Thursday March 28, 2024
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Jan-03-2010 00:34printcomments

Thomas the Troll vs. Daniel Johnson, Enemy of the American People (in the pink tights)

Analyzing the words of a neoconservative.

Salem-News.com
Courtesy: bookreviewsbybobbie.files.wordpress.com

(CALGARY, Alberta) - I don’t know who Thomas the Troll is. I don’t even know if Thomas is his real name. Never mind. He’s such an over the top anti-intellectual that I can’t resist puncturing his pretensions. He’s already declared me an enemy of the American people, so I hardly see where I can go wrong.

The potential downside is that since I started with Salem-News.com, I’ve already had to move four times and change my name three times. (Tim keeps telling me that it’s not a good idea to keep changing to the same name. But, never mind.)

We’re a left oriented news site. We don’t deny it, but we continually have these right-wing trolls turning up acting surprised about it. But it’s not surprise, it’s their disingenuity about their real intentions.

They seem to believe that if they can’t advance their own paranoid cause, they can try to commit agitprop in their “enemy’s” ranks—their enemy, quite simply being anyone who doesn't think or mis-think (as I will show in a moment) like they do.

Andrew J. Bacevich doesn’t know us from Saloon-News, I’m sure, but if he read us I’m confident that he would at least endorse our goals and principles, which I believe are largely coincident with his. He did say in his book:

"Pick the group: blacks, Jews, women, Asians, Hispanics, working stiffs, gays, the handicapped--in every case the impetus for providing to equal access to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution originated among pinks, lefties, liberals, and bleeding-heart fellow travelers. When it came to ensuring that every American should get a fair shake, the contribution of modern conservatism has been essentially nil. Had Martin Luther King counted on William F. Buckley and the National Review to take up the fight against racial segregation in the 1950s and 1960s, Jim Crow would still be alive and well."

That’s us.

So, back to Thomas the Troll.

Here is his most significant post today which I present in full and then will deconstruct. I’m assuming at this point you’ve read the Bacevich review. Thomas the Troll wrote:

”Daniel J your thesis in this article is old hat. We have been dealing with these misguided ideas since the 1950's, and the hippies started running with them in the 60's and 70's. No traction for them, nor do I believe for you either, except for those like-minded short-sighted uninformed radicals. I was offering some observations for discussion which I can see is not something you care to do with people who are better informed than you and much more knowlegeable [sic]. Not even going to discuss experience, because that is something you have absolutely none of as per your own resume', especially when dealing with American history or our Foreign Policy. What are your academic and professional credentials in this area? Zero. But since you have this remakable [sic] need to make warlike comments about my country, from this moment forward I will consider you an enemy to my country in the same level as any other enemy that represents a threat to the welfare of my people by using hateful and misleading propaganda calling for America's destruction. I am a highly networked individual. Since you claim that America started the Cold War, I assure you that since this site endorsed that opinion we shall see how that will play out in future commerce. You are also simply not letting Ruark deal with his own BS by being confronted with posters that can tear apart his radical left perspectives. Ruark's professional zenith was when he was an apartment manager. My guess is that you will have very few comments without providing a comment forum that confronts your infantile and already disproven thesis.”

Now, what meaning can be drawn from this?

TT “Daniel J your thesis in this article is old hat. We have been dealing with these misguided ideas since the 1950's, and the hippies started running with them in the 60's and 70's. No traction for them, nor do I believe for you either, except for those like-minded short-sighted uninformed radicals.”

Fact: The entire piece runs about 6,200 words; of those about 300 are Packard related and about 5,300 are Bacevich which add up to 90%. So, to suggest somehow that it is “my” thesis is to show a painful inability to comprehend written material.

Conclusion: Thomas was probably a child left behind.

TT I was offering some observations for discussion which I can see is not something you care to do with people who are better informed than you and much more knowledgeable [sic]. Not even going to discuss experience, because that is something you have absolutely none of as per your own resume', especially when dealing with American history or our Foreign Policy. What are your academic and professional credentials in this area? Zero.

Analysis: Observations? Discussion? He’s just presenting pre-digested propaganda with no room in his brain for any new thinking. Note that he never even deigns to use Bacevich’s name.

TT But since you have this remakable [sic] need to make warlike comments about my country, from this moment forward I will consider you an enemy to my country in the same level as any other enemy that represents a threat to the welfare of my people by using hateful and misleading propaganda calling for America's destruction.

Response: If I am an “enemy” of the United States, then America is a lot weaker than anyone ever imagined. And where anyone would get “warlike comments” out of my piece remains a mystery.

TT I am a highly networked individual.

Interpretation: “nutworked” blowhard

TT Since you claim that America started the Cold War…

Response: Neither I nor Bacevich made such a claim. Bacevich documented how the NSC began the arms race, almost out of whole cloth. In the 1950s the Soviet Union was struggling to recover from a war that had almost destroyed the country. And, as Bacevich says farther along, the Soviets never even came close to having first strike capability. Of course, it was never in the interest of the military-industrial establishment to let the American people in on this little detail.

This raises, for me, the question of Eisenhower’s role through the 1950s (I’m assuming he had read NSC 68). He was one of the most experienced military men on the planet. He knew what the USSR had gone through. Why would he buy into the paranoia? Kennedy, with no military experience, I can see being duped 15 years after the end of WW II.

TT I assure you that since this site endorsed that opinion we shall see how that will play out in future commerce. You are also simply not letting Ruark deal with his own BS by being confronted with posters that can tear apart his radical left perspectives. Ruark's professional zenith was when he was an apartment manager. My guess is that you will have very few comments without providing a comment forum that confronts your infantile and already disproven thesis.

Analysis: A blather of irrelevant threats ending up to repeating the first comment, that the “infantile” (name-calling is a proven strategy for winning arguments) thesis remains disproven. All that’s happened though, is that he denies it with no substance behind his statement.

Observation: If Thomas were to deliver the invective on video, I imagine a man with dishevelled hair, sunken, crazed eyes, his voice shaking with righteous indignation and the spittle running down his chin as he talks.

The Bacevich top ten

Because I have no experience, knowledge or credentials it is with some trepidation that I present what I think are the ten most significant statements from Bacevich’s book. What keeps me going, however, is the knowledge that as a child I was not left behind.

“As individuals, Americans never cease to expect more. As members of a national community, they choose to contribute less.”

“Whether the issue at hand is oil, credit, or the availability of cheap consumer goods, we expect the world to accommodate the American way of life.”

“In 1986, the net international investment position of the United States turned negative as U. S. assets owned by foreigners exceeded the assets that Americans owned abroad. The imbalance has continued to grow ever since.”

“Bush counted on war to both concentrate greater power in his own hands and to divert attention from the political, economic and cultural bind in which the United States found itself as a result of its own past behavior.”

“Some mistakes, even honest ones cannot be forgiven. The record of miscalculation and malfeasance that is the narrative of national security policy since 2002 extends orders of magnitude beyond inexcusable.”

“Rather than confronting this reality head-on, American grand strategy since the era of Ronald Reagan, and especially throughout the era of George W. Bush, has been characterized by attempts to wish reality away.”

“Rather than insisting that the world accommodate the United States, Americans need to reassert control over their own destiny, ending their condition of dependency and abandoning their imperial delusions.”

“To persist in pretending that the United States is omnipotent is to exacerbate the problems that we face.”

“Realism…implies an obligation to see the world as it actually is, not as we might like it to be. The enemy of realism is hubris, which…finds expression in an outsized confidence in the efficacy of American power as an instrument to reshape the global order.”

“Nuclear weapons are unusable. Their employment is any conceivable scenario would be a political and moral catastrophe. For the United States, they are becoming unnecessary, even as a deterrent.”

============================================

Daniel Johnson was born near the midpoint of the twentieth century in Calgary, Alberta. In his teens he knew he was going to be a writer, which is why he was one of only a handful of boys in his high school typing class — a skill he knew was going to be necessary. He defines himself as a social reformer, not a left winger, the latter being an ideological label which, he says, is why he is not an ideologue. From 1975 to 1981 he was reporter, photographer, then editor of the weekly Airdrie Echo. For more than ten years after that he worked with Peter C. Newman, Canada’s top business writer (notably on a series of books, The Canadian Establishment). Through this period Daniel also did some national radio and TV broadcasting. He gave up journalism in the early 1980s because he had no interest in being a hack writer for the mainstream media and became a software developer and programmer. He retired from computers last year and is now back to doing what he loves — writing and trying to make the world a better place




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



Jim January 6, 2010 8:59 am (Pacific time)

The spending by the current administration is in a trend that will dwarf all spending going back to the founding of this country. There are set budget costs, coupled with matching inflation costs that are budgeted for in each fiscal cycle that increases costs. It is pretty common to use these figures for agenda purposes, but one must keep in mind that all monies are allocated via the congressional process. What is happening now is a budget process that for all practical matters is entirely partisan. Obama and the democrats in congress "own" the deficit, and they are completely ignoring the majority of Americans in their out of control spending. Please note how two senators (Dodd and Dorgan) announced their retirements the other day, even though they have been campaigning for re-election. They are behind in their polls by significant percentages. Evidence from last elections in New Jersey and Virginia were not an aberration, but how things have changed. There is a strong conservative movement going on, not just here, but all over western civilization. Blaming different personalities from the past is no longer working. More people are educating themselves so that the Alinsky methodology is diminishing in effect.


Hank Ruark January 5, 2010 2:49 pm (Pacific time)

Hanniagan: You wrote:"Nor is there any evidence that a less expansive (and hence less expensive) foreign and defense policy would free up monies that miraculously would solve a problem like poverty or second-rate schools. " So do you contend that Bush attack on Irag via unnecessary war --at cost over $3 TRILLION and still rising ! --could NOT have made huge impact on both programs you mention, if so used-instead ? Horrendous over/costs for defense began with Reagan, brought on national debt greater by him than by all preceding Presidents, set up situation(s) we now face by massive,messy, now apparently mindless measures perpetrated profusely, ending with forced furious tax-RISE to offset preceding furious tax-SLASH favoring the rich --all driven by heavy emphases on massive deregulation, privatization and perversion of inevitable globalization. Those are facts, from solid historical primary sources you seem to have missed somehow. BTW, HAVE you READ biog. by Reagan companion: DUTCH ?? Even offsets exploration of primary sources.


Osotan; January 5, 2010 8:38 am (Pacific time)

Ann Coulter! What a woman eh? If Spiro Agnew were around they'd make a perfect couple.,how about starting a rumor that rush proposed.,Ann limbaugh! It's like stem cell research out of control isn't it? Sorry for the digressional sarcasm. This is a great sit.,unheralded if you asked me.


Osotan; January 5, 2010 8:29 am (Pacific time)

Is it you John Wayne?.,or is it me? Did you think the rest of us didn't notice the fifties up till now? "We have kept peace through strength?" What peace? I suggest we have kept destablization through deception, and if you are Rosenberg in disguise.,where the hell you been? If not, quit trying to act like him. Happy New Year!


Hannigan January 5, 2010 8:18 am (Pacific time)

Not married to Ann Coulter, but she does have my "Brisket" shipped to her every St. Patrick's Day. Putting aside Bacevich’s impoverished, reductionist reading of the competition between the West and the Communist Bloc during the Cold War–a reading that, for example, neither dissidents nor the late Pope John Paul II would accept–the reality is the West and the U.S. are doing pretty well on the attraction front. Voting with their feet, Muslims in massive numbers have not stopped attempting to immigrate to Europe and the U.S and, indeed, in the case of the U.S., Muslim immigration has actually increased since 9/11. Second, Bacevich ignores the value of winning on the battlefield when it comes “conflicts rooted in the dispute over God’s place in human history.” Precisely because Islam is a religion in which God, Allah, intervenes in this world on behalf of the just, it is theologically and psychologically difficult to sustain the idea that God is on your side if, over time, you are clearly on the losing side and your vision for the future seems ever more distant. Bacevich notes that, at the “dawn” of the Long War, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a military audience that “We have two choices. Either we change the way we live, or we must change the way they live.” Bacevich is not so much arguing with Rumsfeld’s basic proposition as just choosing the first of the two options. As with many of the more famous of the former secretary’s axioms, it is overly stark. First, we have made changes in how we live. Second, the “they” of the Muslim world is not, as Bacevich suggests, a monolithic entity. And, of course, the Muslim world has changed. However imperfect Iraq and Afghanistan’s democracies are, they are evidence that neither Baathist nor Taliban rule are inevitable. Afghans are now, for example, disputing the legitimacy of a recent presidential election; they are not calling for a return of a Taliban rule–which, by the way, was a form of rule only recently imposed on the Afghan people. Yet Rummy’s ruminations are a comfortable fit for Bacevich views are more generally connected to his own particular brand of conservative Catholicism. Whatever problems we face domestically, it is just an historical fact that a broader American vision abroad has typically made us a better people at home. Nor is there any evidence that a less expansive (and hence less expensive) foreign and defense policy would free up monies that miraculously would solve a problem like poverty or second-rate schools. To the contrary, more government funds could well confound finding the policies that would actually help alleviate those problems. However, the larger point is that Bacevich and other conservative critics, like George Will, are standing on unsound ground when they argue that the transformative goal of the Long War is utopian. It might be long and it might be difficult but, if anything, the evidence so far suggests that the establishment of decent democratic regimes is possible in all kinds of regions and in countries with diverse cultural histories. That hardly means that failure in the Long War isn’t possible; but to hear Bacevich and others tell it, is inevitable. Indeed, the underlying irony of the Bacevich’s piece is his holding up the long, hard slog of the Cold War and containment as the model for dealing with today’s terrorist threat. If there was a way to transport him back into time-say, the late 1940s-it is almost certain that he would have joined Walter Lippmann in declaring containment a “strategic monstrosity” in light of his judgment about the American character and the long, flawed history of our European allies. Andy would have been wrong then, just as he’s wrong now.


Hank Ruark January 4, 2010 6:49 pm (Pacific time)

Hannigan: Irish ire easily aroused often leads to radical and angry error, as years on Boston streets taught me long ago --while still surviving ! Yours so full of error and misinterpretation of historic fact can only refer you to basic history/text to reread and learn truths now emerged from past myth and story pattern promoted by political distortion/perversion. Many Reagan errors now known to reflect probable Altheimer beginnings, later diagnosed. (See mine/earlier supported by deep detail in DUTCH) Have YOU read DUTCH ? Your words show no understanding of new information now well and broadly accepted.


Hannigan January 4, 2010 1:47 pm (Pacific time)

Historical documents trump Bacevich. What are his primary sources? He has none in regards to JFK, but then it appears you also never addressed "Concerns" comments about the claim made that the Soviet Union was so weak we didn't have to worry about them. "...the NSC began the arms race, almost out of whole cloth. In the 1950s the Soviet Union was struggling to recover from a war that had almost destroyed the country. And, as Bacevich says farther along, the Soviets never even came close to having first strike capability. Of course, it was never in the interest of the military-industrial establishment to let the American people in on this little detail."
Considering the Soviets had moved nuclear weapons into Cuba, doing the armchair quarterback thing after the fact, and doing it poorly is red pencil time. In regards to Reagan, who won 49 states in his 1984 presidential run, he completely turned the economy around from the brink and 21 million jobs were created. The democrats controlled congress, think purse strings, so there was much give and take in budget matters, which included huge spending to rebuild our military including considerable R and D which led to developing incredible wealth for us today in the computer and electronics market. In addition the Soviets were unable to keep up with our military spending, which their leadership admitted was the primary reason the Cold War started to ameliorate and the Berlin Wall coming down was symbolic of what Reagan accomplished, which surely made the world safer. A few people for some unexplained reason continue to blame Reagan for matters that he had nothing to do with. Remember that you had a democratic congress and they were the ones who allocated spending. In current time, watch what happens when the bean counters decide what treatments and medications are made available if and when the Feds take over. As it was the 50's and 60's were pretty intense and fortunately we really lucked out that we didn't have WWIII take place. We have kept peace through strength. You do not show weakness to any enemy, and when the time is right, you kill them, all of them, and that is something this poster has experience doing.

You're not married to Ann Coulter, by any chance, are you?


Hank Ruark January 4, 2010 9:48 am (Pacific time)

To all: Do not be misled via my constant reference to massive mishaps now well documented during the Reagan era. Disclosure: My wife of 60 yrs. died of Altheimer's. I was her main attendant during six years of declining mental and physical status. We had some 17 meds-actions each day, with one four-hour respite weekly for me via special aid supplied. Only constant loving-family assistance made my survival and return to reporting and writing possible. SO I have special interest for Altheimer's impact on R.R. known as DUTCH to many; see biog. of that title for many excruciating details NOW well understood, not known then. ISBN: 0-394-55508-2. Reporters report. That's why I state these many now/known facts re RR not so readily available before. Truly the tragedy here leads the 20th Century for all of us since impacts of his decisions and policies from Altheimer's remains inscrutable,impossible to explore but surely present from earliest days well prior to any possible diagnosis. Those then-responsible are a case well worth deeper study and exploration, albeit any possible penalty or reformed evaluation now very difficult.


Hank Ruark January 4, 2010 8:25 am (Pacific time)

Concerned: You also wrote:"Reagan used the same model back in the 80's when we had double digit inflation and interest levels, as well as double digit unemployment rates. Just the opposite policies being pursued now, how's that working out? Keynesian tripe! Both these presidents, and the ones in between took it to the Soviet Union with no-nonsense policies." Reagan promised us smaller government,a radically lowered tax burden, and well- reduced national debt. His national debt ended as larger than total of all preceding Presidents,horrible hang-over for next generation. He delivered much larger government, irevocably driven by international events he never understood (as in Iran/Contra trigger for Mid East mess, first denied, then admitted on national tv.) His tax-slash for richest ("Trickle-down myth") set off search for more return on those dollrs overseas; with more tax-take for all others. His tax-rises demanded by his huge deficits and lavish radicalism re lush defense spending placed nation in financial peril finally felt in longrun consequences behind current economic debacle internationally. Read: dereg as in real estate disasters, finance-fiscal products even progenitors cannot explain;and "free trade" manipulated by corporate forces "management" far beyond Bretton Woods beginnings. He bought whole bag of windy theories from Hayek, Friedman et al (Chicago School),built international approach on them vs tested/proven Keynesianism, used by FDR and major factor in ending War II, bringing on Marshall Plan --best thing U.S. ever did for world and our national reputation as leader. International economic debacle, consensus of world economic experts now state, began with his radical use of deregulation,privatization and manipulative corruption of inevitable globalization. Fact that more than 100 countries have taken Keynesian approach to remediation is solid answer to your sneer on that, sir --and proves up your stance on whole collection of treacherous misinformation. His psychological motivation to play role of President, shy of basic intellectual depth and demanded characteristics, is major tragedy of 20th Century; see biog. by his chosen writer, friend and White House habitue: DUTCH, ISBN 0-394-55508-2. Have YOU read it ? If NOT, you remain UN-informed, sir ! We hold no animus here on anyone or any event; but all responsible professional reporters DO report...as we do here...from testable reliable sources and via proven fact. Or is it that you simply do not bother to read, listen and see with own eyes, since have already set own mind on every point, policy, problem and query ?? Each point above documented here via authoritative and well-accepted sources; PDF file on request to editor with full ID, working phone. Small fee: $25.


Hank Ruark January 3, 2010 3:49 pm (Pacific time)

Concerned: You wrote:"Many of the leftist U.S. writers of the time were pro-Soviet and they still are around (in spirit) along with their students who fill the ranks of many of our college faculties. Bacevich may be a good source for your needs, but he really has an obvious agenda that refects poorly on good academic scholarship." That tells us irrevocably from whence you cometh, sir. Bacevich scholarship surely shows sensitive, sensible, rational, reasonable recording and analysis beyond what you reflect, mirroring old-line Rightist propaganda all too familiar to those of us who have suffered it for decades. Yours mirrors real massive multiple concerns as they then existed well, sir --but still in 20th Century terms. Re Kennedy and "supply side" you are in error, in depth and detail, as I know from considerable continuing study, as reflected widely in many well-read academic and special professional studies. Stockman, his mainman in the key economic areas, himself stated at the time the falsity of that approach --and the worldwide economic debacle now current proves up consequence now of Reagan "actor playing role" decisions playing role in debacle. (See DUTCH, RR's biog.by his choice of writer. Have you read it, sir ??) Wills "A Necessary Evil" puts much in context if you care to read; "see also" Cass Sunstein's "A Second Bill of Rights" --both strongly support, supplement and extend Basevich, reported here very clearly and cleanly by DJ. Interpretation from you ostensible Connected re history I lived through does not reflect same experience I had in those situations, and given you OR Basevich, with known record for him and naught for you, there is no rational and reasonable choice at all. We necessarily face new and complex demands in arriving 21st Century, and resentments from past century can only massively manipulate dangers we cannot avoid of that last Big Bang... which leaves us all with huge job to do to safeguard any possible future for all of us. Sharp attention to the facts of world realities, as in DJ's insightful analyses, surely now demanded from all of us, with past "wisdom" and the tale of how it was really so "different" than analyses NOT so DAMNED HELPFUL, either !! Which is why it seems to you the histories you cite changed so much over those crucial years. Do you understand what those changes surely meant, and demand of us now ?? Evidence you gave us comes out nil...


Concerned January 3, 2010 2:13 pm (Pacific time)

JFK and PT109 were obvious connections for Americans who lived during this period. Did you know about the Cuban miissle crisis and the Bay of Pigs fiasco? Current history books on these subjects and others during this time that I've reviewed recently are considerably different than how it was reported 50 or so years ago. How about Kennedy making a case for reducing taxes to increase revenue? It worked (albeit after his death), and Reagan used the same model back in the 80's when we had double digit inflation and interest levels, as well as double digit unemployment rates. Just the opposite policies being pursued now, how's that working out? Keynesian tripe! Both these presidents, and the ones in between took it to the Soviet Union with no-nonsense policies. Even Carter stopped us from going to the Olympics, a stupid and selfish policy on his part. In the 1950's the Soviet Union was not only exploding both A and H bombs, but had also developed an intercontinental missle system. We here in America remember Sputnik flying overhead and it was an American way of life to practice air raid drills every monday at 12:05 PM. You ever visit any of our civil air raid shelters? Every city and town had them. Building bomb shelters at private homes was routine in the 50's and early 60's. Maybe you think the Soviet Union was weak, but you are misinformed in that department. Many of the leftist U.S. writers of the time were pro-Soviet and they still are around (in spirit) along with their students who fill the ranks of many of our college faculties. Bacevich may be a good source for your needs, but he really has an obvious agenda that refects poorly on good academic scholarship. Those who have had the time to study Soviet history are fully aware of the danger they presented to the world going back to the early 1920's up to and after WWII. It is estimated by real historions, that they killed over 60 million of their own people, not just the 20 to 30 million Stalin admitted to. 90% of those who orchestrated this genocide have relatives in Israel. Ironic? Not if you know what the real stats are. Russia is once again becoming overtly belligerent with us and Europe, so who knows how this will play out in regards to the type of leadership we're currently getting in Washington. Earlier today Iran even gave us an ultamatum! Those prevailing NW winds also cover the Canadian land mass. The world was a lot safer in the 1980's compared today, a lot safer.

Basevich wrote: “The Chiefs knew that Kennedy had no intention of ordering direct U. S. intervention [in Cuba in 1961]—he had said as much—but they were counting on a presidentially ordered CIA disaster to force his hand. Rather than offering the president forthright professional advice, they had diddled him.” Later Kennedy had said: “Those sons-of-bitches with all the fruit salad just sat there nodding, saying it would work.”

Are you suggesting that your knowledge and experience is greater than that of Bacevich?


Hank Ruark January 3, 2010 8:08 am (Pacific time)

First-results of content analysis on yours re Thomas shows 98 percent score for "correct"-reading. Techniques unsharable here but proven reliable ever since intro at IU in special-course work re propaganda analysis. ("Four gentlemen from Virgina" taught that one...) "Heart-of-matter" here is B's statement:"“Realism…implies an obligation to see the world as it actually is, not as we might like it to be. The enemy of realism is hubris, which…finds expression in an outsized confidence in the efficacy of American power as an instrument to reshape the global order.” That's where danger to all of us AND to our nation lies, with trolls trampling on First Amendment rights demanding a level of responsibility they can never understand. Re Apt./mgr cant: We took 12-unit failing setup,used Drucker management concepts, written communication as group-work with all residents; ejected drug-gang members and filled all units on leases replacing monthly, while still lowering former rentals; set up profitability within six months; ran for five years. Governor's staff director was early-on new-regime resident, later built house near-by to enjoy amenities we added to that part of Bush Park/Salem.


Hank Ruark January 3, 2010 7:41 am (Pacific time)

Hi, Osotan et al: Don't miss Ted Kennedy's biog. TRUE COMPASS, full of blistering further progressive patterns vs proliferating futile Thomas-types. Best friend, member of my production team at Indiana, was Sampow Varangoon. After Ed.D there, he returned to the education ministry in Thailand for full career. Might enjoy checking if at all possible.


Osotan; January 3, 2010 5:32 am (Pacific time)

and Daniel, Kennedy was a Naval officer in WW-2 and among other things commanded a PT boat in the Pacific, a very interesting read. His older brother Joe was also a Naval flight officer, killed in Aug.'44 piloting a B-24 Liberator over England, another intersting read I consider them both heroes. Just for your info. There's also some who believe it was at this time that the Bush-Kennedy feud began.,another interesting read.

Thanks for the fill in. I'd forgotten about PT 109. I knew about Joe.


Osotan; January 3, 2010 12:53 am (Pacific time)

Daniel.,it's time to arm yourself with some year end closeouts on anything you need, and Thomas, I've got some incredible deals on Chinese pyrotechnics so you can observe the "enemy" night or day, those Canadians may be affilliated with Al Canyaida, the famous French trained hockey terrorist of the sixties. I can see I stand to make a pile of Amero's on this one! God conflict is so profitable! Well, I've got to attend church now, back later. 

[Return to Top]
©2024 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for January 2, 2010 | Articles for January 3, 2010 | Articles for January 4, 2010
Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar


Click here for all of William's articles and letters.

Sean Flynn was a photojournalist in Vietnam, taken captive in 1970 in Cambodia and never seen again.

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley