Mark Knight

It's blatantly obvious that the Republicans aren't seeking to govern. Instead, this is the Revenge Tour. A large segment of the Republicans simply want to use their majority in the House to wreak revenge on those they designate as "enemies." In another sense, what we've seen over the past 3 days is the legacy of the "Reagan Revolution." This generation was brought up on the "government is evil" rhetoric of those years. They are out to dismantle government in any and every way possible. The only legislation I've heard any of them advocate is repeal oriented. The want no part of DOING anything; their mission is UNDOING things that came before. The anarchy they are demonstrating in the House is an example of how they intend to "govern." I also don't think McCarthy deserves to be Speaker of the House, because he's spineless. But until someone nominates a candidate who is moderate enough to win over some Democrats, the 20 who are staunchly against McCarthy will continue to have their way, and gum up the works of government. And that is not by accident. That's by design.

Lately it seems there have been a number of reports to the Education Forum administrators regarding posts that are, or could be interpreted as, personal attacks. Apparently, there are MANY current forum members who didn't learn the lessons of Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People." [If you've never read that book, you should.] Some forum members may have forgotten that this is a DISCUSSION forum, not an INSULT or ARGUMENT forum. The other administrators and I do agree that on some threads the insults are getting out of hand. I know something needs to change. For the most part, our forum members are adults. But occasionally some don't act like adults when they're behind a keyboard and a screen. I don't think our function as administrators should be spending all our time on the forum putting out fires. In Smokey the Bear fashion, maybe we need to remind the members that "Only YOU can prevent forum fires." Not that we want forum members to police other members' posts; rather, I suggest that forum members should be adult enough to police their own posts. I know that people tend to get passionate about the JFK assassination. But it would be prudent to dial back some of that passion, especially if it contains vitriol towards other forum members. There are forum rules, and none of the administrators want to be babysitters or prison wardens. We simply want the discussions to be less personal and more about the JFK assassination...remember, that's the topic of the forum. I don't care if you believe your personal opinions about the JFK assassination "prove" that your intellect is superior to everyone else on the forum. If you believe that, keep the condescending thoughts to yourself, please. This forum can still be a place where ideas and thoughts can be exchanged without rancor. THAT is our goal as administrators. Demeaning someone else's intelligence, or anything else, does NOT elevate your own position in this forum. We're all adults here, and it's time we let our words on the forum reflect the fact that we can discuss evidence and theories as adults. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. REMEMBER...only YOU can prevent forum fires.

Wherever ANY war is fought, it is the civilian casualties that decide how long that war continues. And by casualties, I don't simply mean deaths and injuries. Jobs lost, homes destroyed, businesses ruined all become part of the toll of war. With the exception of Hawaii, the US was spared from most of the physical damage of WWII. The US was TOTALLY spared from the physical damage of Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. While it can be argued that 9/11 is the event that precipitated the war in Iraq [which is insane, since 17 of the 19 people involved in 9/11 were Saudi Arabians], other than the loss of troops, the US has been spared the direct costs of war since WWII. There are, of course, indirect costs of war. Vast portions of the federal budget are spent on our military as they fight in many corners of the globe [I won't get into a discussion of the oxymoronic quality of that mental picture]. While conservatives scoff at the term "peace dividend," imagine what good could be done in our world if such vast sums weren't being spent on warfare and armaments. I don't advocate eliminating defense spending; I simply advocate reallocating SOME of those resources toward peaceful ends. In WWII, the German air raids over London strengthened British resolve to defeat the Germans. In Ukraine, the same effect is occurring toward Russia today. By the same token, it was the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that broke the will of the Japanese to continue fighting in WWII. In Vietnam, it was the will of the majority of the American people that made the US exit the war. So it seems that it has often been the will of the civilian population who are victims of warfare that have determined the outcome, rather than the successes of the soldiers on the battlefields.

I disagree with your initial premise. The out-of-control defense budget is something easily demagogued. If the defense budget gets cut in any significant way, the Republicans will bludgeon the Democrats with the image that Democrats are leaving America "defenseless." And Democrats will go along with any defense spending increases in order to avoid being placed into that position. But the line about Putin ending chances for a reduction in defense spending IS true. JFK was a proponent of self-determination for countries around the world, leaning toward democracies [CIA actions in the banana republics and Africa notwithstanding]. Biden is obviously trying to emulate JFK, at least in his own mind, on that level. In a similar vein, I read an article this week quoting Trump's national security John Bolton as saying that had a second trump term become a reality, Trump was planning to withdraw the US from NATO and to "allow" Putin to take Ukraine unchallenged.

Ray Epps claims he's not worked for the government since he left the Marine Corps: Ex-Oath Keeper Ray Epps pokes holes in right-wing conspiracies during Jan. 6 panel testimony - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism

Doubtless there will be those here and elsewhere who will denounce the report without having read a single word of the 845 pages. It would make much more sense to have read the entire report before declaring it good or bad. Making either position yours from a position of willful ignorance simply because you refuse to read the report is a foolish play. I intend to read the whole report before I pass judgement on its contents.

The January 6th Select Committee has released its report: Report_FinalReport_Jan6SelectCommittee.pdf (house.gov)

That's a very valid conclusion.

Just because you refrained from hysterics and profanity, that doesn't make this post a civil response. Instead, it's more of a "celebration" of your self-acknowledged superior mental prowess over those whose interpretations of the evidence differ from your own. I come to the JFK assassination discussion as an agnostic. I believe that there is enough information that is either hidden or yet unknown to prevent someone with an open mind from coming to a definitive conclusion as to whether or not there was a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK. Since I'm not a "true believer" in your LN conclusions, you would lump me together with your "cult," which you denigrate ceaselessly. It seems to me that your sole purpose on this forum is to insult anyone who isn't a LNer. If that is the major purpose in your life, you've done that. You accomplished your goal. Now move along and rest on your "laurels"...preferably elsewhere. Your work here, it seems, is finished. Anything more you could post here would be simply self-congratulatory, and quite boring to those of us who come here to learn.

“Whether it's Trump or Elon Musk who hits bottom first is anyone's guess.” I wonder if they are going to have bubblegum. This is beyond insane. Steve Thomas For $100, that had better be DAMN good bubblegum.

Matthew, If you insist on invoking Frank Zappa, you must familiarize yourself with the epic BILLY THE MOUNTAIN. The length of the cut likely exceeds your attention span, but trust me, it is worth your time.

John, As an American, I have no stake in the Irish question. From the 1960s onward, we were told on our nightly news that the conflict there was between Catholics and Protestants, two "sects," if you will, of Christianity. It was never [or seldom] brought up that independence of ALL Ireland may have been the impetus for the violence. We were, for the most part, never told the truth. I have ancestors who were both Irish and Scotch-Irish. I also believe that Great Britain/England has no business having sovereignty over any portion of what should be a united Ireland. And now knowing that we have been fed half-truths, partial truths, and outright lies about Ireland, I'm of the opinion that the entirety of Ireland should be ruled by the Irish alone. On the Irish side of my ancestry, William de Burgh, Lord of Connacht, Governor of Wexford, and founder of the de Burgh/Burke/Bourke dynasty in Ireland, is my 21st great-grandfather. And Toridelbach O'Briain (c. 1009-1086), High King of Ireland, is my 25th great-grandfather. On the Scottish side of my ancestry, Robert I the Bruce is my 18th great-grandfather.

Domestic terrorism is a real threat. This simply shows how vulnerable to attack the US power grid actually is. Moore County, North Carolina remains in the dark after targeted attack on power grid - Axios Raleigh

So which billionaire is actually working on implanting microchips into humans, again? Exclusive: Musk’s Neuralink faces federal probe, employee backlash over animal tests | Reuters

Not an in-depth article, but interesting nonetheless: The alternative-media industrial complex (axios.com)

Steve, I believe you've summed it up quite well. Yesterday Ted Cruz posted those photos of Hunter Biden's genitalia online. I still don't understand why Hunter's "junk" is such a Republican obsession. But it apparently is, for some reason.

It's obvious that Elon Musk has a perverted understanding of the First Amendment. The First Amendment places restrictions on what THE GOVERNMENT can do regarding free speech. Ask anyone who has ever worked in retail if "free speech" rights are absolute, and that your employer cannot punish you for saying things that customers may find offensive. Since Twitter is not a government entity, they can legally reserve the right to ban comments they find offensive. And the last I heard, no one named Biden was part of the federal government of the US between noon on January 20, 2016, and noon on January 20, 2021. So Twitter [pre-Musk ownership] agreeing to remove content during that time period based upon a request by people representing the Biden interests has NOTHING to do with government restricting free speech. Therefore, a First Amendment violation did not occur in any such instance. However, if the Trump administration asked for restriction or removal of content during that same time period, when they WERE in charge of the Executive Branch of the government, it MIGHT be a First Amendment violation...if that content was otherwise NOT a violation of Twitter's terms of Service.

You're correct, of course. I retired in 2021 from the Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. There are strict laws regarding the disclosure of Title 13 [Census-related Personally Identifying Information, or PII] and Title 26 [IRS-related] data. While Census personnel CAN view Title 26 data, they can only do so on a job-related "need-to-know" basis...which almost NEVER occurs. And the nondisclosure laws carry stiff fines and jail sentences, and we are sworn to adhere to those laws FOR LIFE, not simply for the duration of our employment. While one MIGHT think the reason that Oswald's tax returns aren't available to the public is because Marina is still alive, the death of the persons involved does not remove the Title 26 data restrictions.

David, I became a member here on March 22, 2005, and I was a lurker for a few months prior to that. While I haven't agreed with all of your comments and conclusions, I do have a great deal of respect for your research. Hate to see you go, sir. I recall a couple of people that I believed [and still believe] were disinformation agents. But at this point I believe most of those people decided after the 50th anniversary that their "services" were no longer needed. Since 2005, there have been some relative newcomers who have begun their careers here by rearguing some long-ago disproven points. Unlike other forums, in which they might have been advised to review the archives before posting, the EF has been a bit more patient...probably due to the vast size of our archived threads. I have recently noticed some members calling disagreements on facts "ad hominem attacks," and I would suggest they occasionally review the definition of the term. As an administrator, I try to bend over backwards in not being heavy-handed in dishing out discipline, because I realize that I, too, sometimes crossed some lines in my early days here. The administrative team here is in email contact with one another whenever a situation arises in which may require administrative action. Usually action comes only after a consensus is reached, but occasionally an administrator may take immediate action if the situation seems to warrant immediate action. We can't be everywhere on the forum 24/7, as we also have lives in the "real world," just as most of you do. As Kathy pointed out, the "report" button helps you serve as our "eyes and ears" when we are tending to other matters and miss something. Even David Von Pein has been better lately about not making those "Only an idiot would believe that!" comments than he used to be...a backhanded ad hominem if there ever was one. So I must point out that even his level of discussion here has elevated the EF, and as long as he continues in that way, I have no problem with him even if I do disagree with most of his conclusions. And being able to disagree without being disagreeable is what makes the discussion forum great.

No way the door would affect bullet trajectories, Vince. Your "amateur" is grasping at straws.

Returning to the original premise of the thread... My 42-year-old son and I have discussed this at length. I believe he correctly relates the concern level of his generation as "WGAF?" Indeed, besides those of us who were alive when the assassination occurred [and our numbers decrease daily], who truly gives a flip? My son's point was that the perps, even if in their 20s in 1963, would be at least in their 80s now. A "life sentence" for an 85- or 90-year-old would mean exactly what? Or if someone is accused, and they point the finger at someone long dead who can't defend himself...to what end would we prosecute anyone? While I'd like to say that just knowing the 100% truth would be a value unto itself, how could we know at this point that what appears to be the truth actually IS the truth? I favor knowing the truth simply for knowing the truth. But would that in itself prevent a future assassination? Doubtful. Other than simply knowing the truth, where's the value? At this point, if it wasn't Oswald acting alone [of which I have STRONG doubts], then the person or persons who did it actually got away with their crime. In the 1880s, for example, the Democratic Party was pro-segregation. But by the 1960s they were leading the fight for civil rights. Do we punish the party for the 1880s after what they did in the 1960s? No, because it's not the same people. As far as the CIA, if we're still using the same sources and methods in 2022 that we did in 1962, shame on us! We all know that's simply not the case, and none of the spies from 1962 are still spying in 2022. I'm afraid it's up to our generation. Because the following generations have already shifted into WGAF? mode.,

Ben, The AR-15 comment was partially in jest. I have a Twitter account, and although I have NEVER followed Kyle Rittenhouse, his posts began showing up on my feed almost as soon as Musk reinstated his account. After thinking this was someone's mistake, I finally got more than enough Rittenhouse and I blocked his account from my feed. What I was trying to say was, if Musk believes that Apple doesn't have the right to cut their advertising on Twitter [or wherever else they may decide to cut their advertising], perhaps he can use the argument that he felt he was being "threatened" and could "justifiably" take some lives, just as Rittenhouse did. As I said before, that part was meant in jest. Do I believe that Musk would be exonerated in a public court of law? Stranger things have happened; Rittenhouse was found not guilty, after all. I suppose it would depend upon how "threatened" Musk felt at the time of the shooting, and how many tears Musk could show for the jury. [Still speaking slightly in jest.]

Regarding Musk and Twitter, he's complaining that Amazon opposes "free speech" and demonstrates it by withdrawing most of their advertising. Musk apparently has a poor understanding of "free enterprise." Advertisers are concerned with the cost-per-thousand [or million] views of their advertising. But sheer numbers aren't the only concerns for advertisers. Advertisers want media that deliver their message to the demographic they want to reach. And advertisers also don't want to have their message associated with antisemitism, racism, or other negative social types. By opening Twitter to all forms of speech, including hate speech, advertisers are hesitant to continue to spend their dollars on a medium with a highly negative public perception. Musk apparently knows this but doesn't care. He simply wants them to continue to spend as if nothing's changed. But that's not how free enterprise works. As far as Musk's complaints about Apple Store considering dropping the Twitter app, there again it seems to be a free enterprise issue. No supplier tells a retail outlet what products they "must" carry. If a retailer finds your widgets to be a product they don't want to carry, they reserve the right not to carry your widgets. If someone buys a buttermilk biscuit company and eliminates the buttermilk to replace most of it with rancid lard, they shouldn't be surprised if the retailers stop carrying your biscuits. Yet Musk seems surprised that his lard-filled Twitter biscuits seem to be repelling the retailers like the Apple Store and Google Play. Musk forgets [or doesn't understand; take your pick] that your "free speech" rights only guarantee that the GOVERNMENT won't suppress your speech. Radios, TVs, computers and phones have an OFF button. You may have a right to say whatever you want, but others have the right NOT to listen. And advertisers have the right NOT to sponsor your product if they think it conflicts with the image they seek for the products they advertise. BOYCOTTS have existed ever since commerce has existed. Consumers AND advertisers have the right to decide where and when to spend their dollars, and where and when to withhold those dollars. Now, if Musk decides to go into an office at Apple with an AR-15 and "defend himself," the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case makes me wonder if Musk would actually be convicted if he took out half of Apple's staff. Maybe if he could get a change of venue to Wisconsin...he might.

On November 22, 1963, I was on the asphalt-covered playground at the old Corydon Grade School in Corydon, Indiana when I heard from a classmate, "President Kennedy's been shot!" All of us who heard this called my classmate a liar. But as we walked in line back to our 3rd-floor 4th grade classroom, we passed the principal's office and saw that he was watching the black-and-white TV on which we'd seen astronaut Gordon Cooper take the final Mercury flight barely six months earlier. The TV was rarely used, so we knew that something important must be happening. Not long after we returned to our classroom, Principal Art Crowley made the announcement: "May I have your attention, please? The President is dead. I repeat, the President is dead...", his voice trailing off as if he was at a loss for words beyond the essential. We were dismissed early from classes, and while riding the bus through downtown Corydon, I noticed a Civil Defense truck at the corner of Chestnut and Mulberry Streets, its driver talking on a 2-way radio. THAT scared me. When my dad got home and I told him about the CD trick, he explained that, at the time, no one knew whether the US was under attack by Russia of Cuba or somewhere else. So the Civil Defense crew was activated in case they needed to open the fallout shelter located under the 10-year-old high school. I was glued to the TV until time for bed. Dad said, "This is history unfolding before your eyes." When I got up on Saturday morning, the usual cartoons on TV had been replaced by nonstop news coverage. Since my family preferred NBC, besides Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, I became familiar with the faces of John Chancellor and Dallas-area correspondent Tom Pettit. On Sunday, we were just finishing our lunch of round steak and mashed potatoes when we witnessed the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby. It was at that point that nothing was adding up. Why did Ruby silence Oswald? To this day, I've never heard a satisfactory explanation On Monday there was no school, and we were again glued to the television for JFK's funeral. The parade of international leaders walking in the procession, DeGaulle and Adenauer, and so many others, drove home to me just how historic the assassination of John F. Kennedy actually was. And I have been seeking deeper answers to the questions that began in my 9-year-old mind that weekend ever since.

I prefer to have books in my hand, as opposed to a digital copy. I have a decent library on the JFK assassination. On the other hand, I purchased a copy of Rock Scully's LIVING WITH THE DEAD, on the adventures he shared with the Grateful Dead, from their formation in San Francisco until his firing as manager by Jerry Garcia and, ultimately, Garcia's death. I paid $1 plus sales tax for the hardcover book in a Dollar Tree store in the early 2000s. So how much of my $1 did Rock Scully get? Any?