Originally Posted by Cato

I have never understood that quote: how exactly was WWII Roosevelt's fault, when it was started by Stalin, Hitler, and Tojo? Should the U.S. have stayed out of WWII?!

Try these two quotes::

• H.R. Haldeman: ?But out of the gobbledygook, comes a very clear thing: ... you can?t trust the government; you can?t believe what they say; and you can?t rely on their judgment; and the ? the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the President wants to do even though it?s wrong, and the President can be wrong.?
  
  President Nixon: "Roosevelt's involvement ... World War II era came out; you know, how he knew what was happening and he did it deliberately Pearl Harbor thing was undoubtedly... " -- White House transcript, Monday, 14 June 1971, 3:09 p.m. meeting to discuss the fallout of the Times publishing of the Pentagon Papers
  
  MOYNIHAN'S smoking gun was an October 18, 1949, memorandum from FBI agent Howard Fletcher to Hoover assistant D. Milton (Mickey) Ladd describing a conversation with Brig. Gen. Carter Clarke, chief of the code-breaking Army Security Agency (ASA). Clarke was a career officer who worked behind the scenes in communications intelligence for almost his entire career. He was no ordinary staff officer. As a colonel in 1944, he was entrusted by Gen. George C. Marshall, Army chief of staff, to put on a civilian suit in wartime to visit New York governor Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican nominee for president, in a Tulsa, Oklahoma, hotel room on a confidential mission. Dewey had learned that decrypted Japanese communications should have alerted President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Pearl Harbor attack and was about to make this a campaign issue. Clarke pleaded that the disclosure would reveal to the Japanese U.S. code-breaking progress. Dewey reluctantly agreed to keep silent, and FDR was elected to a fourth term. -- Robert D. Novak June 30, 2003 What did Harry Truman know, and when did he know it?

Originally Posted by yo

Originally Posted by Cato

I have never understood that quote: how exactly was WWII Roosevelt's fault, when it was started by Stalin, Hitler, and Tojo? Should the U.S. have stayed out of WWII?!

Try these two quotes::

• H.R. Haldeman: ?But out of the gobbledygook, comes a very clear thing: ... you can?t trust the government; you can?t believe what they say; and you can?t rely on their judgment; and the ? the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the President wants to do even though it?s wrong, and the President can be wrong.?
  
  President Nixon: "Roosevelt's involvement ... World War II era came out; you know, how he knew what was happening and he did it deliberately Pearl Harbor thing was undoubtedly... " -- White House transcript, Monday, 14 June 1971, 3:09 p.m. meeting to discuss the fallout of the Times publishing of the Pentagon Papers
  
  MOYNIHAN'S smoking gun was an October 18, 1949, memorandum from FBI agent Howard Fletcher to Hoover assistant D. Milton (Mickey) Ladd describing a conversation with Brig. Gen. Carter Clarke, chief of the code-breaking Army Security Agency (ASA). Clarke was a career officer who worked behind the scenes in communications intelligence for almost his entire career. He was no ordinary staff officer. As a colonel in 1944, he was entrusted by Gen. George C. Marshall, Army chief of staff, to put on a civilian suit in wartime to visit New York governor Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican nominee for president, in a Tulsa, Oklahoma, hotel room on a confidential mission. Dewey had learned that decrypted Japanese communications should have alerted President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Pearl Harbor attack and was about to make this a campaign issue. Clarke pleaded that the disclosure would reveal to the Japanese U.S. code-breaking progress. Dewey reluctantly agreed to keep silent, and FDR was elected to a fourth term. -- Robert D. Novak June 30, 2003 What did Harry Truman know, and when did he know it?

Yes, I thought somebody would bring this up. I heard it from a Roman Catholic pacifist priest in the early '60's, and could not believe it then.

But let's agree that Roosevelt deliberately maneuvered the U.S. into WWII out of Anglophilia a la Wilson.

Was preventing the establishment of a Nazi Empire and a Japanese Empire wrong? Did Goldwater really think the U.S. should have stayed out of WWII?

No those FDR haters ended in a cul-de-sac, out of the mainstream, weeping and gnashing their teeth. Because they had no answer to the question you posed and that made them irrelevant. They no longer addressed the serious questions of the day.

Originally Posted by Cato

Originally Posted by yo

Try these two quotes::

• H.R. Haldeman: "But out of the gobbledygook, comes a very clear thing: ... you can?t trust the government; you can?t believe what they say; and you can?t rely on their judgment; and the ? the implicit infallibility of presidents..."
  
  Robert D. Novak: "Dewey had learned that decrypted Japanese communications should have alerted President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Pearl Harbor attack and was about to make this a campaign issue. Clarke pleaded that the disclosure would reveal to the Japanese U.S. code-breaking progress. Dewey reluctantly agreed to keep silent, and FDR was elected to a fourth term."

Yes, I thought somebody would bring this up. I heard it from a Roman Catholic pacifist priest in the early '60's, and could not believe it then.

But let's agree that Roosevelt deliberately maneuvered the U.S. into WWII out of Anglophilia a la Wilson.

Was preventing the establishment of a Nazi Empire and a Japanese Empire wrong? Did Goldwater really think the U.S. should have stayed out of WWII?

And of course you are entirely missing the point... which is covering up the truth or just not talking about, or debating it, or as Dewey did, in the name of what's best for the country as a whole.

S&H address this in the thirteenth chapter of Generations:

• Alternatively, suppose this hypothetical nuclear terrorism were to happen ... in the middle of the current Inner Driven era. By then, the span of roughly a quarter century will have entirely reshaped the likely national response--which would caution, conciliation, and deferral. Silent Cabinet officers would consult allies, form committees, review options, and invite full public discussion. After initiating multilateral negotiations, leaders would generally try to wait things out. The crisis would frustrate but not anger Boomers, (who would trade philosophic remarks about how it was bound to happen sooner or later) and would hardly ruffle young 13ers (many of whom might rush toward the city to sell or volunteer transportation to families wanting to leave). Official evacuation plans would be expensive and overcomplicated and would elicit little public confidence that they would work as intended. Most people would stay calm and simply make their own plans. Chances are, the nation would squeeze by the immediate threat undamaged, but leave its underlying causes either unsolved or, at best, mildly ameliorated.

Do the Democrats appear to be deferring to the national interests, as the GOP did in the last crisis?

We be 3T. :wink:

Originally Posted by yo

Originally Posted by Cato

Originally Posted by yo

Try these two quotes::

• H.R. Haldeman: "But out of the gobbledygook, comes a very clear thing: ... you can?t trust the government; you can?t believe what they say; and you can?t rely on their judgment; and the ? the implicit infallibility of presidents..."
  
  Robert D. Novak: "Dewey had learned that decrypted Japanese communications should have alerted President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the Pearl Harbor attack and was about to make this a campaign issue. Clarke pleaded that the disclosure would reveal to the Japanese U.S. code-breaking progress. Dewey reluctantly agreed to keep silent, and FDR was elected to a fourth term."

Yes, I thought somebody would bring this up. I heard it from a Roman Catholic pacifist priest in the early '60's, and could not believe it then.

But let's agree that Roosevelt deliberately maneuvered the U.S. into WWII out of Anglophilia a la Wilson.

Was preventing the establishment of a Nazi Empire and a Japanese Empire wrong? Did Goldwater really think the U.S. should have stayed out of WWII?

And of course you are entirely missing the point... which is covering up the truth or just not talking about, or debating it, or as Dewey did, in the name of what's best for the country as a whole.

S&H address this in the thirteenth chapter of Generations:

• Alternatively, suppose this hypothetical nuclear terrorism were to happen ... in the middle of the current Inner Driven era. By then, the span of roughly a quarter century will have entirely reshaped the likely national response--which would caution, conciliation, and deferral. Silent Cabinet officers would consult allies, form committees, review options, and invite full public discussion. After initiating multilateral negotiations, leaders would generally try to wait things out. The crisis would frustrate but not anger Boomers, (who would trade philosophic remarks about how it was bound to happen sooner or later) and would hardly ruffle young 13ers (many of whom might rush toward the city to sell or volunteer transportation to families wanting to leave). Official evacuation plans would be expensive and overcomplicated and would elicit little public confidence that they would work as intended. Most people would stay calm and simply make their own plans. Chances are, the nation would squeeze by the immediate threat undamaged, but leave its underlying causes either unsolved or, at best, mildly ameliorated.

Do the Democrats appear to be deferring to the national interests, as the GOP did in the last crisis?

We be 3T. :wink:

Ah, but you can't expect the Democrats to behave, pre-realignment today, as Dewey behaved near the end of the crisis.

"Ah, but you can't expect the Democrats to behave, pre-realignment today, as Dewey behaved near the end of the crisis."

I disagree. A true catalyst turns "The People" before the people turn the wheels of national unity (or a generational long divide of 20 years).

American politics always follows the will of the people. Not the other way around. S&H clearly point to 1930 as being "the year," not 1932 or 33.

Posted by: William Strauss The Media thread
Date posted: Mon Sep 1 23:17:34 US/Pacific 1997
Subject: real news vs. celebrity news
Message:
David K has commented, correctly, that Fourth Turnings produce the most real news, and Third Turnings the least. Except when events like the Princess Di tragedy strike, Americans today seem to be caring less and less about real news, which they consider of less and less significance to their lives. That, of course, will change. When the Fourth Turning mood catalyzes, paparazzi-style behavior will seem far more ridiculous than today. It was in 1930, after all, that the flagpole sitters came down their poles because nobody cared about stunts any more.

The year 1930 is, in many respects, one of the most remarkable (yet understudied) of this century. Let me recommend to anybody near a good library: Spend an hour or two perusing old Fortune, Life, and Time magazines from that year. Note what was going on--in style, attitude, and manner. It's very instructive.

Originally Posted by yo

And of course you are entirely missing the point... which is covering up the truth or just not talking about, or debating it, or as Dewey did, in the name of what's best for the country as a whole.

Do the Democrats appear to be deferring to the national interests, as the GOP did in the last crisis?

We be 3T. :wink:

I thought "of course" :P that it might be interesting to look at the curious view from Goldwater that somehow Democrats "start" wars or at least bumble the U.S. into wars.

That they are not deferring to the national interest right now needs to be pointed out? Oy!

Let's ask instead:
Why are the Democratic candidates not "deferring" ? Is it because they really believe in pacifism, in the beneficence of Saddam, in isolationism, or in cleaning up Afghanistan first completely?

The answer "of course" is that they are obsessed by the last election and view W. Bush as illegitimate.

If they were really serious about the last election and its results, they would be pushing for an amendment for direct popular election of the president.

But "of course" they cannot wait for something like that to happen!

Originally Posted by yo

"Ah, but you can't expect the Democrats to behave, pre-realignment today, as Dewey behaved near the end of the crisis."

I disagree. A true catalyst turns "The People" before the people turn the wheels of national unity (or a generational long divide of 20 years).

American politics always follows the will of the people. Not the other way around. S&H clearly point to 1930 as being "the year," not 1932 or 33.

Posted by: William Strauss The Media thread
Date posted: Mon Sep 1 23:17:34 US/Pacific 1997
Subject: real news vs. celebrity news
Message:
David K has commented, correctly, that Fourth Turnings produce the most real news, and Third Turnings the least. Except when events like the Princess Di tragedy strike, Americans today seem to be caring less and less about real news, which they consider of less and less significance to their lives. That, of course, will change. When the Fourth Turning mood catalyzes, paparazzi-style behavior will seem far more ridiculous than today. It was in 1930, after all, that the flagpole sitters came down their poles because nobody cared about stunts any more.

The year 1930 is, in many respects, one of the most remarkable (yet understudied) of this century. Let me recommend to anybody near a good library: Spend an hour or two perusing old Fortune, Life, and Time magazines from that year. Note what was going on--in style, attitude, and manner. It's very instructive.

Not to debate 3T/4T, or to compare American attention to real news now and then, I'd say that "the people" have, and will, move faster on this issue than the Democrats. It is only after a series of punishing realignment elections(12 years in Dewey's case in 44) that the opposition party finally gets on message. It doesn't happen all at once. Recall the investors who got wiped out in the famous suckers rally in 1930 when the Dow climbed nearly back to 1929 heights.

Frederick Allen's book "Only Yesterday" is a superb summary of the changes from the 20s and 1930.

Originally Posted by Cato

Originally Posted by yo

And of course you are entirely missing the point... Do the Democrats appear to be deferring to the national interests, as the GOP did in the last crisis?

The answer "of course" is that they are obsessed by the last election and view W. Bush as illegitimate.

And, of course :wink: , you are right. That and the fact that Bush got the glow of the crisis-factor, something liberals would have died for, and Gore was left shrinking at the alter like that scene in The Graduate.

Please forgive, of course, my petulance, sir. I was in a rather foul mood today. TGIF! :wink:

Originally Posted by monoghan

Originally Posted by William Strauss

The year 1930 is, in many respects, one of the most remarkable (yet understudied) of this century. Let me recommend to anybody near a good library: Spend an hour or two perusing old Fortune, Life, and Time magazines from that year. Note what was going on--in style, attitude, and manner. It's very instructive.

It doesn't happen all at once. Recall the investors who got wiped out in the famous suckers rally in 1930 when the Dow climbed nearly back to 1929 heights.

Frederick Allen's book "Only Yesterday" is a superb summary of the changes from the 20s and 1930.

Much I could say here, but I've run out of time...

Great book! Here it is online (for free) if anybody would like to read it. :wink:

Sen. Ted Kennedy called President Bush's judicial nominees "Neanderthals" on Friday, a group that includes Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada and African-American Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

Boasting of his party's resolve in the face of GOP attempts to stop their filibuster, Kennedy told the Senate, "What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States."

Kennedy's overtly racist language stunned even liberal CNN correspondent Jonathan Karl, who reported, "Strong words from Ted Kennedy suggesting that some of these nominees are Neanderthals."

Karl said Kennedy's harsh tone was "exactly what Republicans point to when they say it is the Democrats that have been the extremists on this."


8)

`The world was my oyster, but I used the wrong fork.'



So, what happened? When did rudeness become the rage?

Blame your parents, those wild and crazy baby boomers.

"We can almost pinpoint the decline of manners and etiquette to the 1960s," says Thomas. "Prior to that, families ate together at the dinner table. Manners were reinforced all the time -- conversation, listening skills, dining skills, basic considerations, and even electronic manners in that you didn't take telephone calls during the meal. But then people began not to eat together as much, and that's when the basics were no longer taught.
"One problem these days," she says, "is that, unfortunately, there's a lapse in etiquette when people make too great a deal over things that are inadvertent, offenses that they perceive as being intentional but really are inadvertent oversights. In etiquette, we want to overlook as much as we can. Not everything, of course, but we try to give other people the benefit of the doubt."

The above accounts partially for the idiotic lawsuits these days, and for phenomena like grade-school students threatening to sue teachers for sneezing the wrong way.

How many decades will it take to counterbalance the idiocy of the 60's in general? Or will we just continue to muddle our way through? I see this tendency to shrug and muddle on in younger colleagues. The youngest ones don't notice that anything is wrong in a lack of etiquette, politeness, and tolerance.

First, Croaker, I really can't do anything except suggest that you check my book out of the local library. You wil find that on between five and ten occasions in 1961-3 JFK was asked by nearly all his advisers to put major American units into Laos, South Vietnam, or both. He declined on all occasions. He clearly did not regard the place as a critical area of interest. (Incidentally, Bobby, at that time, was more hawkish about Vietnam than Jack, although he was not much involved in it at all.)

I would add one more thing. One of the arguments in my book is that Kennedy simply wasn't very interested in Vietnam. I have recently been researching the Kennedy Administration and Cuba, and I have found, in essence, how right I was. The contrast between his intense involvement in Cuba and his attitude towards Vietnam could hardly be more dramatic.

Virgil. . there is nothing inherently racist about the term neanderthal. The Senate democrats are refusing to confirm judges who have made clear that they feel America was much better off in 1885, with the jurisprudence we had then, than it is today. They have courageously stuck to this rule whether Bush's choices are white, black, male or female, and if you'll pardon the expression, I want to thank Teddy for calling a spade a spade.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Virgil. . there is nothing inherently racist about the term neanderthal. The Senate democrats are refusing to confirm judges who have made clear that they feel America was much better off in 1885, with the jurisprudence we had then, than it is today. They have courageously stuck to this rule whether Bush's choices are white, black, male or female, and if you'll pardon the expression, I want to thank Teddy for calling a spade a spade.

David K '47

My dear Mr. Kaiser, Teddy was not being a racist but a bigot to a higher power, a species-ist. It is somehow thought brave and or clever to attack those unable to fight back (such as our departed Neanderthal humans). He was calling a spade a "chipped-stone implement of the Mousterian type" (which isn't a spade at all, but an implement for the processing of meat/hide.) That a man of mansions looks down upon those who lived in caves and yet tries to champion those who live in trailers speaks to the Progressive confusion of our times. Kick 'em when they're dead; kick 'em when they're down. :cry:

My fellow Boomer Virgil has invented one--evolutionism--a tendency to value living species more highly than extinct ones.

DAvid K '47

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Sen. Ted Kennedy called President Bush's judicial nominees "Neanderthals" on Friday, a group that includes Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada and African-American Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

Boasting of his party's resolve in the face of GOP attempts to stop their filibuster, Kennedy told the Senate, "What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States."

Kennedy's overtly racist language stunned even liberal CNN correspondent Jonathan Karl, who reported, "Strong words from Ted Kennedy suggesting that some of these nominees are Neanderthals."


Karl said Kennedy's harsh tone was "exactly what Republicans point to when they say it is the Democrats that have been the extremists on this."


8)

um....couldn't it be that the Senator was referring to Republicans in general (rightly or wrongly) as cavemen? Unless ALL of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees are people of color (which they surely aren't), why would one assume that Mr. Kennedy meant only the black and brown ones? It would seem that the author's point is merely to engage us all in an asinine game of "Gotcha!!!" .

The author is a Freeper. 'Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

The author is a Freeper. 'Nuff said.

Virgil is a Freeper?


Had Kennedy said that on ESPN, he would have had to resign!

No, silly. The author of the article he linked to is a Freeper.

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

No, silly. The author of the article he linked to is a Freeper.

Virgil is a lurker at Free Republic?

Hey, I lurk at the Bush/Cheney reelect site every once in awhile. :lol:

Originally Posted by Kiff 1961

Hey, I lurk at the Bush/Cheney reelect site every once in awhile. :lol:

Between you and Virgil, that is more than enough personal information for one day. Not that there is anythning wrong with that.

Anybody doubt that if the "neanderthal" word had come from Rick Santorum or Trent Lott that the media and the PC police would want his head on a stick? There would be demands for his resignation. We know why Kennedy gets a "take my foot out my mouth please" pass. Bias, bias, bias.

How this silly old alcoholic keeps getting reelected is a mystery. I'm glad I'm not in Massachusetts.

Following up on a discussion that took place here...

Originally Posted by David Kaiser

Originally Posted by yo

Originally Posted by David Kaiser

Yo, anyone who could read my book without recognizing that I assigned FULL and COMPLETE responsibility for the decision to go to war in Vietnam to LBJ, Rusk, McNamara, and Bundy is guilty of bias, sorry, I mean blindness, or do I. But thanks anyway for taking the time.

No, your "mass of documentary evidence" sought to expose Ike's motives ("Eisenhower and his advisors took an aggressive attitude--including an openness to using nuclear weapons toward communist advances anywhere, 'especially in Southeast Asia,' Kaiser finds"), while exonerating Kennedy ("Kaiser offers voluminous and meticulous evidence that Kennedy repeatedly rejected, deferred or at least modified recommendations for military actions," writes Publishers Weekly), and, finally, cast Johnson as a tragic "Pericles" figure.

Yes, I did take "the time" to read your book.

I made absolutely no contrast between Johnson and Pericles, thus can't comment on any.

I haven't a clue why the author felt it necessary to so strongly and completely disavow himself of this claim which is clearly written in black and white:

• "The United States of 1965 was all too similar in these respects to Periclean Athens." -- David Kaiser, American Tragedy "Epilogue," page 496.

I do, however, suspect that the author is merely attempting to move the goal posts to a more difficult position on the playing field, for the current president. In effect, Johnson wasn't the real tragic Pericles of recent American history: not that Kaiser sees the field more clearly, now.

Bush is.