Kidnapped by Japan - How A Mother's Dying Wish Led To A Father's Unimaginable Loss
Friday, May 23, 2008
Every once in awhile a liberal slips and tells the truth. Obama did it with his now infamous “bitter” people comments and now Maxine Waters lets the whole world get a peek into her real “social…”(c’mon Maxine, you can say it: socialist) agenda.
There really is no more surreal experience than watching a roomful of Washington pork-barrel-ers and spendthrifts, who profit more from the sale of a gallon of gas than do the oil companies who actually do everything necessary to get it out of the ground and get it to market, calling those oil companies greedy profiteers.
If the Maxine Waters’ of the world were really interested in doing something about oil prices and making us more energy independent they might try allowing more drilling for oil in the US and might be pushing for more nuclear power. She and her committee are frauds. It just remains to be seen how much longer it will take before the public begins to see through the charade.
Stop The ACLU also discusses
Hot Air discusses
Below The Beltway discusses
Barking Moonbat Early Warning System discusses
Rhymes With Right discusses
Flopping Aces discusses
Liberty Pundit discusses
“He has a hard time thinking beyond that,” Harkin said, according to The Des Moines Register. “I think he’s trapped in that. Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous.”
It is possible that in talking about those who have served their country he might be thinking, not of people like McCain who suffered grievously in war but of people like himself who...
...served in the Navy on active duty for five years, and remained in the reserves until 1989. But while running for president in 2004, he was forced to admit that he never did combat air patrols or photo reconnaissance in Vietnam as he had claimed.
According to The Wall Street Journal, which acquired his military records at the time of his presidential bid, Harkin ferried damaged aircraft between repair stations in Japan and the Philippines, and ran test flights of the planes after they were fixed.
Oddly the Senator didn't cite as examples some former Presidents with military backgrounds like General George Washington and General Dwight D. Eisenhower. Must have been an oversight.
...pay a tax on carbon, according to the Los Angeles Times.
At 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide emissions, the tax is expected neither to generate a windfall of cash for local government nor induce much change in polluting industries. Power plants, refineries and other big smokestack polluters would be hit the hardest, whereas most of the 2,500 newly regulated businesses would pay less than $1 a year, according to published reports. All businesses currently regulated for emitting smog-forming pollutants – everything from bakeries to print shops – will be affected, according to the Mercury News.
But it is the first attempt at a global warming regulation that economists say would be more efficient (and possibly more effective) than a cap-and-trade system of regulating carbon emissions. Cap-and-trade regulations on power plants and factories have, over time, been effective in reducing pollution that causes acid rain and smog, but carbon emissions result from many more sources.
The basic idea of a carbon tax is to assess the true cost of pollution up front. As is, carbon dioxide is spewed into the atmosphere at no charge, but the resulting changes to the climate are expected to have profound economic costs, ranging from increased rates of tropical disease to the need for fortifying coastal zones from sea-level rise.
Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.
Now he has gone and made matters worse by writing a book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, obviously in the same evil vein. In it he says,
"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
Don't expect Klaus to be one of those foreign leaders who gets quoted a lot in Time or Newsweek.
Renowned physicist, author and non-kook has written an essay for the New York Review of Books in which he says,
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
Of course Dyson isn't Al Gore, but maybe we should listen to him. You know, maybe just a little?
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The basic laws of physics work equally well forward or backward in time, yet we perceive time to move in one direction only—toward the future. Why?
To account for it, we have to delve into the prehistory of the universe, to a time before the big bang. Our universe may be part of a much larger multiverse, which as a whole is time-symmetric. Time may run backward in other universes.
Read the rest here but be warned: Your head just might blow up.
The Intelligencer notes the same
So does nathanrca
And Not Even Wrong
I know this will shock you but according to Hamas Culture Minister Atallah Abu Al-Subh, President Bush is Dracula. To prove the point he says,
"I can see the blood of the children of Afghanistan between his fangs. Their blood drips onto his lips and chest. He is Dracula, a vampire. I can see the holocausts in which the Iraqi people is burned, the land that is being torn to shreds, the oil that is being plundered, and the four million Iraqis scattered throughout the land, or exiled in their own country...I'm not sure but I'm guessing when the Dems get a gander at this they just may want to run it at their convention. Much the same is said daily on the Huffington Post, Democratic Underground etc. so everyone will feel right at home with it. And since Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad speaks in much the same way Barack Obama can consider it to be that preparation he's been talking about. Good stuff, eh?
Bush thirsts for blood day and night. He derives pleasure from killing. He has surpassed all types of crimes and all sadistic traits. That's Bush for you. With all his audacity and insolence, Bush tears the Arab land to shreds. He makes decisions and has the audacity to call for the killing of life, and the killing of any person fighting for his right to live. That's Bush for you."
The vote was 316-108. The measure heads to the Senate, which is
poised to follow suit later this week.
Bush said the legislation is too generous to wealthy farmers at a time of high prices for crops. The legislation includes cash subsidies for farmers and food stamps for the poor.
The bill is just the kind of sloppy, bloated mess that has led the public to see the Republicans as generic, big spending, back-slapping pols. Last week, anticipating the idiocy to come National Review Online editorialized against it.
For starters, the bill extends the direct-payment program at a time when farm incomes have reached record highs. Direct payments are government payments intended to supplement farmers’ incomes. Farmers receive these payments whether they grow anything or not. Rep. Ron Kind, a Democrat from Wisconsin, was absolutely right when he said of this provision, “It’s not a safety net — it’s an entitlement program.”
Spurred by government-mandated ethanol consumption, net farm income is up 51 percent above its ten-year average, and farm families on average are making around $90,000 a year. In light of such prosperity, the Bush administration asked Congress to cap payments to farmers with adjusted gross incomes of over $200,000 a year. But Congress wouldn’t go any lower than $2.5 million a year (when exceptions for spouses and non-farm income are taken into account). As the leading sponsors of the farm bill admit, this cap will exclude practically no one.
In addition to providing income support to millionaires, the new farm bill establishes a $3.8 billion permanent disaster-relief fund. “Permanent disaster” is a good way to describe it. The sponsors of this provision argue that this fund will prove less costly over time than allocating disaster-relief funds on an ad hoc basis once every few years, as Congress has done in the past. But this argument relies on the mistaken assumption that Congress needs to provide “disaster relief” for farmers at all. Disaster relief is nothing but a more politically palatable term for additional subsidies. If farmers can not survive bouts of bad weather by drawing upon the many government programs already available to them, including the federally funded crop-insurance program, they should find another line of work.
Wait, there’s more. With the new farm bill, Congress has accomplished the astonishing feat of making the federal sugar program even worse. Americans already pay close to twice the global average cost for sugar thanks to federal import quotas. The new bill adds a sugar buyback program, under which the federal government must purchase any “excess” sugar from domestic producers at 23 cents per pound — and then immediately resell it to ethanol producers at 2 cents per pound, with the taxpayer stuck paying the 21-cent-per-pound difference.
But perhaps the most egregious item in the new farm bill relates to international food aid. A longstanding provision governing U.S. food aid to foreign countries requires that all the food America sends abroad to be purchased from American farmers. This means that, however much we allocate toward international food aid, a chunk of the money goes toward transporting food from the U.S. to its final destination. In light of an increasing food-scarcity problem in less-developed countries, the Bush administration asked Congress to help cut down on transportation costs by allowing the food-aid program to purchase 25 percent of the food it distributes overseas from local farmers in destination countries. This would have allowed the U.S. to provide more food for starving people for same amount of money. Bowing to the American farm lobby, Congress refused.
Even though $300 billion is a big burden on American taxpayers, it’s apparently not big enough to change the political calculus of farm-subsidy supporters in Congress, as this week’s votes indicate. At this rate, Americans will be saddled with costly and inefficient farm legislation for the foreseeable future, even though only a tiny percentage of Americans benefit from these programs. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never has Congress taken so much from so many for the benefit of so few.
According to a recent Rasmussen poll:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 62% of voters would prefer fewer government services with lower taxes. Nearly a third (29%) disagrees and would rather have a bigger government with higher taxes. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.At a time when the public is looking for some sign that Republicans have rejected business as usual, they continue to show that they haven't and, at this stage of the game won't. With disaster looming, the Republicans will deserve the thrashing they're certainly going to take in November. The Democrats are a very happy Party right about now. You can't get any luckier than to have really stupid competition. And the Republicans am really, really stupid.
Those numbers have changed little over the past month.
Republican voters overwhelmingly prefer fewer government services—83% of the GOP faithful hold that view while just 13% prefer more government involvement. Democratic voters are evenly divided on this question: 46% prefer more government services, while 43% prefer less government services.
Hot Air also discusses
Fundmastery Blog discusses
Michelle Malkin discusses
The Anchoress is not happy
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
This story today from NASA:
English students at the University of Wyoming are being encouraged to consider the possibility that humanity might one day make contact with aliens and then not know what to say.
"Interstellar Message Composition", a creative writing class, is believed to be the first of its kind to engage writers in a potential cosmic conversation, say its founders.
"We’ve thought a lot about how we might communicate with other worlds, but we haven’t thought much about what we’d actually say," Prof Jeffrey Lockwood, the course leader, told ABC News.
The course, currently being taken by 11 students, is partly financed by Nasa’s Wyoming Space Grant Consortium, which sponsors educational and research projects in the state that support the agency’s missions.
Among questions tackled in Prof Lockwood’s class is how aliens might communicate, whether they would be able to translate human language, and whether they would be able to see or hear.
One student, Dixie Thoman, created a poem about menstruation with syllables arranged in a mathematically harmonious order, known as the Fibonacci sequence.
Recordings of the Brandenburg Concerto and Johnny B Goode are among those that have been beamed into space over the years in an attempt to provoke an extraterrestrial response.
The course is being advised by Douglas Vakoch, director of interstellar message composition for the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute in California.
"It could be tomorrow that we’ll need to be ready to decide if we reply [to aliens]," he said. "It’s really critical to have people start thinking about it and it makes sense to start with writers. These are people who are really trying to express the human condition."
As we saw recently, even the Vatican is open to the idea of alien intelligence, so while this may appear to be somewhat frivilous to many, it would seem a lot less so if the SETI program were, all of a sudden to get a hit tomorrow. Good for NASA.
Today's news that Senator Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumour is, if nothing else, a surprise. Although Kennedy is understandably keeping the details private, the diagnosis itself and the reactions of his Senate colleagues leaves little doubt but that Kennedy is dying. Six months, two years, whenever the end comes his life has unalterably changed course, the end line no longer hazy and somewhere in the distance as it is with most of us but clear and growing larger daily.
The news of his condition is, of course a challenge for him but in a smaller way it is a challenge for we who have opposed him and his politics for so long, as well. The temptation for dealing with someone whose time is growing near is to do what the media and his supporters certainly will: issue encomiums, speak glowingly of all his achievements and generally not allow a discouraging word to be heard. The temptation for those of us who have disagreed with him for so long, often powerfully disagreed with him, is to lash out with vituperation and invective. But is important that we not give in to such natural instincts. This is what the Left does. When conservatives become ill or die the Left lashes out with the kind of bile and hate that almost boggles the mind. Remember the Daily Kos and Huffington Post when Jerry Falwell died or whenever Dick Cheney has some cardiac complication. We have to be better than that.
But that doesn't mean that we have to now pretend that Kennedy is someone other than who he was. A cheater in school, a cheater in marriage, Kennedy committed manslaughter and treason, he destroyed the reputations of good people, he was a hypocrite, he...the list of his personal failings and sins could go on for pages. As could the list of the abysmal, destructive policies he has husbanded into law throughout his career: every bad immigration bill since the sixties, minimum wage increases that damage the poorest of the poor, tax hikes, bad nuclear policies, bad environmental policies, the expansion of government into more and more areas of our daily lives. Kennedy has had a large part in all of it.
But conservatives believe in personal responsibility and that means believing in the in exercise of self control. And we can't give in to the urge to revel in Kennedy's impending suffering and death. A successful society of free people requires that they control their more base urges. Ted Kennedy is a bad man but the time to make him pay for his crimes in this world has passed. He has a family that loves him and decent people should have compassion for them at this time. Ted Kennedy can't be made to pay for the wrongs he has done in this world any longer. Soon he will pass on to the next where someone greater than we are will take a fuller measure of him and deal with him in a more just way than we ever could.
Our duty is to listen to the better angels of our natures and wish him well. It may be hard to do but it is also right. Our prayers go out to him and his family.
Hot Air also comments
Liberty Pundit comments
Cassy Fiano comments
Synthesis Magazine Blog comments
Ed Driscoll discusses a controversy about the reaction to Kennedy's illness
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Since so much of what is going on in the political world and the world at large is disturbing (and which is faithfully reported here) and probably raises your blood pressure to unhealthy hights I thought it might be nice to post a calming image to return a sense of proportion and tranquility.
Just a few years after the Republican Party launched a highly publicized diversity effort, the GOP is heading into the 2008 election without a single minority candidate with a plausible chance of winning a campaign for the House, the Senate or governor.
At a time when Democrats are poised to knock down a historic racial barrier with their presidential nominee, the GOP is fielding only a handful of minority candidates for Congress or statehouses — none of whom seem to have a prayer of victory.
At the start of the Bush years, the Republican National Committee — in tandem with the White House — vowed to usher in a new era of GOP minority outreach. As George W. Bush winds down his presidency, Republicans are now on the verge of going six — and probably more — years without an African-American governor, senator or House member.
That’s the longest such streak since the 1980s.
Republicans will have only one minority governor, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, an Indian-American, when the dust settles on the ’08 elections. Democrats have three minority governors and 43 African-American members of Congress, including one — Illinois Sen. Barack Obama — who is their likely presidential nominee. Democrats also have several challengers in winnable House races who are either black or Hispanic.
While I deplore identity politics as practiced by the Dems I think it is important to seek out qualified candidates of every ethnicity, if only to highlight the fact that conservatism has appeal to all Americans. The fact that the Republicans have dropped the ball in this area, as in so many others is inexcusable.
Of course what isn't mentioned in this article is the fact that the GOP has also dropped the ball on fielding conservative candidates, the House and Senate having become institutions barren of any real conservative principle. Amazingly the party seems incapable of spotting their own failings and "brainstorming" sessions take on the aspect of "farce" where "senior advisors" agitate for more moderate Republicanism, i.e. a Republicanism that is a pale reflection of liberalism.
The difficulty of a swift reinvention was on display last week as the central players in Washington's conservative community gathered for their regular strategy session.Sure they would. Playing me-too with liberals on global warming and immigration among other issues will leave the voters to decide between the Dems and their imitators and I've never seen an imitator more appealing than the original so the Republicans are playing a doomed hand. They now have little appeal to minorities and conservatives and certainly not to liberals. Who exactly do they think is left to vote for them?
A senior adviser to the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee, John McCain, was on hand along with the Republican Party's national chairman to make the case for McCain's brand of Republicanism.
McCain's approach — tough on taxes but receptive to immigrants and committed to easing global warming — could help paint the GOP in new colors, more attractive to independent voters, Hispanics and women.
Some GOP leaders now say that by embracing McCain and his policy platform, Republicans would instantly "rebrand" and reinvigorate their party.
Somewhere Ronald Reagan is weeping.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Barack Obama continues apace with his delineation of the topics (all) on which it is illegitimate to criticize him and now adds his wife, the lovely Michelle and all her utterances, attacks, insults and comments of any and all kinds as also being off-limits for discussion. Fine-tuning his message he now identifies critics as "low-class". Some believe that this identification is part of what will soon be seen as a sort of Unified Field Theory of illegitimate criticism which will encompass all Republicans, bitter people, religious people and soon-to-be-named other people.
In a related story Obama also has pointed out the illegitimacy of Americans driving SUVs, consumption of large amounts of food and keeping their homes warm without first getting approval of "other countries". Although as yet unstated, it is believed that not seeking such approval is also "low class".
Senator Obama is continuing to make it clear that he is anxious to achieve the Presidency where he hopes to change the idea of freedom completely. More to come...
Hot Air comments
Right Wing News comments
Liberty Pundit comments
The Jawa Report comments
Wake Up America comments
Outside The Beltway comments
This story about a EU official shocked me by his actually making sense:
Biofuels must not deprive the world's poor of food, a senior European official said, as he proposed a greater focus on second-generation biofuels that would be more environmentally friendly.
Guenter Verheugen, a vice president of the European Commission, was speaking against a background of growing doubts about whether the European Union should continue a policy of elevating biofuels to an environmental priority.
"It makes no sense to make car fuel from plants that ought to provide human and animal food," said Verheugen in the Bild am Sonntag newspaper, extracts of which were made available Saturday.
The accent should be instead on research into second-generation biofuels,"for example technology using hydrogen," added Verheugen, who is the EU commissioner responsible for enterprise and industry.
The biofuel industry fears the controversy could inhibit research into second-generation biofuels which are environmentally more friendly since they would be made from non-edible agricultural waste such as straw.
"What matters to the commission is sustainable development," Verheugen said. "It will not work if production of basic foodstaffs is hindered or tropical forest is cut down" for biofuels.
The 27-nation European Union wants biofuels to make up 10 percent of all EU vehicle fuel by 2020, but the target has come under fire in the face of soaring global food prices that have hit poor countries particularly hard.
Biofuel development is part of a wider package to reduced EU greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
You know things are getting bad when the EU is making more sense than the US.
When the news came this Saturday that Senator Ted Kennedy had apparently had a stroke and his passing seemed potentially imminent all the talking heads on the news shows went into obit-speak, referring to the Massachusetts legislator in the past tense and reviewing all the "Lion of the Senate's" achievements and sterling personal qualities. This was to be expected as it is generally considered indelicate to speak ill of the (almost) dead but it also left the impression that Kennedy is a "great man" and has done much good for the country.
Well now that it looks like the Senator didn't have a stroke (apparently some seizures of still unknown origin) and will probably recover people can be allowed to take the rose colored glasses off and discuss Kennedy as he really is. Unlike the Left side of the blogosphere, we here on the Right haven't spent the last few days gathered around the pentagram chanting (and blogging) for our opponents' demise. We wish him a return to good health...while admittedly urging him to consider how the present time might be a good time for him to consider retirement.
Why retirement? Because after 45 plus years we on the Right think he has done enough damage. Most Americans are aware of the Ted Kennedy story and all its ugliness: Chappaquiddick, his virtual invention of the concept of "Borking" an opponent (wherein you scurrilously impugn the character of decent people to further a political agenda), the fact that he has been deeply involved in virtually ever national tax hike, bad immigration bill and every other anti-democratic, statist policy for decades, his alcoholism, the famous "waitress sandwich" episode, etc. An in-depth rehash isn't needed.
But there is a story that has gotten very little press which I'd like to review now and that is Kennedy's act of treason during the Reagan administration. In 2006 Paul Kengor wrote The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. In researching it he made an interesting discovery:
FP:...Ok., let’s get to the intended main focus of our interview. There is a shocking revelation about a Ted Kennedy in your book. Tell us about it.
Kengor: In my book, I comment on, and publish, a May 14, 1983 document from the KGB archives that reveals that Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) reached out to the General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party, Yuri Andropov, to propose a kind of public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's defense policy initiatives toward the Soviet Union, policies that Kennedy felt were too aggressive.
FP: How did you come in possession of this document?
Kengor: As a result of an article that I wrote on FrontPageMagazine.com, titled, "Reagan's Freedom Fighter," which was about Natan Sharansky.
FP: So what can our interpretation be of this document?
Kengor: My intention in revealing this document was simply to place it in the historical narrative of the Reagan presidency as I did with hundreds of other documents in the book from the Soviet archives and various media archives. It is very important to understand that I tried not to cast judgment on the document or what it alleges that Senator Kennedy did.
Based on the document itself, as well as other Kennedy writings at the time, I believe that Kennedy did this because it was a very dangerous time and Kennedy, like many liberals, was genuinely worried that Reagan was too aggressive in his nuclear arms buildup.
Around this same time, Kennedy wrote a March 1984 article for Rolling Stone magazine in which he said that Reagan officials were "talking peace in 1984 as a prelude to making war in 1985." And he wrote of his "fears about an administration whose officials have spoken of winnable nuclear conflict." That was a reckless, irresponsible allegation, to be sure. Yet, it further illustrates where Kennedy was coming from: Clearly, Senator Kennedy was worried about the U.S.-Soviet confrontation spiralling out of control and going nuclear. He was seeking to defuse a situation that he thought could lead to nuclear war. His motivations were peaceful. This is not to say, of course, that what Kennedy allegedly did was not an example of very poor judgment and does not deserve heavy criticism, which it does. And what Kennedy did was obviously extraordinary.
FP: How are Kennedy’s actions relevant today in your view?
Kengor: First of all, I do not answer that question in the book because, as I said, I don't cast judgment on it in the book. However, if you're asking for my personal viewpoint, I do find it striking that certain American politicians were more worried about Reagan than about Yuri Andropov. In the KGB letter, which was written by the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, Chebrikov said that Kennedy was "very impressed" with Andropov. So, Kennedy was, By Chebrikov's account, impressed by Andropov but fearful of Reagan. Kennedy literally seemed more trustful of the Soviet dictator than the American president; that's a fair interpretation of Kennedy's thinking, based upon what Chebrikov reported to Andropov in the memo.
This kind of thinking is still common among much of the left today, as many liberals fear the conservative Republican president more than the dictator-enemy the president is trying to defeat. Today, there are many on the left who will tell you that George W. Bush is a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein ever was. This is a continuing example of poor judgment by the likes of Ted Kennedy.
FP: Kennedy was “very impressed” with the former head of the KGB? We don’t need to get into a history of the mass crimes that Andropov oversaw and ordered in that capacity. The ruthless suppression of Hungary's bid for freedom in 1956 was just one of them. Saying this about Andropov is the same thing as a person saying he was impressed with the head of the Nazi Gestapo. Where is the outrage on this shameful behavior?
Kengor: The mainstream media doesn't care. I literally have not received a single inquiry from the likes of the New York Times, CBS, or CNN. If not for the web and talk radio, and sources like FrontPage, there would be a total blackout on this revelation, and history would never learn about it. It is an amazing example of media bias, the most extraordinary example that I've ever personally encountered. Truly stunning. It makes me wonder how much history we never know.
FP: What Kennedy did, when all is said and done, was reach out a hand of solidarity to a monstrous and vicious totalitarian regime. Would we be so careful with our judgement of such an act if an American politician had done something similar with Nazi Germany?
When you refer to the non-existence of inquiry from the mainstream media into this outrage, what do you think lies behind it? I am focusing in on the psychology here. What is the mindset within the Left that exonerates this kind of behaviour, and, as some would argue, even supports it?
Kengor: It indeed requires a psychological explanation. They don't want to report it because it involves one of their own icons on the Left. So, they simply convince themselves that it doesn't matter or happened too long ago or that no one cares -- or whatever works.
To get a real flavor for what Kennedy was up to, it is instructive to read the KGB's letter to "Comrade" Adropov:
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov
Comrade Y.V. Andropov
On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.
According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.”
Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.
The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.
However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.
Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:
1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.
If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.
Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)
2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.
If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.
Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.
Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples.
The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.
Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.
We await instructions.
President of the committee
So while the duly elected President of the United States was trying to conduct his foreign policy (which later proved to be uniquely successful), Senator Ted Kennedy was trying to conspire with the Soviet Union, the most murderous nation in the history of the world, to subvert that policy.
The only conclusion is the obvious one: Ted Kennedy committed treason. And like the manslaughter of Mary Jo Kopechne, he got away with it.
While it is not "polite" to speak ill when someone seems near death, it would also be dishonest not to acknowledge the bad things they have done as well. But dishonesty fits Ted Kennedy like a glove so the glowing "memorials" come as no surprise. But we who know better shouldn't forget. And we won't.
Sister Toldja comments on Kennedy's illness
So does Common Sense Political Thought