Mark Knight

Just a small technical point here: one does not usually shoot geese with a rifle. Usually, a goose hunter uses a shotgun...most often a 12-gauge, but there are 10-gauge shotguns specifically known as a "goose gun." One would have to be an especially good shot to use a rifle to kill a goose, and finding a particular caliber rifle that would prove effective in the kill without ruining a large amount of meat [bruising, etc] would appear to be quite difficult, I would think. So the fact that "the boys" "took no rifles" when going goose hunting might actually be technically correct.

While I'm not old enough to specifically remember the Emmett Till incident, as a child I was aghast hearing my elders, upon hearing news of the recovery of the bloated body of a murdered black person from a creek, river, or lake, weighted with chains and concrete blocks, laughingly say: "Ain't that just like a n, to steal more chain than he could swim with?" When I was a kid, folks with this sort of mindset were, by all appearances, in the majority in both North and South. Now that my generation is "the Establishment," whites have moved a long way from that mindset. ...or have we? I'd like to think so, but maybe it's just wishful thinking. But to ignore the conditions that existed in the 1950's and early 1960's is, I think, to misunderstand the times and conditions that made the assassination of JFK possible. Until John Dolva started this thread, I'd suppressed a lot of these memories, memories that are just resurfacing, and when they do I can still feel the fears I felt as a child about nuclear war and racial tensions and...and yes, even divisions between Protestants and Catholics that were much more pronounced then than they are now. While the discussion may prove cathartic to those of us who lived those days, perhaps they can help younger folks understand what those days were like, and perhaps lead them to a better understanding that may someday solve this case.

I believe that John Dolva has performed a public service here by reminding us of the racial climate of the US in the early 1960's. My children were born in the 1980's, and even after graduating high school, they don't appear to have a good understanding of what the '60's were like, from a racial standpoint...and I'd venture to say that this is true of many of the younger members of the research community as well. After all, we are just 51 years beyond "separate-but-equal" as a legal argument, and just 41 and 40 years past civil rights and voting rights legislation which altered the history of white/nonwhite interaction in the US. In 1963, around the time of King's "I Have A Dream" speech, I often heard a joke repeated which sought to equate Rev. Dr. King with the primary internal of a Maytag washer: a "black agitator." Truth is, America needed some shaking up then, someone to make ripples in the still waters that covered America's dirty laundry of racism. Detroit and Watts and Newark had yet to surface in the public consciousness, but first the confrontations in the de jure segregated South had to happen. Only after confronting the legally-condoned racism of the South could the de facto segregation of the North be addressed effectively. America's children in the '60's had plenty of reasons for fear. The Cold war held a nuclear "Sword of Damocles" over us all, and the threat was reinforced every time a Civil Defense drill was held, every time our family drove past a building with a "fallout shelter" on the way to school, to church, or to the store. The civil rights movement was becoming increasingly violent, and then there was this bearded fellow 90 miles off our coast who had nuclear weapons in his country as well. Without building a time machine and actually returning to those days, it's awfully difficult to reconstruct them in the minds of readers without making it all appear as the plywood scenery in a high-school play. But it was real, and it was in the backs of all our minds almost daily.

This is no time for leveety. Ron, I'm sure that one will provoke a FLOOD of indignant responses.

John, as an Aussie you've certainly given us a good historical background on the US civil rights movement, and how violence and killing weren't exactly disavowed. Allow me to relate an incident from my teenage years. I grew up in a fairly segregated community in Indiana, just north and west of Louisville, KY. I grew up in town, so I knew of "n Hill," the rocky ground where most, but certainly not all, of the black folks in town lived. Out in the county, there were some blacks who farmed and who were neighbors as well, but that was more of a convenience for themselves than any outward community racism. The pool hall in town had a black shoeshine "boy", but he was well beyond retirement age. I started school in 1961 at the Grade School Annex, as it was called then. Due to an overflow of "Baby Boomers," the town's grade school couldn't handle the numbers of students, so two classrooms were established in a former one-room "colored" school about two blocks from the grade school. While the community was predominantly white, we shared classes with a few black students...and they were our friends, our playmates at recess, our fellow Boy Scouts who camped and hiked and swam together with us. But parents and grandparents weren't quite as liberal-minded as we were; after all we were just kids. And so the "N-word" was used in a lot of homes. The incident I recall was sometime after I'd graduated, probably in 1973 or '74. A local black man in his early 20's worked for one of the local weekly newspapers, and the newspaper was bought out by a regional chain. Subsequently, he was transferred to another weekly newspaper in a neighboring county that had a reputation as being even less racially enlightened than our home county. Within two weeks this young black man was back at home, nursing a broken arm and numerous lacerations and contusions. At first, he claimed he'd had an especially bad bicycle wreck; then it finally came out that he'd been intentionally run over on his bicycle, and then beaten and told to "go back where you came from; we don't put up with your kind around here." This was a young man who walked away from confrontations whenever he could. His employers understood, and transferred him back in order to keep him alive. While my generation was asking, "How could this happen?", my grand-dad's generation was saying," We knew that'd happen." So while attitudes here, "up north," were considered more enlightened than "down south," it wasn't a universal thing by any means. Appropriate lyrics, too...and I know 'em by heart.

Ron wrote: The 17th Street levee was bombed. Ron, we all know better; in New Orleans, inanimate objects don't get bombed. People do.

I always heard that, if you don't care about pretty, a common 20-oz. soda bottle will silence a .22, and at close enough range I'm sure it could be mighty effective...as one story says, it sure was in RFK's case. [And if Oswald had only used a Baggie, the paraffin test would've come out differently in the Tippitt Case...and the dog WOULD've caught the rabbit, IF...] I'm beginning to understand that the why of the assassination and the why of the coverup are two separate--but, obviously, related--issues. And I've come to understand that the technical stuff and the political are important, but even together they come closer to drawing a portrait by Picasso than a Van Gogh. And I've come to understand a lot about how you and your comrades-in-arms operated in the early '60's. So keep on posting, because I'm beginning to understand more of it all the time. Sometimes, what's "cryptic' today is clear as a bell tomorrow, after I've had time to sleep on it [amazing what the subconscious mind can do, ain't it?]. I believe I know to which member of "les gendarmes" you refer, and I hope someday you two can do the Rodney King thing--"Can't we all just get along?"-- and someday end up toasting marshmallows around the campfire while singing "Kum-Bah-Yah"...but I ain't holdin' my breath on that ever taking place. [Humor intended here...I won't make you guess.] I kinda look at this case the way I look at understanding biblical prophesy...if you're looking for all the answers in one place, you probably won't find 'em. But if you can combine the bits and pieces from here and there, and determine what applies and what doesn't, and what fits the jigsaw puzzle and what doesn't, someday we'll figure this thing out and finally know the truth. SOUNDS simple enough, but after 40+ years nobody seems to have made all the pieces fit yet. But maybe we're just not listening well enough...I dunno.

...BULLETIN>>>>THIS JUST IN: FEMA Chief Relieved of Katrina Duties September 09, 2005 12:50 PM EDT WASHINGTON - Federal Emergency Management Agency Director Michael Brown is being removed from his role in managing the Bush administration's Hurricane Katrina relief efforts and is returning to Washington. Brown, who has been under fire for the federal government's slow response to the storm that devastated much of the Gulf Coast region, will be replaced by Coast Guard Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, who was overseeing New Orleans relief and rescue efforts. Asked if he was being made a scapegoat for a federal relief effort that has drawn widespread and sharp criticism, Brown told The Associated Press after a long pause: "By the press, yes. By the president, No." Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Mr. Hemming, Excuse me for being an amatuer in this investigation. But I believe I caught on quite some time ago that the lobbing of nukes was a real possibility had the investigation of the JFK assassination actually revealed the truth. And when ACTUAL national security issues are involved, I agree that the public has no "divine" right to the truth. But after witnessing all the bullsh*t that has been swept under the rug in the holy name of "national security" over the past 42 years [i'm only 50, so I couldn't possibly have witnessed much more than that and actually understood any of it], I wonder just how much of what we're told is "for our own good" rather than having any remote connection with the truth. While I don't think anything you might reveal would put your life in danger anymore [just a guess...'cause I figure anyone who actually cares, that was involved, is probably dead, in a vegetative state, or sitting on a beach thousands of miles away sipping drinks with umbrellas in 'em, knowing that by now there are so many crackpot theories out there that another one implicating THEM would be like another grain of sand on the beach], I can understand the potential economic implications of your telling of the entire story. I know it's been said that history is just the winners' version of what happened, but I would hope that you could eventually tell your story and set the record straight, as you know it, for the sake of history as well. While you've revealed a lot of tantalizing bits and pieces, I just don't have the inside information necessary to crack all your cryptic comments [but some read more clearly after they've had a few days to sink in and mesh with other known elements]. Rather than antagonize you, I'd rather see you keep posting your comments and tidbits...because, eventually, I might just learn enough to end up asking the right questions myself. Just hope neither of us runs out of time before that happens.

Ron wrote: Or as the great yodeler Slim Whitman might sing, "Odio lady who?" SAAAAAAYYYY....maybe the New Vaudeville Band back in the '60's was sending us a coded message in "Winchester Cathedral": Obe Odio dough? [i don't read the code very well]

Did you actually believe that I thought that the many leftist-oriented members of the Forum respected "the G man"? It surprises me you did not know that when I wrote that my tongue, figuratively speaking, was deeply embedded in my cheek! Tim, it never ceases to amaze me that you take people to task for assuming to know what's in your mind and your heart, and then you take them to task when they DON'T assume to know. "You gotta let your "yeah" be "yeah" and your "no" be "no"," to use a lyric you're probably familiar with. With someone whose ideas are, to say the least, out of the mainstream of this group...it's sometimes difficult to tell what is a heartfelt position and what is irony or sarcasm. Maybe it's clear in YOUR mind, but I daresay a LOT of things look different in YOUR mind than they do in the minds of others....same goes for myself, and all the others on the forum. The failure to realize that your words don't mean what they say doesn't necessarily imply that the OTHER forum members have a problem, Tim. We're used to you staking out positions that, to many of us, are "out there." So to discover later that you were being facetious is sometimes a revelation [not always, but sometimes].

I posted, on September 2, 2005 at 2:17 pm: The solution to the disaster should be self-evident: give Halliburton a no-bid, no-ceiling contract to clean up the mess, and it'll be handled so quickly it'll make your head swim. Yes, Tim...the word IS spelled "f-a-c-e-t-i-o-u-s"... ...but now "c-y-n-i-c-i-s-m" is taking over. I guess since the Cold War is over, the "red phone" has been disconnected between the Oval Office and the Kremlin...and moved to Dick Cheaney's office, connected directly to KBR.

Actually, Stephen, the Garner quote that I've heard is that the word "spit" was the sanitized version; the original was a reference to urine. And I'd LOVE to know the legal shenanigans and the outcome, as far as the alleged Carter conspirators were concerned. I can't seem to find any record of the outcome on the internet, even regarding allegedly public records. Kinda reminds me of a newspaper item I read about a fellow in a neighboring county, who was arrested on a charge of failure to appear in court...and was released on his own recognizance. [How does THAT work?]

As far as any official investigation, to date the treatment of the Odio incident has been odious.

It was this very Esquire article, coming on the heels of the LIFE issue headlined, "A Matter of Reasonable Doubt," which kindled my interest in the investigation of the JFK assassination...along with a lingering feeling that there was just something inherently wrong with the conclusions of the Warren Commission report.

Evacuees Strain States' Social Programs September 07, 2005 12:15 AM EDT WASHINGTON - Hurricane evacuees seeking food stamps in Texas started as a trickle and quickly turned into a torrent - eight applications the first day mushroomed to more than 26,000 within four days. To varying degrees, the same story is playing out around the country as state and local governments take in Gulf Coast refugees by the thousands, taxing social programs that in many cases already were stretched thin. Minnesota, already working to absorb a wave of roughly 5,000 Hmong refugees from Laos, is preparing for up to 3,000 Katrina victims while still feeling budget cuts in health assistance and job training that have taken effect since 2001. "We're not what we were five years ago," said Marcia Avner of the Minnesota Council of Non-Profits. "And the reality is, private charity cannot make up the difference." In Oklahoma, Gov. Brad Henry spoke for many Tuesday when he talked of a desire to be helpful tempered by the concern that "we don't want to stretch ourselves too thin." "We know it will be a strain," he said. "I think we will be OK." In many places, concerns about cost were taking a back seat to the impulse to help, at least for now. San Francisco was moving ahead with plans to house at least 300 Katrina evacuees despite warnings that the city could lose out on federal money by responding too quickly to a Red Cross request for help. "We're taking these 300 whether we get reimbursed or not," said Annemarie Conroy, director of the city's Office of Emergency Services. That thought was echoed across the country, in South Carolina, which prepared to take in as many as 18,000 refugees. "The cost associated with this is kind of secondary at the moment," said Chris Drummond, a spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford, adding that the state still remembers the help it got when hit by Hurricane Hugo in 1989. "We're going to return the favor." Each state is coping in its own way. Arkansas' governor wants to tap the state's $100 million budget surplus; Tennessee is dipping into its rainy-day fund, at least temporarily; Massachusetts was working on an emergency spending bill. And states are counting on significant help from the federal government, which approved a $10.5 billion down payment for hurricane relief last week. Congress is likely to approve far more in the days ahead, including assistance targeted for housing, health care, education and other needs. Texas expects the Federal Emergency Management Agency "to reimburse us 100 percent for everything," said Robert Black, a spokesman for Gov. Rick Perry. But the notion that Washington would pick up the tab for all hurricane-related costs seemed a bit rosy. Ron Pollack, director of the health care advocacy group Families USA, said that before Katrina hit, Congress had been considering cutbacks in Medicaid "which will make a very bad situation a whole lot worse" if they come to pass. Likewise, there are federal housing programs in place, but even before Katrina only a third of people eligible for assistance were being served, said Stacy Dean of the private Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. There are federal job-training programs, too, she said, but "the dollars are far too short to deal with the demand." Federal Emergency Management Agency spokeswoman Mary Margaret Walker said Tuesday that by 4 p.m. EDT, 317,186 households had registered for state and federal disaster assistance. The agency is registering about 50,000 people per day. It appeared clear that the federal government would not need to take the states up on all the offers to shelter evacuees. FEMA spokeswoman Natalie Rule said late Tuesday night that more than half the states had offered to take in evacuees and "obviously we're not going to need that much capacity." She said many evacuees are choosing to stay where they are to be closer to home and relatives or because they are "feeling safe and secure." School districts nationwide have begun enrolling students displaced by the hurricane, despite logistical and financial strains, hoping they will receive aid and leniency from state and federal education leaders. President Bush said the government is working on a plan under which the federal government can help the states pay for bills. "I'm confident that this government of ours will be able to help the local school districts," Bush said. Jerry Friedman, executive director of the American Public Human Services Association, said states are "acting with good intentions" while officials sort out who will ultimately pay the bills. For example, he said, other states have sent workers to Texas to help process food stamp applications, but it's not clear whether they are there simply as good neighbors or the federal government will pick up the tab. "It's very much a work in progress," said Friedman. The hurricane hit just as state budgets are starting to perk up after a protracted fiscal crunch. A study released by the nation's governors this summer found that income, sales and corporate tax receipts beat expectations in 42 states during the budget year that ended in June. But long-delayed spending needs and rising costs for education and Medicaid still are putting heavy pressure on state budgets. Dean said the willingness to help so far has been fabulous, but she added, "The states' generosity is going to run out as their coffers empty" even if their desire to help continues. "It will place an enormous strain on their social services," she said. "It's vital that governors speak up and ask for the federal financial support they'll need." Charities, too, are being asked to help take up the slack. In Georgia, which has 5,000 evacuees, Gov. Sonny Perdue is taping an appeal for help that will go to churches statewide. In Washington state, King County Executive Ron Sims spoke of the "enormous task" ahead. "We're going to ask the public to work with us because that's going to be absolutely critical," he said. "Faith-based communities are going to be absolutely essential to provide housing and clothing and places for people to live." Dean, cautioned, however, that while charities have an extraordinary ability to act quickly in an emergency, "their capacity and resources will be drained almost immediately. This is truly something that government has to deal with." --- AP reporters who contributed to this story include Ron Harris in San Francisco, Felicia Fonseca in Albuquerque, David Hammer in Little Rock, Ark., Jennifer Holland in Columbia, S.C., Stephen Singer in Hartford, Conn., Michael Kunzelman in Bourne, Mass., Ben Feller and Kevin Freking in Washington, Joshua Freed in Minneapolis, Kelley Shannon in Austin, Texas, Ron Jenkins in Oklahoma City; Jacques Billeaud in Phoenix, Beth Rucker in Nashville, Tenn., and Greg Bluestein in Atlanta. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

I read in "USA Today" that Bush was hopping mad at certain of his subordinates for the problems that occured. OK...but if Fox News didn't report it, did it really happen? Or is it just the "liberal media" trying to paint a president as being out of control of his emotions? I'll believe in repercussions for actions/inactions when--and if--they happen; otherwise, they're just rumor, speculation, and conjecture with little basis in fact.

Perhaps it's appropriate, then, that the Forum hasn't heretofore had advertising for feminine hygiene products, lest Tim begin questioning John's gender as well.

Tim wrote: One suspects heads will roll... Ain't gonna happen, Tim...at least based upon W's past history in office. THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY IN THIS ADMINISTRATION. The identity of a CIA operative was revealed by someone in the administration. But because Karl Rove revealed her identity, but not her NAME, he's off the hook. Mistakes were made and people died in New Orleans. But since those who died weren't wealthy contributors to the two political parties, no heads will roll; the administration will continue to claim that "mistakes were made," but will take responsibility for making NONE of them. The first example cited above shows a Clintonian response; it's not what was done, but how the language was twisted. The second example shows a Nixonian response; acknowledge the mistakes, but disavow ownership. So the current administration has already sunk to the level of the two worst crooks to have ever occupied the office of the presidency. And in the latter case, they are denied the Clintonian defense that "nobody died" because of their action. If it walks like a skunk, looks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk....nah, in Key West they'd probably call it a duckbilled platypus, as long as it's Republican.

Had the KKK advertised on the Forum, would you then jump to the conclusion that John had joined them as well? If Depends undergarments became an advertiser, would you assume that John had started using THEIR product? What about Paxil, Zoloft, or Prozac? C'mon, Tim...while it's probably more fun on that side of the looking glass, over here in Reality-ville, the colors are more true.

And, if the breakdowns in Louisana are indeed, as Mr. Purvis states, in part due to Southern resistance to "Yankee interference," should we also expect these same folks to return the "Yankee" dollars in assistance they're getting? I'm not gonna hold my breath.

My reference to "martial law" was a reference to DE FACTO martial law, and not just a policy referred to by that name in some state's legal code book. Under a state of emergency, common sense would dictate that, if required, martial law be imposed, in order to insure the safety and the welfare of the citizens. After all, the welfare of the citizens whould be of the first order of importance; the concern for ppoperty should be secondary, or tertiary, or even further down the list in importance. [bet I catch hell from a lot of conservatives over THAT, since many apparently value THEIR personal property over the lives of others!!!] If the law in Louisiana somehow does not allow for the declaration of martial law, then [to recycle some famous words] "the law is a ass."

As a political independent, I'm not shackled by the thinking that EITHER one side OR the other is corrupt. I assume that BOTH are corrupt, and leave it to the respective parties to prove me wrong. There's enough poor judgement to fill the Superdome in the New Orleans case. Poor judgement on the part of the NO mayor; poor judgement on the part of the Louisiana governor; and, yes, poor judgement on the part of President Bush. The BEST example I've heard reported of GOOD judgement was by the commander of the National Guard trrops once they landed in NO. He ordered that MRE's and bottled water be UNLOADED from the trucks prior to distribution, so that the trucks could return for more supplies, rather than waiting for individual items to be handed out one-at-a-time from the trucks. He ordered troops to NOT be constantly be pointing their weapons at obviously unarmed civilians ["This is NOT Baghdad!"]. In short, he became part of the SOLUTION, and not just another part of the PROBLEM. I read an account in this morning's newspaper that Guard troops returned fire on a group of armed civillians who were apparently part of the robbery-and-mayhem squads that have been roaming the city, killing "five or six" of the perps. GOOD. Nothing like the fear of death to put some of these folks back on the "straight and narrow" path. Still wondering when the declaration of martial law will occur in NO...because it's WAY past time for it.

As I posted before, I still am convinced that a big part of the problem in New Orleans was the fact that there apparently was no PLAN. FEMA failed to plan to bring relief supplies. The mayor failed to plan to evacuate the city--how to accomplish it. The governor failed to plan on how to get National Guard troops in, and in sufficient numbers, to restore order. As someone else has pointed out, it was a gigantic clusterf**k. Maybe a lot of you folks don't recall, but in the early days, the federal interstate highway system was called the National DEFENSE Highway System. Its primary purpose, during the Cold War days, was to ALLOW the evacuation of cities during times of threat. Of course, during the 1950's, when the system was being set up, there were "fallout shelters" throughout cities where emergency food rations and canned drinking water was stockpiled in case of emergency. While in hindsight we can say that these were woefully inadequate preparations for nuclear attack, they were EXCELLENT preparatory moves in case of natural disasters! Even small communities had "Civil Defense" volunteers who were similar to volunteer firemen, available at momentary notice to respond to tragedies, armed with "walkie-talkie" portable radios for use when other means of communications were out of commission [cell phones, may I remind you, are only effective as long as the cell towers remain intact]. Americans, in the post-Soviet threat days, have lulled themselves into a false sense of security. Most communities simply don't understand the threats they face; others, while cognizant of the threats, only give them lip service. New Orleans wasn't prepared for a disaster of the magnitude that it saw because the entire US is unprepared for disaster. While those who DO prepare for the unthinkable to occur are usually derided as folks wearing "tinfoil hats," these folks are usually the first to respond when what "can't happen here" happens.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of one of the poorest of New Orleans...annual income of under $10,000 a year. You rent your home, and you don't own a car. An order comes down to evacuate the city. But they don't offer buses, they don't offer hotel/motel costs when you get wherever you might end up. So what do you do? Do you stay put, and hope they're wrong about the hurricane...or do you start off walking, not knowing where to go, and not sure you can walk your way out of the path of the destruction? You sure as hell can't sleep in the car you don't have, can you? We've all heard about folks who didn't have sense enough to come in out of the rain; and yet these people are supposed to take off walking into a HURRICANE? Obviously there must not have been any school buses available on a Sunday for the state or city to commandeer...after all, that's a pretty busy day for school buses, traditionally. Church buses? New, all these folks were busy gettin' outa Dodge themselves. City buses? Military buses/ troop transport trucks? The entire evacuation situation was FUBAR from the get-go, and the response in the aftermath of the destruction was WORSE. NOW...rather than sit here and AFFIX the BLAME...maybe someone can FIX THE PROBLEM! In light of the debacle in New Orleans, MAYBE the executive offices [mayors, city councils, etc.] in other cities can sit down and map out a strategy in case an evacuation becomes necessary in THEIR city. Sit down with school officials and make arrangements for the use of buses in emergencies, WITHOUT having to wait a week for a directive from Washington; Make arrangements for medivac helicopters to get sick and injured people out of hospitals IN LARGE NUMBERS in case the need arises. And--shades of the Cold War days and the old Civil Defense--make PLANS for shelters and supplies of food and drinking water in case it's needed. New Orleand was a disaster waiting to happen, and it finally did. It wasn't so much that emergency folks planned to fail, but more that they FAILED TO PLAN. "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history..." well, you know the rest.