OBAMACAN wrote on Apr 15, 2008 8:58 PM:Ernest Sparks in his letter compares Obama to John Kennedy, echoing a comparison by Kennedy's own daughter, brother and sister-in-law Ethel (widow of Bobby, though in fairness, three of Bobby's kids endorsed Clinton).
Exaggerating and misrepresentng the admitted failure at Bay of Pigs and offering a complete historical revision of the Vietnam entanglement that Eisenhower got us into and LBJ escalated into militarism, I will be glad to offer the American people a choice between a clone of JFK and one of McBush who will perpetuate all of the worst offerings of more of the same.

sdraoul wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:27 PM:Obamamam, learn your history. JFK ordered the first combat troops into Vietnam in April of 1963. Eisenhower sent no troops to Vietnam. he sent 600 unarmed civilian clothed advisors to Vietnam, not combat troops. JFK sent soldiers fromt he 25tj Infantry Division stationed in Hawaii.

He ordered more soldiers in during his remaining months of life. By the time he died in November there were 18,000 soldiers and Marines in Vietnam when there were only the 600 civilian clothed and unarmed advisors on January 20th 1961.

There are some observers who claim that Kennedy was humiliated in Vienna by Khrushchev, so much so that Kennedy ordered thousands of troops to Vietnam to show Khrushchev up.

No one needs exagerrate what happened at the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy kept our air power out of it even though it was promised and sacrificed the Cuban landing force because he chickened out.

Then he had the Catholic Church raise ransome money to buy the brigade's freedom from Castro.

Three unmarked Navy fighters would have accomplished success for the Bay of Pigs Brigade, if only JFK hadn't chickened out.

Apollo wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:15 PM:Re: Darrell Beck (letter)
Beck is just another flame-throwing name-caller who does not even understand the definitions of terms he throws around so carelessly. More significantly, he does this as a substitute for actually discussing the substance of any single issue.
Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Marxist or socialist is so 1950's.
People today don't care about labels.
Our generation wants solutions, not obstruction.

Cuban Vietnam wrote on Apr 15, 2008 10:30 PM:SDRaoul at 9:27 p.m. not only fails to get his historical facts straight (at least he keeps alive a cherished tradition) but, incredibly, wraps his imaginative historical revisionism - embellished with bizarre unsubstantiated conspiracy theories (Raoul is above such petty annoyances as documenting claims) rooted in Kennedy-Catholic prejudices that were resolved 48 years ago for everyone else - in arguments that a failed local insurrection at the Bay of Pigs should have been escalated into a full-scale takeover of the Cuban civil war!
Amazingly, he not only can't decide whether Vietnam is heroic or tragic, but argues that Kennedy should have advanced LBJ's overt military mission by several years and moved it from Southeast Asia to 90 miles off our shores!
No wonder he supports the guy who wants to perpetuate the equally myopic Bush-McCain failure as far into the future as the eye can see.
Gotta hand it to Raoul, at least he is consistent!

Floyd wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:11 AM:Last year, the State of California budgeted $45.1 billion for K-12 education. This year, the proposed amount $48.3 billion, an increase of $3.2 billion. Anyone alleging this funding increase is a "cut to education" is lying.

OBSERVATION wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:57 AM:ADVISORS VIETNAM:
"During this period -- from 1955 through 1960 -- the U.S. had between 750 and 1,500 military advisors assisting the Diem government to establish an effective army, organized as the Military Assistance and Advisory Group (MAAG), Vietnam. By 1960 MAAGV was training more than fifty ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) Ranger units. At almost the same time, from 1954 to 1959, the Navy Section of MAAGV, worked to develop a viable navy for South Vietnam. Lt. General Samuel T. Williams served almost five years (1955-1960) as chief of MAAG, based in Saigon."

Alf wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:00 AM:Yesterday, "DD Wiz" at 8:53PM said "progressive taxes... They are completely fair. Every taxpayer is treated exactly the same. Every single person, from the poorest minimum wage earner to Bill Gates (or I guess Warren Buffet now) pays exactly the same rate on the portion of income in equivalent income strata." and "The only thing treated differently is money....It is truly a shame that seemingly intelligent people have such difficulty grasping this simple concept.". Bull-feathers! I am intelligent enough to know that theft is theft, no matter what you call it and no matter how you rationalize it. There is nothing "fair" about declaring that above a certain amount of money per person, "FROM each according to their ability (to live on what the government allows you to keep of YOUR MONEY THAT YOU WORKED FOR AND EARNED) TO each according to their need (whether those in "need" choose to sit on their behinds rather than seek to improve themselves to EARN more BY WORKING, or not)" as mandated and implemented BY GOVERNMENT is wrong. Voluntarily giving to others is a truly noble thing, while having your money STOLEN BEFORE you ever get it and having it given to others is not noble, it is, quite simply, outright theft. My wife and I contribute to many charities and none of those contributions are based on whether it is a tax break, they are based on whether we believe in the particular cause. You , "DD Wiz", fail to grasp the difference between voluntary giving and "arm-twisting" theft. And that's what I've got to say about that! Regards, Alf.

OBSERVATION wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:01 AM:"President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent American troops to South Vietnam to advise the South Vietnamese military in its war against the South Vietnamese revolutionaries and their North Vietnamese supporters. President John F. Kennedy continued sending advisors to South Vietnam during his administration."

Alf wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:16 AM:The letter from G. Lance Johannsen looks at what he perceives as "wasted" energy of street lights and misses the reason why those lights are there. Yes, much energy could be saved by not having those lights on at night, BUT safety and liability are very real concerns. As to his second suggestion, I agree IF and ONLY IF there is properly timed and placed mass transit. When I went to high school, the nearest school was 5.5 miles away (University City to Clairemont High, there was no U.C.H.S. in the late 60's and very early 70's), sometimes I rode a bicycle, others I rode the bus (had to walk 3/4 mile to the bus stop) and later drove the 62 Pontiac that I rebuilt. Showing off the car was the least of my concerns, getting there on time and not being sweaty were what counted. Regards, Alf.

To: Edgar Towers wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:50 AM:Thank you for your letter. I am still in a slight state of shock that someone would write such harsh words with so much love attached. It is a wonderful feeling to stand up against an injustice, isn't it? We are faced with those decisions everyday. Do we speak up against hatred against homosexuals? Do we speak up against the sexist attitudes of some against women? Do we speak up against the intolerance against the church? Do we speak up against the cruelity being demonstrated against immigrants illegal or legal. What do we do? We take a stand against it like Edgar Towers did all those years ago. Thank you for your letter I hope when people read it they will be inspired to stand up for something good and speak out against it, if only for today!!

OH PLEASE! wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:06 AM:Darrell Beck: He continues to repeat the mantra of rightie conservos. They have been doing it for decades. These people live in fear checking under their bed for the progressive dictater. People like Beck really do believe in the boogy man.

My guess, Mr Sparks wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:22 AM:Letter-writer Sparks asks if the changes that Obama would presumably bring would be good or bad. If only we knew. But I'm pretty sure about one thing. John McCain has promised NO change, and that, I'm positive, would be bad.

The surge is working wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:28 AM:From the NY Times today QUOTE BAGHDAD — A company of Iraqi soldiers abandoned their positions on Tuesday night in Sadr City, defying American soldiers who implored them to hold the line against Shiite militias. The retreat left a crucial stretch of road on the front lines undefended for hours and led to a tense series of exchanges between American soldiers and about 50 Iraqi troops who were fleeing. ENDQUOTE A core problem is that the main reason many are even IN the Iraqi army is a desperation for a job of any kind. When it's time to actually shoot at your cousins, despite the consequences of job-loss, many hit the road. This is what our strategy in Iraq is based on. Bush and McCain want to just give all these folks "all the time they need". If McCain is elected and reelected, we will be having this exact conversation in the run-up to the 2016 election.

El Gordo wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:29 AM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Apr 15, 2008 9:27 PM:
Here is sdraul playing shoulda, woulda and coulda. He uses his personal crystal ball to forecast the past. Three fighters would not have made the difference on that horrible day. In fact, even if the brigade had been successful, it is highly doubtful according to my crystal ball that they would have been able to defeat Castro.

Olaf wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:37 AM:Edgar Towers letter on racism.. does that count Pastor Write also??? Does Obama's Pastor count as holding onto racism or spreading it? I liked Obama until this fiasco. And to his credit he didn't disown his pastor. But alas I fear the damage is done. "White American's" as he says will not vote for a guy who condones racist remarks. Of course now I must be a racist for saying that!

Pluto wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:44 AM: sdraoul keeps trying to let Eisenhower off the hook for Vietnam by saying stuff like (most recently @9:27pm)" Eisenhower sent no troops to Vietnam. He sent 600 unarmed civilian clothed advisors to Vietnam, not combat troops." What's the point? Is this part of some silly "Democrats are worse than Republicans" partisanship? Our "wonderful" government is responsible for that tragic war. Whatever his reason, sdraoul is twisting the truth once again. Eisenhower was President for six years after the French defeat and withdrawal in 1954, and is fully responsibly for the decision to continue the effort to keep Vietnam under colonial (now U.S.) control. Besides advisers, Eisenhower sent money and equipment, and used U.S. political power to maintain the civil war and the corrupt, puppet government in the South. Pulitzer prize winning historian Barbara Tuchman has an excellent chapter on this in her book "The March of Folly". Don't take sdraoul's word for anything.

sdraoul wrote on Apr 16, 2008 9:23 AM:"Cuban Vietnam's" little note suggests I revised history -- without providing any proof.

Were there only 600 unarmed civilian clothed advisors in Vietnam on January 20, 1961, yes or no?

Did JFK order Navy fighters not to help the Cuban Brigade, yes or no?

Did JFK annoint Cardinal Spellman to raise millions of dollars to bail out the Cuban Brigade from Cuban prisons, yes or no?

Did JFK order 18,000 American troops to Vietnam starting in April, 1963 with people from the 25th Infantry Division, yes or no?

My critics are full of hot air unless they can prove me wrong, point by point.

Next they'll be regalling us with hardship stories about how tough Barack Obama found it in Chicago while doing "community organizing" and comparing that to John McCain's 5 years of torture in Hanoi.

Some perspective wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:14 AM:Just to remind us of Bush's judgment, here's Robert Scheer QUOTE In the name of fighting the 9/11 terrorists, the Bush administration overthrew the one Arab government most adamantly opposed to the Saudi financiers of that son of their system, Osama bin Laden. Instead of confronting the royal leaders of a kingdom that supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers, we invaded a nation that supplied not a single one. While Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein, who had no ties to the hijackers, he embraced the leaders of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the only three nations in the world that had diplomatically recognized and supported the Taliban sponsors of al-Qaida. ENDQUOTE John McCain has embraced Bush's agenda and outlook. His advisors are increasingly the same neocons who allowed Chalabi to direct Bush into Iraq. It's been wrongheaded from the start, and the Republican candidate, a man who has publicly admitted (on 60 Minutes) that he was a "war criminal", wants to stay the course. Will Americans be duped again by manipulative flag-waving? It's up to us.

DD Wiz wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:20 AM:The published letter from Darrell Beck demonstrates a failure to grasp the lessons of history and a lack of understanding of political theory.
The absurd claim that policies of FDR "put America on the path to socialism" is the direct opposite of what happened.
Following the tragic economic crash and ensuing Great Depression consequential to failed Republican deregulatory policies, socialism and even overt support of outright communism was rampant in this country, which is why so many people would be caught in the anti-communist hysteria several decades later when the momentum reversed.
And what caused that momentum to reverse? By 1933, it was clear that a deregulatory style of hands-off capitalism was an abject failure, allowing a few to become extremely wealthy while most became poorer. Many saw socialism as the saving alternative to that brand of failed "capitalism."
FDR brought a third alternative. While socialism favors workers over investors, and conservative deregulatory economic anarchy favors investors over workers, FDR envisioned a successful balanced, middle road that incorporated a successful balance recognizing the strengths and necessary contributions of both labor and investment. FDR saw that a return to true Adam Smith-style capitalism -- private entrepreneurial markets operating within a framework of regulatory oversight to protect workers, consumers and the shared infrastructure and environment -- was the balance between those extremes.
Trying to fly an economy on only labor or only capital is like trying to fly an airplane with only one wing. FDR understood that you need both wings, and instituted a system that reversed the Depression-causing failure of deregulation that had driven us into third-world poverty conditions, and transformed it into the greatest economic powerhouse of all time. By providing an overwhelmingly successful alternative to socialism that generated such widespread prosperity across all socioeconomic strata, socialism became completely discredited to the point that, by the time Democrats left office 20 years later, socialism had become a total pariah.
FDR did not put us on the road to socialism; he saved us from it. Liberal policies are not "socialism"; they are the backbone of protecting us from the failures of both right and left extremes.

OBSERVATION wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:27 AM:July 8, 1959 - Two U.S. military advisors, Maj. Dale Buis and Sgt. Chester Ovnand, are killed by Viet Minh guerrillas at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam. They are the first American deaths in the Second Indochina War which Americans will come to know simply as The Vietnam War.

“The U.S. military advisory effort in Vietnam had a modest beginning in September 1950, when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG), Vietnam, was established in Saigon.”

“When Kennedy took office there were only 900 American military advisors in Vietnam. Diem's Army of the Republic of Vietnam .

“1960
By the time Dwight D. Eisenhower leaves office, 675 military advisors are assisting the South Vietnamese. Upon entering the presidency, John F. Kennedy expands U.S. involvement even further, calling Vietnam the "cornerstone of the free world in Southeast Asia."

1960 REDUX wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:36 AM:SDRaoul at 9:23 a.m. shows the frustration (bitterness?) that many McCain supporters seem to feel.
Unable to any reason for supporting their candidate or opposing someone like Obama who is actually running against him, they have to run against JFK, Rev. Wright, the man in the moon, anyone except deal with the candidates who are actually running.
I understand this. I feel sorry for you. Hahahahahahahaha.
In the meantime, Raoul posted some absurd claims with no substantiation.
When this was pointed out, he demanded that someone else disprove what he had not yet proved.
I guess that is how Republican logic works, but that is not real logic.
Once again, Raoul, I'll try to keep this as simple as possible:
If you make the allegation, you provide the proof.
The person who points out that you haven't is not making allegations.
You make it, you prove it. Obviously you can't.
By the way, this is 2008. Not 1960. Not 2004. Want to try and live in the present?

thanks, OBSERVATION wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:38 AM:For continuing to post interesting bits from the past that settle arguments and expose the deluded and the liars. It's inspiring to notice that Kennedy might just as well have said that Vietnam was the central front in the global war on communism. I say inspiring because it reminds me how our politicians have manipulated us to support their wars over and over, using almost identical words. It strengthens my resolve to not be fooled again. I despise terrorist acts and believe that every murderer should be caught and punished. This is a police problem, not a military one. It applies to murderers who strap bombs to children and to people who drop bombs from above on people equally. Murder is wrong if it is not a last resort and not in actual self-defense. I will never support murderers. John McCain told "60 Minutes" that he was a war criminal because he dropped bombs on innocent women and children. What moral person would support this man?

Yokozuna wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:42 AM:Nadine Scott's letter reminds me of an Oscar winner's acceptance comments. Then I found out her group lost. I don't think she needed all that verbiage to address her lack of support for Jack Feller.

Not racism wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:43 AM:Racism, IMHO, is the belief that one race is superior to others. By that definition, Rev Wright is not a racist. He has a well-earned suspicion of the motives and behavior of white people with power. Anyone who lived in the era of Emmit Till and Medgar Evers has earned this suspicion. I applaud Obama for his reasons for rejecting Wright's selected foxnews clips and the reasoning behind them. Even more, I applaud Obama for dedicating himself to our country overcoming the history (even very recent history) that gives rise to such beliefs. But I don't condemn Wright for having come to those beliefs. How could I?

OBAMACAN wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:50 AM:In his letter, Ernest Sparks refers to Obama's calls for "change" as if they occur in a vacuum - as if he did not know what those changes would be.
In fact, I have heard so many people complain that Obama has not been specific on issues.
On the contrary, you can go to his website and there is a tab to click on called "Issues" that provides a drop-down menu of many issues, and there you can read detailed, specific policy proposals.
Honest people can disagree about whether or not they support Obama's proposals, but it is not honest to come right out and say that he has not offered such proposals.

snerd wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:51 AM:How sad it is that all you old Boomers are still wallowing in the miasma that was Vietnam. Who, in all that's holy, cares about this tiny war in a tiny country 40 years ago. It barely has 4 pages in my kids high school history books. We lost. Get over it. We lost in Iraq too. We're just watching the dying spasms play out. Time to move on to more pressing problems. The American public doesn't even want to hear about Iraq, and nobody cares about Vietnam.

Chris wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:01 AM:The point about Vietnam is this. In the 1954 vote in geneva the majority of nations there agreed to have a unification vote for North and South Vietnam. The US voted against it but said that it would not interfere with the vote. So the government of South Vietnam changed and the new one said there would be no vote. The US that continualy lies about everything then supported the South Vietnamese government in it's refusal to allow the vote. So the point is that the US should not have been involved in Vietnam in the first place and if Eisenhower had done the right thing we never would have been involved in Vietnam so Eisenhower can be blamed for the war.

Focal Point wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:09 AM:snerd[-] wrote on Apr 16, 2008 10:51 AM:
The debate today is the accuracy of sdraul blog. But as far as Vietnam is concerned, you can tell your comment to the parents and siblings of over 57,000 dead Americans
who died in that war. That war regulated to a few pages in kid's history book still haunts millions of Americans, pro and con to this day. And, just who the heck are you to make any judgment about the baby boomer generation or Vietnam?

OBSERVATION wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:23 AM:"The U.S. military announced the deaths of two Marines in Al Anbar province, bringing to at least 4,037 the number of U.S. forces killed in Iraq since the start of the war in March 2003"

sdraoul wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:27 AM:Not a single one of my posts has been proven wrong, despite emotional tweaks who claim I make things up.

In attempting to deny my stastements we find someone who pins our efforts in Vietnam to harry truman, not Eisenhower.

Then, not a single one of these tweakers has been able to prove me wrong my statememnts that Kennedy ordered into Vietnam the first combat troops from the 25th Infantry Division in April of 1963.

The tweakers complain about my truth telling but not one of themc an prove me wrong. One posts that there were 675 advisors in Vietnam on January 20, 1961 while I stated 600. Wow, what a discrepancy!

Another complains that Navu fighters wouldn't have made a difference in the Bay of Pigs. baloney, they wiould have carried the day because they would have stopped Castro's tanks and air cover. Morever, the critics says even if they had carried the day there might not have been a general uprising. We'll never know.

So far no one has disproven my statements. Nor will they because they can't.

Alf wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:28 AM:While essentially true, "snerd" at 10:51AM, you are cynical to the max. I do dispute your "The American public doesn't even want to hear about Iraq, and nobody cares about Vietnam." statement. I am sick of hearing the war-mongering idiots attempt to rationalize our continued presence in Iraq and want to hear that we have extricated ourselves from the stupid quagmire called Iraq AND I do care about the Vietnam War for many reasons, among them because many people, myself included, saw the parallels before this "Shock and Awe" and "WMD" mule fritters and recognized the lies, the exaggerations, the stupidity and where it was heading and did not like it at all. "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it" are wise words. I would paraphrase that and say - Those who refuse to learn from the past are fools, those who repeat past mistakes are damned fools. Regards, Alf.

Randy wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:28 AM:Jo Anne Jones, the Federal Government REQUIRES Federal employees to use Federally-mandated credit cards for government travel. My program's training center is located in Columbia, South Carolina. When I am required to report there for training, my plane tickets and hotel costs must be paid for by the government credit card to ensure that I will be reimbursed by the government.

Granny wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:32 AM:I am so thankful Nadine brought all the neighborhoods together. It showed us what we already knew: the majority on the Council, including Jack, votes against neighborhoods. And last time I checked one should always thank the efforts of others. Maybe Yokozuna should try that sometime. Miss Manners says so.

To Olaf @ 8:37AM wrote on Apr 16, 2008 11:57 AM:Typical, Obama stand, "All white folk are the same." I am only 50 years old and more tan than white but never the less, I sure don't remember forcing anyone on to a boat for America, Or keep anyone from the front seat of a bus, But the way white people are treated in this generation half the time you would think we all did. What came first? It's the Chicken and egg thing I guess! and will go on forever, So SAD. See if this goes to print.

OBSERVATION wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:36 PM:On March 8, 1965, 3500 United States Marines were dispatched to South Vietnam. This marked the beginning of the American ground war. ...
25TH Division
In response to a request from the U.S. Military Assistance Command in Vietnam, the Division sent 100 helicopter door-gunners to the Republic of South Vietnam in early 1963. By August 1965, further Division involvement in the coming Vietnam Conflict included the deployment of Company C, 65th Engineer Battalion, to South Vietnam to assist in the construction of port facilities at Cam Ranh Bay.

Focal Point wrote on Apr 16, 2008 12:37 PM: "All white folk are the same." attributed to Obama by to Olaf 11:57 am. Thanks for the quote. Now, please tell us where you obtained it in order for documentation.

Yokozuna to Granny wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:04 PM:I was commenting on the format of the letter in total. Actually, I have as little respect for Jack Feller as I do Nadine Scott. As far as thanking others... my allowing them to please me is usually thanks enough for them. :-) I will thank you, though, to lighten up. Spend more time with your grandkids. Much more satisfying than getting involved in the Oceanside circus.

Reardon wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:11 PM:Alf: Your 7:00 a.m. post is right on. Our nation was founded on the concept of liberty for the individual. (The Founders knew that slavery was morally wrong, but they lived in a world culture where it was the norm.) The Founders left slavery for another day, but gave power to “landowners” – those with as much to lose in voting as they had to gain.

The nation has subsequently “fixed” the African slavery problem, then promptly introduced two more ingenious invasive aspects of personal slavery – progressive income tax, and compulsory education.

(Lincoln introduced a third, the Draft, but we have subsequently trashed it, fortunately.)

The very term for forced slavery – Compulsory Education – should gag every lover of liberty, but just as enslaving Blacks was so widely accepted as the “norm” – no one thinks about the morality of it.

The progressive income tax causes its supporters to employ convoluted rationalizations such as DD does in his reply – but the wealthy are as deserving of their economic liberty as are the poor. The worst part of the progressive income tax is not even its confiscation of wealth, it is the fact that the poor are left without any ownership in the problems everyone participates in, since they do not pay for any of the solutions.

You were right to quote the “from each…to each.” Many surveys taken have shown that is a well-supported phrase when the person surveyed knows not for whom it came. At the other extreme is Thomas Jefferson’s remark in his First Innagural Address: “…"...a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government..."

Personally I prefer Jefferson to Marx. Others on thos Blog do not.

Concerned-1 wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:16 PM:I'm a boomer, first class, and I care a lot about the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam. My sentiments are aligned with Alf in regards to history and repetition; however, I'm still vacillating on how we should end it in Iraq. I'm for an improved and simplified tax system. I'm for free market capitalism with oversight. I'm green, but not green in the gills. Most of all, I'm damn worried about the economy and where all this is going on a global scale. I'm the Concerned-1.

another try to snerd wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:41 PM:If only people could get over Nam. But the right wing won't. The humiliation of losing was (and is) unbearable to them. They still complain about how liberals lost that war. But as a result, they keep fighting that war in other things that they see before them now. When Iraq goes badly, they say it's the fault of liberals who are tying the hands of the military, even though liberals have had approximately zero say in the Iraq adventure. McCain is the flag-bearer for these people, and he rallies them by saying "we will never surrender". Um, John, who is there to surrender TO? Who is the enemy in Iraq, John? The old slogans don't even make sense, but they will be trotted out in yet another feeble and desperate attempt by a generation of shamed people to win their macho back. Their bruised egos are one of the greatest menaces to the nation, because they will not face current realities. We must take utmost care not to follow them into yet more senseless military actions.

snerd wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:45 PM:The point I was making is that all the Boomers here seem to do is quibble over who started a war that now no one cares about. The grand lesson of the war seems to be don't get into foreign entanglements unless you understand the indigenous population and unless you have a clear way to extracate yourself. Lessons that the Boomers in charge seem to have not learned. So Alf, you're right about history repeating itself and Focal Point, the Vietnam war is so long ago that the parents of the 57000 who died there are dead themselves.

get out the little violins wrote on Apr 16, 2008 1:45 PM:Please tell us, "to Olaf" how terribly white people have been treated in this generation. Puh-lease, I should say. When you were small, in the late 50's and early 60's, did your family members march in Selma? Did they take active, public stands against discrimination? Did they oppose those who made laws banning black people from an education or a place on the bus or the vote? If not, then they were, in fact, condoners of those practices. It's not a chicken and egg issue at all. We know perfectly well what came first. If you want to claim your own innocence, do so with action devoted to fighting discrimination in all its forms.

Focal Point wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:08 PM:snerd: They maybe in their 80's. Being in your 80's does not make you dead. My parents are still alive to remember my brother as well as my own service. What I do not like is your caviler attitude to consign this war to the historical garbage dump. If you have a point in the future, I suggest that you state your point and do not leave up to the reader's interpretation.

Apollo wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:26 PM:Re: SDRaoul (11:27 a.m.)
Raoul continues his tired old broken record that he can say whatever he wants and it's up to others to prove him wrong.
No, Raoul, it doesn't work that way.
If you say the moon is made of green cheese, you prove it. It isn't someone else's job to try to prove a negative.
And contrary to your defensive denials, you have been repeatedly caught making factual errors. Just yesterday you jumped all over bloggers for calling Obama a Constitutional Law professor and then, within minutes, several bloggers jumped in to cite the University of Chicago Law School's own website proving he was, and you have been caught many times with factual errors about Vietnam and other historical blunders. Either your "research" is extremely sloppy or you are guessing off the top of your head or, worse yet, you are deliberately deceptive. I don't know which it is - all I know is you have been repeatedly wrong.
No matter how many times you stick your head ostrich-like into the sorry sands of denial, the fact is you have been repeatedly proved wrong on many points, and you have never accepted the responsibility for backing up your "research" with the slightest bit of documentation.

To .....little violins wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:29 PM:I was raised with three sisters and a mother, My dad split when I was 2 or 3. I remember when I was about 4 or 5 a black family moved in next door, It was the first time I had seen black folks in our neighborhood in the early 60's. I was not old enough to know what my Mother went through with neighborhood gossip or whatever. But YES, Our two families were good friends, I remember playing and dinners all the time back and forth. We moved away when I was about 10 or so and I never thought about color or race until I got older and was told by black folks Me and my kind were the cause of all there proplems. That's all I was trying to say, So Take it However, I'm getting to old to keep apologizing and jumping hoops for something I had no part of. NCT,Please print this.

little violins wrote on Apr 16, 2008 2:47 PM:Two quick comments: first, if you did nothing to fight discrimination, then you lent your passive ok to it; second, I still don't hear how terribly you as a white person have been treated. The most you can say is that some people blame you for their problems. As a liberal, I know exactly what you must feel.

Interesting good news for Obama wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:05 PM:Did you all see that Bruce Springsteen has endorsed Obama? I wonder how the old boss' endorsement plays with regular white America. There was a time when this would've been gold to a candidate. Don't know now. What do you think?

2 Challenges for Reardon wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:37 PM:1) can you demonstrate that slavery was the norm in the world of nations in the 1770's? 2) can you defend comparing compulsory education or the income tax to actual, real slavery? I gotta tell you: a whole lot of people would find that comparison pretty insulting. In effect, you're saying that if anyone tells you you have to do something, that's the same as slavery? ANY impingement on your total freedom = slavery? Please think about this and retract it.

snerd wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:42 PM:I didn't consign the Vietnam war to the historical garbage dump...time has done that. There are a few of you still holding on to the memories and evidently fighting about the smallest detail, but for everyone younger than 50 it's like some old vet fighting about who war right at the battle of Cold Harbor. I was trying to make the point that while all you guys are arguing over the details, you all seemed to have missed the most cogent point..Don't get involved in foreign wars without knowing exactly who you were fighting, exactly why you were fighting them, and exactly how you wanted the war to end. The Boomers running the government missed out on all those points in Iraq.

snerd wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:46 PM:Reardon, I totally agree with you and Alf. I think the government has no right to take part of my salary to pay for outrageous military pensions to those who were never in combat. I think we should make those who attend the military academies (middle of the road educational establishments) should have to pay for their education, just like the rest of us. I'm glad you guys see it my way and I don't understand why more people don't.

Slavery wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:54 PM:Nations began abolishing slavery in the 12th - 14th C (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland) and by Lithuania and Japan in the 16th C. Russia banned slavery in 1723, Portugal in 1761, Scotland in 1778, and by the early 1800s more and more of the remaining nations did so. Interestingly, the US was just about last in line, and fought a war to do so. This is yet another case of Americans tending to gloss their own history. OK, slavery was not altogether abnormal in 1776, but there were many nations that had modeled its abolition for us if we'd wanted to abolish it. Even worse, how do you give the US a moral pass when it was among the LAST to give it up, and only kicking and screaming? The fact is that "liberty" for people was intended by the founders to be meant only for CERTAIN people, people that the leaders CONSIDERED people. Not Africans. Not women. And we still haven't "fixed" it with respect to homosexual people. Yet nothing really stops us from taking an absolutist stance on this except our own desires to deny equality to some people. I get SO tired of people pretending that America always should be let off the hook for any immorality it has ever demonstrated.

WWJD? wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:07 PM:In the modern era, if parents chose to deny their kids education, would Jefferson say that was harming the children? Just curious. Of course, during the time of Jefferson, beating kids mercilessly (and beating and killing slaves) was not thought of as harming anyone, so perhaps we don't want TJ as our exact role model. The founders were not religious figures, coming down from the mountaintop to give Americans the word of God. In the time since, we have discovered a whole, whole lot of things that are improvements over the way they themselves interpreted the constitution, and I don't mean only the amendments. I'm thinking of things like rape, child abuse, and many other things that were "normal" for them and utterly unacceptable to at least most of us.

J. Webster wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:08 PM:A note to Nadeen Scott: If you think you represent all Oceanside residents in your rants against Robertson's cement plant, you are wrong. Want to find out for sure? Run for a seat on the Council.

To: little violins @2:47PM wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:08 PM:I'm not quite sure I buy into your first comment, but I think I understand why you said it, Regarding your seconed comment, You asked, so I'll give you just one example of countless over my life time anyway. In my early 20's I was staying over night in a new town while driving out to Ca. After checking in a room I went to get a beer at a tavern down the street, I walked inside not thinking anything and set down, Well long story short, 5 black men came up behind me before I even ordered my drink and gave me a choice #1 Walk out on my own and keep going or #2 Go by ambulance. It was a "black only" bar and "tanish white" was not dark enough. Granted, Black folks do get treated poorly, more often, I'll be the first to agree, And I'm not talking about the evil KKK B.S. Thats a whole other topic, I'm Just talking about daily life, But both black and white go through it every day. I guess it's true what they say about "The sins of the fathers" being passed down from generation to generation. Who knows, Mayby the next generation will do better.

DD Wiz wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:10 PM:The posts from "Alf" (7:00am) and "Reardon" (1:11pm) fail to grasp the essence of American liberty.
They both misrepresnet my position accusing me of denying the wealthy economic freedom when I said nothing that any reasonable person could construe in that way.
For "Alf" to equate taxation with theft is absurd. This is the price of living in a community that affords many privileges and opportunities and freedoms, and to secure these, government is necessary and must be paid for. And to say it is not "voluntary giving" is to reject acceptance of the social contract in a system where taxation is by elected representation. In other words, if you don't feel obligated to pay legal taxes imposed by elected representation (as part of the social contract), then leave and go somewhere you think is better than this great country.
Likewise, as noted in the post by "2 Challenges for Reardon" (3:37pm), for "Reardon" to equate slavery with education and taxation by elected respresentation is equally silly. He notes Jefferson's quote about taking from labor the bread it has earned -- this means respecting labor as much as investment, exactly what I said.
I agree that Jefferson is one of the greatest presidents and, as I stated, I reject Marx entirely. I also reject economic anarchy of deregulation and all schemes that deny equal protection for workers, i.e., that would take the bread from their mouths.

Reardon wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:32 PM:To 2 Challenges: California ranks 48th in the federal National Report Card. I now understand.

Sex slavery is the norm throughout the world today – and documented right here in North County – and sex and non-sex slavery is common throughout the African Continent. That is TODAY. RIGHT NOW!

Tens of thousands of Chinese women are sold into sex slavery yearly. TODAY. Korean “Comfort Women” – thousands of them, were enslaved by Japanese Army troops in WWII.

If you Google “The Struggle to End Slavery” it will take you to an on-line timeline at Durham University.

In 1444 Portugal built a slave-trading post on the Gold Coast. In 1510, the first African slaves arrived in Spain for trans-shipment. (In those days, Portugal and Spain ruled the trade of the world.) In 1562, John Hawkins (a cousin of Sir Francis Drake) began the British slave trade and subsequently was granted permission by the Queen to use a brutish Navy Ship. In 1619 the Dutch joined in. By 1780 the slave trade was peaking, with a slave ship leaving just Britain every other day!

In 1830 Britain abolished slavery in the British Colonies, and gave 20 million pounds to the West Indies plantation owners. In 1848 France abolished slavery. In 1858 slavery was abolished in Portuguese colonies throughout the world. In 1861 slavery was abolished in the Dutch Colonies in the Caribbean. In 1865, slavery was abolished in the U.S. In 1865, Cuba abolished slavery. In 1888, slavery was abolished in Brazil.

And, yes, when the government tells anyone where they must be, what they must eat, where they must sit, when they may play, what they must read , when they can go to the bathroom, and what they must wear – by ANY definition, they are enslaved.

And, I do not wish to retract my statement. Perhaps you can find sufficient lipstick to put on my previous paragraph but it will still be a lipsticked pig.

Amusing footnote to slavery wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:35 PM:In 1948 the UN Charter abolished slavery. Some nations were slow to join the world in this feature. The last to go were the Arab states, and among these, the last were our allies:
1952 Qatar abolishes slavery
1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962 Yemen abolishes slavery
1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1970 Oman abolishes slavery (Iraq and Iran had done so not too long prior to the UN.) Gee, kicking and screaming, just like us!

Reardon wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:46 PM:SNERD: I was an enlisted man and served in combat in Korea, and again as an officer (Agent Orange disability) in Vietnam, so I assume you were not referring to me.

As to the service academies – while it is not true at West Point, at Annapolis a Midshipman is a member of the Armed Forces in every respect – holds a rank, rates a salute, shops in commissaries and exchanges, subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, gets a salary, and must buy his own uniforms, etc.

He/she almost always graduates in debt to the government many thousands of dollars and has a required 4 or 5 years of service before him/her.

As to the middle of the road education, I do not have more recent data but in 2006 Annapolis provided more Rhodes Scholars (4) than Yale (3) or Harvard (2) – and this from a population smaller than the population of the Rancho Bernardo Junior/Senior High School campus. (Fields a decent football team also for a tiny group of people!)

Please avoid being near children. Ignorance can be contagious.

Alf wrote on Apr 16, 2008 4:47 PM:For those who do not know the origin of the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", I offer from Wikipedia - The entire quote from Karl Marx is - "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! " Also from Wikipedia - "Although Marx is popularly thought of as the author of the phrase, it has been widely speculated that he merely co-opted a term earlier used by other leaders of the communist movement." Regards, Alf.

Focal Point wrote on Apr 16, 2008 5:14 PM:snerd[-] wrote on Apr 16, 2008 3:42 PM:
The people running the government are rightie consrvos that happen to fall into the baby boomer age group. Their policies are not due to their demographic but due to their ideology. Time has not regulated the history of the Vietnam War to the garbage dump. I again state emphatically that I object to your caviler attitude in consigning it to the garbage dump. If you are under 50, do not want to participate on this subject matter, then do not read or comment on the blogs. But, the real issue was not even the Vietnam War. The real issue was and is calling sdraul on his misrepresentations, half truths, lies and distortion of the record.

OH PLEASE! wrote on Apr 16, 2008 5:37 PM:RESEARH SDRAOUL: Well. It seems that sdraoul has been busy stirring up another hornet nest today on our blog. This blog is not the only one. It seems that our favorite provocateur and know it all blogs on about 6 different blogs on the same subjects here.
Likewise, sdraoul has irritated the member of other blogs. Historically speaking, one blog master suspended him for a short time. So what is my point? It is a free blog. You can continue to answer him all you want. But, please realize that it is all a game for him in his deluded mind. It is his entertainment. In my opinion, you are being used.

sdraoul wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:12 PM:Apollo, you are nuts. I declared that Obama wasn't a constitutional scholar that requires one to have researched and written peer reviewed articles and books ont eh subject, which Obama hasn't done.

I then challenged the word "professor" and someone posted the very words from the U. of Chicago that stated clearly that he was not a "professor" that he was a senior lecturer. There is a difference. I am right.

As far as your other statements, you have to specify my mistakes, not just general Obama-like statements that you do not prove.

Observer proves my point about 25th Infantry soldiers being sent to Vietnam as "combat" soldiers -- helicopter machine gunners in April 1963. I'm right again.

Chris--Eisenhower refused France's request for troops in 1954. It was Kennedy whos ent troops over and above advisors. Of course, we were obligated by the SEATO Treaty to go.

In a word, I say whatever I can prove with few exceptions.

Reardon wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:19 PM:To 2 Challenges: I just found the estimate Chinese and Korean “Comfort Women” ENSLAVED by the Japanese during WWII. 200,000 women, who were part of more than 200 camps.

That estimate of 200,000 approximates the number of African slaves brought to Mexico. There was an interesting article in the Houston Chronicle about how Mexico completely ignores that part of its history, and police apparently make Blacks sing the Mexican National Anthem when stopped, because “Mexico has no Blacks.” In the largest of the all-Black cities, Cuajinicuilapa, a city of 8,000, they even have a museum dedicated to their African heritage, the Museo de las Culturas Afromestizas.

But actually, slavery was common in America before Africans were enslaved. Warring Indian tribes routinely enslaved members of other tribes, and slavery was the norm on this continent before the arrival of Europeans in the Incas, Mayan, Inuit, and Aztecs.

By the way, did you know that the New York City Port was the biggest recipient of slave ships and slaves? (Smithsonian Magazine.)

Alf wrote on Apr 16, 2008 6:39 PM:No, "DD Wiz" at 4:10PM, I do not equate taxation with theft, per se. I equate PROGRESSIVE taxation with THEFT! See my 4:47PM post. Regards, Alf.

El Guero wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:50 PM:I see more and more readers are coming to realize that sdraoul is never wrong. It's foollish to challenge him about anything because he's always right, no matter how absurd his claims appear (and can be proven) to be. I remember one of his delusional claims on this blog from last year that had me rolling on the floor. To prove Mexico's long history of friendship and support for the United States he recalled that "Mexicans fought alongside Americans in World War II." On which beach, I wondered, did that happen. Utah? Omaha? Cancun?

I notice that Pope Benedict is visiting the U.S. for a few days. He might be interested in hearing about raoul's miraculous powers of historical invention. Maybe they could even earn him a sainthood. Saint raoul. I'll bet he'd like that.

Reardon, you confuse me wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:57 PM:You said that slavery was the norm. Now all you are doing is showing that it exists. Do you honestly believe that slavery is the norm today? I'm happy to admit when I don't understand something, and I don't understand the point of your posts on slavery. Please explain. And I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree about compulsory education and taxes being equal to slavery. Seems like a strange and strained comparison to me, sorry. If by some act of magic you could stand face to face with someone who was literally a slave in 1850 Georgia, would you say to him, "I'm in the same boat you are, my friend...I pay taxes."?

Is she serious? wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:05 PM:I see that Hillary is saying that Obama is vulnerable in the general election. I mean, that is certainly true (psst: he's black!), but, like, Hillary isn't? Can she say this with a straight face? It's like her 3 AM ad...a good line, but who is it for? Did she think people would favor her over McCain at 3 AM? Did she think that people would think of her as invulnerable in a general election? A desperate candidate, my friends...

Focal Point wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:28 PM:El Guero[-] wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:50 PM:
There was one Mexican squadron attached to the US Army Air Corps who saw action in the Philippines. I do not know of any substantial land forces that participated in the war.

Reardon wrote on Apr 16, 2008 8:44 PM:To Confused: I regret that you are so easily confused, but slavery was the norm throughout the world in 1788, because the most powerful nations of the world (at that time) participated in it. (Dutch, Portugal, France, Britain, Spain and the Unite