Friday, January 27, 2006

Blast From The Past?

First appeared a nostalgic article in the January 19, 2006 edition of the Washington Post. To be honest, I didn’t pay much attention at the time.

The emphasis of that piece was Washingtonians’ twentieth century naiveté about surviving a nuclear strike and included information from the Civil Defense System. Typical of articles about the Cold War Era, the article showed a picture of students taking cover under their schoolroom desks during air raid drills. I don’t recall huddling under my desk, but my husband tells me that students, bemused, did so in California.

Today we chuckle over the foolishness of those drills. But I remember how things were. The sirens would sound, and under their desks these students would dive—as if such a move could possibly save them from nuclear fallout. With some frequency, we saw television news reports depicting diving students. And sometimes at the movies, just before the feature film was shown, we watched public-service announcements. In addition, the radio and television broadcast systems were regularly tested with that grating tone, followed by "This has been a test of the emergency broadcast system. In the event of a real emergency..."

My clearest recollection of those Cold War drills here in the D.C. area was the building of fallout shelters. Everybody I knew had "a bomb shelter," provided their house had a basement or a closet with no walls bordering the outside. The largest suburban shopping mall at the time, Seven Corners Center, had the Civil Defense logo on clear display and gave directions as to how to access the shelter.

Around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, a whole industry grew up around instructions as to “how to create a safe place for your family.” We dutifully stocked these shelters with nonperishables, a bottled-water supply to last for a minimum of two weeks, flashlights and batteries, blankets, reading materials, and firearms. By our bedsides, we kept go-bags, "emergency kits," in case the sirens sounded in the middle of the night.

We built our family's shelter in what used to be the coal bin for our furnace. Our shelter had one small outside window, easily defensible were an intruder attempt to slip in from the outside. All of us—my parents, my cousins, my aunts, my grandmother, and I—practiced our marksmanship in the fields on the north side of the property where we lived. In fact, my father, never the alarmist but ever cautious, bought me my own firearm during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Funny thing, though—nobody seemed to worry about the air supply or about nuclear winter. We had no real understanding of the effects of a nuclear blast.

The sirens sounded, and we practiced our routine, whether at home, at school, or out shopping. Those sirens, mounted on telephone poles, buildings, and special towers, emitted a Middle-C tone and were audible for about two miles. If the sirens sounded when I was at home, I was more concerned about finding my cat—a barn cat, really— and taking him to the safety of the shelter than about taking shelter. I vaguely remember arguing with my mother about how I planned to leave the shelter to fetch my cat. And for a few years after the sirens quit their wailing, we children would mistake regular sirens for air-raid sirens and dash for the shelters.

Now we laugh about those ineffective measures of the 1950s and 1960s. But in the D.C. area, the threat of a nuclear attack was taken quite seriously, at least to the best of my recollection. Probably because we lived on a farmette within seventeen miles of the capital (or perhaps because my mother was a federal employee), we received Civil Defense flyers and other materials, including a questionnaire which asked, “How many additional people can you take into your shelter, in the event that Washington is evacuated?” Responding to the questionnaire was voluntary, and my parents tossed the paper into the trash.

Whether or not the threat of nuclear attack was real or even survivable, some of my early memories are of that uncertain period, the Cold War Era.

Now comes this January 25, 2006 article from the Washington Post. Excerpt:
“The Washington region's emergency managers have concluded that the high-tech devices put in place since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are not enough to warn masses of people. So they are looking at the system that alerted the World War II and Cold War generations: the piercing wail of a siren.

"Arlington County and neighboring Alexandria will become the first communities in the country to experiment with sirens as alerts to terrorist attacks. They are preparing to buy as many as 15 modern sirens to mount on telephone poles, buildings and even traffic lights in a few neighborhoods in a federally funded pilot program that is being closely watched by other area governments.

"With their mix of urban canyons, suburban subdivisions, tourists, malls and parks -- and dense populations of daytime workers that make them vulnerable to attack -- Arlington and Alexandria stand out as ideal locations to see whether sirens can reach people that BlackBerrys, cell phones and radio stations cannot.

"'People outdoors are most at risk in an attack because they are least able to find out what is going on quickly,' said John Fuoto, an engineer and siren expert for the Department of Homeland Security and a consultant to Arlington, which is overseeing the pilot project.

"Fuoto said sirens could also be ideal warning systems on the Mall, in downtown Silver Spring and at Tysons Corner -- any place people congregate outside the reach of mass broadcasts over television, radio, telephone or pager….

"'Everyone's looking at this to see if it will really reach significant numbers of people who are otherwise not reachable,' said David Snyder of Falls Church, a member of the Washington region's emergency preparedness council….

"Most local governments dismantled their civil defense sirens in the 1990s after the federal government withdrew funding for them when the Cold War ended. They had alerted the public to emergencies for a century, starting with fire alarms. After World War II, they were named civil defense sirens throughout the United States after Joseph Stalin tested the Soviet Union's first atomic bomb in 1949.

"With the threat of nuclear war over, some of the yellow, electrically powered mechanical devices stayed as warning systems in some parts of the country for tornados and other natural disasters. Around Washington today, they are used near the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant to warn of any accidents and by eight tiny firehouses in western Loudoun County to summon volunteers to duty.

"The new generation of sirens, according to a study conducted by George Washington University for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, can be used to send live or recorded messages in multiple languages. They're more reliable than the older generation, and they can operate on batteries. They can be tested silently. And they can be activated individually -- after a chemical spill in one neighborhood, for example -- or as a group….”
The air cover here over the D.C. area has been very busy the last several days. This new air activity began right after Chirac made his recent saber-rattling statement, which ties in timewise with the January 19, 2006 UPI article about Iran's wanting to test a nuke:
"WASHINGTON, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- Tehran is planning a nuclear weapons test before the Iranian New Year on March 20, 2006 says a group opposed to the regime in Tehran.

"The Foundation for Democracy citing sources in the U.S and Iran offered no further information.

"The FDI quotes sources in Iran that the high command of the Revolutionary Guards Air Force have issued new orders to Shahab-3 missile units, ordering them to move mobile missile launchers every 24 hours in view of a potential pre-emptive strike by the U.S. or Israel....

"Advance Shahab-3 units have been positioned in Kermanshah and Hamadan province, within striking distance of Israel. Reserve mobile launchers have been moved to Esfahan and Fars province."
The above UPI article in no way implies that Iran has the missile capability to reach the United States. Even I am not paranoid enough to think that Iran is about to launch a direct strike against Washington, D.C.! Launching a strike against Israel--especially with Hamas's political victory this week or detonating a dirty bomb within our nation's borders--those are entirely different matters.

Recently I read that, over the years and dating back to the Ayatollah Khomeini (if memory serves correctly), Castro has paid a few visits to Tehran. Because of my past experiences with Cold War measures taken here in the D.C. area, I naturally associate Castro’s name with a childhood interrupted. Of course, threats other than nuclear missiles exist, and the Washington Post article makes that point.

Also, I just read this January 27, 2006 news item:
"BOGOTA, Colombia - Colombian has dismantled a false passport ring with links to al-Qaida and Hamas militants, the acting attorney general said Thursday after authorities led dozens of simultaneous raids across five cities in collaboration with U.S. officials....

"An undisclosed number of those arrested are wanted for working with the al-Qaida terror network and the militant Palestinian group Hamas, said acting Attorney General Jorge Armando Otalora...."
Is this latest pilot program of siren alerts the result of some kind of intelligence?

Whatever the case, the atmosphere here is unsettling, especially if one considers world events.

[Hat tip to both Cuanas and Gindy, where I found some of the links used in this article]

51 Comments:

At 1/27/2006 11:24 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

... and we sit complacently, twiddling our thumbs in vain hopes of "settling" this crisis through the UN (which has never settled anything)...

What happened to the West's willingness to fight over principles?

America fought Britain over taxes. Yet we cannot find the balls or common morality of defending our democracy against the push by Islam to subject everyone, everywhere to sharia law?

I have no respect for talking heads who are only interested in sounding somber as they tell people like me how extremist we are to think this crisis requires war.

We need another Crusades.

 
At 1/27/2006 12:49 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

It's pretty scary isn't it? I remember going to elementary school in Yorktown New York and doing the "duck and cover" drills in school. My wife works in Manhattan and takes the train to work so I've been very fearful of another attack in New York City..especially a nuclear attack. We've just bought a new house in Somers New York which is about 20 mi. further north of NYC then we were but can't do much about working in NYC as she has a family business and moving it is impossible.
I think 2006 could be the most dangerous year since the Cuban missile crisis. Al Qaeda desperately wants another successful attack on US soil and a confrontation with Iran is looking inevitable.

 
At 1/27/2006 12:57 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

AOW, if you wish to reminisce about the old "Duck and cover" days, I suggest getting a copy of "Atomic Cafe". Well done documentary from archival newsclips.

Rather chilling.

 
At 1/27/2006 1:03 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
I don't wish to reminisce (That WaPo article was front-page news), but I might be interested in seeing that documentary to see if my recollections are accurate. Four decades is a long time to preserve accurate memory.

 
At 1/27/2006 1:06 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mussolini,
What happened to the West's willingness to fight over principles?

Gobbled up in the constant diet of political correctness and in the pursuit of utopian dreams.

 
At 1/27/2006 1:09 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
I think 2006 could be the most dangerous year since the Cuban missile crisis. Al Qaeda desperately wants another successful attack on US soil and a confrontation with Iran is looking inevitable.

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, I thought I'd never again have to live through days such as those.

If Mexicans can bring drugs through tunnels, can Al-Qaeda bring in a dirty bomb?

 
At 1/27/2006 3:01 PM, Blogger Storm said...

Mussolini said...

You mean to say it is amazing that Demos cheer Kerry as he stomps around European playgrounds ranting on about Alito meanwhile this type of thing is left on the back burner?

 
At 1/27/2006 3:04 PM, Blogger Storm said...

And Ducky can also site some text book in jest as Always relates a story from memory.

Always and Mussolini the problem is there are too many pampered metros like Ducky and not enough of us that remember and/or can imagine a World were safety purchased by others is taken fro granted and as easy for some as ordering a cup of coffee at Starbucks

 
At 1/27/2006 3:12 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Hey storm, when the hell did you "purchase" any safety. Just curious.

My contention has been that JFK effectively "won" the Cold War after the Cuban missile crisis while most righties maintain that St. Raygun won it by increasing the defense budget(pure crap of course). Maybe you think of Raygun as "purchasing" safety.

So go give someone else a few choruses of the "freedom isn't free" tap dance and then remember that most of the "purchasing" for your comfort was done on the backs of other nations of the world. If that sounds as if you're a leech, well, you probably are.

I don't take the safety for granted but if you want to compare Grenada and Panama and Gulf I to World War II we'd love to read your analysis. World War II involved safety...post WW II military action involves nothing of the kind

Let us know how military force can stop a dirty bomb. Hell, they did the London subway for about 2000 dollars and some household materials.

Has President Chimperella done anything to secure radioactive material in the world?

 
At 1/27/2006 4:34 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

AOW, snap out of it !!!

What can you do except take appropriate security measures and not let yourself become irrational.

We are doing a fine job ourselves of achieving radical Islam's goals. We are weakening ourselves economically and isolating ourselves from allies. There isn't any need to bomb us...hell, we might gain renewed sympathy from our allies and present a stronger front.

You really need to chill. I'm not saying that you should shovel Xanax by the handful like Laura but get some perspective.

 
At 1/27/2006 4:47 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Ducky, come on. Don't discount Reagan just because you don't like him.

Recognize and admit balls when you see them. Be consistent and even the likes of me and Beamish will listen to all that you have to say.

Reagan nailed the coffin shut when he declared abandonment of the ABM treaty and the intention to go ahead with SDI. Even Gorbachev admitted that. We not only outspent them but took the path to take away their only ace - the ability to first strike.

They knew it was over then.

Those dirty bombs need to be made somewhere, Ducky. Military action can take down those countries that produce them, thus stopping the flow. All part and parcel of securing our safety.

 
At 1/27/2006 4:58 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Mussolini, please. Iran/Contra, arms for hostages. Cut and run at the Beirut airport and then invade grenada to make the fans feel better.

The man was a disaster. I'm afraid you are going tohave to move in mysterious ways to show that "Star Wars" scared anyone. The damn thing is still not functional...the Russians knew it was a joke. They aren't stupid. Last interview with Gorby that I read was in the Progressive and he completely downplayed SDI. He felt the USSR was tipping and Reagan gave it another push but didn't grant think his policies mattered a great deal. It was going to happen anyhow.

My main objection to the Reagan worship is the way it discounts the heavy lifting done by Russian and Eastern European resistance groups. mericans have a very difficult time believing that they aren't the sole force in world affairs and that is a mistake.

 
At 1/27/2006 5:23 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Reagan a disaster? Oh yeah, too bad we lost Carter to "the disaster."

But seriously, I'm sure you read at least as much as I did that the Soviet Empire in the late 70s and early 80s was going to bury us and presented an iron behemoth that America could never challenge.

Reagan did. Did he do a "something" that toppled the soviets? Of course not - except that he presented to the soviets a resolve that included many things.

Contrast with cut and run Iran-Carter. Contrast with cut and run democratic congress/Vietnam. Contrast with cut and run Truman/China.

Contrast cut and run FDR that handed eastern Europe to the soviet empire in the first place.

My wife says JFK was gay.

Aside from the smear, give credit where it's due.

Iran/Contra. Great situation, despite the media-feigned outrage. Describe to me why you think Iran/Contra was so bad?

 
At 1/27/2006 5:43 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Mussolini said "Reagan did. Did he do a "something" that toppled the soviets? Of course not"

More times than not we usually agree but here I differ. Ronald Reagan was willing to outspend the Soviet Union in military procurements..even including 'Star Wars' and putting Persian missiles in Europe, that the Soviet Union couldn't keep up without totally destroying what was left of their economy. This brought them to the negotiating table and eventually led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. I'm not saying he did this by himself...the Solidarity Movement in Poland probably did more damage and the Pope played a large role.

 
At 1/27/2006 5:52 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

American Crusader - you proved my point. I chose my words to be specific - something. Not many things.

I don't think Reagen's success against the soviet empire was due to just "one" thing - and that was my point. Reagen presented a whole package that included many things.

So, we actually agree.

 
At 1/27/2006 6:04 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Mussolini..after I reread your first post, I saw that we were in agreement.

Ducky.. if you can't see Reagan's role in bringing down the Soviet Union, then you probably can't see the end of your nose.

Every post World War II president, starting with Truman, followed George Kennens policy of containment. This policy was a failure as even Margaret Thatcher said we were losing the Cold War as countries from Angola to Nicaragua fell to the Communist.

Ronald Reagan initiated a policy based on six pillars:
1. Supporting internal disruption in Soviet satellites... especially Poland.
2. Dry up sources of hard currency.
3. Overload the Soviet economy with a technology-based arms race.
4. Slow the flow of Western technology to Moscow.
5. Raise the cost of wars the Soviet Union was fighting..ie Afghanistan
6. Demoralized the Soviets by generating pressure for change.

Why is it so hard for the Reagan bashers to give credit where it is due??

 
At 1/27/2006 6:18 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Duck,
You really need to chill.

Actually, I am quite rational. I feel no need for Xanex or any other mood-altering medication. And neither does my doctor; I see him with some regularity.

What can you do except take appropriate security measures and not let yourself become irrational.

Agreed, but don't "ostrich" either.

Let us know how military force can stop a dirty bomb.

Maybe not military force, except for what Mussoline mentioned, but our borders certainly could be better secured.

We are doing a fine job ourselves of achieving radical Islam's goals.

I believe that I've posted similarly and that you've discounted most of those posts. Of course, we may differ in the ways you and I see that we ourselves (i.e., our leaders and Presidential advisers such as Grover Norquist and David Forte) are helping to achieve radical Islam's goals. I agree with you that We are weakening ourselves economically...

Last interview with Gorby that I read was in the Progressive and he completely downplayed SDI.

Then why, at several of the meetings, was Gorbachev so insistent upon dismantling SDI?

Certainly a combination of factors resulted in the dismantling of the USSR, but RR was one of them, IMO. He outspent the Soviets, as Crusader mentioned.

Reagan did not see the Islamist threat in its proper perspective (For that matter, neither do many leaders today, some 20 years later and after a multitude of additional signs). One reason is that he was focused on Communism; another is that America had no belly for such a conflict at the time, though I'm not sure he considered that second point. Also, signs of his mental deterioration appeared as early as 1985 or 1986 when he could not recall the names of the CA valleys which he had known so well for at least 40 years. In fact, when he signed the 1986 tax bill, he signed his last name first and was himself puzzled as to why he did such a thing.

 
At 1/27/2006 6:22 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Crusader,
Every post World War II president, starting with Truman, followed George Kennens policy of containment. This policy was a failure...

Obviously! At the time, RR and Margaret Thatcher blazed a new trail. Both were ridiculed--even despised--for the steps they took.

Why is it so hard for the Reagan bashers to give credit where it is due??

Lack of ability to see good where good is?

 
At 1/27/2006 6:24 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
Kerry wanted to sit down and talk with OBL. Talk about being out of touch with reality!

 
At 1/27/2006 6:25 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Good post, AOW.

I remember in the days after 9/11, listening to the roar of planes and helicopters overhead all night long, every night. The military, I believe, was transporting men and weapons. There was never any explanatin. But, I do remember how unsettling it was.

The Washington area must be a strange place these days.

 
At 1/27/2006 6:51 PM, Blogger maccusgermanis said...

Ducky,
If your main objection is as stated:

"My main objection to the Reagan worship is the way it discounts the heavy lifting done by Russian and Eastern European resistance groups. mericans have a very difficult time believing that they aren't the sole force in world affairs and that is a mistake."

I fail to see how it follows that you should call Reagan a "disaster." I do not seek to "discount" any efforts by resistance groups, but surely, the dark days endured by those groups were made more bearable when "that shining city on a hill" refused to hide its brilliance.

 
At 1/27/2006 8:59 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...

Duncy

The Eastern Europeans you talk of all give credit to Reagan. FYI the President of Nicaragua thanked Reagan for taking the heat and getting rid of your Sandanista buddies.

Havel and Walensa seem to have more insight then the brain impaired Duck.

 
At 1/27/2006 9:06 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Ronald Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th Century.

 
At 1/27/2006 9:20 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beamish,
Ronald Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th Century.

I agree. I attribute his greatness to the vision he had--the vision of "a city upon a hill." His steadfastness helped him to achieve his goal.

Was he perfect? Of course not. But his imperfections do not negate his accomplishments.

 
At 1/27/2006 11:31 PM, Blogger Bassizzzt said...

And, let us not forget, Ronald Reagan won the Cold War.

 
At 1/27/2006 11:54 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Just to jump back in on the smear that Iran/Contra was some kind of bad thing...

We sold arms to the Contras. Were they evil? Does anyone even remember the situation surrounding the Nicarugua mess? The Sandanistas were a tiny majority that successfully stormed the capital by force and seized power. Land owners were disenfranchised of their land. Many were killed. Remember the nuns? The Sandanistas killed every damn nun they could find.

I wonder what is so threatening about a nun that Ducky would defend the Sandanistas actions there? About the only violence I could overlook against a nun is peeking up her habit. But rape and murder?

The contras were the mix of exiled land owners and former government officials that attempted to retake their country. Congress, being democratic at the time, refused to take any action to help the Contras retake their country from the communists.

So we devised a scheme. We sold arms to Iran to ease the way for release of hostages in the Middle East. Iran used the funds in their war with Iraq.

We took the Iranian money and used it to support the contras against the communist usurpers. That really pissed off the dems.

It wasn't the arms we gave to Iran, it was the fact that we supplied money to an anti-communist group attempting to retake their country from communism that pissed off the democrats.

We did the right thing in Iran/Contra - and the American public knew it. That's why Ollie became a hero.

Using Iran/Contra as a smear is about as nonsensical as using Abolition/Emancipation as a smear.

 
At 1/28/2006 1:47 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

It wasn't the arms we gave to Iran, it was the fact that we supplied money to an anti-communist group attempting to retake their country from communism that pissed off the democrats

EXACTLY!

The Democratic Party was formed in the early 1800s by Anti-Federalists (those that had opposed ratification of the US Constitution) because of restrictions passed in the federal legislature that banned the importation and inter-state trade of African slaves. After losing their bid to destroy the United States in the Civil War, the Democratic Party turned to terrorism and anarchism. Their enduring hatred for the US Constitution remains a legacy from their Anti-Federalist days until today. Every totalitarian encroachment of civil liberties ever initiated by any level of government in US history has been by the hand of a Democrat. There is no rationally defensible reason whatsoever why anyone who truly loves America would vote for a Democrat.

And before someone says I'm questioning Democrats' patriotism, no, I'm not. They have no patriotism to question. All of them are devoted to their core values:

1.) Destruction of the US Constitution
2.) Enslavement of dark-skinned people
3.) Killing massive numbers of people with fire

 
At 1/28/2006 7:17 AM, Blogger LASunsett said...

AOW,

You asked:

"Is this latest pilot program of siren alerts the result of some kind of intelligence?"

For every time something comes to to light with the public, I am sure there are many more that don't.


Mr. Ducky,

Name one President that didn't have some kind of debacle, during his administration?

Some drugs do a world of good for people, albeit with some side effects. There is no fool proof way of knowing just what exactly each outcome will be for any given measure.

All Presidents make mistakes, all have some elements of corruption in their governments. That alone, can not be the only indicator in determining whether or not a President was a disaster.

 
At 1/28/2006 7:40 AM, Blogger beakerkin said...

The Boland Amendment was an illegal
action and later ruled unConstitutional by the court. Mussolini forgets that the Southern Contras were Native Americans who were led by Eden Pstora.

Kerry, Harkin, Biden , Rangel all tried to help the Commies . They were aided and abeted by the illucid Commieknoll er Marryknoll disorder er order. The Pope had spoken out loud and clear about the filth known as Liberation theology. The Pope lived under Nazism and Communism and knew evil when and where he saw it.

 
At 1/28/2006 10:02 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Question their patriotism?

I really hate this stupid notion that patriotism can never be questioned and is inviolable.

Know why democrats scream about questioning their patriotism? For exactly the reason Beamish said - they have none.

A democrat screams the loudest when you have pinned them with the truth. They hope the volume and invective diverts attention away from the truth that labels them guilty.

I question everyone's patriotism. Don't like it? I can point out where to suck if you need directions.

Patriotism is not enduring. It is not permanent. It is not an immutable aspect of character that is forever granted once claimed. Being birthed within American borders does not automatically grant someone unquestionable patriotism.

How F-ing silly.

Patriotism is a passion. It is closely akin to that emotion that the leftists used with fascism to advance socialism in their countries: nationalism. I am passionate about my country. I am passionate about the West.

The only thing passionate about democrats is hating Bush and conservatives.

Patriotism is not burning a flag (democrats), patriotism is washing it (conservatives).

 
At 1/28/2006 1:02 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I believe it goes deeper than that, Mussolini. Democrats, especially since they lost the Civil War, will always seek to spitefully latch on to policies aimed at destroying America or promoting totalitarianism. Their absolute hatred for the US Constitution guides every thing they do.

 
At 1/28/2006 2:11 PM, Blogger BonnieBlueFlag said...

First of all, Always didn't seem the least bit in need of a shovel full of Xanax to me. I thought she was merely pointing out the way history does seem to repeat itself, time and time again.

The bomb shelters and sirens of the 1950s are making a comeback, can the "Duck and Cover" drills be far behind?

She was evidently raised by a father very much like my own, one who would teach his daughters, as well as his sons, to take care of themselves. In the event of an emergency, she will not be waiting for the government to take care of her and her family.

Secondly, I find the references to the Democratic party before and after the Civil War to be confusing. The parties have actually flipped over the years. The once Democratic "Solid South," is almost completely a Republican "Solid South." And, if you will listen to "JFK's" speeches of the 60s, you will note that his views would not be welcomed by the Democrats of today. Furthermore, it was President Lincoln, a Republican, who disregarded the US Constitution during the Civil War.

 
At 1/28/2006 2:16 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Bonnieblueflag,

Why do you think the racist LBJ had JFK shot?

 
At 1/28/2006 6:05 PM, Blogger Mussolini said...

"Flipped"?

In a way, but it would be a mistake to think the parties have "switched" somehow.

Please don't forget that people move to different states, they have children and then they die. Much like a swirling of oil and water, our countryside has "changed" colors (red and blue) as generations are birthed, grow and die.

The only real switching that has taken place is both parties, in a bid to gain power with the opposing base's followers, have adopted each other's precivil war platforms.

The former statist dems would now like to use the federal govt to tell you how to think and live. The former federalist republicans now would like to return some power to the states that they so illegally raped.

As each party aged, they now so resemble each other that, apart from philosophy, they only differ (and not consistently) on taxes and abortion. Both want your money. Both want to expand the federal government with your money. Both want you to think in a politically correct way.

The last, great voice of freedom in our presidency was Reagan. Cut taxes and ... remember? Red tape. He wanted to limit and reduce government and get it out of our lives.

Find a republican that espouses that now while I sit here and hold my breath. No really. Of course, the democrats? Forget it. They want to control everything about you, including the raising of your children.

 
At 1/28/2006 8:19 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

When you join the Democratic Party, you must swear an oath to die for the cause of destroying the US Constitution and seek policies that will slaughter great masses of Americans. Since abortion was unconstitutionally "legalized" by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, Democratic bloodlust for slaughtering innocents has been mollified to a certain extent, but only because Roe circumvents the legislative process enshrined in the Constitution. The need to kill Americans is still firmly engrained in the Democratic psyche. That is why China was given our top secret nuclear missile technology in exchange for contributions to the DNC and Clinton built nuclear reactors for North Korea.

If a policy preserves the Constitution, frees dark-skinned people from oppression, or keeps Americans safe, Democrats will fight against it tooth and nail.

 
At 1/28/2006 9:47 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

We need a makeover of both political parties. I don't see either one addressing the illegal-immigration issue.

 
At 1/29/2006 12:12 AM, Blogger MissingLink said...

AOW,
Eastern block politicians loved John Kennedy and later Johnson.
He and his administration would swallow any diversion provided by the Kremlin.
Even now I remember the panic among "our" leaders when they expected Goldwater's victory.

Our (Eastern Communist) block dreaded the US presence in Turkey an Iran.
NATO countries (rightly or wrongly)were considered a walk-over especially that France with its powerful radical left infiltrated by the Soviets would not provide much help at all.
The Cuban missile crisis was a great victory for the Soviet block.


Today, with the US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq the Iranian threat is not as bad for the US but still it is real.

Of course there must be the will to act decisively and from what I can see the "enemy within" is hard at work to "disarm" America again.

 
At 1/29/2006 7:49 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Felis,
from what I can see the "enemy within" is hard at work to "disarm" America again

While I see Iran as a serious threat to the Middle East (and, therefore, to the world as allies line up), what's going on within our national boundaries here is even more dangerous to our way of life, in the long term. As Paul Sperry has pointed out, we are infiltrated. Islamification, the enemy of freedom, proceeds apace.

The Cuban missile crisis was a great victory for the Soviet block.

I've read your bio, so I know that you have more knowledge of this matter than I do. Can you explain more clearly?

Eastern block politicians loved John Kennedy and later Johnson.
He and his administration would swallow any diversion provided by the Kremlin.


Agreed. History books here don't cover this at all! Both JFK and LBJ are held up as great statemen. But I lived through those administrations and know better. RR was not gullible in that regard, so he remains absolutely despised by the Left, as does Margaret Thatcher. Now that Reagan is gone and Thatcher is so ailing, the Left is usually quiet. But I well recall how the Left ranted and raved against both of them.

What's getting to me right now is all the news coverage of trivial stories instead of focusing on what NEEDS to be focused on! As you said, "diversions." Who owns the media?

 
At 1/29/2006 11:14 AM, Blogger Mussolini said...

Mr Beamish is less squeamish than me...

No it won't be a poem.

Tammy Bruce's book The Death of Right and Wrong exposes her fellow leftists as malignant narcissists. That a lefty could come out and admit the truth was a shock to me, but she did and her book is a must read for understanding the left.

Malignant narcissism requires the victim to spread misery to others to justify their own misery. Rush says the same thing in a simpler way, but the psychosis behind the affliction is real. "Raising awareness", a favorite term of the left, is actually a psychological illness step. You admit you have a problem, raise awareness of it, then heal the wound to rejoin society. Tammy says the left is stuck in step 2 and won't rejoin society.

Thus.... and this is what all that ramble is leading up to... abortion is holy, Islam murdering westerners is wonderful, Americans deserve to be killed, and murderers deserve to be spared.

Now, at first, the bit about NO death penalty made no sense, but then my slow brain figured it out. Study after study has shown that repeat criminals are the main source of the majority of crimes.

Thus, putting a murderer to death might initially make sense to us when thinking of death-lefties, but they actually oppose the death penalty at all turns because those murderers could be killing more innocents.

The left is very consistent. More death is good.

Mr Beamish is right on the money.

 
At 1/29/2006 6:30 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Exactly, Mussolini.

What is the one class of Americans who enjoy all of 24/7 police protection, free housing, free health care, free college tuition, free legal advice, etc.?

Incarcerated criminals, that's who.

 
At 1/29/2006 7:11 PM, Blogger City Troll said...

I did posts on both the bottom to stories the UPI bomb test and the passport ring, What I also found was a story about a study on a more likely scenario of Iran launching a nuke from a boat off our coast and doing an air-burst causing an EMP. The effects of which would be even more devestating than most people realize, nothing electric or electronic works. The whole sien thing is a laugh it would be as useless today as it was in the past and could in todays world also cause rioting an looting. I also stated in a post I did about the EMP shot that with Irans recent meetings with the Cuban govt wouldn't it be a nice gift from castro as he is close to death to have it launched from cuba

 
At 1/29/2006 7:45 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Troll,
Yes, I saw those two posts at your site.

I've heard of EMP attacks. It reminds me of that old sci-fi movie The Day the World Stood Still, in which everything electric failed because an alien wanted the planet earth to understand the importance of peace.

Is an EMP attack science fiction? I don't have enough knowledge to say.

 
At 1/29/2006 9:18 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Amnesty International accused the United States of using an EMP bomb to knock Iraqi TV off the air during the major combat phase of Op: Iraqi Freedom in 2003. The Pentagon would neither confirm nor deny.

Likely it was some Special Forces guys with wirecutters. Those guys love a good prank.

 
At 1/29/2006 11:24 PM, Blogger MissingLink said...

"I've read your bio, so I know that you have more knowledge of this matter than I do. Can you explain more clearly?"

I can only outline the general Soviet/Eastern block sentiments.

Soviets felt terribly threatened after Eisenhower decided to get seriously involved in the Middle East and ASIA.
Soviets considered Turkey and Iran as their sphere of influence but Ike placed firmly US in both countries.
Soviets decided to support Castro and they were shocked to learn that the US allowed the takeover to happen (Soviets thought very little about Castro and the Cubans and later it cost them fortune to maintain this mess).
Nobody in Eastern block could believe that the Bay of Pigs could have happen either.
Kennedy made a basic diplomatic error he withdrew American missiles from Turkey and allowed communist Cuba to exist.
Communist press loved him and never reported his "strong" statement or anti -communists speeches.
They made sure the US media would also see him as a tough but peaceful president.
He was the most beloved US president in the Eastern block.
Soviets knew they would have to eventually withdraw from Cuba their nuclear facilities but they traded it for American missiles being pulled out form Turkey.
From then on Soviets knew that Kennedy was all talk and action.
In many ways communist push into Vietnam was a direct consequence of Kennedy's Cuban fiasco.
They became very bold and didn't take American containment policy seriously.
Sorry it’s a bit chaotic but it’s such a broad subject and very difficult to cover in a few sentences.

 
At 1/30/2006 11:18 AM, Blogger Storm said...

Storm,
Kerry wanted to sit down and talk with OBL. Talk about being out of touch with reality!

1/27/2006 6:24 PM


I say any time these liberals what to sit down with terrorists, we should let them.

Liberals before you sit down to that meeting, a little piece of advice make sure your will is in order because that sound you heard was the air compression from a suicide bomb.

 
At 1/30/2006 11:27 AM, Blogger Storm said...

Response to Mr. Ducky

A little tense aren't we, a little irate maybe, a little hot under the collar. What did I hit too close to the mark?

The comment about the end of the Cold War an JFK was pure fantasy. The nuclear arms had not even begun. Perhaps the recall the Berlin Wall.

In Mussolini's list of failed military actions by DNC Presidents, I never saw the Bay of Pigs.

As for your attempt to bait me about purchasing freedom, understanding a concept is more than doing. I know Communism resulting in thousands of deaths, civil unrest, and scaricty of products but I never was a subject in a communist country.

 
At 1/30/2006 11:29 AM, Blogger Storm said...

troll

launching from Cuba makes more sense to me than the samwich lauch theory from Libya

 
At 1/30/2006 5:26 PM, Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

My goodness Mussolini, the key to it all is passion. The far right has passion and the left doesn't.

Pardon me if I say that is about the most nonsensical generality I've read outside an (m)Ann Coulter column.

....and storm, the Cold War was effectively over after the Cuban crisis. The Soviets were not a threat and Communism went into it's death throes which lasted about 20 years. Just long enough for St. Raygun to take credit for doing virtually nothing.

 
At 1/30/2006 9:50 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Felis,
Thanks for the history lesson!

 
At 1/30/2006 11:04 PM, Blogger maccusgermanis said...

I thought Reagan admirers would enjoy this, I sure did.

"Throughout the years, in parts of Europe, intellectuals and even politicians were enamoured with the idea of Marxism and even some thought the Soviet Union was an embodiment of what Socialism and the protection of the worker was all about. America was more realistic. America looked on us as captive nations. We were captive nations, and we are now free."

president Vaika Vike-Freiberga of Latvia

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog=newsdesk&xml=/news/2006/01/29/bleurope29.xml

 
At 2/01/2006 2:54 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

"the Cold War was effectively over after the Cuban crisis."

There goes Ducky, adding more evidence to the pile that leftists are physically incapable of rational thought.

::golf clap::

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home