens all the time, get used to it.
Speaking of mountains being made out of molehills the Packers and the Bears and the audience all locked arms last night to support the fight against injustice or maybe it was solidarity or maybe it was the troops, nobody was sure and nobody cared much, because, I don't know, do I dare say that the American people are too smart for this shit? Probably not. Probably it has something to do with the Bilderbergs.
I think I've made this mistake about Beagles being in the NRA before. I guess I remember that you applied but I misrember the part of them rejecting you.
This beating North Vietnam into submission sounds a lot like what Trump talks about for ISIS and N Korea. Sounds tough, but where are the details? What would Beagles have done specifically? Thrown more bombs and lives into the maw that had not worked in the past? Sicced Them on them?
Happy weekend guys.
Thursday, September 28, 2017
Factions
That's the word we have been looking for, "factions". I seem to remember that George Washington, in his Farewell Address to Congress said that one of the most important jobs of government is to control factions. The first time I read that, way back in Sawyer Elementary School, I didn't understand it, but I think I do now. Humans, being social animals, tend to form themselves into groups. Even in Washington's day, the US government was not a monolithic organization. Like Old Dog said, there are wheels within wheels, and there always have been. Washington didn't say to demolish this system, just keep it under control. Lots of luck with that one!
Speaking of factions, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the National rifle Association. I tried to join at the age of 16, and they said that I had to be at least 21. By the time I turned 21, I was no longer interested. I figured that, since they didn't want me when I wanted them, I don't want them now. I am not now, but I have been a member of both the John Birch Society and the Libertarian Party. I left them both because I no longer believed in everything they had to say. No hard feelings, it just wasn't a good fit anymore. When I was in those groups, I thought of them as "we", but now they are just "they" like everybody else. All the they groups aren't bad guys, they're just not my guys. I am me and they are they. Another word I was looking for last night but didn't think of until after I signed off was "detachment". I don't feel alienated from the rest of humanity, just detached.
When I mentioned imperialists last night, I was thinking of Japan. All the other imperialists that were on our side, I classified them as the good guys. That said, I think that World War II was about ideology as much as it was about territoriality. On one side you had your fascists, which were national socialists and, on the other side, you had your communists, which were international socialists, at least on paper. Truth be known, international socialism turned out to be largely a front for Russian imperialism, but that wasn't well known at that time. The Allies, except for Russia, called themselves "democracies", and I guess they were, compared to the two socialist groups. So what you had were three competing ideologies, four if you count imperialism. Funny thing, Japan and Germany became democracies after the war, but Russia did not.
What I would have done in Vietnam is the same that was done to Japan and Germany, beat it into submission and then rebuild it in our own image. I think the US agenda was merely to contain the spread of communism, not to overthrow it. It wasn't that they couldn't defeat North Korea and North Vietnam, it was that they didn't want to.
The reason the US can't seem to make up its mind half the time, or even most of the time, is that the US is not one person. It is a collective of diverse individuals, many of whom have formed themselves into factions. If everybody agreed on everything, there would only need to be one single faction, and we would all be in it. What fun would that be?
Speaking of factions, I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the National rifle Association. I tried to join at the age of 16, and they said that I had to be at least 21. By the time I turned 21, I was no longer interested. I figured that, since they didn't want me when I wanted them, I don't want them now. I am not now, but I have been a member of both the John Birch Society and the Libertarian Party. I left them both because I no longer believed in everything they had to say. No hard feelings, it just wasn't a good fit anymore. When I was in those groups, I thought of them as "we", but now they are just "they" like everybody else. All the they groups aren't bad guys, they're just not my guys. I am me and they are they. Another word I was looking for last night but didn't think of until after I signed off was "detachment". I don't feel alienated from the rest of humanity, just detached.
When I mentioned imperialists last night, I was thinking of Japan. All the other imperialists that were on our side, I classified them as the good guys. That said, I think that World War II was about ideology as much as it was about territoriality. On one side you had your fascists, which were national socialists and, on the other side, you had your communists, which were international socialists, at least on paper. Truth be known, international socialism turned out to be largely a front for Russian imperialism, but that wasn't well known at that time. The Allies, except for Russia, called themselves "democracies", and I guess they were, compared to the two socialist groups. So what you had were three competing ideologies, four if you count imperialism. Funny thing, Japan and Germany became democracies after the war, but Russia did not.
What I would have done in Vietnam is the same that was done to Japan and Germany, beat it into submission and then rebuild it in our own image. I think the US agenda was merely to contain the spread of communism, not to overthrow it. It wasn't that they couldn't defeat North Korea and North Vietnam, it was that they didn't want to.
The reason the US can't seem to make up its mind half the time, or even most of the time, is that the US is not one person. It is a collective of diverse individuals, many of whom have formed themselves into factions. If everybody agreed on everything, there would only need to be one single faction, and we would all be in it. What fun would that be?
Muddled thinking
As you guys continue to chew on the nature and identity of the They/Them group(s) who are behind all of today's woes, I think they are hiding in plain sight. There is no one cohesive group but many smaller groups or organizations, some commercial, some political, and some social, all with their own agendas, looking out for their own best interests (whatever they may be). Temporary alliances may be formed when their interests overlap but by and large I think they stick to their own areas.
But I'm still thinking on it it and have not come to any conclusions despite the many fine arguments from you guys. And then I think of the nature of political and social power and how it's always been "wheels within wheels," and it's the guys at the bottom who carry the weight. If you end up being whipped does it really matter who has the whip hand?
Speaking of "Them," have either of you any thoughts on things like the Bilderberg Group, or the World Economic Forum that meets annually in Davos, Switzerland, or those folks romping in Bohemian Grove? All likely candidates to be "Them."
-----
So far I've only viewed the first episode of The Vietnam War and I found it revealing. I didn't know that Ho Chi Minh was such a big fan of Thomas Jefferson and made so many appeals to the US government for support in the quest for independence from the French and unification of the country.
I wonder why the US has been so inconsistent in supporting independence for various nations and groups. Don't we want all countries to be self governing, by the people? Unless they are commies, of course, or otherwise contrary to our best interests, which again may mean following the money. The results of the Kurdish election aren't in yet, but I think the US opposes the idea of an independent state of Kurdistan, something to do with destabilizing our efforts in Iran and causing more problems with Turkey. I still don't know what we are doing there or hope to accomplish but not much good seems to be coming from our efforts.
I guess my major issue is that the US keeps talking out both sides of it's mouth. We don't like the Commies, yet our biggest trading partner is China. We support human rights and oppose terrorism, yet we have sweet deals with the Saudis and their religiously oppressive government and schools for Islamic extremism. We support free trade, but now we are jeopardizing agreements with Britain, of all places, wanting high tariffs for aircraft that the US isn't even making. The US should either make up it's mind or get out of the game.
-----
Sorry that I;m getting worked up about all this, but, what the hell, not much is making sense to me. Mountains are being made out of mole hills and bigger things are being swept under the rug. The folks in Washington don't seem to know what the hell they're doing except blaming the other guys, and formerly reliable sources of news are no longer credible. Have the chickens come home to roost?
But I'm still thinking on it it and have not come to any conclusions despite the many fine arguments from you guys. And then I think of the nature of political and social power and how it's always been "wheels within wheels," and it's the guys at the bottom who carry the weight. If you end up being whipped does it really matter who has the whip hand?
Speaking of "Them," have either of you any thoughts on things like the Bilderberg Group, or the World Economic Forum that meets annually in Davos, Switzerland, or those folks romping in Bohemian Grove? All likely candidates to be "Them."
-----
So far I've only viewed the first episode of The Vietnam War and I found it revealing. I didn't know that Ho Chi Minh was such a big fan of Thomas Jefferson and made so many appeals to the US government for support in the quest for independence from the French and unification of the country.
I wonder why the US has been so inconsistent in supporting independence for various nations and groups. Don't we want all countries to be self governing, by the people? Unless they are commies, of course, or otherwise contrary to our best interests, which again may mean following the money. The results of the Kurdish election aren't in yet, but I think the US opposes the idea of an independent state of Kurdistan, something to do with destabilizing our efforts in Iran and causing more problems with Turkey. I still don't know what we are doing there or hope to accomplish but not much good seems to be coming from our efforts.
I guess my major issue is that the US keeps talking out both sides of it's mouth. We don't like the Commies, yet our biggest trading partner is China. We support human rights and oppose terrorism, yet we have sweet deals with the Saudis and their religiously oppressive government and schools for Islamic extremism. We support free trade, but now we are jeopardizing agreements with Britain, of all places, wanting high tariffs for aircraft that the US isn't even making. The US should either make up it's mind or get out of the game.
-----
Sorry that I;m getting worked up about all this, but, what the hell, not much is making sense to me. Mountains are being made out of mole hills and bigger things are being swept under the rug. The folks in Washington don't seem to know what the hell they're doing except blaming the other guys, and formerly reliable sources of news are no longer credible. Have the chickens come home to roost?
we are them and that's what makes America
What was that that Tonto was quoted on lately? I believe I am one of the newer lower-case them. I am pretty much a democrat, even if I don't carry a card, I was a ward committeeman thirty or so years ago. I am a member of the condo social committee. Hum I am not as much of a joiner as I thought I was. But anyway this vision of America crawling with these lower-case thems (let's call them lct's) seems to me just what our founding father's intended, it looks like democracy to me. Aren't you supposed to get involved? Aren't you supposed to work for what you think is right?
Well it's not like for instance, the Social Committee of Marina City (SOCOM) wants to take over the world, but we would like the Board of Directors to give us lots of money for our budget and not bow to those lawyers every time we want to do something that is fun. And the Board of Directors doesn't want to run the city, but they would like tax breaks or whatever. And the city doesn't want to run the state, oh wait, it does. Well all analogies break down somewhere.
Most lcts just want this and that, but to get that they have to have power, and to get power you may sometimes have to make a deal that isn't necessarily part of your original mission, and as you gain power you get to like the taste of it, and then maybe you forget what brought you to the dance. When I was ward committeeman if you asked me if I wanted to be president I would have said no. But maybe I would have liked to be alderman, and if I did become alderman I still would not want to be president, but that mayoral sash sure would look swell around my waist. And so on and so on and doobie doobie do on.
Wasn't Beagles once a card carrying Bircher and didn't that NRA card once shine in his wallet ? Doesn't that make him an lct? I don't see where Beagles draws the line where he is sure that are not them, and they are not us. It all sounds like my former hero, Slick Willie, asking, much like the early Greek philosophers, what is the meaning of is.
I'm not sure who the imperialists were in WW II. England and France had colonies, but then so did Germany and Italy on the other side, and Spain and Portugal who were not involved, and we were still hanging on to Cuba and some of those tiny Pacific islands that we still hold. Japan was a big colonizer at the time, but I think they are generally lumped in with the fascists.
Occam'r razor tells me that WW II was not a war of ideologies, it was a war of countries, Each one was doing what it had to do for it's own national interests. It is ever that way when it comes to war. Stalin didn't turn on us, he was never with us, just as we were never with him, it only served our national interests as long as we were both fighting Germany.
There are many reasons those wars turned out the ways they did, and the idea that the reason is that US prez's always surrender to commies is ludicrous. (Why? Why? What is their motivation?).
If South Vietnam was never ours, how could we have given it away? What would Beagles have done as prez to win that war when all those soldier's lives and all that bombing had come to naught? More of the same?
Well it's not like for instance, the Social Committee of Marina City (SOCOM) wants to take over the world, but we would like the Board of Directors to give us lots of money for our budget and not bow to those lawyers every time we want to do something that is fun. And the Board of Directors doesn't want to run the city, but they would like tax breaks or whatever. And the city doesn't want to run the state, oh wait, it does. Well all analogies break down somewhere.
Most lcts just want this and that, but to get that they have to have power, and to get power you may sometimes have to make a deal that isn't necessarily part of your original mission, and as you gain power you get to like the taste of it, and then maybe you forget what brought you to the dance. When I was ward committeeman if you asked me if I wanted to be president I would have said no. But maybe I would have liked to be alderman, and if I did become alderman I still would not want to be president, but that mayoral sash sure would look swell around my waist. And so on and so on and doobie doobie do on.
Wasn't Beagles once a card carrying Bircher and didn't that NRA card once shine in his wallet ? Doesn't that make him an lct? I don't see where Beagles draws the line where he is sure that are not them, and they are not us. It all sounds like my former hero, Slick Willie, asking, much like the early Greek philosophers, what is the meaning of is.
I'm not sure who the imperialists were in WW II. England and France had colonies, but then so did Germany and Italy on the other side, and Spain and Portugal who were not involved, and we were still hanging on to Cuba and some of those tiny Pacific islands that we still hold. Japan was a big colonizer at the time, but I think they are generally lumped in with the fascists.
Occam'r razor tells me that WW II was not a war of ideologies, it was a war of countries, Each one was doing what it had to do for it's own national interests. It is ever that way when it comes to war. Stalin didn't turn on us, he was never with us, just as we were never with him, it only served our national interests as long as we were both fighting Germany.
There are many reasons those wars turned out the ways they did, and the idea that the reason is that US prez's always surrender to commies is ludicrous. (Why? Why? What is their motivation?).
If South Vietnam was never ours, how could we have given it away? What would Beagles have done as prez to win that war when all those soldier's lives and all that bombing had come to naught? More of the same?
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
We Are They to Them
I thought I explained this before, but apparently not, so I'll try again:
I used to believe that there was one big Them that controlled everything, but I don't believe that anymore. I now believe that there are a bunch of little thems that each want to control everything, and they are in competition with each other, like those Greek gods used to be. They may form alliances with each other from time to time but, sooner or later, one of them double crosses the other one, and it's back to business as usual. All of those thems consider us to be pawns in their game. They may try to intimidate us, or they may kiss up to us, depending on which tactic they think will be most beneficial to them at the time but, truth be known, none of them are ever really on our side. Although there may be exceptions, in general, anybody who is in a position of power or authority is one of them. Some people think of the police as them, but I don't think so. The police are just working for them because, lets face it, we all have to work for somebody, and most of us end up working for them because our people can't afford to pay us a living wage. What makes it confusing is that, when they talk about us, they refer to us as "they". They probably also refer to the other thems as "they" as well, but I don't know that for a fact. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that we are not them, and they are not us. Sometimes I'm not so sure that I'm one of us either because I have seen some of us turn into them in the past. I don't know if they changed sides or if they always were one of them and just pretended to be one of us. To be safe, I try to keep some distance between me and the rest of us. That way, if one or more of us turns on me, I can always say that I never really was one of them.
I think the reason Truman won World War II and lost Korea is that World War II was fought against fascists and imperialists and the Korean War was fought against communists. Fascists, imperialists, and communists are three different theys that compete with each other. In World War II, the fascists and imperialists formed an alliance against the communists and the good guys. After the war, the communists turned against the good guys, which led to Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War. Truman was on our side against the fascists, but against the communists, not so much. He was FDRs vice president before he became president when FDR died, you know. FDR was known to be a big fan of Joe Stalin, so Truman probably was too. That was okay as long as Stalin was on our side, although Stalin probably thought of it as we were on his side, but when Stalin turned against us, Truman should have stayed on our side. Maybe he kind of did, but his heart just wasn't in it, and he couldn't help but do a favor for his old comrades when he got the chance.
The farm that Kissinger gave away was South Vietnam. Our government never did own that farm, and they didn't want to, they just wanted to help the farmers catch up on some clean up work that had piled up on them. At least that was the story they told us. Who knows what they really wanted?
I used to believe that there was one big Them that controlled everything, but I don't believe that anymore. I now believe that there are a bunch of little thems that each want to control everything, and they are in competition with each other, like those Greek gods used to be. They may form alliances with each other from time to time but, sooner or later, one of them double crosses the other one, and it's back to business as usual. All of those thems consider us to be pawns in their game. They may try to intimidate us, or they may kiss up to us, depending on which tactic they think will be most beneficial to them at the time but, truth be known, none of them are ever really on our side. Although there may be exceptions, in general, anybody who is in a position of power or authority is one of them. Some people think of the police as them, but I don't think so. The police are just working for them because, lets face it, we all have to work for somebody, and most of us end up working for them because our people can't afford to pay us a living wage. What makes it confusing is that, when they talk about us, they refer to us as "they". They probably also refer to the other thems as "they" as well, but I don't know that for a fact. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that we are not them, and they are not us. Sometimes I'm not so sure that I'm one of us either because I have seen some of us turn into them in the past. I don't know if they changed sides or if they always were one of them and just pretended to be one of us. To be safe, I try to keep some distance between me and the rest of us. That way, if one or more of us turns on me, I can always say that I never really was one of them.
I think the reason Truman won World War II and lost Korea is that World War II was fought against fascists and imperialists and the Korean War was fought against communists. Fascists, imperialists, and communists are three different theys that compete with each other. In World War II, the fascists and imperialists formed an alliance against the communists and the good guys. After the war, the communists turned against the good guys, which led to Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War. Truman was on our side against the fascists, but against the communists, not so much. He was FDRs vice president before he became president when FDR died, you know. FDR was known to be a big fan of Joe Stalin, so Truman probably was too. That was okay as long as Stalin was on our side, although Stalin probably thought of it as we were on his side, but when Stalin turned against us, Truman should have stayed on our side. Maybe he kind of did, but his heart just wasn't in it, and he couldn't help but do a favor for his old comrades when he got the chance.
The farm that Kissinger gave away was South Vietnam. Our government never did own that farm, and they didn't want to, they just wanted to help the farmers catch up on some clean up work that had piled up on them. At least that was the story they told us. Who knows what they really wanted?
whipping out that razor again
I meant the Greek gods to stand in for Them, invisible, all-powerful, overall motives unknowable, and I thought Beagles was responding by naming names, but now there seems to be some vacillation on that point So is there They, or is there isn't? Are they a group of people powerful enough to get us into wars and then lose them or isn't there?
I guess if Truman is going to get the onus for not marching into Red China to chase after victory, why doesn't he get any credit for winning WW II? He dropped the bomb didn't he? He was sitting in the oval office when both peace treaties were signed wasn't he? If he is part of Them. losing wars for apparently the hell of it, why did he defeat Germany and Japan?
I wonder what farm Hank had to give away in Paris. We had, as Beagles has pointed out, bombed the fuck out of them and they were still coming, so what were we going to do?
How come Bush I isn't on the list? Didn't he stop short of killing Saddam? He took a bit of grief for that, but I always thought that he did the right thing considering how much crap Bush II got us in by killing Saddam.
Is there a modern day Them? Does Beagles know any of their names?
Where does the prez get his information from? Well that is one of the main jobs of the prez, to select the guys who give him info. The prez is supposed to be able to spot bad apples and toss them out. Old Dog mentions Dulles, but how about evil Dick Cheney?
You know North Koreans don't get around much. When we hear our prez say he is going to blow North Korea off the face of the Earth we go, oh that Donald, but they, who already believe that our national goal is blowing them off the face of the Earth, take it a lot more seriously. Sure the Kims blow their mouths off, but there's an episode in Seinfeld where a monkey pelts Kramer with a banana peel so Kramer picks it up and slams it right back at him, and when people ask him why did he do that, he says well the monkey started it. See North Korea, way behind us in anything intellectual, is the monkey and the US is Kramer. Well currently it is. If we were Jerry or Elaine or even George we wouldn't have to be looking for mushroom clouds out of the corners of our eyes.
So these guys taking the knee are taking it to protest racial injustice, and you would think they would know why they are doing it because well, they are the ones doing it. Their detractors claim they are doing it to unsupport the US troops. Applying Occam's razor I have to ask, does that knee thing decrease racial injustice, does not doing it aid our troops in any way? No to both. Well maybe doing it encourages others to take up the cause of fighting racial injustice and not doing it causes others to support the troops. But really, who takes their guidance from what the position of the knee is in during the national anthem? I certainly hope nobody.
And what does it mean support the troops? When the taxman drops in we all pay plenty to support the troops. This whole thing about the flag and the song is idolatry. At one point during the Vietnam war there was a movement to put your headlights on in the daytime to support our boys. A friend of mine in Vietnam at the time reading about this said, you know, that did not help me at all.
Oh and the Bama returns came in last night. A triumph of the Church of Donald Trump Without Donald Trump, and know we see Donald Trump tossing Luther Strange and hustling to join the Church of Donald Trump Without Donald Trump.
I guess if Truman is going to get the onus for not marching into Red China to chase after victory, why doesn't he get any credit for winning WW II? He dropped the bomb didn't he? He was sitting in the oval office when both peace treaties were signed wasn't he? If he is part of Them. losing wars for apparently the hell of it, why did he defeat Germany and Japan?
I wonder what farm Hank had to give away in Paris. We had, as Beagles has pointed out, bombed the fuck out of them and they were still coming, so what were we going to do?
How come Bush I isn't on the list? Didn't he stop short of killing Saddam? He took a bit of grief for that, but I always thought that he did the right thing considering how much crap Bush II got us in by killing Saddam.
Is there a modern day Them? Does Beagles know any of their names?
Where does the prez get his information from? Well that is one of the main jobs of the prez, to select the guys who give him info. The prez is supposed to be able to spot bad apples and toss them out. Old Dog mentions Dulles, but how about evil Dick Cheney?
You know North Koreans don't get around much. When we hear our prez say he is going to blow North Korea off the face of the Earth we go, oh that Donald, but they, who already believe that our national goal is blowing them off the face of the Earth, take it a lot more seriously. Sure the Kims blow their mouths off, but there's an episode in Seinfeld where a monkey pelts Kramer with a banana peel so Kramer picks it up and slams it right back at him, and when people ask him why did he do that, he says well the monkey started it. See North Korea, way behind us in anything intellectual, is the monkey and the US is Kramer. Well currently it is. If we were Jerry or Elaine or even George we wouldn't have to be looking for mushroom clouds out of the corners of our eyes.
So these guys taking the knee are taking it to protest racial injustice, and you would think they would know why they are doing it because well, they are the ones doing it. Their detractors claim they are doing it to unsupport the US troops. Applying Occam's razor I have to ask, does that knee thing decrease racial injustice, does not doing it aid our troops in any way? No to both. Well maybe doing it encourages others to take up the cause of fighting racial injustice and not doing it causes others to support the troops. But really, who takes their guidance from what the position of the knee is in during the national anthem? I certainly hope nobody.
And what does it mean support the troops? When the taxman drops in we all pay plenty to support the troops. This whole thing about the flag and the song is idolatry. At one point during the Vietnam war there was a movement to put your headlights on in the daytime to support our boys. A friend of mine in Vietnam at the time reading about this said, you know, that did not help me at all.
Oh and the Bama returns came in last night. A triumph of the Church of Donald Trump Without Donald Trump, and know we see Donald Trump tossing Luther Strange and hustling to join the Church of Donald Trump Without Donald Trump.
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
"You can't tell the players without a score card."
I think that some famous sports guy said that, but I don't know his name, and could care less. I have no interest in sports, which is why I'm not getting involved in the discussion about all those goofy sports guys kneeling during the National Anthem. I do have some interest in history and politics, but I don't claim to be an expert on either subject.
I don't think that Harry Truman had anything to do with Vietnam, but I could be wrong about that. I'm pretty sure, though, that Truman was responsible for the loss of the Korean War because he fired MacArthur for trying to win it. It is my understanding that the first U.S. troops were sent to Vietnam by Eisenhower, Kennedy sent some more, and Johnson sent a whole lot more. Then Nixon bombed the shit out of the Commies, allegedly to persuade them to come to the negotiating table. When they finally did, Nixon sent Kissinger to the table and he gave away the whole farm. If that was the original plan, they could have saved everybody a lot of trouble by just having Eisenhower surrender in the first place.
As I have said before, I no longer believe that they are all in it together, but I still believe that they are all in it. As I also said, all that talk about Vietnam the other day must have triggered a flashback, causing me to revert to my old practice of spelling "them" with a capital "T". Truth be known, if they were that well organized, we'd all be dead by now. I like Uncle Ken's analogy about the fake Greek gods. The modern "they" of today are a lot like those Greeks because they too are a pain in the ass. I suppose a pain in the ass is better than a dagger in the heart but, as I said previously, they still suck.
Thanks to Old Dog for looking up those bracelet people. I agree that they act more like spam bots than real people trying to sell us something. I have seen a couple of good sites ruined by spam bots, but that was some years ago and I had forgotten about it. Rather than delete their last post, I sent it to the Spam file. I read somewhere that it helps Google to identify future spammers when you do that.
I don't think that Harry Truman had anything to do with Vietnam, but I could be wrong about that. I'm pretty sure, though, that Truman was responsible for the loss of the Korean War because he fired MacArthur for trying to win it. It is my understanding that the first U.S. troops were sent to Vietnam by Eisenhower, Kennedy sent some more, and Johnson sent a whole lot more. Then Nixon bombed the shit out of the Commies, allegedly to persuade them to come to the negotiating table. When they finally did, Nixon sent Kissinger to the table and he gave away the whole farm. If that was the original plan, they could have saved everybody a lot of trouble by just having Eisenhower surrender in the first place.
As I have said before, I no longer believe that they are all in it together, but I still believe that they are all in it. As I also said, all that talk about Vietnam the other day must have triggered a flashback, causing me to revert to my old practice of spelling "them" with a capital "T". Truth be known, if they were that well organized, we'd all be dead by now. I like Uncle Ken's analogy about the fake Greek gods. The modern "they" of today are a lot like those Greeks because they too are a pain in the ass. I suppose a pain in the ass is better than a dagger in the heart but, as I said previously, they still suck.
Thanks to Old Dog for looking up those bracelet people. I agree that they act more like spam bots than real people trying to sell us something. I have seen a couple of good sites ruined by spam bots, but that was some years ago and I had forgotten about it. Rather than delete their last post, I sent it to the Spam file. I read somewhere that it helps Google to identify future spammers when you do that.
Play ball!
I see that we have gotten another comment from Titanium Bracelets... What do you guys think?
As a lark, I copied the first line of the comment and pasted into Mr. Google to see what would come up. Well, well, what do you know? Lots of hits linking to legitimate sites with the same text appearing in the comments section, but not for titanium bracelets. It could be for blenders, wedding photography, or almost anything.
There were many similar comments that had a few things in common. First of all, they are all very flattering. Second, they give no reference to the original article or post and were very generic in nature. This tells me that it is the product of a bot, likely dealing with search engine optimization (SEO) or other efforts to drive traffic to a particular site. It's probably harmless, but annoying. Personally, I would delete such blemishes on an otherwise unsullied blog site. It would be different if the comments stated that "the Old Dog is a poopy head and talks like a sausage." At least then we could embark on further discourse.
-----
That list of presidents was nice, but those are just the guys at the top who are ultimately responsible. But where did they get the information for their decisions? There are a lot of shady players in any administration and they may not always have the best intentions. I'm thinking of Allen Dulles in particular, who cut a wide swath during the Cold War era but there are many others. We don't know who is whispering in the president's ear, or if they are telling the truth. It's a high stakes game that is being played.
And it's seeming more like a game to me everyday. North Korea has already shot down US military planes, but that was long ago, and nothing came of it. Maybe this time it will be different, but I think the end goal will be for China to come in and slap some sense into the Fat Boy's head. Nothing good will come of a nuclear exchange, we don't have the troops available for a ground assault, and neither the South Koreans nor Japanese see keen on engaging in a ground war. Whose turn is it to roll the dice?
-----
Funny thing about that kneeling business; kneeling is usually an act of submission, like kneeling before God in church or kneeling before royalty. I don't recall it ever being considered an act of defiance or disrespect.
It's also curious that the beef with the NFL is Trump's big priority. Is that because the NFL refused to sell him a team when that offshoot league collapsed back in the day? Some of the pundits have taken him to task for putting his petty argument with sports figures ahead of the plight of Puerto Rico, which he has barely mentioned.
Here's a goofy thought: Since PR was already in sad financial shape and is now a "fixer upper" the banks are going to settle for pennies on the dollar and Russian oligarchs will be lining up to invest their ill gotten gains in prime, semi-tropical, real estate. They already have the necessary business connections in Washington, from what I've read.
-----
A little National Anthem trivia for you guys. Although the anthem was occasionally played at athletic events, it really took off after it was played during the 7th inning stretch during a World Series game in 1918. Yes, Uncle Ken, the Cubs were involved. I can't make this stuff up.
As a lark, I copied the first line of the comment and pasted into Mr. Google to see what would come up. Well, well, what do you know? Lots of hits linking to legitimate sites with the same text appearing in the comments section, but not for titanium bracelets. It could be for blenders, wedding photography, or almost anything.
There were many similar comments that had a few things in common. First of all, they are all very flattering. Second, they give no reference to the original article or post and were very generic in nature. This tells me that it is the product of a bot, likely dealing with search engine optimization (SEO) or other efforts to drive traffic to a particular site. It's probably harmless, but annoying. Personally, I would delete such blemishes on an otherwise unsullied blog site. It would be different if the comments stated that "the Old Dog is a poopy head and talks like a sausage." At least then we could embark on further discourse.
-----
That list of presidents was nice, but those are just the guys at the top who are ultimately responsible. But where did they get the information for their decisions? There are a lot of shady players in any administration and they may not always have the best intentions. I'm thinking of Allen Dulles in particular, who cut a wide swath during the Cold War era but there are many others. We don't know who is whispering in the president's ear, or if they are telling the truth. It's a high stakes game that is being played.
And it's seeming more like a game to me everyday. North Korea has already shot down US military planes, but that was long ago, and nothing came of it. Maybe this time it will be different, but I think the end goal will be for China to come in and slap some sense into the Fat Boy's head. Nothing good will come of a nuclear exchange, we don't have the troops available for a ground assault, and neither the South Koreans nor Japanese see keen on engaging in a ground war. Whose turn is it to roll the dice?
-----
Funny thing about that kneeling business; kneeling is usually an act of submission, like kneeling before God in church or kneeling before royalty. I don't recall it ever being considered an act of defiance or disrespect.
It's also curious that the beef with the NFL is Trump's big priority. Is that because the NFL refused to sell him a team when that offshoot league collapsed back in the day? Some of the pundits have taken him to task for putting his petty argument with sports figures ahead of the plight of Puerto Rico, which he has barely mentioned.
Here's a goofy thought: Since PR was already in sad financial shape and is now a "fixer upper" the banks are going to settle for pennies on the dollar and Russian oligarchs will be lining up to invest their ill gotten gains in prime, semi-tropical, real estate. They already have the necessary business connections in Washington, from what I've read.
-----
A little National Anthem trivia for you guys. Although the anthem was occasionally played at athletic events, it really took off after it was played during the 7th inning stretch during a World Series game in 1918. Yes, Uncle Ken, the Cubs were involved. I can't make this stuff up.
taking the knee
So are these ex presidents part of Them, which as we all know is the shadowy organization that gets the US into wars and then ensures that we never win them? It sounds to me like that John Birch flame is burning brightly out there in the freehold. So are you saying that HST got us into the Vietnam war while never intending to win it and it just continued that way with the following presidents working to make sure that we didn't win the war until finally RMN put a stop to it?
Methinks there must be a lot of deeds to the Brooklyn, or maybe it's the Cheboygan, bridge rattling around underfoot out there on the far side of Michigan.
When I said that thing about the war effecting the lives and the land of the Vietnamese I didn't mean to imply that we were trying to take their land, just that when the war is being fought on your land you take the war more seriously than when it is fought on the other guy's land.
I wanted to talk about this taking the knee thing which has now taken professional sports, though not the fuel-fume-addled followers of NASCAR, by storm. So it was kind of a big deal when that guy Kaepernick first did it, people were shocked. I guess most people thought it was alright to complain about that recent spate of black kids getting shot by cops, but to do it by taking a knee at the beginning of a football game, why that was just a knee to far. The guy was out of a job, and still is.
But other guys were doing it now, I guess in sympathy with K, or whatever. I didn't follow it too closely. But the man in the red hat ambled to Alabama to make a speech for the guy that Sessions appointed to succeed him, and who is running against a bull goose loony who had the ten commandments carved in stone and set in his courtroom and refused to remove it until the feds removed him. I may be off on some details here, but what I am trying to establish is his bull goose loonyness, and the odd fact that Red Hat finds himself in the odd position of speaking against a bull goose loony.
So his heart is really not in it. And worse yet for RH the guy he is speaking for is losing. He is backed by the Bannon crew who is trumping him as the real Trump candidate, even though Trump is campaigning against him, making him the head of the long awaited Church of Trump without Donald Trump. So not only is RH on the wrong side of this, but his guy is losing and you know how Donald feels about this.
So what the hell, I guess this is why Donald called all the guys taking knees SOBs and urged that they all be fired. The next day, which was a Sunday, knees were being taken all over the NFL, there was also some locking of arms which was not as activist as taking the knee, but more activist than standing around with your hands in your pockets or whatever. And remember the reason for the original knee was the shooting of black kids, although the Trumpian crew asserted it was to show that they did not support our troops. And then some guys were saying they were doing it so show their solidarity with their teams or the sport of football or that they didn't like Red Hat messing with their sport and what the hell. some were doing it to support the troops. And the athletes were on the political shows and the sport shows intoning earnestly and nobly why they had made the tough decision to take the knee.
And then at some point I believe the theory evolved, or maybe I made it up, that this is America and if you want to take a knee for whatever reason, just go ahead and take it. And I think that is where it is now.
Methinks there must be a lot of deeds to the Brooklyn, or maybe it's the Cheboygan, bridge rattling around underfoot out there on the far side of Michigan.
When I said that thing about the war effecting the lives and the land of the Vietnamese I didn't mean to imply that we were trying to take their land, just that when the war is being fought on your land you take the war more seriously than when it is fought on the other guy's land.
I wanted to talk about this taking the knee thing which has now taken professional sports, though not the fuel-fume-addled followers of NASCAR, by storm. So it was kind of a big deal when that guy Kaepernick first did it, people were shocked. I guess most people thought it was alright to complain about that recent spate of black kids getting shot by cops, but to do it by taking a knee at the beginning of a football game, why that was just a knee to far. The guy was out of a job, and still is.
But other guys were doing it now, I guess in sympathy with K, or whatever. I didn't follow it too closely. But the man in the red hat ambled to Alabama to make a speech for the guy that Sessions appointed to succeed him, and who is running against a bull goose loony who had the ten commandments carved in stone and set in his courtroom and refused to remove it until the feds removed him. I may be off on some details here, but what I am trying to establish is his bull goose loonyness, and the odd fact that Red Hat finds himself in the odd position of speaking against a bull goose loony.
So his heart is really not in it. And worse yet for RH the guy he is speaking for is losing. He is backed by the Bannon crew who is trumping him as the real Trump candidate, even though Trump is campaigning against him, making him the head of the long awaited Church of Trump without Donald Trump. So not only is RH on the wrong side of this, but his guy is losing and you know how Donald feels about this.
So what the hell, I guess this is why Donald called all the guys taking knees SOBs and urged that they all be fired. The next day, which was a Sunday, knees were being taken all over the NFL, there was also some locking of arms which was not as activist as taking the knee, but more activist than standing around with your hands in your pockets or whatever. And remember the reason for the original knee was the shooting of black kids, although the Trumpian crew asserted it was to show that they did not support our troops. And then some guys were saying they were doing it so show their solidarity with their teams or the sport of football or that they didn't like Red Hat messing with their sport and what the hell. some were doing it to support the troops. And the athletes were on the political shows and the sport shows intoning earnestly and nobly why they had made the tough decision to take the knee.
And then at some point I believe the theory evolved, or maybe I made it up, that this is America and if you want to take a knee for whatever reason, just go ahead and take it. And I think that is where it is now.
Monday, September 25, 2017
The Buck Stops Here
Uncle Ken wants names, so here are some names:
1. Harry S. Truman
2. Dwight D. Eisenhower
3. John F. Kennedy
4. Lyndon B. Johnson
5. Richard M. Nixon
The president is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, so the credit or blame for the winning or losing of wars ultimately devolves to him. Of course the president has his entourage, but it was chosen by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, so I guess you could assign some blame to the senate. Actually the whole congress is responsible for issuing declarations of war or war powers acts, which enable the president to conduct a war in the first place, but I have never heard of an act of congress that told a president to deliberately lose a war, so it's still the president's fault when one is lost.
You can't blame the soldiers, except maybe a few of the higher officers. U.S. soldiers are always trying to win their wars because, after the war is won, they can go home. In World War II, soldiers were enlisted for the duration of the war plus six months. In Korea and Vietnam, soldiers were enlisted for two or three years, but their tour of duty was only one year. When their time was up, they were rotated out of there. I remember seeing something on TV once where a Vietnam vet told how he was picked up by a helicopter right in the middle of a battle and sent home because his time was up. I'm pretty sure that, if the soldiers in Vietnam were stuck there until the war was won, it would have been won, with or without the cooperation of their leadership.
I don't think the U.S. goal in Vietnam was to take away the land of the Vietnamese people, it was to prevent some of the Vietnamese people from taking away the land of other Vietnamese people. Don't forget that the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Red Chinese killed more of their own people within two years after the U.S. pulled out than the U.S. killed in the 20 years they were there.
I see that we have gotten another comment from Titanium Bracelets, although under the name of a different individual. While they don't seem to directly advertising their product, it's starting to look like a spam attack to me. What do you guys think?
1. Harry S. Truman
2. Dwight D. Eisenhower
3. John F. Kennedy
4. Lyndon B. Johnson
5. Richard M. Nixon
The president is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, so the credit or blame for the winning or losing of wars ultimately devolves to him. Of course the president has his entourage, but it was chosen by the president with the advice and consent of the senate, so I guess you could assign some blame to the senate. Actually the whole congress is responsible for issuing declarations of war or war powers acts, which enable the president to conduct a war in the first place, but I have never heard of an act of congress that told a president to deliberately lose a war, so it's still the president's fault when one is lost.
You can't blame the soldiers, except maybe a few of the higher officers. U.S. soldiers are always trying to win their wars because, after the war is won, they can go home. In World War II, soldiers were enlisted for the duration of the war plus six months. In Korea and Vietnam, soldiers were enlisted for two or three years, but their tour of duty was only one year. When their time was up, they were rotated out of there. I remember seeing something on TV once where a Vietnam vet told how he was picked up by a helicopter right in the middle of a battle and sent home because his time was up. I'm pretty sure that, if the soldiers in Vietnam were stuck there until the war was won, it would have been won, with or without the cooperation of their leadership.
I don't think the U.S. goal in Vietnam was to take away the land of the Vietnamese people, it was to prevent some of the Vietnamese people from taking away the land of other Vietnamese people. Don't forget that the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Red Chinese killed more of their own people within two years after the U.S. pulled out than the U.S. killed in the 20 years they were there.
I see that we have gotten another comment from Titanium Bracelets, although under the name of a different individual. While they don't seem to directly advertising their product, it's starting to look like a spam attack to me. What do you guys think?
Maybe the Greek gods are Them
Back in the day the Greeks were nothing but a bunch of nothingburgers (nothinggyros?), they lived on this crappy rocky little peninsula where they couldn't hardly grow anything and made their living principally as pirates. They had gods, like everybody else in the neighborhood, maybe a little more lively than most, getting drunk, and fornicating, and fucking with the humans from time to time on those hot summer evenings on Mount Olympus.
But there were some thinkers among them, and it occurred to them, these gods, nobody has ever seen them, and isn't it kind of complicated? Maybe there is some other reason why water falls from the sky than that Hera is weeping over that unfaithful Zeus, or whatever the explanation was. Anyway those Greeks got to thinking, taking nothing for granted, using only what they know, like Descartes a couple thousand years later, realizing he could think therefore he was.
They were great in math and logic, pretty good in philosophy, but not so hot in science. They thought that they should be able to think everything out in their heads and didn't want to get their tunics dirty kneeling on muddy riverbanks to see if frogs arose spontaneously from mud. But still pretty good thinkers, which didn't help them much when those doers, the Romans, came knocking down their door. The Romans liked gods, the more the merrier, everyone they conquered they let their gods into the pantheon. They welcomed the Christians in along with the Jews, but the Jews were stand-offish, and the Christians did not play well with the other religions, saying they were all going to hell, and they didn't stop till they took over the empire, which fell to the barbarians, but the Christians destroyed the gods of the barbarians.
Well I've gone on too far, history is like that, it's all one thing leading to another. The point I was trying to make was that believing in all those gods who nobody has ever seen is like believing in Them, who Beagles cannot name any individuals, nor does he know what their aims are, nor how powerful they are because sometimes they lose, or maybe they just want you to think they lose. and the main thing they do is start wars that they want to lose for some reason. Remember the wolf chasing the rabbit, and usually the rabbit outruns the wolf because the wolf is running for dinner but the rabbit is running for his life? How about Vietnam was for most Americans some speculative little game halfway across the world, while for the Vietnamese it was their lives and the land they lived on? Isn't that simpler and easier to understand why we lost, than that some shadowy Them who nobody has ever seen doing things nobody knows why? Isn't it easier to believe that the air can only hold so much water and releases it in little drops every now and then than to think Hera is crying when hell, Zeus does this shit all the time, and it's not like Hera never drives her little red chariot to the cheating side of town? Occam's Razor.
This Trump/athlete thing is some crazy thing. I remember how when I first heard about it, the first taking of the knee it was in reaction to police shootings of black kids. Well I thought, how does that knee dipping do anything to solve the problem? But then some hotheads on the right got all upset because they interpreted it as dissing the armed services. It's just a knee. Maybe the guy is doing it to protest Zeus's fooling around on Hera. Anyway most football fans just want to see their team win the game, if their quarterback is a commie or an asshole they don't care they just want him to lead their team to victory, so this whole taking the knee thing was a little sideshow that nobody paid any attention to. And then Trump, ostensibly stumping for his candidate in the Alabama primary, takes up, God knows why (No He doesn't, nobody does), this little Sunday sideshow, and yesterday my talking heads where all chattering about it, and then the talk shows were over and the pregames were beginning and they were all talking about the same damn thing.
Crazy man crazy. Maybe more on this tomorrow.
But there were some thinkers among them, and it occurred to them, these gods, nobody has ever seen them, and isn't it kind of complicated? Maybe there is some other reason why water falls from the sky than that Hera is weeping over that unfaithful Zeus, or whatever the explanation was. Anyway those Greeks got to thinking, taking nothing for granted, using only what they know, like Descartes a couple thousand years later, realizing he could think therefore he was.
They were great in math and logic, pretty good in philosophy, but not so hot in science. They thought that they should be able to think everything out in their heads and didn't want to get their tunics dirty kneeling on muddy riverbanks to see if frogs arose spontaneously from mud. But still pretty good thinkers, which didn't help them much when those doers, the Romans, came knocking down their door. The Romans liked gods, the more the merrier, everyone they conquered they let their gods into the pantheon. They welcomed the Christians in along with the Jews, but the Jews were stand-offish, and the Christians did not play well with the other religions, saying they were all going to hell, and they didn't stop till they took over the empire, which fell to the barbarians, but the Christians destroyed the gods of the barbarians.
Well I've gone on too far, history is like that, it's all one thing leading to another. The point I was trying to make was that believing in all those gods who nobody has ever seen is like believing in Them, who Beagles cannot name any individuals, nor does he know what their aims are, nor how powerful they are because sometimes they lose, or maybe they just want you to think they lose. and the main thing they do is start wars that they want to lose for some reason. Remember the wolf chasing the rabbit, and usually the rabbit outruns the wolf because the wolf is running for dinner but the rabbit is running for his life? How about Vietnam was for most Americans some speculative little game halfway across the world, while for the Vietnamese it was their lives and the land they lived on? Isn't that simpler and easier to understand why we lost, than that some shadowy Them who nobody has ever seen doing things nobody knows why? Isn't it easier to believe that the air can only hold so much water and releases it in little drops every now and then than to think Hera is crying when hell, Zeus does this shit all the time, and it's not like Hera never drives her little red chariot to the cheating side of town? Occam's Razor.
This Trump/athlete thing is some crazy thing. I remember how when I first heard about it, the first taking of the knee it was in reaction to police shootings of black kids. Well I thought, how does that knee dipping do anything to solve the problem? But then some hotheads on the right got all upset because they interpreted it as dissing the armed services. It's just a knee. Maybe the guy is doing it to protest Zeus's fooling around on Hera. Anyway most football fans just want to see their team win the game, if their quarterback is a commie or an asshole they don't care they just want him to lead their team to victory, so this whole taking the knee thing was a little sideshow that nobody paid any attention to. And then Trump, ostensibly stumping for his candidate in the Alabama primary, takes up, God knows why (No He doesn't, nobody does), this little Sunday sideshow, and yesterday my talking heads where all chattering about it, and then the talk shows were over and the pregames were beginning and they were all talking about the same damn thing.
Crazy man crazy. Maybe more on this tomorrow.
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Jose, can you see?
Occam's Razor is a nice concept and it's too bad it doesn't work all the time; life would be much simpler. It always reminds me of Alexander the Great and the Gordian Knot, a good example of thinking outside the box. You want that knot untied? Hold my goblet while I go and get my sword...problem solved.
-----
My pet application of Occam's Razor is to apply the "follow the money" rule. Influence of the Russians in the past election? Follow the money. Military interventions overseas? Follow the money. Screwy national health policies? Follow the money. Lying media and political shenanigans? Follow the money. Cold hard cash seems to be at the bottom of a lot of our current dilemmas and I don't know if folks are simply greedy or just keeping score. Seems to me that things are getting a little our of hand.
-----
Since there doesn't seem to be much weather news lately it looks like the latest flap involves athletes kneeling during the National Anthem. I've got mixed feelings on this one; it isn't like they are giving the finger to the flag but expressing a sentiment other than blind allegiance, which is good, I think. It's certainly got the pols and pundits yapping back and forth and maybe some underlying issues will be addressed, but I don't know what they are. Is it a race thing, or a general displeasure with the way the political and social ships are sailing? I could never figure out why the anthem is played before a game, anyhow. Seems a little creepy, like we all have to get in a patriotic mindset before we can play a game. It was even weirder in the movie theaters on the army bases when they played the anthem before the feature, and we all stood up with our hands on our hearts, if in civilian clothes. So the movie Woodstock began with the National Anthem and closed with Jimi Hendrix playing a slightly different version. Maybe we were supposed to stand up, but didn't.
-----
My pet application of Occam's Razor is to apply the "follow the money" rule. Influence of the Russians in the past election? Follow the money. Military interventions overseas? Follow the money. Screwy national health policies? Follow the money. Lying media and political shenanigans? Follow the money. Cold hard cash seems to be at the bottom of a lot of our current dilemmas and I don't know if folks are simply greedy or just keeping score. Seems to me that things are getting a little our of hand.
-----
Since there doesn't seem to be much weather news lately it looks like the latest flap involves athletes kneeling during the National Anthem. I've got mixed feelings on this one; it isn't like they are giving the finger to the flag but expressing a sentiment other than blind allegiance, which is good, I think. It's certainly got the pols and pundits yapping back and forth and maybe some underlying issues will be addressed, but I don't know what they are. Is it a race thing, or a general displeasure with the way the political and social ships are sailing? I could never figure out why the anthem is played before a game, anyhow. Seems a little creepy, like we all have to get in a patriotic mindset before we can play a game. It was even weirder in the movie theaters on the army bases when they played the anthem before the feature, and we all stood up with our hands on our hearts, if in civilian clothes. So the movie Woodstock began with the National Anthem and closed with Jimi Hendrix playing a slightly different version. Maybe we were supposed to stand up, but didn't.
Friday, September 22, 2017
Ockham's Razor
I thought I remembered what "Occam's Razor" meant, but I looked it up on Wiki to be sure. The first thing I learned was that the original spelling was "Ockham's", but somebody came along later and changed it. They are always changing stuff like that just to confuse us, you know. The next thing I learned is that Ockham didn't even invent it, and that modern interpretations of it are probably incorrect.
From Wiki: This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle, who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible."[27] The idea of parsimony or simplicity in deciding between theories, though not the intent of the original expression of Ockham's Razor, has been assimilated into our culture as the widespread layman's formulation that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."[27]
From Wiki: This principle goes back at least as far as Aristotle, who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible."[27] The idea of parsimony or simplicity in deciding between theories, though not the intent of the original expression of Ockham's Razor, has been assimilated into our culture as the widespread layman's formulation that "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one."[27]
So what has this to do with the U.S. Government losing both the Korean and the Vietnam wars? Well, we could postulate a whole list of reasons why the greatest military power in the world, which had recently won a world war (with a little help from their friends) against two other great military powers, could not subsequently win wars against two backward countries the size of New Jersey. The simplest explanation, however, is that they did it on purpose............Ipso facto, case closed.
Either or or orr or them or Them
Mr Google calls hot headed: having an impetuous or quick-tempered nature. He calls impulsive: acting or done without forethought. Well maybe there is an inch of difference between the two. Myself I would use the terms interchangeably, but then I am no hair-splitting scourge. But there is something in that acting without forethought, maybe we could expand it into acting without having or getting enough information. This whole conversation started with that Burns documentary that I don't think any of us is watching, but if you didn't know much about Vietnam and your first notice was the Bay of Tonkin incident well it looked like commies were rearing their ugly, world-conquering, domino-toppling, heads and they needed to be whipped like curs, but if you had, or obtained, knowledge of the history of the country, well you would have a nuanced view and you may well have come up with another reaction than sending close to a million US troops into that maw.
It would seem that with more available knowledge available these days that we would have more to consider before acting. But of course much of that information is false (If data is false, is it still data?), and anymore people are more interested in promoting their point of view with slander and name-calling that they play very fast and loose with the truth, well they used to play fast and loose, anymore they make shit up out of whole cloth, and instead of debating the logic of their positions against the opposing sides (like we proper Beaglestonians do) they just call them liars so that nothing they say should be listened to.
So, now I have to rethink 'hothead,' which one definition states is "a person who is impetuous or who easily becomes angry and violent."
I'm not sure what Old Dog is saying here, but the definition of OR is worth discussing with a logical scourge. In some computer languages there are two OR statements, maybe OR and ORR. If A or B is true than do C means that if either A or B is true than C is done, but If A orr B is true than do C, C is done if either A or B is true, but not if both are true.
I do not follow what Beagles is saying at all. I think we need to distinguish between the two thems. Them is that vague group who Beagles thinks is playing some kind of chess game with the world for some unknowable purpose, except that he's pretty sure it is nefarious, so it is up to him, and him alone, (because how can he trust anybody else since they may well be Them?) to figure out what They are doing so that he can do the opposite to thwart it. The other them is simply the third person plural. It seems to me that Beagles could make his arguments more cogently by referring to Them as the Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission like the more mainstream nutballs do.
We have had this conversation many times. A couple posts ago Beagles declared: I used to believe all that stuff in those days, nowadays I'm not so sure. I had hoped we was speaking of his Them obsession, but apparently he was talking about something else.
I have two words that will obliterate that whole theory: Occam's razor.
Let's have a good weekend guys, and let's be careful out there.
It would seem that with more available knowledge available these days that we would have more to consider before acting. But of course much of that information is false (If data is false, is it still data?), and anymore people are more interested in promoting their point of view with slander and name-calling that they play very fast and loose with the truth, well they used to play fast and loose, anymore they make shit up out of whole cloth, and instead of debating the logic of their positions against the opposing sides (like we proper Beaglestonians do) they just call them liars so that nothing they say should be listened to.
So, now I have to rethink 'hothead,' which one definition states is "a person who is impetuous or who easily becomes angry and violent."
I'm not sure what Old Dog is saying here, but the definition of OR is worth discussing with a logical scourge. In some computer languages there are two OR statements, maybe OR and ORR. If A or B is true than do C means that if either A or B is true than C is done, but If A orr B is true than do C, C is done if either A or B is true, but not if both are true.
I do not follow what Beagles is saying at all. I think we need to distinguish between the two thems. Them is that vague group who Beagles thinks is playing some kind of chess game with the world for some unknowable purpose, except that he's pretty sure it is nefarious, so it is up to him, and him alone, (because how can he trust anybody else since they may well be Them?) to figure out what They are doing so that he can do the opposite to thwart it. The other them is simply the third person plural. It seems to me that Beagles could make his arguments more cogently by referring to Them as the Illuminati or the Trilateral Commission like the more mainstream nutballs do.
We have had this conversation many times. A couple posts ago Beagles declared: I used to believe all that stuff in those days, nowadays I'm not so sure. I had hoped we was speaking of his Them obsession, but apparently he was talking about something else.
I have two words that will obliterate that whole theory: Occam's razor.
Let's have a good weekend guys, and let's be careful out there.
Thursday, September 21, 2017
Tonto Said it Best
Lone Ranger: Tonto, we are in big trouble. We are outnumbered and surrounded by hostile Indians.
Tonto: What you mean "we", White Man?
You guys may consider yourself one of them (small "t" no italics), but I don't, and I certainly don't consider myself to be my own enemy. Indeed, I use the terms "we" and "us" sparingly, when I use them at all. There's the three of us at the Institute, there's my family, which I would call "our family" if I was talking to one of them, and that's about it. None of us were responsible for losing the Korean War or the Vietnam War, that was our leadership, and I still believe they did it on purpose.
I agree with Uncle Ken that the various wars against Islamic terrorists shouldn't be included in the "no-win" category because our leadership hasn't lost those, at least not yet. They might not either, because there is no way they can make a global government out of those tribal savages. That might be the reason they deliberately lost Korea and Vietnam, they wanted to bring about a global government, and that's also what the Commies wanted. I used to think that our guys were in league with the Commies, but now I'm not so sure because it appears that the Commies weren't even in league with each other. It also seems that our "they" people have abandoned their vision of a global government in favor of a global economy. Be that as it may, they are still trying to reduce all the nations of the world to the lowest common denominator.
When I was in Berlin, we did some of our tactical training in the Grunewald, which was something like the Cook County Forest Preserves. Because the Germans also used it as a park, there were limitations placed on our activities there. Twice a year, each of our battalions went to Wilflecken for three weeks, and our weapons platoons also went once a year to Grafenwehr. Both of those places were in West Germany, and we had to cross East Germany to get there. We traveled in convoy and had to stop at checkpoints on both border crossings. We had three permanent infantry battalions, and we took turns so that only one battalion was out of town at a time. There also was a rotating battalion that kind of filled in for us when we were gone, so there were always at least three battalions on duty in Berlin.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, although they don't pay income tax and their voting privileges are limited. They have held plebiscite's from time to time, but there has never been a majority in favor of either independence or statehood. I'm not sure what Trump would have to do to cut them loose without their consent, but I doubt he could do it without the approval of congress, or at least the senate.
Tonto: What you mean "we", White Man?
You guys may consider yourself one of them (small "t" no italics), but I don't, and I certainly don't consider myself to be my own enemy. Indeed, I use the terms "we" and "us" sparingly, when I use them at all. There's the three of us at the Institute, there's my family, which I would call "our family" if I was talking to one of them, and that's about it. None of us were responsible for losing the Korean War or the Vietnam War, that was our leadership, and I still believe they did it on purpose.
I agree with Uncle Ken that the various wars against Islamic terrorists shouldn't be included in the "no-win" category because our leadership hasn't lost those, at least not yet. They might not either, because there is no way they can make a global government out of those tribal savages. That might be the reason they deliberately lost Korea and Vietnam, they wanted to bring about a global government, and that's also what the Commies wanted. I used to think that our guys were in league with the Commies, but now I'm not so sure because it appears that the Commies weren't even in league with each other. It also seems that our "they" people have abandoned their vision of a global government in favor of a global economy. Be that as it may, they are still trying to reduce all the nations of the world to the lowest common denominator.
When I was in Berlin, we did some of our tactical training in the Grunewald, which was something like the Cook County Forest Preserves. Because the Germans also used it as a park, there were limitations placed on our activities there. Twice a year, each of our battalions went to Wilflecken for three weeks, and our weapons platoons also went once a year to Grafenwehr. Both of those places were in West Germany, and we had to cross East Germany to get there. We traveled in convoy and had to stop at checkpoints on both border crossings. We had three permanent infantry battalions, and we took turns so that only one battalion was out of town at a time. There also was a rotating battalion that kind of filled in for us when we were gone, so there were always at least three battalions on duty in Berlin.
Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, although they don't pay income tax and their voting privileges are limited. They have held plebiscite's from time to time, but there has never been a majority in favor of either independence or statehood. I'm not sure what Trump would have to do to cut them loose without their consent, but I doubt he could do it without the approval of congress, or at least the senate.
Hot-headed, or not
This goes back a few months and is of little importance, but it has stuck in my head and I can't quite figure it out. Mr. Beagles was stationed in West Berlin; okay, I get that. And he went on field exercises, driving a 3/4 ton truck, and I get that, too. But since West Berlin was in Eastern Germany, did they drive to West Germany to conduct the field maneuvers or did they have a special deal with East Germany and leased some land to go mess around in the field? This question does not need an immediate response as it is merely idle curiosity.
-----
I don't remember Old Dog asking me about Beaglestonian before, but I am happy to answer.
It was quite some time ago, maybe a year, at one of the seminars and I think the topic changed before an answer was given. In any case, the Ruby Dew answer is more than sufficient, so carry on.
-----
Not buying your 'hothead' notion yet, Uncle Ken. I think a better term would be 'chronically impulsive.' We often make and act on decisions based on little or no factual information. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" There is so much information available today that we often act before carefully considering all sides of an issue. There are some people that have definite ideas about certain groups of other/different people based solely on their latest news source, and not based on personal experience with those groups. Unless you live in a metropolitan area, it isn't likely that you'll interact with gays, Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, Pakistanis, and other different folks on a daily basis. And you know what? They all act pretty much like normal people everywhere; if you're not being a jerk neither will they. There are exceptions, of course, but that has been my experience.
Impulsive decision making is not limited to the US, although we may carry it further than folks in other nations. Imagine some guy in Europe, Africa, or Asia, with a limited knowledge of the American people and he then does an image search for "people of Walmart." He may well wonder why we are proud to Americans and why so many people are crapping their pants. I wonder, too, which is why I don't like going to Walmart.
-----
Jeez, my weather prediction was way off and Puerto Rico really got hammered, as if they didn't have enough problems already. Given their preexisting financial crisis how can they hope to rebuild? It's going to take a lot of money, and once Trump looks at the figures it wouldn't surprise me if he says, "Congratulations! You are independent now and no longer a US territory. Good Luck!" There is still a wall to be built and paid for.
By the way, the next hurricanes will be named Nate and Ophelia in case you were wondering.
-----
Finally, here's a pithy thought attributed to Aristotle: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
So, now I have to rethink 'hothead,' which one definition states is "a person who is impetuous or who easily becomes angry and violent."
Note the word 'OR.' If Uncle Ken means impetuous, I'll buy it.
-----
I don't remember Old Dog asking me about Beaglestonian before, but I am happy to answer.
It was quite some time ago, maybe a year, at one of the seminars and I think the topic changed before an answer was given. In any case, the Ruby Dew answer is more than sufficient, so carry on.
-----
Not buying your 'hothead' notion yet, Uncle Ken. I think a better term would be 'chronically impulsive.' We often make and act on decisions based on little or no factual information. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" There is so much information available today that we often act before carefully considering all sides of an issue. There are some people that have definite ideas about certain groups of other/different people based solely on their latest news source, and not based on personal experience with those groups. Unless you live in a metropolitan area, it isn't likely that you'll interact with gays, Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, Pakistanis, and other different folks on a daily basis. And you know what? They all act pretty much like normal people everywhere; if you're not being a jerk neither will they. There are exceptions, of course, but that has been my experience.
Impulsive decision making is not limited to the US, although we may carry it further than folks in other nations. Imagine some guy in Europe, Africa, or Asia, with a limited knowledge of the American people and he then does an image search for "people of Walmart." He may well wonder why we are proud to Americans and why so many people are crapping their pants. I wonder, too, which is why I don't like going to Walmart.
-----
Jeez, my weather prediction was way off and Puerto Rico really got hammered, as if they didn't have enough problems already. Given their preexisting financial crisis how can they hope to rebuild? It's going to take a lot of money, and once Trump looks at the figures it wouldn't surprise me if he says, "Congratulations! You are independent now and no longer a US territory. Good Luck!" There is still a wall to be built and paid for.
By the way, the next hurricanes will be named Nate and Ophelia in case you were wondering.
-----
Finally, here's a pithy thought attributed to Aristotle: “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
So, now I have to rethink 'hothead,' which one definition states is "a person who is impetuous or who easily becomes angry and violent."
Note the word 'OR.' If Uncle Ken means impetuous, I'll buy it.
Is America hot-headed?
I don't see how being hotheads is exclusive of the other bad traits Old Dog ascribes to the Americans, can't they be all that and hotheads too?
There is an excellent three book series called The Americans by Daniel Borstin which goes from the colonies to the civil war. He analyzes how we became they way we were. One telling example was steamship engines. There were two different kinds. One was economical with fuel and safe to run, but not quite as speedy as the other one which used loads of fuel and had a tendency to blow up frequently. Can you tell me which engines powered the ships that rode through the rivers of Europe and of America? Well of course we didn't worry about fuel, just dock at the bank and chop down some more trees from that land that expanded ever westwards for the taking, whereas in Europe that land was owned by some guy with, well, whatever version of Old Betsy was popular then.
Oh and then there is religion. I've been reading a lot about the Puritans lately, an unappealing lot, hard-working, and literate, and pious, but rather rigid in their thoughts and quite intolerant of those who thought otherwise, decidedly unliberal.
I don't necessarily mean liberal in the sense of lefty, back in the day the tag liberal was applied to both lefties and righties, basically everybody who was in favor of getting rid of the king. I normally hate those essays that begin with Mr Webster defines patriotism as: But in this case I think Mr Google provides an excellent definition:open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
I think it's the tendency to question things that is the primary thrust of the liberal, unspoken is the corollary that they are never a hundred percent sure of anything because everything is open to question. It's always a weakness to be pretty sure of something when your opponent has no doubts whatsoever. I think that strong whiff of Puritanism that washed over America in its formative days has made us unliberal which only increases our hotheadedness.
I don't remember Old Dog asking me about Beaglestonian before, but I am happy to answer. Ruby Dew, who is aware of the Beaglesonian Institute but not a regular reader once erroneously referred to The Institute as The Beaglestonian, and I liked the ring. It sounds a little more solid with that hard t, and that stone sound in it. When referring to The Institute I always say Beaglesonian, but I like to think of Beaglestonia as sort of a nickname, like have you heard what those Beaglestonians are up to?
There is an excellent three book series called The Americans by Daniel Borstin which goes from the colonies to the civil war. He analyzes how we became they way we were. One telling example was steamship engines. There were two different kinds. One was economical with fuel and safe to run, but not quite as speedy as the other one which used loads of fuel and had a tendency to blow up frequently. Can you tell me which engines powered the ships that rode through the rivers of Europe and of America? Well of course we didn't worry about fuel, just dock at the bank and chop down some more trees from that land that expanded ever westwards for the taking, whereas in Europe that land was owned by some guy with, well, whatever version of Old Betsy was popular then.
Oh and then there is religion. I've been reading a lot about the Puritans lately, an unappealing lot, hard-working, and literate, and pious, but rather rigid in their thoughts and quite intolerant of those who thought otherwise, decidedly unliberal.
I don't necessarily mean liberal in the sense of lefty, back in the day the tag liberal was applied to both lefties and righties, basically everybody who was in favor of getting rid of the king. I normally hate those essays that begin with Mr Webster defines patriotism as: But in this case I think Mr Google provides an excellent definition:open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
I think it's the tendency to question things that is the primary thrust of the liberal, unspoken is the corollary that they are never a hundred percent sure of anything because everything is open to question. It's always a weakness to be pretty sure of something when your opponent has no doubts whatsoever. I think that strong whiff of Puritanism that washed over America in its formative days has made us unliberal which only increases our hotheadedness.
I don't remember Old Dog asking me about Beaglestonian before, but I am happy to answer. Ruby Dew, who is aware of the Beaglesonian Institute but not a regular reader once erroneously referred to The Institute as The Beaglestonian, and I liked the ring. It sounds a little more solid with that hard t, and that stone sound in it. When referring to The Institute I always say Beaglesonian, but I like to think of Beaglestonia as sort of a nickname, like have you heard what those Beaglestonians are up to?
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
But still the best
Maybe it's an "out of sight, out of mind" type of thing, but I completely forgot about The Good Place, one of the few newer shows on network TV that I found worthwhile. Except for the news and some sports events my viewing consists of watching the oldies that are now available. Mostly the classics, but also some shows that I didn't pay attention to when they originally aired. Alf has a perverse appeal which I can't explain.
But I'll hold off on watching The Good Place until they are three or four episodes into the season and then I'll binge. The site I use is http://mycouchtuner.ag/ , which has loads of shows available. It can be a little tricky to figure out, depending on how your browser is set up with ad blockers, but I think it's worth it. The site itself has no content; everything is redirected to sites that have the actual files so there may be some pop up windows that you have to close. Since I don't have cable I've been able to view the complete runs of cable content like Deadwood, The Sopranos, The Wire, and Veep; all good in my opinion. There are some British shows available, too, so it's been a good deal for me.
-----
And another thing is we are a nation of hotheads.
I don't think so, Uncle Ken. What has been happening is the residual effect of the delusion of Manifest Destiny from the 19th century. Our shit don't stink, and if we want something we take it, and that's that. We are a schizoid nation with the ideals of the Founding Fathers on one side and rampant greed on the other side. If there are natural resource to exploit or territory that can provide us a strategic advantage, we will meddle with local governments until we get what we want. I don't know exactly what happened after WWII but we have gone from being the savior of freedom to a bully. We act like we single-handedly saved the world from tyranny but that is not the case, and today we like fighting in other countries while we've been ignoring or giving short shrift to domestic issues like education, the homeless, crime prevention, and the list goes on. The political hacks like to complain about the lack of human rights in other countries while we are still dicking around with egregious flaws in our own voter registration laws. The US has been doing a terrible job of making friends overseas and, with the current administration, many of our so-called allies are starting to give us the stink-eye. I'm waiting for some nations to start pulling out of NATO and striking out on their own paths. Ah, but I'm rambling...again.
-----
I've asked Uncle Ken about this before, and even if I'm getting accustomed to it I still don't know why he adds the letter 't' to the Institute's name. Beaglestonia? I don't think so.
But I'll hold off on watching The Good Place until they are three or four episodes into the season and then I'll binge. The site I use is http://mycouchtuner.ag/ , which has loads of shows available. It can be a little tricky to figure out, depending on how your browser is set up with ad blockers, but I think it's worth it. The site itself has no content; everything is redirected to sites that have the actual files so there may be some pop up windows that you have to close. Since I don't have cable I've been able to view the complete runs of cable content like Deadwood, The Sopranos, The Wire, and Veep; all good in my opinion. There are some British shows available, too, so it's been a good deal for me.
-----
And another thing is we are a nation of hotheads.
I don't think so, Uncle Ken. What has been happening is the residual effect of the delusion of Manifest Destiny from the 19th century. Our shit don't stink, and if we want something we take it, and that's that. We are a schizoid nation with the ideals of the Founding Fathers on one side and rampant greed on the other side. If there are natural resource to exploit or territory that can provide us a strategic advantage, we will meddle with local governments until we get what we want. I don't know exactly what happened after WWII but we have gone from being the savior of freedom to a bully. We act like we single-handedly saved the world from tyranny but that is not the case, and today we like fighting in other countries while we've been ignoring or giving short shrift to domestic issues like education, the homeless, crime prevention, and the list goes on. The political hacks like to complain about the lack of human rights in other countries while we are still dicking around with egregious flaws in our own voter registration laws. The US has been doing a terrible job of making friends overseas and, with the current administration, many of our so-called allies are starting to give us the stink-eye. I'm waiting for some nations to start pulling out of NATO and striking out on their own paths. Ah, but I'm rambling...again.
-----
I've asked Uncle Ken about this before, and even if I'm getting accustomed to it I still don't know why he adds the letter 't' to the Institute's name. Beaglestonia? I don't think so.
They is us
I believe Pogo said it best. We have met the enemy and they are us. Or maybe it could be paraphrased to we have met Them and They are us. American people are always complaining about their politicians, they are always grumbling how did this bum get elected? People voted for him that's how. People are always complaining about how their elected officials don't seem to be very moral, but if you look at the American public (Beaglestonians, and all you fans of Beaglestonia out there excepted) is not all that moral. You hear it again and again and again that there is no free lunch and yet Americans always vote for the guy who promises them a free lunch. Well, of course all the politicians offer a free lunch, but I guess that proves that they are not all that stupid.
And then there is that thing where the left wants one thing and the right wants another. Well they all want peace and prosperity, but they differ on how to get there. To grossly simplify the two without getting into any arguments, I think we can say that dems think the government is the solution and the reps think it is the problem. And of course neither party likes the other party's candidates.
Those wars I listed after my last post, we won WWII and the first gulf war, and Korea was a stalemate, which leaves Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan as the two winless wars. Well Iraq/Afghanistan is still going on, but it's hard to say what would constitute victory there. That was the problem with Vietnam, what would victory have looked like? American troops there forever? A corrupt kleptocracy of the south Vietnamese forces, teetering on the edge of collapse and sucking down American aid like a drunkard?
Vietnam had long roots, probably beginning with French Indochina, the Japanese, the war, the French again, and then the US taking up the fallen flag in the red glow of China. Afghanistan, well we were always going to go there after 911, but the feint towards Iraq is a puzzlement. I'm putting it on the fevered dreams of the neo cons and a weak prez under the control of evil Dick Cheney.
And another thing is we are a nation of hotheads. The cooler heads stayed in their own country, while the guys who couldn't get along or who wanted to get ahead, who wanted to do something, came here. We are a nation of people who are angered easily and want to do something and we are the most powerful nation in the world so if anything is going on that we don't like, we have a powerful urge to go over there and do something..
See, I thought the lesson of Vietnam is maybe we shouldn't always go over there and do something, but maybe the lesson was really that we should just wait until the current nosebleed is stanched before we go looking to get another one.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Nevertheless, They Still Suck
I don't know what got into me last night, I guess all that Vietnam talk triggered a flashback or something. I used to believe all that stuff in those days, nowadays I'm not so sure. So what is Uncle Ken's explanation for all those no-win wars and other assorted foolishness that has been foisted on the American people in our lifetimes? Maybe They do not exist, but they (small "t" no italics) certainly do, and they still suck. Why do they insist on doing everything wrong? If they don't know any better, then why are they in charge? If they do know better, then they must be doing it on purpose. I don't know which is worse.
I might not be posting anything tomorrow night because the season premiere of "The Good Place" will be on NBC at 10:PM, which is 9:00PM Chicago time, which is when I usually visit the Institute. I know it's a stupid show, but I like it because you never know what they're going to do next. They kept me guessing for 13 episodes last season, and the last episode took me totally by surprise. I can't imagine what they are going to do for an encore. They will only be in this time slot once, and then they're going to 8:30 (7:30 Chicago) on Thursday nights, right after the "Big Bang Theory". Actually, the "Big Bang Theory" is going to be on Monday nights until November, when they will return to Thursdays. There is a new show called "Young Sheldon" which is being spun off of "Big Bang" and will follow it at 8:30. That means there will be a conflict when they both go to Thursdays, so we have until then to decide which one we want to watch. I understand there is a thing where you can watch any show "on demand", but I don't know how it works. Can one of you guys explain it to me?
I might not be posting anything tomorrow night because the season premiere of "The Good Place" will be on NBC at 10:PM, which is 9:00PM Chicago time, which is when I usually visit the Institute. I know it's a stupid show, but I like it because you never know what they're going to do next. They kept me guessing for 13 episodes last season, and the last episode took me totally by surprise. I can't imagine what they are going to do for an encore. They will only be in this time slot once, and then they're going to 8:30 (7:30 Chicago) on Thursday nights, right after the "Big Bang Theory". Actually, the "Big Bang Theory" is going to be on Monday nights until November, when they will return to Thursdays. There is a new show called "Young Sheldon" which is being spun off of "Big Bang" and will follow it at 8:30. That means there will be a conflict when they both go to Thursdays, so we have until then to decide which one we want to watch. I understand there is a thing where you can watch any show "on demand", but I don't know how it works. Can one of you guys explain it to me?
Them again
Beagles is indeed a group of one, the only guy in the world who believes in Them, that vague forever unknowable cadre of poobahs who pull all the strings to make everything happengggggggggg. Aha! Note that string of g's? I stepped away for a second to get another cup of coffee and when I came back I saw all those g's. A foolish naive person like myself would have thought that my cat Sweetie who had been on the table watching me type, which she finds endlessly fascinating, and was just jumping off the table on my return, her rear paws leaping from the keyboard in the vicinity of the keyboard had hit the key causing the g's. And indeed I did think so, even though I had just read the logical, analytic, exposition from Beagles pointing out how They had engineered a couple wars, and the election of Donald Trump, or maybe not Donald Trump, because he is not one of Them, unless he is, and maybe it was one of Their failures because They fail now and then, or maybe They just make it look like that to fool us, but anyway, a more thoughtful, less gullible guy, like Beagles would have realized that what had happened was one of Them had slipped into my frontroom while I was in the kitchen, Their agent dangling from one of those Tom Cruise (a known Scientologist, this only gets deeper) ropes from a helicopter equipped with a silencer (which only They have) and slipped onto my balcony and through the door to the computer, held his finger on the g key for ten g's (the exact number of fingers on both our hands, if we count our thumbs, which we do), and slipped out quietly as the wind.
Their motive of course (or maybe it is something else as They are infinitely devious) was to distract foolish me, and hence the horde of Beaglestonian followers who are eager to hear the lone voice of The Group of One. Except, of course that by definition of The Group of One, they are not part of that group, which I believe makes them Them.
If we go down the list of wars since our birth (this will exclude Old Dog, who is actually a young pup), we have WW II which was our last regular war with clearly defined sides and an actual declaration at the beginning and a peace treaty at the other, and the bad guys were really bad. I am not sure if we were as united on that one as Beagles claims, but probably more so than any of the following wars.
Which takes us to the Korean War, or more properly the UN Police Action, the forgotten war, though Kim III appears to know it well. I was just a little tyke, and I don't remember if there was any resistance to it on the home front.
Then the unpopular war, no declaration, though there was that Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Technically it was the north fighting the south and we were only advising except when we were also getting out boors wet, Russia and China were sort of hovering in the wings but keeping their boots dry and indeed China was the first country to go to war with the newly united country once we left. A lot of resistance on the home front to this one.
The First Gulf War, some kind of declaration to get all those countries involved. Not sure if there was a treaty at the end, but there was a big parade under a shower of yellow ribbons. The song was about a guy getting out of prison, but somehow yellow ribbons became the mascot of the war. Over too fast for there to be any resistance.
The Second Gulf War, which most have started with some kind of piece of paper. Everybody was for it at the beginning including my beloved dems. Never really any goal to it except toppling Saddam, but then we hung around to establish some shaky government, and we're still there doing something. Afghanistan is in that picture too, we're doing something there too. Polls show the country is not too crazy about either of these wars, but it's an all volunteer army and lately not many are getting killed so there is not much resisitance.
Wiki gives us 4 years for WW II, 3 for Korea, 8 for Vietnam, .5 for the first gulf war, and 16 years and counting for Iraq/Afghanistan.
Their motive of course (or maybe it is something else as They are infinitely devious) was to distract foolish me, and hence the horde of Beaglestonian followers who are eager to hear the lone voice of The Group of One. Except, of course that by definition of The Group of One, they are not part of that group, which I believe makes them Them.
If we go down the list of wars since our birth (this will exclude Old Dog, who is actually a young pup), we have WW II which was our last regular war with clearly defined sides and an actual declaration at the beginning and a peace treaty at the other, and the bad guys were really bad. I am not sure if we were as united on that one as Beagles claims, but probably more so than any of the following wars.
Which takes us to the Korean War, or more properly the UN Police Action, the forgotten war, though Kim III appears to know it well. I was just a little tyke, and I don't remember if there was any resistance to it on the home front.
Then the unpopular war, no declaration, though there was that Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Technically it was the north fighting the south and we were only advising except when we were also getting out boors wet, Russia and China were sort of hovering in the wings but keeping their boots dry and indeed China was the first country to go to war with the newly united country once we left. A lot of resistance on the home front to this one.
The First Gulf War, some kind of declaration to get all those countries involved. Not sure if there was a treaty at the end, but there was a big parade under a shower of yellow ribbons. The song was about a guy getting out of prison, but somehow yellow ribbons became the mascot of the war. Over too fast for there to be any resistance.
The Second Gulf War, which most have started with some kind of piece of paper. Everybody was for it at the beginning including my beloved dems. Never really any goal to it except toppling Saddam, but then we hung around to establish some shaky government, and we're still there doing something. Afghanistan is in that picture too, we're doing something there too. Polls show the country is not too crazy about either of these wars, but it's an all volunteer army and lately not many are getting killed so there is not much resisitance.
Wiki gives us 4 years for WW II, 3 for Korea, 8 for Vietnam, .5 for the first gulf war, and 16 years and counting for Iraq/Afghanistan.
Monday, September 18, 2017
Divide and Conquer
World War II brought our country together like it never had been before, the Vietnam War rent the country asunder, and we ain't over it yet. Call me "paranoid", but I'm still not convinced that They didn't do it on purpose. All us baby boomers were coming of age at the same time. We had already taken over the music business, and we were well positioned to take over the whole country, if only we could have kept out act together. Most of us didn't know this at the time, but I'm sure that They knew it, and They weren't about to let that happen. The old "divide and conquer" tactic worked so well that They have been using it on us ever since.
You know, Donald Trump may be our best hope after all. As Uncle Ken has pointed out, many of the people who voted for Trump were trying to "stick it to the man". Granted that Trump is an asshole, but he's probably not one of Them. He's not on our side either, he's just on his own side, but that's better than nothing. "Divide and conquer" won't work on a guy like that because you can't divide somebody from themselves. Sure it would be better if we all stuck together like our ancestors did in World War II, but that's not going to happen anytime soon, the gulf is too wide. The best we can hope for is "every man for himself". Of course They know that, which is why They are always trying to herd us into groups: racial groups, ethnic groups, age groups, sexual orientation groups, gender groups, political groups, and all kinds of other groups that we haven't heard about yet because They are still fabricating them. They will never get me, though, because I am a group of one!
Draft beer, not soldiers
I don't think we have discussed Vietnam since Old Dog joined the forum.
Since none of us were there, what's to discuss? I was never privy to any inside poop and I don't think you guys were either. To the best of my understanding, the US got mired in a civil war between different factions, meddled a bit with their leadership, and we ended up not winning, not losing, exactly, but forfeiting, making the whole matter an exercise in futility and a total waste. Weren't some dominoes supposed to fall? Well, they didn't, and now we have trade agreements with Vietnam and they are selling us textiles, fishery products, and big surprise, crude oil.
-----
I like those Ken Burns documentaries; there is enough information in the voice-over that you don't need to look at the images, and the music is always nice. I haven't seen the new one but it's supposed to be pretty good, lots of historical info preceding US involvement.
Uncle Ken mentions that a different film may have been used in the movie clips to give it a period feel, but I'm suspicious. Not having seen any of the clips, my guess is that the clips were shot on 8mm or Super8mm, maybe with some 16mm film, which would make the clips appear more grainy than we are used to seeing with 35mm film stock. If the colors look strange, I would attribute it to processing the film in a hot and humid environment. Color film is very touchy, you need to have the chemicals at a precise temperature, some with only half a degree variance allowed, and there are a lot of chemicals involved. Also, if those newsreels have been sitting in storage under less than ideal conditions the colors will definitely get wonky. But I freely concede that artistic liberties may have been taken, and I'm talking out of my keister in which case, forget I said anything.
I think Vietnam was the first war in which the guys in the field took a lot of their own pictures and movies. The larger installations had Special Services shops where you could develop your own film; other shops taught carpentry, ceramics, fine arts, and other good stuff for the welfare and morale of the troops. There was a lot of grisly stuff being printed in the photo shop on Okinawa, usually during off hours when there weren't any dependents (wives & kids) hanging around. I stayed away from that kind of stuff, and couldn't imagine why some guys thought those kinds of prints would make good keepsakes. I guess saving pictures is better than collecting ears like some of the troops did. War is hell.
And think of it, the US has been at war in Afghanistan for sixteen years, much longer than the Vietnam entanglement, but with fewer US lives lost (thus far). Ken Burns will have a hell of a lot of material, assuming we ever get out of that place.
Since none of us were there, what's to discuss? I was never privy to any inside poop and I don't think you guys were either. To the best of my understanding, the US got mired in a civil war between different factions, meddled a bit with their leadership, and we ended up not winning, not losing, exactly, but forfeiting, making the whole matter an exercise in futility and a total waste. Weren't some dominoes supposed to fall? Well, they didn't, and now we have trade agreements with Vietnam and they are selling us textiles, fishery products, and big surprise, crude oil.
-----
I like those Ken Burns documentaries; there is enough information in the voice-over that you don't need to look at the images, and the music is always nice. I haven't seen the new one but it's supposed to be pretty good, lots of historical info preceding US involvement.
Uncle Ken mentions that a different film may have been used in the movie clips to give it a period feel, but I'm suspicious. Not having seen any of the clips, my guess is that the clips were shot on 8mm or Super8mm, maybe with some 16mm film, which would make the clips appear more grainy than we are used to seeing with 35mm film stock. If the colors look strange, I would attribute it to processing the film in a hot and humid environment. Color film is very touchy, you need to have the chemicals at a precise temperature, some with only half a degree variance allowed, and there are a lot of chemicals involved. Also, if those newsreels have been sitting in storage under less than ideal conditions the colors will definitely get wonky. But I freely concede that artistic liberties may have been taken, and I'm talking out of my keister in which case, forget I said anything.
I think Vietnam was the first war in which the guys in the field took a lot of their own pictures and movies. The larger installations had Special Services shops where you could develop your own film; other shops taught carpentry, ceramics, fine arts, and other good stuff for the welfare and morale of the troops. There was a lot of grisly stuff being printed in the photo shop on Okinawa, usually during off hours when there weren't any dependents (wives & kids) hanging around. I stayed away from that kind of stuff, and couldn't imagine why some guys thought those kinds of prints would make good keepsakes. I guess saving pictures is better than collecting ears like some of the troops did. War is hell.
And think of it, the US has been at war in Afghanistan for sixteen years, much longer than the Vietnam entanglement, but with fewer US lives lost (thus far). Ken Burns will have a hell of a lot of material, assuming we ever get out of that place.
the unpopular war
Didn't watch it last night. Not a big fan of Ken Burns, all those sepia photos, those droning readings of all those earnest letters, and in the end what does it all mean? It don't mean shit.
I did tune it in at the beginning, no sepia photos, no earnest letters, just old newsreel footage. There was a certain kind of film they used then (I've heard about movies where they purposely use it to get a period feel) where the colors popped but looked a little artificial. It's like putting the scene in a glass box, a panorama for us oldsters to walk by and shake our heads while the young 'uns look curiously. What was that all about?
I don't think I knew anything about Vietnam before the Bay of Tonkin Incident in August of 1964. Oh I had read stuff here and there. There was something going on in Indochina, some skirmishing between us and the reds, but suddenly here they had actually fired on one of our ships. It turned out they hadn't, but that didn't come to light until much later. But anyway, I, like many of my fellow Americans, was incensed, how dare those pipsqueaks shoot at our ships. They needed to be taught a lesson, the only thing they understood, like all of America's enemies before and since, was force.
The Resolution was passed, things were going on in that faraway place, but we didn't hear much about it, but then the protests started. Who were these shadowy anti-American nuts? The University didn't want them on campus, set up a free speech area just in back of the student union where you could have free speech, implying I guess that you couldn't have elsewhere. The protesters didn't like being confined to that little out-of-the-way area and it didn't matter because as the war grew so did the protests and soon they were all over campus.
I don't know when my mind changed. At the beginning I was for the war, and then I was against it, but I don't remember a single incident where I sat down thinking one way and then stood up thinking another, very likely approaching the end of my 2-S deferment was a factor.
LBJ, it was his war. It started with Ike and went through Nixon, but the big expansions came with LBJ. I went to the LBJ Museum in Austin a couple years ago and there was room after room of his efforts on civil rights and the war was like just s footnote.
I got my CO, went down to Herrin. I thought oh shit they are going to hate an anti-Vietnam guy like me in a small town in southern Illinois, but they didn't hardly care. Most of them hadn't been out of Williamson county for years and they hardly knew what went on outside it.
The demonstrations escalated, clean Gene had some success in the primaries, LBJ collapsed like a house of cards. I saw him on TV everybody was expecting some war escalation and I believe there was one, but right at the end of the speech he announced his resignation. I was thrilled, we had won, it was over.
Well not quite, HHH was too chicken to come out against the war, and then in came Nixon with his secret plan which involved a lot of bombing and then doing what he could have done on day one, declaring victory and pulling out.
Well okay then victory, I mean victory for us anti Vietnam types. Our bold protests had ended the war and put America on the right path. That's what I thought then, anymore I wonder how much effect the demonstrations had. My closest estimate is not much.
Nixon shot himself in the foot, Ford seemed ineffectual, so did smiling Jimmy, and then it was Morning in America. Hard times were hitting Champaign, the mighty midwest had become the frost belt and then the rust belt, downtown was full of empty storefronts, I couldn't find a job.
I ended up going to Austin Texas, I had some piddly little paper shuffling temporary job. I was adrift in a red state, like the Israelites in Egypt, humbly migrating from the north, grateful for any job they might give me. What, I wondered, pushing my pencil across the paper, was the lesson of Vietnam?
It was a thing often discussed after the war, what was the lesson of Vietnam. No definitive answer was ever found, it seemed like it was probably something like the arrogance of power. Just because we were the strongest power on God's green earth, it didn't behoove us to go willy nilly into wars with little countries.
I guess that's what I thought. Things got better. I got a solid job, but then I quit it thinking I could do better and went broke and had to move to Chicago, but then I got that fat state job. Reagan's two terms ran out, Curious George had a term and went down to the big dog. The economy was booming, I got my condo in the tower. America seemed back on track again. And then there was the blue dress, and then the hanging chads, and then 911. And then the drums were beating to get into Iraq. But surely that wouldn't happen, hadn't we learned the lesson of Vietnam?
I had a friend, a worry wart, who kept warning that we would get into the war, but I pooh poohed it. It would never happen. Cooler heads would prevail. Hadn't we learned the lesson?
And then we were in it, I learned that the lesson of Vietnam wasn't what I thought it was, what it was was, this shit happens all the time Kid, get used to it.
I don't think we have discussed Vietnam since Old Dog joined the forum. Beagles and I have gone after each other on it a couple times. Way back when the war was going on the National Lampoon had an article set many years later a pro and an anti Vietnam guy were in a nursing home in a wheelchair and on a walker were going at it just like the 60s were never over. It was funny because it was so ridiculous, who could imagine such a thing ever happening?
I did tune it in at the beginning, no sepia photos, no earnest letters, just old newsreel footage. There was a certain kind of film they used then (I've heard about movies where they purposely use it to get a period feel) where the colors popped but looked a little artificial. It's like putting the scene in a glass box, a panorama for us oldsters to walk by and shake our heads while the young 'uns look curiously. What was that all about?
I don't think I knew anything about Vietnam before the Bay of Tonkin Incident in August of 1964. Oh I had read stuff here and there. There was something going on in Indochina, some skirmishing between us and the reds, but suddenly here they had actually fired on one of our ships. It turned out they hadn't, but that didn't come to light until much later. But anyway, I, like many of my fellow Americans, was incensed, how dare those pipsqueaks shoot at our ships. They needed to be taught a lesson, the only thing they understood, like all of America's enemies before and since, was force.
The Resolution was passed, things were going on in that faraway place, but we didn't hear much about it, but then the protests started. Who were these shadowy anti-American nuts? The University didn't want them on campus, set up a free speech area just in back of the student union where you could have free speech, implying I guess that you couldn't have elsewhere. The protesters didn't like being confined to that little out-of-the-way area and it didn't matter because as the war grew so did the protests and soon they were all over campus.
I don't know when my mind changed. At the beginning I was for the war, and then I was against it, but I don't remember a single incident where I sat down thinking one way and then stood up thinking another, very likely approaching the end of my 2-S deferment was a factor.
LBJ, it was his war. It started with Ike and went through Nixon, but the big expansions came with LBJ. I went to the LBJ Museum in Austin a couple years ago and there was room after room of his efforts on civil rights and the war was like just s footnote.
I got my CO, went down to Herrin. I thought oh shit they are going to hate an anti-Vietnam guy like me in a small town in southern Illinois, but they didn't hardly care. Most of them hadn't been out of Williamson county for years and they hardly knew what went on outside it.
The demonstrations escalated, clean Gene had some success in the primaries, LBJ collapsed like a house of cards. I saw him on TV everybody was expecting some war escalation and I believe there was one, but right at the end of the speech he announced his resignation. I was thrilled, we had won, it was over.
Well not quite, HHH was too chicken to come out against the war, and then in came Nixon with his secret plan which involved a lot of bombing and then doing what he could have done on day one, declaring victory and pulling out.
Well okay then victory, I mean victory for us anti Vietnam types. Our bold protests had ended the war and put America on the right path. That's what I thought then, anymore I wonder how much effect the demonstrations had. My closest estimate is not much.
Nixon shot himself in the foot, Ford seemed ineffectual, so did smiling Jimmy, and then it was Morning in America. Hard times were hitting Champaign, the mighty midwest had become the frost belt and then the rust belt, downtown was full of empty storefronts, I couldn't find a job.
I ended up going to Austin Texas, I had some piddly little paper shuffling temporary job. I was adrift in a red state, like the Israelites in Egypt, humbly migrating from the north, grateful for any job they might give me. What, I wondered, pushing my pencil across the paper, was the lesson of Vietnam?
It was a thing often discussed after the war, what was the lesson of Vietnam. No definitive answer was ever found, it seemed like it was probably something like the arrogance of power. Just because we were the strongest power on God's green earth, it didn't behoove us to go willy nilly into wars with little countries.
I guess that's what I thought. Things got better. I got a solid job, but then I quit it thinking I could do better and went broke and had to move to Chicago, but then I got that fat state job. Reagan's two terms ran out, Curious George had a term and went down to the big dog. The economy was booming, I got my condo in the tower. America seemed back on track again. And then there was the blue dress, and then the hanging chads, and then 911. And then the drums were beating to get into Iraq. But surely that wouldn't happen, hadn't we learned the lesson of Vietnam?
I had a friend, a worry wart, who kept warning that we would get into the war, but I pooh poohed it. It would never happen. Cooler heads would prevail. Hadn't we learned the lesson?
And then we were in it, I learned that the lesson of Vietnam wasn't what I thought it was, what it was was, this shit happens all the time Kid, get used to it.
I don't think we have discussed Vietnam since Old Dog joined the forum. Beagles and I have gone after each other on it a couple times. Way back when the war was going on the National Lampoon had an article set many years later a pro and an anti Vietnam guy were in a nursing home in a wheelchair and on a walker were going at it just like the 60s were never over. It was funny because it was so ridiculous, who could imagine such a thing ever happening?
Saturday, September 16, 2017
The Same Only Different
As far as I know, the length of the terms of both US Senators and Representatives has always been the same as it is now. What has changed is the way senators are elected. They used to be elected by the legislatures of their respective states until 1913, when the 17th Amendment provided that they be directly elected by the people of their states. The original intent was that the senators would represent their states, while the house members would directly represent the people of their districts. The 17th Amendment kind of changed that, but not really. The senate still represents the states, the only thing that has changed is how the senators from each state are elected. It's important to remember that, if the bicameral compromise had not been made, there probably never would have been a United States of America. To change it now would require a constitutional amendment, which would require the ratification of 3/4 of the state legislatures. I doubt that the less populated states would ever agree to that.
The idea of a bicameral legislature probably came from Britain, where they still have the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The lords are not elected by the people, they are appointed by the queen, I think for life. The original intent of that was to provide a check and balance against the power of the rabble, but the commons now have more power than the lords. I'm not sure if the lords can veto an action of the commons, if so, I don't think it happens very often. Until a few years ago, the lords had a function something like our supreme court but, last I heard, Britain was planning on instituting a regular supreme court like ours.
Since we don't have lords here, we probably wouldn't have a bicameral legislature if that compromise hadn't happened. It makes sense on a national level, when you think about it, but I think that it makes a lot less sense on the state level. I don't know why the states ever adopted it, unless they were just copy catting the federal. Some time ago, the state of Nebraska changed to a unicameral legislature, but the rest of the states didn't follow suit for some reason. When Nebraska did it, their people were really pissed off at their legislators about corruption or something. Apparently it takes more than that to piss off the people in the rest of the states, maybe because we're used to it.
The idea of a bicameral legislature probably came from Britain, where they still have the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The lords are not elected by the people, they are appointed by the queen, I think for life. The original intent of that was to provide a check and balance against the power of the rabble, but the commons now have more power than the lords. I'm not sure if the lords can veto an action of the commons, if so, I don't think it happens very often. Until a few years ago, the lords had a function something like our supreme court but, last I heard, Britain was planning on instituting a regular supreme court like ours.
Since we don't have lords here, we probably wouldn't have a bicameral legislature if that compromise hadn't happened. It makes sense on a national level, when you think about it, but I think that it makes a lot less sense on the state level. I don't know why the states ever adopted it, unless they were just copy catting the federal. Some time ago, the state of Nebraska changed to a unicameral legislature, but the rest of the states didn't follow suit for some reason. When Nebraska did it, their people were really pissed off at their legislators about corruption or something. Apparently it takes more than that to piss off the people in the rest of the states, maybe because we're used to it.
On the same page
For a while there I thought there was something amiss with my browser; you guys were talking about stuff that didn't appear anywhere on the Institute's main page. What is this "design" tab you speak of, I wondered. And then it is revealed, you guys had admin access while I was a humble author. But now, thanks to Mr. Beagles, I got a promotion...Woo Woo! I now know what you guys were talking about and by golly!, there is a lot more info available now. I can't believe the number of views some of the posts have received. My guess is that some innocent Googlers were looking for some information on their favorite hounds and got directed to Talks With Beagles. Ha! The jokes on them!
The comments are baffling, though. Why did some guy post a comment in September for a discussion from many months previously? And why doesn't it seem to have anything to do with the original article? The cyber moves in mysterious ways.
-----
If you think that naked swimming in high school was peculiar, you should check out Ivy League nude posture photos on the Wikipedia page. Between the 40s and 70s, incoming freshmen had nude pictures taken for a study of spinal anomalies and social hierarchy Most photos were sent to the Smithsonian but have since been destroyed (or so they say) and there is no digital record, thank the stars. Bootlegged images of a certain Miss Rodham would probably break the internet.
-----
I am surprised that the House of Representatives manages to get anything done. The term of office is only two years, so you have to figure they are spending at least six months planning for their reelection. And next year all 435 seats are up for grabs; has it always been like that? Theoretically, there could be all fresh new faces with no holdovers to show the new guys the ropes. I think it would be better if the elections were staggered, with half being held every year. The six year term of senators is staggered, with a third of the senate seats being voted on every two years, or something like that. It's confusing.
-----
Trump must have some kind of magical hold over his staffers; how else can the tenure of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions be explained? I read about that staff meeting where Trump called him an idiot and said he should resign. So Sessions submits a written resignation but White House staffers mutter secret words in Trump's ear and then Trump refuses to accept the resignation. WTF?, I ask. Besides demanding loyalty does Trump also expect a high level of masochism?
-----
Have either of you fellows seen The Fog of War? It's an Errol Morris documentary about Robert McNamara, straight from the horse's mouth and covers a lot of ground. Pretty good, I thought, and McNamara doesn't come out too badly. One thing I didn't know involved the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how I thought the embargo was to prevent nuclear warheads from entering Cuba. At a later date McNamara actually talked to Fidel and found out the nuclear warheads were already in Cuba. Jeez, that situation could have turned sideways in a heartbeat.
And what's the deal with that mysterious sonic weapon in Cuba, where the diplomats are going deaf and having other neurological problems? If you take Raoul Castro at his word, he doesn't know what's causing it and wants to help us figure it out, even going so far as to invite the FBI to come and investigate. It sounds like something the Russians might have come up with; they're not letting any grass grow under their feet and they always seem to come up with screwy weapons.
-----
I'm going to go out on a limb and make a weather prediction. Those two developing tropical depressions forming off the west coast of Africa won't amount to anything approaching hurricane strength but the weather pundits will nevertheless do a lot of gum flapping. By the way, just off the top of your heads, has any one location been hit by more than one hurricane in a single season? None spring to mind but it would be more than sad if it happens this year. Folks have had enough.
The comments are baffling, though. Why did some guy post a comment in September for a discussion from many months previously? And why doesn't it seem to have anything to do with the original article? The cyber moves in mysterious ways.
-----
If you think that naked swimming in high school was peculiar, you should check out Ivy League nude posture photos on the Wikipedia page. Between the 40s and 70s, incoming freshmen had nude pictures taken for a study of spinal anomalies and social hierarchy Most photos were sent to the Smithsonian but have since been destroyed (or so they say) and there is no digital record, thank the stars. Bootlegged images of a certain Miss Rodham would probably break the internet.
-----
I am surprised that the House of Representatives manages to get anything done. The term of office is only two years, so you have to figure they are spending at least six months planning for their reelection. And next year all 435 seats are up for grabs; has it always been like that? Theoretically, there could be all fresh new faces with no holdovers to show the new guys the ropes. I think it would be better if the elections were staggered, with half being held every year. The six year term of senators is staggered, with a third of the senate seats being voted on every two years, or something like that. It's confusing.
-----
Trump must have some kind of magical hold over his staffers; how else can the tenure of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions be explained? I read about that staff meeting where Trump called him an idiot and said he should resign. So Sessions submits a written resignation but White House staffers mutter secret words in Trump's ear and then Trump refuses to accept the resignation. WTF?, I ask. Besides demanding loyalty does Trump also expect a high level of masochism?
-----
Have either of you fellows seen The Fog of War? It's an Errol Morris documentary about Robert McNamara, straight from the horse's mouth and covers a lot of ground. Pretty good, I thought, and McNamara doesn't come out too badly. One thing I didn't know involved the Cuban Missile Crisis, and how I thought the embargo was to prevent nuclear warheads from entering Cuba. At a later date McNamara actually talked to Fidel and found out the nuclear warheads were already in Cuba. Jeez, that situation could have turned sideways in a heartbeat.
And what's the deal with that mysterious sonic weapon in Cuba, where the diplomats are going deaf and having other neurological problems? If you take Raoul Castro at his word, he doesn't know what's causing it and wants to help us figure it out, even going so far as to invite the FBI to come and investigate. It sounds like something the Russians might have come up with; they're not letting any grass grow under their feet and they always seem to come up with screwy weapons.
-----
I'm going to go out on a limb and make a weather prediction. Those two developing tropical depressions forming off the west coast of Africa won't amount to anything approaching hurricane strength but the weather pundits will nevertheless do a lot of gum flapping. By the way, just off the top of your heads, has any one location been hit by more than one hurricane in a single season? None spring to mind but it would be more than sad if it happens this year. Folks have had enough.
Friday, September 15, 2017
The Church of Trump without Donald Trump
I'm sure we all had those USA puzzles in our youth, Californuia, laid back and reclining like at the beach, Wyoming and Colorado, rectangles, our own Illinois straight on one side and squiggly on the other, Michigan, I believe they gave all of Lake Michigan so that they could include the yoopers and loopers in one piece (outrageous!), Pennsylvania with that odd snout and then there was one big solid piece in the northeast which stuck together everything from Maine to Maryland. New England, flinty types, rocky soil, lobsters, taciturn, give then a high wide Midwestern "Howdy doo Neighbor," and they'll just turn around and grunt. Who needs them? Well we certainly need Massachusetts, and probably Conneticut, but New Hampshire and Vermont, those two oddly nestled states, I don't think so. Maryland gives us Baltimore and that lovely song "The Streets of Baltimore," but what has Delaware ever done for us? And those shapes, they look like congressional districts even before gerrymandering became all the rage.
I guess my point is did we need them so badly that we gave them two senators each, what does "Two Scoops" call it, the worst deal I ever saw? And having made that mistake why did we extend it to the gas giants of the west? Why isn't there just one state from Kansas to Idaho? Well I think, and Beagles will know, that there were size restrictions. Texas was too big, but it all came in one lump, kind of dashing with that Lone Star crap and all. Could become five states tomorrow and have ten senators, but Texans, unlike Illinois, where there is animosity between the city and the burbs, and downstate, and that southern tip and Michigan between the north and south, Texas is one big happy family from Beaumont to El Paso, Lubbock to Brownsville all united singing the Eyes of Texas are upon you arm in arm until the Lone Star beer runs out.
Where was I? Oh yeah, senatorial representation, badly distributed. Bad compromise, but I suppose if it favored rather than rained on the dems I wouldn't be complaining so loudly.
That's an interesting thing Beagles says about our high school days being before homosexuality was invented. Looking back I don't know if I even knew it existed. Years later I was tending bar at the Wigwam when the gay bar up the street burned down and they all came into my bar and one day one of them called out, "Hey Ken Schadt, I remember you from Gage Park." Well shit, by then I certainly knew that there were plenty of gay people, but it had never occurred to me that any of them would have come from Gage Park.
I once heard a cable guy explaining the way it works. He said when there is a breaking news story (I know, all stories are breaking news stories anymore) like the hurricane, people drop in at all hours of the day to see what the hurricane is doing, and if it's not on your cable station they'll click to another, so they keep it on the hurricane. And they watch their competitors, and if their competitors are still showing the hurricane they stick with it. And that's why you see the same thing over and over.
And it's the same thing with the political stories I love. They change panels but they are all saying the same things about the same things. Well in this case you can go to Fox and listen to them saying different things about the same things. That is until recently when some cracks in their Trump worship appeared. I don't know what they are doing now that Trump has gone over to the dem side. Times like this they just cover some obscure story because they like to speak with some voice.
I've been watching Brietbart for about a month. Hard to believe that it has such a following with Trump's base, it's so stupid. Well I guess I have answered my own question. In the great book and movie Wise Blood Hazel Motes, disillusioned with regular religion, starts preaching from the street corners for the Church of Jesus Christ without Jesus Christ (where the lame don't walk, and the blind don't see, and the dead stay that way). It's kind of like that on Brietbart now, they are the voice of Trumpism without Donald Trump. I think their theory is that he is being badly led by bad advisers.
If you're like a right winger or a libertarian or a commie when your hero breaks from what you think are the tenets of your ideology you can say the man has strayed, fuck him. But if you are a Trumpist, your ideology is Donald Trump, and what do you do when he strays? I guess we're waiting for the next poll of the deplorables to see if it drops below that steady 35 percent.
I guess my point is did we need them so badly that we gave them two senators each, what does "Two Scoops" call it, the worst deal I ever saw? And having made that mistake why did we extend it to the gas giants of the west? Why isn't there just one state from Kansas to Idaho? Well I think, and Beagles will know, that there were size restrictions. Texas was too big, but it all came in one lump, kind of dashing with that Lone Star crap and all. Could become five states tomorrow and have ten senators, but Texans, unlike Illinois, where there is animosity between the city and the burbs, and downstate, and that southern tip and Michigan between the north and south, Texas is one big happy family from Beaumont to El Paso, Lubbock to Brownsville all united singing the Eyes of Texas are upon you arm in arm until the Lone Star beer runs out.
Where was I? Oh yeah, senatorial representation, badly distributed. Bad compromise, but I suppose if it favored rather than rained on the dems I wouldn't be complaining so loudly.
That's an interesting thing Beagles says about our high school days being before homosexuality was invented. Looking back I don't know if I even knew it existed. Years later I was tending bar at the Wigwam when the gay bar up the street burned down and they all came into my bar and one day one of them called out, "Hey Ken Schadt, I remember you from Gage Park." Well shit, by then I certainly knew that there were plenty of gay people, but it had never occurred to me that any of them would have come from Gage Park.
I once heard a cable guy explaining the way it works. He said when there is a breaking news story (I know, all stories are breaking news stories anymore) like the hurricane, people drop in at all hours of the day to see what the hurricane is doing, and if it's not on your cable station they'll click to another, so they keep it on the hurricane. And they watch their competitors, and if their competitors are still showing the hurricane they stick with it. And that's why you see the same thing over and over.
And it's the same thing with the political stories I love. They change panels but they are all saying the same things about the same things. Well in this case you can go to Fox and listen to them saying different things about the same things. That is until recently when some cracks in their Trump worship appeared. I don't know what they are doing now that Trump has gone over to the dem side. Times like this they just cover some obscure story because they like to speak with some voice.
I've been watching Brietbart for about a month. Hard to believe that it has such a following with Trump's base, it's so stupid. Well I guess I have answered my own question. In the great book and movie Wise Blood Hazel Motes, disillusioned with regular religion, starts preaching from the street corners for the Church of Jesus Christ without Jesus Christ (where the lame don't walk, and the blind don't see, and the dead stay that way). It's kind of like that on Brietbart now, they are the voice of Trumpism without Donald Trump. I think their theory is that he is being badly led by bad advisers.
If you're like a right winger or a libertarian or a commie when your hero breaks from what you think are the tenets of your ideology you can say the man has strayed, fuck him. But if you are a Trumpist, your ideology is Donald Trump, and what do you do when he strays? I guess we're waiting for the next poll of the deplorables to see if it drops below that steady 35 percent.
Thursday, September 14, 2017
These United States
We have come to think of our states as being subdivisions of the United States, but it is important to remember that the United States of America was originally formed by 13 sovereign states joining together to form a federal republic. In so doing, they surrendered some of their sovereignty to the central government and retained the rest for themselves. The federal government has gained more power over the years, mostly because they pay for a lot of things, and the courts have ruled that the federal government can regulate anything it pays for. Of course the reason the federal government has more money than the states is that they are the only ones who can legally create money out of nothing, but that's a whole nother story. Some of the Founding Fathers wanted all legislative representation to be according to population, and some of them wanted each state to have the same number of representatives regardless of population. Well they compromised, and Uncle Ken has stated that compromise is a good thing, so it seems he should be pleased with the way things turned out.
I remember swimming naked in the high school pool. It was no big deal, it was just guys, and homosexuality hadn't been invented yet. The girls wore some kind of ill fitting swimsuits that were issued by the school, they called them "tank suits", and I understand that nobody liked them. I don't think it ever occurred to anybody, except me, that the girls should also swim naked. Nowadays, with everybody being equal, maybe it's an idea whose time has come.
The reason I was tired of hearing about those hurricanes before they made landfall was that the news and weather people kept saying the same things and running the same film clips over and over again, for what seemed like weeks. I understand that nobody but Uncle Ken watches the news 24 hours a day, so there needs to be some repetition to make sure that everybody gets the same information no matter what time of day they tune in, but I think that most people watch some news at least once day, so I don't see the need to repeat everything day after day after day.
Maybe the reason we see those pages differently is that we are using different browsers. I have heard that can have an effect on how a page is displayed. I checked in the settings, and the only difference between us I saw was that Uncle Ken and I were listed as "Admin" while Old Dog was listed as "Author". I changed Old Dog's designation to "Admin", so that should give us all the same powers. If nobody has any objections, I will delete those two most recent comments over the weekend. While I'm at it, I will try to get rid of all those goofy "'s" and replace them with apostrophes. It might not matter in the grand scheme of things, but it will make me feel better.
I remember swimming naked in the high school pool. It was no big deal, it was just guys, and homosexuality hadn't been invented yet. The girls wore some kind of ill fitting swimsuits that were issued by the school, they called them "tank suits", and I understand that nobody liked them. I don't think it ever occurred to anybody, except me, that the girls should also swim naked. Nowadays, with everybody being equal, maybe it's an idea whose time has come.
The reason I was tired of hearing about those hurricanes before they made landfall was that the news and weather people kept saying the same things and running the same film clips over and over again, for what seemed like weeks. I understand that nobody but Uncle Ken watches the news 24 hours a day, so there needs to be some repetition to make sure that everybody gets the same information no matter what time of day they tune in, but I think that most people watch some news at least once day, so I don't see the need to repeat everything day after day after day.
Maybe the reason we see those pages differently is that we are using different browsers. I have heard that can have an effect on how a page is displayed. I checked in the settings, and the only difference between us I saw was that Uncle Ken and I were listed as "Admin" while Old Dog was listed as "Author". I changed Old Dog's designation to "Admin", so that should give us all the same powers. If nobody has any objections, I will delete those two most recent comments over the weekend. While I'm at it, I will try to get rid of all those goofy "'s" and replace them with apostrophes. It might not matter in the grand scheme of things, but it will make me feel better.
the kids are alright
I looked up Old Dog's link, but it was near the end of my day, and seemed kind of complicated and it was one of those pesky sites that wanted to know if I was going to sign up and had all kinds of crap on it. I came away thinking that it was unlikely that it would ever come about, and wasn't that what the ERA was all about? Beagles clarifies it a little. I guess there is one way to get an amendment and another to call a constitutional convention. Seems a little unfair because while half the people are blue maybe two thirds of the states are red. Especially irksome for me are those gas giants in the west that get two senators for like a million people and all they are interested in is turning their highways into autobahns and turning their parks into industrial parks.
Of course once the constitutional convention gets started there may be a different way of allotting voting power, but I am inclined to dismiss the whole thing with a wave of my hand that it will never happen. Of course I have thought that before.
I have no left column on my page, but at the top right there is a link called Design and if I click on that I get comments and like groovy ways to set up the page with wild and wacky colors and what all. Those comments appear to be just flotsam and jetsam of cyberspace. Who knows? Who cares?.
There's been a little discussion locally, NPR brought it up, about the way high school boys in CPS swam naked, I have to admit it seemed a little weird to me at the time (Anymore it seems very weird), but then a lot of things seemed weird, it just seemed like one of those things. Schools indeed vary in what they pledge at the beginning of the school day and how they do lunch and whatnot. When I first started subbing I was really embarrassed and thought all hell would break loose when I addressed a long-haired boy as a girl. But it was no big deal to the kids, they just shrugged, happens all the time. That's why I don't think it bothers the kids, just the parents. Even though we Chicago educators lamented the way parents were uninvolved in the schools there were times when we were glad that, unlike the small town and suburban parents. they mostly didn't give a shit.
My apologies for misrepresenting Old Dog. I was taking his comment about how he was glad that at least during the hurricanes we weren't getting all that political (I admit, though I love it) claptrap. I put the words of Travis Bickel from Taxi Driver into his mouth, to be snazzy I guess, but I didn't mean to imply that Old Dog was heartless.
You know I am not heartless either, no really, but all those shots of intrepid newsmen stomping around in muck and interviewing saddened but resolute locals, I find it boring. Not the way I feel about pols and pundits lying and jawing at each other. Okay call me sick.
Yar the Yellowstone Caldera, kind of like our local meteor heading towards us at high speed. While the world trembles at the words of the Beaglestonian, the Caldera just trembles. So it goes.
Of course once the constitutional convention gets started there may be a different way of allotting voting power, but I am inclined to dismiss the whole thing with a wave of my hand that it will never happen. Of course I have thought that before.
I have no left column on my page, but at the top right there is a link called Design and if I click on that I get comments and like groovy ways to set up the page with wild and wacky colors and what all. Those comments appear to be just flotsam and jetsam of cyberspace. Who knows? Who cares?.
There's been a little discussion locally, NPR brought it up, about the way high school boys in CPS swam naked, I have to admit it seemed a little weird to me at the time (Anymore it seems very weird), but then a lot of things seemed weird, it just seemed like one of those things. Schools indeed vary in what they pledge at the beginning of the school day and how they do lunch and whatnot. When I first started subbing I was really embarrassed and thought all hell would break loose when I addressed a long-haired boy as a girl. But it was no big deal to the kids, they just shrugged, happens all the time. That's why I don't think it bothers the kids, just the parents. Even though we Chicago educators lamented the way parents were uninvolved in the schools there were times when we were glad that, unlike the small town and suburban parents. they mostly didn't give a shit.
My apologies for misrepresenting Old Dog. I was taking his comment about how he was glad that at least during the hurricanes we weren't getting all that political (I admit, though I love it) claptrap. I put the words of Travis Bickel from Taxi Driver into his mouth, to be snazzy I guess, but I didn't mean to imply that Old Dog was heartless.
You know I am not heartless either, no really, but all those shots of intrepid newsmen stomping around in muck and interviewing saddened but resolute locals, I find it boring. Not the way I feel about pols and pundits lying and jawing at each other. Okay call me sick.
Yar the Yellowstone Caldera, kind of like our local meteor heading towards us at high speed. While the world trembles at the words of the Beaglestonian, the Caldera just trembles. So it goes.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
Constitutional Convention
Rather than click on Old Dog's link, I just looked up Article V in my copy of the constitution. If you don't have one of those, you can get one from the Cato Institute http://cato.org
There are two ways that the constitution can be amended, but the second way, calling a constitutional convention, has never been done. That's because a convention can not only amend the constitution, it can throw it out the window and start all over again, and nobody wants to open that can of worms. It is my understanding that the Founding Fathers did not expect our constitution to last as long as it has, so they provided a way to rewrite it without fighting another revolution. To call a convention, 2/3 of the state legislatures have to apply for it to congress. Anything that comes out of the convention has to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, same as amendments that are proposed by congress.
There are two ways that the constitution can be amended, but the second way, calling a constitutional convention, has never been done. That's because a convention can not only amend the constitution, it can throw it out the window and start all over again, and nobody wants to open that can of worms. It is my understanding that the Founding Fathers did not expect our constitution to last as long as it has, so they provided a way to rewrite it without fighting another revolution. To call a convention, 2/3 of the state legislatures have to apply for it to congress. Anything that comes out of the convention has to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, same as amendments that are proposed by congress.
Comments
Thanks for sharing us. Titanium Bracelets on the corn painting standard
|
on 9/11/17
| ||
I was at the TV cos they weren't invented when Moses was around but for the laugh on Where Was Moses When the Lights Went Out?
|
on 5/20/17
|
Okay, I copied and pasted these from the "Comments" page, but I don't understand why you guys can't access that page. When I log onto the site, I get a page that lists all the previous posts in descending order (last post first). In the left margin of that page, there is a menu of the other places you can go, and "Comments" is one of them. At the top of the list it says "View Blog". If you click on that, you see the posts the way that civilians see them but, if you don't click on that, you can access the various posts by clicking on them from where you're at. As co-authors, you guys should be able to edit or delete any of those posts, not just your own. You have to be careful about that because, if you delete a post, there is no way to get it back, which is why the civilians don't get access to that page. If that's not what you are getting, maybe there is some setting that I can change, but I thought, as co-authors, you had the same powers that I do. (The "Settings" page can be accessed from the same menu, but I don't know if there is another way to get there.)
New post
New post
Using Blogger as Talks With Beagles
1-25 of 2114
0
|
0
|
9/13/17
| |||||
0
|
3
|
9/13/17
| |||||
0
|
2
|
9/13/17
| |||||
0
|
3
|
9/12/17
| |||||
0
|
4
|
9/12/17
| |||||
0
|
3
|
9/11/17
| |||||
Okay, here's a copy of the page I told you about, but it came out funny. The menu that starts beneath my head shot should be on the left margin of the listing of the posts, but you get the idea.
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)