Retro style, stupid wars, and more
- From Takimag: Derb on stupid wars. Though WWI was popular among the British when they entered it (in mass-suffrage societies wars are anyway often popular), they’ve long known since that it was stupid. Of course it means much more to them than to the US because so many more, numbers and proportionally, were killed, and until rather recently (the last WWI vet died in the past few years) it was a living memory. (Wilson was scum; America should have stayed out and the Central Powers should have won.) Also, their historical foreign policy: that nation’s ancient fear of a single power controlling continental Europe: Spain in the 16th century, France in the 18th, Russia in the Cold War. Any power that attained European supremacy, the British reasonably believed, would soon turn on them.
- From RR:
- From LRC:
- From Bob Wallace: We seek true love, a love true as a sharp sword, that will not shatter in the hand, a weapon equal to the task of keeping all life’s rude attacks at bay.
- From Ad Orientem: Endless Afghanistan.
- What’s old is new again: not as good as the real thing but I guess their heart’s in the right place.
Catholic integralism is the true seamless garment.
"An iron curtain is slowly descending around the borders of America.."
ReplyDeleteClassic Anarcho-Tyranny. The government already has more than enough authority to deal with the illegal immigration problem, without having to massively expand its powers. It refuses to exercise said authority, though, so it invents a justification for inventing new programs that won't actually do anything about the problem (note how most of these so-called "border security" measures have nothing to do with keeping out terrorists or illegal immigrants- they're clearly aimed at cracking down on harmless tax refugees who have the temerity to deprive Uncle Sam of "his share" of the loot).
A close friend who has done two tours in Afghanistan is fond of sending me hilarious tales of waste and incompetence (He spends lots of his time lavishing supplies on crooked local officials; fighting terrorists, not so much). I guess I shouldn't find them so funny, since it's my tax dollars they're throwing away, but at least I'm paying for quality entertainment.
I'm not one to trust the "official" story in situations like this, but 2004's "JFK — Beyond the Magic Bullet" by the Discovery Channel pretty conclusively put to rest the idea that the bullet had to be "Magic" to follow that trajectory. They didn't replicate the shot perfectly, but it was pretty darned close. Not proof that it happened, but establishes plausibility. The initial investigation conducted in November of '63 was pretty badly botched in a lot of ways (Hanlon's Razor is probably relevant here), and the press were recklessly spreading every half-baked rumor, so it has become hard to untangle the truth decades later.
Oswald had attempted to forge connections with all kinds of shady people and institutions, so a conspiracy isn't out of the question, but you're right that this leaves the further issue of WHOSE conspiracy he was working for. Most conspiracy theorists err in alleging the existence of too few conspiracies. Once lying, secrecy, and manipulation become a group's M.O., things get very complicated, very fast- if three people form a conspiracy together, soon you have four different conspiracies on your hands. It's also worth remembering that lots of people who get involved in the dirty side of that cloak-and-dagger stuff have a few screws loose to begin with. It's not impossible that someone (CIA, KGB, Cubans, Mafia) may at some point have tried to use Oswald an asset, but with the assassination itself, Oswald may have been "off the reservation". I'm partial to "lone gunman", but if not, my money'd be on Castro- of all the possible culprits, he had the strongest motive, having himself been targeted by the JFK for assassination more times than anyone can count. If so, that's a pretty strong case of "Blowback".
Wendy McElroy is a fat old lesbian obsessed with pornography. She is in way over her head in economics.
ReplyDeleteHow does she think Walmart and Microsoft operate? How does she explain the billions of dollars flowing intothe US in UST purchases and investment? Clueless female.