• FM1c Samuel W. Crowder, US Navy, assigned to the crew of the USS Oklahoma, was lost at Pearl Harbor, HI, on 7 December 1941. He was accounted for on 30 August 2017.
• FM1c Elmer D. Nail, US Navy, assigned to the crew of the USS Oklahoma, was lost at Pearl Harbor, HI, on 7 December 1941. He was accounted for on 31 August 2017.
• Pvt. Vernon P. Keaton, US Marine Corps, assigned to the USS Oklahoma, was lost at Pearl Harbor, HI, on 7 December 1941. He was accounted for on 24 August 2017.
• PVT Raymond Sinowitz, 454th Ordnance Company, 27th Bombardment Group, Far East Air Force, US Army, was lost in the Philippines on 26 September 1942. He was accounted for on 24 August 2017.
From Korea
• HC1 William G. Payne, US Navy, assigned to the 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, USMC, was lost in North Korea on 1 December 1950. He was accounted for on 25 August 2017.
From Southeast Asia
• CMSgt Donald J. Hall, Detachment 5, 38th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron, US Air Force, was lost in Vietnam on 6 February 1967. He was accounted for on 25 August 2017.
Welcome back, elder brothers-in-arms. Our apologies that your return took so long.
Rest in peace. You’re home now.
. . .
Over 73,000 US personnel remain unaccounted for from World War II; over 7,800 US personnel remain unaccounted for from the Korean War; and over 1,600 remain unaccounted for in Southeast Asia (SEA). Comparison of DNA from recovered remains against DNA from some (but not all) blood relatives can assist in making a positive ID for unidentified remains that have already been recovered, or which may be recovered in the future.
On their web site’s “Contact Us” page, DPAA now has FAQs. The answer to one of those FAQs describes who can and cannot submit DNA samples useful in identifying recovered remains. The chart giving the answer can be viewed here. The text associated with the chart is short and can be viewed in DPAA’s FAQs.
If your family lost someone in one of these conflicts and you qualify to submit a DNA sample, please arrange to submit one. By doing that you just might help identify the remains of a US service member who’s been repatriated but not yet been identified – as well as a relative of yours, however distant. Or you may help to identify remains to be recovered in the future.
Everybody deserves a proper burial. That’s especially true for those who gave their all while serving this nation.
(Author’s Note: While Jonn published an article announcing the recovery of SSG William Turner’s remains some time ago, as of 6 September 2017 DPAA had yet to formally announce his accounting. The other individuals listed above were not announced by DPAA as having been accounted for until on or after 5 September 2017.)
One of our frequent commenters made a comment the other day that caught my attention. I felt compelled to respond.
Why? Because that comment reached a new low, even for “That Guy”, in terms of fallacious argument. So I thought I’d point out to the individual the error of his argument, just in case he might possibly learn something from the correction. Based on past experience, I rather doubt he will; but you never know.
The comment in question can be found here. It purports to show, by giving examples of their behavior, that “of course the Nazis were right-wing” (or words to that effect).
Now, people who are even passingly familiar with logic probably already see the problem with that argument. Since That Guy often seems to have a problem grasping simple concepts, I’ll spell things out for his benefit.
The major fallacy in that argument is that it assumes that a particular behavior by government is reliably indicative of whether that government is “right wing” or “left wing.” That is, “If a government does a certain thing (‘X’), then it is a ‘right wing’ government.” If that assumption is incorrect, the argument falls apart completely.
Unfortunately, that assumption is not universally true. Given similar circumstances both “right wing” and “left wing” governments often behave similarly. Therefore, any argument that “because a government did “X”, it is therefore “right wing” (or “left wing”) is invalid – because here the “if” doesn’t invariably lead to the “then”.
In order to demonstrate just how asinine this particular false argument really is, I’m going to have a bit of fun. Below, I’m going to use literally the individual’s own bogus argument to “prove” that the government of the Soviet Union was “right wing”. I’ll do so by making minor revisions to the individual’s comment – which will be presented in italics – but I’ll leave the original logical structure, and most of it’s original language, completely intact.
Enjoy.
(Note: the grammatical errors and awkward/incomplete sentence structure in what follows are present in the original; I left them in place because I wanted to make as few changes as possible to the original. I’ve marked many of those errors carried over from the original appropriately, but I won’t guarantee I got them all.)
. . .
[BEGIN RE-WRITTEN ARGUMENT]
So lets (sic) look that (sic) the characteristic (sic) of SOVIET SOCIALISM based on what THEY ACTUALLY DID. Not merely the rhetoric of speeches made during the decades after they rose to power. (sic)
Powerful and Continuing Socialist Symbology: They used symbols of Soviet Socialist unity everywhere. Flags, slogans, songs, pins, banners, and other regalia. (sic)
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: The Soviets approval (sic) the use of torture, and summary executions of prisoners. Their disdain for human rights was particularly true when targeting political dissidents or ethnic minorities desiring autonomy.
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The Soviets were notorious for blaming foreign influence, capitalists, and “reactionary elements” for the problems in the nation.
Supremacy of the Military: The Soviet military was given a disproportionate amount of government funding. Soldiers and military service were glamorized.
(Sidebar: there’s a very good reason the Soviet Union during the Cold War was on occasion referred to as “Upper Volta with Missiles”. Outside the larger cities, the infrastructure and civilian economy of the Soviet Union reputedly was closer to third-world than first-world standards during much of the Cold War. The reason? An absurdly huge fraction of the Soviet Union’s economic production was going towards the nation’s military.)
Rampant Sexism: Soviet Leadership was almost exclusively male-dominated (one member four members in Politburo history were female). While either gender was in theory free to “be all they could be”, in practice traditional gender roles remained traditional and largely unchanged. Rampant homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. (sic)
Obsession with National Security: The Soviet government’s use of fear and the constant rhetoric of threats post (sic) domestic and international as a motivational tool by the Soviet government over the masses was ubiquitous.
Religion and Government were Intertwined: The Bolshevik leadership was overwhelmingly Atheist and when they took power the (sic) persecuted Orthodox Christians and Muslims. Lenin, Stalin, and later Soviet leaders attempted to substitute State Atheism as a de facto state religion and unifying force. That failed, but notions of a unified and pure Atheist Soviet Socialist State obsessed Soviet leadership. They thought religion was a corrupting and dividing influence on the purity and strength of Soviet Socialism and it (sic) needed to be replaced for the good of Soviet Socialism. Their long game was a ubiquitous state-sponsored Atheism that would replace religion and become a source of unity in the country rather than one of division.
Labor Power was Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor (particularly independent worker movements) was a threat to Socialist government, in the Soviet Union labor unions were either eliminated, co-opted, or controlled by the Soviet government.
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: In the Soviet Union, free expression in the arts was openly attacked. Intellectuals and artists were targeted and jailed.
Obsession with Crime and Punishment: In the Soviet Union, police and other internal security personnel were given almost limitless power to enforce laws – and if necessary, to act completely outside them. Physical abuse and violence by police and other government security agents was overlooked because it was very unwise to criticize the government because it was regarded as taking the side of “reactionary elements”. (awkward, run-on sentence structure from original)
It is clear that in actual ACTIONS that SOVIET SOCIALISM was a RIGHT WING movement.
[END RE-WRITTEN ARGUMENT]
. . .
Astute readers will note one omission in the above. The paragraph in the original comment beginning, “Corporate Power is Protected: . . . .” is not addressed.
That was by design. I didn’t address that paragraph because it was absurd on its face. “Central control via a combination of coercion, intimidation, appropriation, and regulation” is decidedly not the same as a “partnership”.
A cursory review the 1931 National Socialist Program – particularly points 11-17 – clearly shows that the Nazis envisioned government control over the means of production if and when they gained political control. After they attained power, they took action to achieve this. They were so successful that none other than Albert Speer himselfopined that “a kind of state socialism seemed to be gaining more and more ground”, and further warned that Germany’s industry was becoming “the framework for a state-socialist economic order.” In short: the Nazis were actively working to gain central control of Germany’s means of economic production – and were succeeding.
Oh, and starting in 1936 the Nazis also instituted “Four Year Plans” for the German economy. Sound familiar? It should – and it also sounds to me as if they were trying to “one-up” the Soviet Union’s well-known Five Year Plans.
Bottom line: that paragraph in the original comment was so absurd on its face that IMO it was already a parody of historical reality. So I didn’t bother to even attempt to re-write it as parody.
. . .
As I said above, I hope most readers have enjoyed this article. Or, if you’re a leftist tool who doesn’t like looking like an idiot . . . maybe you’ll take it’s lesson to heart, learn to think – and use logical reasoning – before you wax ignorant once again. But I’m not holding my breath.
Especially if you’re going to imply, inaccurately, that I’m lying the next time you wax ignorant, clown. For that bit of mendacity, let me pass along to you a message from TG – which I heartily endorse.
Let me know if you need that translated.
(Author’s Note: Edited to account a minor factual error in the original article. Later research showed that three women besides Yekaterina Furtseva had briefly been members of the Soviet Politburo/Central Committee – one during the immediate post-Revolutionary period, and two others near the end of Gorbachev’s regime.)
Here are two quotes. They’re both from the same individual. Before I tell you who, take a guess.
Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income.
We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions
So, who did you guess? Lenin? Marx? Eugene Debs? Some other famous Socialist or Communist figure from history?
Well, they are indeed direct quotations from a Socialist historical figure. But he’s not one that usually comes to mind.
The speaker in each of the above was none other than . . . Adolph Hitler. The quotes above are historically verified, and they show insight into just how Hitler viewed himself: as a Socialist, with a mission to implement his concept of Socialism in his society. His views concerning the desirability of Socialism were essentially the same as those of Lenin and Stalin, as were his methods. Even his economic policies were broadly similar.
Not convinced? Here are a few more verified historical quotes from Hitler regarding his views on how his movement (the Nazi party) embraced Socialism. I’ve added a bit of emphasis here and there.
We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.
After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.
For we [National Socialists] too are considered ‘upstarts’ and ‘leftists’ by those same reactionaries. They are only too eager to apply such terms as ‘enemies of the fatherland,’ ‘Bolsheviks,’ and ‘inferiors.’”
Since we are socialists, we must necessarily also be antisemites because we want to fight against the very opposite: materialism and mammonism . . . . How can you not be an antisemite, being a socialist! (bold emphasis present in source)
However, Hitler’s version of Socialism was different from that of the Soviets in one key respect. Hitler viewed the implementation of Socialism as most properly being an internal national matter. He rejected internationalist ventures (except for conquest, of course; like the Soviet Union, he wanted to expand his empire). Lenin and Stalin had the opposite viewpoint. Plus, Hitler appears to have been more extremely racist – as well as closer to being absolutely full-blown bat-sh!t crazy – than either Lenin or Stalin.
So, whenever someone trots out the claim that Nazis were “not Socialists” or were “a creation of the Right”, show them the above quotations from Hitler and ask them to explain them. And if their heads don’t immediately explode and they instead begin to splutter incoherently or spout inane leftist apologia, just smile – and walk away.
The claim that National Socialists were “not Socialists” and “were a creation of the Right”, in plain language, is bullsh!t. The Nazis were simply yet another band of authoritarian Socialists who managed to attain political power. Along with extreme nationalism, the Nazi movement had Socialist (as well as racist) principles as its core beliefs.
Nazi economic policies were Socialist in nature and were and centrally-directed. Their police-state methods were effectively the same as those used by the Soviet Union during the Great Terror. Ditto their suppression of ethnic minorities and political “undesirables”, as well as their use of mass imprisonment and mass murder. And they created one of the most repressive – and murderous – authoritarian Socialist police states in human history.
Bottom line: the Nazis saw themselves as a Socialists. Their founder openly admitted it. Their policies. tactics, and methods were similar to – or the same as – those used by other authoritarian Socialist regimes. Both the Nazis and Soviet Communists sought world domination under Socialist rule. The only essential difference between them was who would rule the resulting Socialist world each sought to create.
Author’s Note: For convenience, the above quotes were taken from WikiQuote. However, authoritative primary sources for each quotation are cited there and can be used for verification of the quotes. Feel free to do so if you like.
And spare me any leftist apologia explanations that “those quotes don’t really mean what they say”. Hitler’s words above speak for themselves quite clearly. He was indeed a Socialist – of a particularly evil, authoritarian, and racist bent.
For your answer . . . look no further than Berkeley, California, this past Sunday.
Now IMO, it’s kinda hard to get much farther left than the self-styled “Antifa” without joining the CPUSA. So I’ll take what they do as indicative of the true agenda of the far left.
In Berkeley on Sunday, a peaceful protest by a group of conservatives was assaulted by a group of hooded, masked leftist thugs from the self-styled “Antifa” group. Five were injured.
During the melee, some of those masked leftist thugs were heard to shout: “Take his camera, take his phone” on seeing a journalist in the crowd. Decide for yourself why a bunch of masked leftist hoodlums might not want anyone taking photos or videos of what they were doing – and why they were wearing masks in the first place.
So where were the police, you might ask? Well, it seems that the police stood down instead of confronting those leftist hooligans – again. Berkeley’s police chief claimed that was a “strategic decision” made to “avoid more violence”. He said that there was “no need for a confrontation over a grass patch.”
Hmm. Sounds more to me like a police department that is simply afraid to do its damn job of keeping the peace – or was perhaps ordered not to. In either case, IMO it amounted to de facto local government support for Antifa’s unlawful mob violence.
But that’s just me. YMMV.
Oh, did I mention that San Francisco’s mayor has publicly sided with those leftist “Antifa” goons? Well, that’s what I’d call it. He’s been reported to have called this example of blatant intimidation through violent action a “victory” over a group “inviting hate” – the latter referring to the peaceful conservative group protesting, not the leftist “Antifa” hoodlums that violently assaulted them.
Apparently for SF Mayor Ed Lee, free speech means “acts of mob violence committed against political enemies by those he supports, while local government stands by and does little or nothing to stop it”. You know, exactly the same thing some Jim Crow governments in the Deep South did during the Civil Rights Era.
For some reason, when I hear about stuff like this – violence against a group the local authorities don’t like, designed to intimidate, while those same local authorities turn a blind eye to that violence and tacitly assist same – another term also comes to mind. So does a name.
Now, what was that term, and that name? Wait a minute, maybe they’ll come to me . . . .
Oh, yeah – right. I believe I remember the word and name now.
The word I was trying to remember was “Kristallnacht”. The name? “Medgar Evers.”
“Antifa” is so named because they claim to be “anti-fascist”.
“Anti-fascist”? What a crock.
“Antifa’s” tactics (violent intimidation of political enemies) are no different than those used decades ago by the SA or the Klan. And in some places, they seem to have the same kind of political “top cover”.
They just haven’t gone as far as either the SA or the Klan. Yet.
“Anti-fascist” my ass. “SSDD” is more like it.
For the record: the Klan and other far-right idiots are no better than Antifa; historically, some of those moronic groups have been even worse. But it wasn’t a bunch of far-right thugs that attempted to silence peaceful protest at Berkeley two days ago.
For last week’s eclipse, proper eye protection was a must. Well, it was a must if you wanted to see normally afterwards. Staring directly at the sun without eye protection for just a few seconds can cause retinal damage, even during a partial solar eclipse.
Still: despite the public warnings not to look at the eclipse without proper eye protection – or due to counterfeit merchandise – some “fine individuals” just didn’t acquire proper eye protection beforehand. So a few such enterprising people without proper eyewear found a novel way to “protect” their eyes during the eclipse.
Reports have come from healthcare professionals in two different states of this abysmal idiocy. And yeah – one of the states was indeed the Granola State, California. (The other state where this was reported by a healthcare professional to have happened was Virginia.)
(sigh) God must love fools; he made so many of them.
(In case you’re wondering: yes, this article’s split title/intro was shamelessly stolen from a great writer – the late Robert A. Heinlein. It’s one of his more famous quotes.)
Most longtime readers know Jonn tolerates my occasional verbal “walkabouts” on music and other topics. Many have also picked up on the fact that I’m a fan of U2. The reasons for the latter are varied, and personal; I’m not going to share those here.
This walkabout is about their coming of age as a band. My opinion, of course; YMMV.
Read on, or not, as you like.
. . .
U2 formed in Dublin in 1976. By the early 1980s, they were moderately successful – and had developed a hugely loyal following.
With their third album, they’d even achieved some degree of chart success. That album – War – could be considered their commercial breakthrough, giving them mainstream visibility with their first US Hot 100 hit “New Year’s Day”.
Yet at the time, they were still in danger of being pegged as nothing more than “yet another post-punk rock band”. It was their next release that announced they were indeed different – and special.
That release was The Unforgettable Fire. And while it features one of their best-known tunes, it also features two you may never have heard which IMO are even better.
. . .
The Unforgettable Fire was an intentional departure by U2 from their previous work. They changed production teams (Steve Lillywhite had produced their first 3 albums; for The Unforgettable Fire, they began working with Daniel Lanois and Brian Eno). They explored different musical ideas.
The result was a different musical sound and style – and one that simply worked as intended. It announced to the world that these guys just might indeed be truly special.
The best-known track on the album, “Pride (In the Name of Love)” is indeed good. But it’s IMO the third-best track on the album. Two others are better.
And as often seems the case, all three of those songs have a somewhat tragic and dark inspiration. “Pride” was inspired by the assassination of Martin Luther King. I’ll discuss briefly the inspiration for the others below.
. . .
Here are what I consider the two best tunes from The Unforgettable Fire. The first was reputedly inspired by U2’s lead singer knowing someone who was addicted to heroin. (Bono’s description of precisely who inspired him to write the tune has varied over the years, so perhaps take his accounts as metaphoric vice literal.) The tune is one that works better live; I’ve included the version from Wide Awake in America below.
The second was inspired by U2 visiting a traveling memorial for Hiroshima in Chicago in the early 1980s. The studio version of that tune is featured below.
Both tunes pass the test of time. More than 30 years after they were first written, they remain powerful, moving . . . and beautiful. IMO, of course.
. . .
That’s all for today. Time to wander back on track.
The University of Southern California calls their athletic teams Trojans – after warriors from the ancient city in Asia Minor, not the other kind of Trojan. (smile) That’s pretty much common knowledge.
Traditionally, at home football games a sword-wielding Trojan warrior rides onto the field on a horse; that horse doubles as one of the USC athletic department’s mascots. That too is relatively common knowledge.
Well, it seems as if this has attracted the attention of the SJW crowd. And, predictably, they are hell bent on proving to the rest of the world that they are freaking moronshave their panties in a knot are “not amused”.
You see, the horse ridden by that Trojan warrior at football games happens to be white. And the horse is named “Traveler”.
So, what’s the problem?
Well, Confederate General Robert E. Lee was white. And his horse was similarly named, too.
There were some differences, though. Lee spelled his horse’s name differently (“Traveller”). Lee’s horse also was grey, not white. And the rider at USC games is wearing Bronze Age armor – not a Confederate uniform.
But those differences apparently don’t matter. According to the SJW crowd at USC, the horse is clearly a symbol of “white supremacy.” So it must be renamed, pronto – or replaced!
Apparently DoN decided that 2 collisions at sea with loss of multiple lives in less than 12 weeks was one too many. The Navy has relieved VADM Joseph Aucoin as Commander, 7th Fleet.
Unfair? Maybe. But the commander is responsible for everything their unit does – or fails to do.
