A fact, a fact, a kingdom, more or less, for a fact. "It happened" says almost
what Doug said a psot earlier. Nothing.
When did I learn of such things? Early '50s. Late '40s. What was JFK doing
then? Recovering from back problems caused by PT 109 and getting ready for
politics. He wasn't getting us almost annihilated. Just because Civil Defense
was still touted in '60 doesn't put the cause in JFK's pocket. It was a decade
or 2 old by then, as a result of a lot of intrigue over atomic secrets and a
lot of residual fright over WWII. You want to blame Ike? More went on under his
adminstration than under JFK's. Maybe we can go back to Truman, under whose
admin most of it began?
Do you recall the atomic clock? How many minutes we were from midnight. Do you
think that came on board during JFK's watch?
Read back a few years. You may have lived it, but it sounds like you were too
young to pay attention.
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
H. L. Mencken
Rather neat book called _One Hell of a Gamble_ written on the crisis,
Gives a look at what the Soviet archives have to say. Kennedy was viewed as
a mental lightweight by the Soviets, so it surprised the hell out of them
when he put up versus shut up. Fortunately, Ike hadn't resisted the
military industrial complex too much, and we had the big stick to brandish,
even though we didn't realize how big it really was by comparison.
As to assertions that Khrushchev was an empty blusterer, remember, he had
the courage to call Stalin a murderer in '56, with only a few of the top
Stalinists in their premature graves at the time. He looked like a
buffoon - wouldn't have survived in Stalin's USSR if he hadn't, but he was a
One the Soviets respected was former VP Nixon of "kitchen debate" fame.
Years later, Soviets (and former Soviets with whom I worked, and who had
lived through those days, mentioned Nixon with the same degree of respect
they used when they mentioned Regan. You don't want to know what they
thought of Jimmy.
The Communists did not fail, they succeeded. Everyone had a job, a
dwelling, medical care, education and pension. Problem was, there were no
"rich" to tax to pay for all of that, only a self-styled elite who "knew and
served the best interests of the working man," (Trotsky) and they were as
unwilling to work for no gain as everyone else.
The system died when people ceased to believe in a better future.
Companies and countries almost always die, when people cease to believe in
a better future. Hope, and faith, are primary motivating factors in almost
all human endeavor. Or so it seems from here.
cross posted to rec.woodworking.philosophy
He seems to get the same reverence down there as Trudeau gets up here.
JFK was a man who could deliver scripted speeches fairly well but never
seemed to actually accomplish anything completely successfully.
He always has struck me as a guy who used the opportunity that
Americans gave him as en easy way to get laid. Maybe the voters should
have given him a shiny convertible instead and he could've gotten laid
much more cheaply. He seems to have had the sexual proclivities of a
In fact, that whole family seems to personify the lowest collection of
morality in politics almost anywhere. The entire clan from Joe on down
seems to have had connections to some very bad people and seems to have
p*ssed them off with catastrophic results.
I look at JFK and I see a man as slimy as Nixon but only marginally
better at hiding it /for/ /a/ /while/.
Reagan did all of that single-handedly? Wow! What a genius of a man.
But could he turn water into wine?
The man was a second-rate actor who could read a script, sort of - the
embodiment of the-right-place-at-the-right-time, dumb luck.
What is sad, is that Clinton inherited a world for the first
time in 50 years with great promise (no cold war), a
powerful country with a healthy rising economy (recession
ended in 1991) and his defining moment of possible great
achievement is his sexual proclivities...what a waste.
he's remembered mostly for that today, thanks to the relentless
harping of the right wing. I bet history will see it differently. I
mean middle aged guys in positions of power using their influence to
get laid is not news. It might be interesting to speculate what
Clinton's legacy will be, but I really doubt it will involve Monica.
Funny thing, for the first time since the administration took office (or
at least since the Iraq invasion), I saw an AP story regarding a hostage in
Iraq who worked for KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root) in which the AP story
indicated that KBR was a subsidiary of Haliburton but did *not* say "the
company formerly run by Republican Vice-President Dick Cheney". This is
the first time that AP has forgotten to add that last bit about Cheney.
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 12:42:50 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
What amazes me is that now it is "the relentless harping of the right
wing" and that the left (or at least Clinton apologists) say it is no
surprise that middle-aged guys in positions of power use their influence to
gain favors. Before Clinton's transgressions, the left, and particularly
the NOW gang and their supporters were continually screaming about how evil
it was that those things happened and supported everything possible,
including lawsuits and other actions to change this country into a
gender-neutral neutered society. Remember Bob Packwood? He lost his
position over actions that were less egregious than Clinton's. Remember
the hoopla over the appointment and confirmation hearings for a certain
black Supreme Court justice? He was tarred and feathered and labeled as
unsuitable for his position for allegedly making only comments that were
deemed as "offensive" years later by the person who allegedly heard those
comments. The only difference in the latter two cases was the fact that
those were conservatives being attacked by the left. The big difference is
that neither of those latter two conservatives committed perjury during
legal proceedings related to the behavior in question. The irony is truly
amazing -- as is the hypocrisy of the left in this matter.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.