NOT Having a LARC

I added a page for that last post, rather than on this page.  I did it accidentally, but I think I'll leave it, because I'm planning to come back to this topic.

The link is here:

NOT Having a LARC

What I've Been Reading

It all started most innocently.  I had previously read about the Hollywood Blacklist, from the viewpoint of the alleged Communists.  Of course, they were ALL COMPLETELY INNOCENT, and unfairly targeted by the Vast Right-Wing Machine (shades of Hillary!) for persecution by the government.

Then, I read Red Star Over Hollywood, a meticulously researched book about the takeover of Hollywood by pro-Communist (really, pro-Soviet) people in the entertainment industry.  It flatly contradicted much of what we have believed about that era, and the extent to which Leftist viewpoints dominated (and still do) the film industry.

From that book, I went to reading Witness - the story by Whittaker Chambers of his connection to the Alger Hiss trial.  From that book, I began to question much of what I had accepted about the 1950s pushback against Communism.

I've read many other books, but one of the most important was about the Venona Papers - I know, I know, you are (most of you) saying "What?!"

The Venona Papers - from Wikipedia:

For much of its history, knowledge of Venona was restricted even from the highest levels of government. Senior army officers, in consultation with the FBI and CIA, made the decision to restrict knowledge of Venona within the government (even the CIA was not made an active partner until 1952). Army Chief of Staff Omar Bradley, concerned about the White House's history of leaking sensitive information, decided to deny President Truman direct knowledge of the project. The president received the substance of the material only through FBI, Justice Department, and CIA reports on counterintelligence and intelligence matters.

Yeah, that part about keeping Truman informed raised my eyebrows - I don't believe that Bradley was concerned about Truman's loyalty, but the questionable people who surrounded him, and who might find out if Truman was more fully informed.

I strongly urge everyone to read up on the Venona resources; although the archives are still hotly protested by the Leftists, they have not been able to refute the evidence, although they do pick at the details.

What I'm reading online is How Wars are Made.  It's a book posted, in full, about the Lendlease program of WWII, and how the Soviets took advantage of it to boost their post-war economy, take over much of Europe, and get the knowledge and materials to make the atom bomb.  It created quite a stir when first published, but I doubt anyone under the age of 80 has ever heard of it.  The intro to it is pretty standard "anti-Commie" stuff (by the site, not the Major who wrote it), but if you skip past that, it's a fascinating story.

Offline, I'm reading Diane West's American Betrayal - a book that has created quite a controversy.  She argues (and provides quite a lot of evidence for) the idea that Soviet agents/allies permeated the US government, before, during, and after WWII.  There are those on both sides of the issue - those that think Ms. West went too far, and those that defend her - and her own rebuttal to critics.  You might want to read the pros and cons about the book.  But, I strongly urge you to follow up by reading the book, itself.  There is no substitute for direct examination.

Where do I stand on it?  West may be a bit over-the-top in her suspicions about Harry Hopkins and others; however, there is no doubt that their ACTIONS did support, and promote, Soviet supremacy in world affairs.  Whether that support was appropriate, given the grave situation before and during WWII, is a legitimate matter for debate.

I favor openness - read both sides, and make up your own mind.  In my case, having had exposure to Leftist thinking - in spades - during my undergraduate years, I'm leaning more towards West's premise of widespread Leftist infiltration of government and other institutions, pre and post WWII.

The reality is that we all know the Leftist side of the story - Big, Bad McCarthy unfairly persecutes the innocent Liberal, who is COMPLETELY innocent of any devious activities/associations.  That's the story we heard in school - complete with the play The Crucible, by Arthur Miller (himself a Leftist).  The story we all got was that the Paranoid Right, who supported McCarthy's investigation into Communists in America (as opposed to the GOOD Right, who condemned him), were decisively PROVEN wrong, and shown to be wrong, on television (and, snidely dissed by a snippy Joseph Welch, whose famous phrase "Have you no sense of decency?" rings triumphantly in Leftist and Liberal ears).

What really happened?  Joseph Welch was attempting to shut down a part of the inquiry into the activities of an associate in his law firm (Fred Fisher).  He became more and histrionic, culminating in that famous phrase.  So, he gained fame for refusing to allow the Senator to investigate possible anti-American activities, a task that they have as part of their mission.

WAS Fred Fisher associated with Communists?  Well, he DID belong the the National Lawyers Guild while in college - they were HEAVILY intertwined with the American Communist Party.  So, it would seem to be a legitimate inquiry.

I'm on the fence, but leaning towards Conservative thinking in this matter.  Were some persons unfairly swept up in the investigations?  Possibly.  However, many seem to be vigorously exclaiming their TOTAL innocence, while using various means to avoid stating so, under oath (for which, if proven to be lying, they could be prosecuted - as was Alger Hiss).  BEING a Communist wasn't then, or now, a crime.  LYING about it to Congress was, and is.  As Martha Stewart found, it wasn't the actions that caused her trouble, it was lying about it to the government, under oath.

What's Been Happening While I've Been Checked Out of Reality

I REALLY enjoyed this vacay.  The first part went by too fast - we were visiting family, and - well - things happened.  My sister-in-law injured her back, and we played nurse for 2 days.  It worked out - the rest of the family stepped in, as well, and she's slowly getting better.

We scooted back home on Friday afternoon-Saturday, with a stop in WV to rest.  At first, the weather was a tremendous improvement, but---the cold has taken over.  I've put the heat up, I'm wearing a sweater, and I'm STILL cold.

It looks like the pressure is on for uncovering the true story about the Benghazi attack.  Obama is getting it from the New York Times, although the motivation and accuracy of their report is in question.

Krauthammer "has a theory" about that (just like Columbo!).  He thinks the phone call to Hillary at 10 pm was for the purposes of getting their stories straight - emphasis STORIES.

More Fast & Furious guns have been found - and the bullets from them in dead people at the scene of the crime.  ERIC HOLDER needs to be removed from office - AND brought up on charges of Reckless Endangerment, Lying to Congress, and Interfering with an Investigation, for a start.

I've seen several stories about a Virginia hospital that has has MAJOR problems getting patients' hospital coverage verified.  Some people walked out without getting seen/admitted.  The idea that they might have to pay out-of-pocket (welcome to MY world, peeps!) is causing them to decide that they don't need seen that badly.

I have a few comments on being around the home in the daytime:

• Daytime TV sucks - REALLY sucks - like a Black Hole


• If I ever come into possession of a large amount of money, I'm DEFINITELY hiring a maid - maybe 2 of them


• I own WAY too much stuff


• Ditto for my husband - particularly in the area of the kitchen


• Did I mention that daytime TV sucks?  Well, it does

 

Remember When Komen Caved on Planned Parenthood...

...and PP SWORE (pinky finger swear!) that they would INCREASE the number of mammograms they offered?

Yeah.

That happened...NOT!

I'm Feeling So Blessed

My daughter just posted on Facebook - her husband's cancer scan came out clean - he's still free of cancer.

After a rocky spring last year, chemo treatments in the summer and fall, and having to stop treatments because of the side effects (nerve damage), this is GREAT news!

 

To Live Together, or NOT?

Mona Charen wrote about The Marriage Divide - the fact that the lower classes, and, increasingly, the lower middle classes are choosing to build their families without marriage.  She, and I, think that's a bad thing - for reasons that she makes clear in her post.

Mona cites the advice of Carolyn Hax to a young woman asking when she should think about moving in with her boyfriend (of 5 months).  Carolyn sneers at the mom's advice.  I started to reply on the site, but didn't want to bother with registration.

My take:

The mother is sensible - she suggests that the girl wait until it appears that marriage is seriously considered. The girl ties her arguments to what married people have advised; clearly, she is NOT just looking for a wild time. She is serious about her personal feelings; she at least envisions marriage as a possibility.

There is NO indication that the boy in the scenario is anticipating marriage in any serious way.

Like it or not, women have a "sell-by date" - the tick of the biological clock makes their time precious, and short. If, as many women do, she wants to have a family, it makes sense to hedge her bets until at least a ring is offered (Not that I'm all that crazy about a hunk of pressurized carbon. I think it's ridiculous to spend several months gross salary on a piece of jewelry. But, it does put some financial legs into a vague promise of a future together).

[I wrote that above, realizing that there are some women who will use that phrase "sell-by date" as an excuse to trash the whole argument.  I'm simply suggesting that biological fertility is a perishable item.

Men, not having biological pressures, tend to let time slip by. It makes for an uneasy situation, where one is more and more pressured to marry by the clock, and the other lazily resists a final step, because - well, he CAN.

Nothing to do with cows and milk. The mother isn't suggesting that the girl stay a virgin until the day of the wedding (Although, it's not, as you suggest, a bad start to a marriage. At the least, you're limiting the spread of diseases that antibiotics and modern medicine are reaching the end of their ability to curb.)

The mom is just stating the obvious - by staying in her own place, the girl retains a lot more power in the relationship - including the option to break it off without a hassle, date others, if desired, and occupy herself how she likes without worrying about what her boyfriend will think. It may well be the TRUE liberated woman's solution to single life.

Some Disturbing Information About "What Muslims Believe"

I was taking a break from housework (yes, I do it - no, I don't like it), and found a link - I'm glad I followed it.  It's a fairly comprehensive examination of Muslim writings that are often misinterpreted by non-Muslims.

Just one part, about how the Crusades were an "unjustified invasion and slaughter of innocent Muslims".

Really?

The Facts:

The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after the capital of the Christian world, Rome itself, was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians.

By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.

Europe had been harassed by Muslims since the first few years following Muhammad’s death.  As early as 652, Muhammad’s followers launched raids on the island of Sicily, waging a full-scale occupation 200 years later that lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death.  In 1084, ten yearsbefore the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.

In 1095, Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey, grabbing property as they went and turning churches into mosques.   Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in ‘converting’ the survivors to Islam.

Read the whole thing - it's worth the time.