Brendan Slattery

This July Fourth, ignore polls on America’s image Christopher Hitchens, The Examiner WASHINGTON - Here’s what I want to know, and here’s why I want to know it. At what point in history, exactly, did the Pew Center decide that it knew how to measure world opinion? I ask this because almost every week I seem to read a study of how the rest of the globe thinks (or at any rate feels) about the United States. The polls in this country are unreliable enough and are often used to measure intangibles, such as “approval ratings,” which is why there is so much fluctuation within and between them. But who’s doing the random samples in Somalia and Tajikistan and Ecuador? I ask because these polls tend to inform Americans that the rest of the world has a decidedly low view of them. That this is true in large parts of the Middle East, and among large swathes of European intellectuals, is something that I can already tell you from experience. For that matter, it was at one point true that the majority of Pakistanis, say, believed not just that all Jews had left the World Trade Center on time, but that (therefore) they had all reported for work on time, hung around for a bit — presumably whistling and wearing unconcerned expressions — and only then left; doubtless offering some clever Semitic excuse. Not even al-Qaida’s pilots had as exact a schedule as that. Nonetheless, and despite the absurdity and hysteria of much of what is said and believed, we seem almost ready for a poll of Americans on what they think the rest of the world thinks of them in opinion polls, where the “finding” would be that most of those Americans polled think that most other people polled think they stink. There are several possible responses to this. One of them — no doubt to be found in the presumed “red states” — is to say “who gives a flying flip?” Another is not to surrender to impressionism, and to do some work of one’s own. Large numbers in India, for example (another multiethnic federal and secular democracy), report highly favorable views of the U.S. A very important poll in Iran (where polling is illegal) found that a huge majority of Iranians considered better relations with America to be the single most urgent priority. One of those who conducted the survey was a former American embassy hostage-taker, who was jailed for publishing his findings. Then there is the question of method. Polling in the U.S. depends on finding a lot of people who are identifiable by name, and at home in their kitchens when the poll-taker calls. How is this feat replicated in the Andes, say, or in the Congo? Who pays for the work? When is it decided that the time is right? For example, I am quite certain that an opinion poll of any kind, taken in the Muslim world in 1992, would have discovered enormous resentment at the failure of the United States to intervene militarily in Bosnia. But this ingredient in the famous mixture of Islamic grievances is seldom, if ever, mentioned, and certainly wasn’t head-counted at the time. As a result of that just and necessary intervention, large numbers of Orthodox Christians, not just in Serbia, now record strongly “anti-American” opinions. Which goes to show that you can’t please everybody. It also goes to show that you probably shouldn’t try. A country that attempted to be in everybody’s good books would be quite paralyzed. The last time everybody said they liked the United States (or said that they said they liked the United States) was just after Sept. 11, when the nation was panicked and traumatized and trying to count its dead. Well, no thanks. This is too high a price to be paid for being popular. Measurements of opinion are in any event static, and they assume passivity, and a consensus upon knowledge. If you had asked people in 2001 whether they thought it was likely that Afghans and Iraqis would be holding free elections in a couple of years (not that any polling group ever did even suggest such a question), I doubt you would have got a very good response. And how, in any case, could people have known enough to know what they were supposedly talking about? If I was to interrupt this article every few sentences, asking you whether or not I was making a good impression on you, I hope and believe that you would think I was a servile jerk. Yet this is what our politicians are doing in every speech (most notably in the absurd recent debate on “flag-burning”) and this is apparently what we hire Karen Hughes to do in our public diplomacy. Faced with a complete beast like the late Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi, who has been trying to kill us for several years, millions of Americans appear to believe that he only appeared in Iraq because in some way we made him upset. Well, even if this was true — which it is not — it wouldn’t be such a bad thing. (What would you say to a policy that made him contented, instead?). Thus, for a Fourth of July message, I would suggest less masochism, more confidence on the American street, and less nervous reliance on paper majorities discovered by paper organizations. Happy Independence Day.

I'm sorry, but that's Hill's foot. Look where he's standing. If that's not his right foot, then where is it? He's not in a position to put it in the small space between the Kennedys and the Connallys. So that's either his foot in an awkward angle or he's crushing Jack and Jackie with it. Most likely the former. BTW, Jackie cradled her husband in her arms from the Triple Underpass to Parkland. How in the world did she (or Hill) let his arm gruesomely dangle like that? It makes no sense, common or otherwise.

And Joe Kennedy.

Remember, these were the days before post-office-style workplace shootings. In 1963, it would not be unusual for a man to show off a rifle at work in a hunting-rich state like Texas. I doubt that the "offender" in this instance was even reprimanded.

I would believe that if I believed that Mr. BS actually has a conscience. I searched Dawn Meredith's recent posts and could not find where she "compared the United States to the Third Reich." but maybe I missed it. But the Third Reich serves one positive purpose in history: It is a reminder to every succeeding generation of the banality of evil. The U.S. has hundreds (maybe thousands, who'se counting?) of prisoners who have been held for more than two years without charge. If you care to read the Constitution, you will find that the present government has discarded it. I am a conservative, and therefore mindful of Edmund Burke's warning that the only thing neccessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Your detective skills stink, Ray. Here's what Dawn scribbled in "Historians, Journalists and Political Conspiracies": We live in very uncertain times. Why don't Americans wake up and demand better? I am afraid they have been so thoroughly brainwashed that they really don't realize that our precious freedoms are all but gone. We have an Attorney General who should be removed but his commander-in-chief is so Nazi-like it's truly horrifying. JIm Garrison, long ago , spoke about the rise of Nazism in Germany and compared the situation in the US to that time saying "I'm afraid Nazism will come to America in the name of national security". How prophetic! Game. Set. Match. And by invoking Gitmo in some sort of twisted analogy, I see that you have succumbed to the same disease. Please seek help.

First Nazis, now kamikazes. What is it with you people and irresponsible WWII imagery? Here's the bottom line: Dawn compared the United States to the Third Reich, and no one here batted so much as an eye, save for me. You can have your differences with the Bush Admin and still recognize that this is a hideous, STOO-PID, undeserving slur. My conscience is clear. BTW, I was the first person to respond to this thread and did so completely on-topic, point by point. I didn't ruin this thread; others did.

I'm curious: did anyone ever sweep the green spaces with metal detectors in the immediate years after 1963?

Brendan, John is not your guest, I invited him and helped arrange the internship at Cynthia's office, where I'm sure he is learning a lot about the American political system and is being treated much more cordually than he would at your "public relations" (Sic) office. Appologies to John for your rudeness as the only thing you have hosted is your own ignorance. So far, I'm sure your the only mindless American he's encountered. You can't be a serious Washington public relations man if you don't know my former Browns Mills, N.J. neighbor Ed Gillespie, the son of an Irish (Donegal) saloon keeper (JC's), former head of the Republican Party of the United States who now runs a real DC PR agency. The next time I'm in DC I was going to ask you to meet us at Brian Kelley's bar at the Old Ebbet Grille, who knows quite a bit about American politics, but I'm afraid that I'll punch you out and it won't be worth getting flagged from the Ebbit. Cynthia isn't the only one who can throw a good right hook in DC. It's a shame that others have asked John to post some of his experiences here, but instead you intimidate him like a schoolyard bully. Somebody should have taught you some manners long ago. Bill Kelly bkjfk3@yahoo.com Bill, he's not staying at your house, so he's not your guest. He's a guest at-large. When you're on foreign soil, please try be deferential and respectful. Is there such a thing as an "Ugly Irishman"? We'll soon find out. And why no grief for his off-topic post? I know of Ed Gillespie but don't know him personally. My job has nothing to do with politics. Nice try, though. Yeah, Old Ebbett is great (esp the oyster bar), but Fran O-Brien's was more my haunt till they closed it down last month. On the basis of your avatar, please don't threaten violence. The swing alone might finish you.

Do you have a real job, or do you just get paid to harrass forum members? You are certainly nasty. What's JOhn ever done to you? Aside from your belief that LHO killed JFk, why are you REALLY here? (Not that I expect a truthful answer.) Rhetorical question I guess. Dawn My job is to stomp out mindless anti-Americanism wherever I find it, and this place is a goldmine. John, I might remind you, is a guest in my country, and guests should not insult their hosts. I don't suffer ingrates well.

[/color]Mark: We all have these questions. I suspect howver that Mr Slattery does NOT have the answers. But perhaps he'll cite something really authorative, like Gerald Posner Dawn Dawn, aren't you the same flake who likened the US attorney general to a Nazi? After a slur like that, you think I care what you have to say? Go grab your copy of Mein Kampf and take a hike.

I did read O'Dell's report and it is a scientific paper open to criticism and review. Clearly the smoking gun here (pun intended) is Decker's "hold everything secure" line, which happened post-assassination and prior to the suspicious impulses. In other words, game over. The National Academy of Sciences concurred (are they "scientific" enough for you?). By "minority opinion" I'm referring to those of you who reside outside of the reality-based community. Gary Mack's a good guy, but he let emotion get the better of him on this issue. Hell, you guys can't even agree on whose microphone was stuck on. McLain? No. Hargis? No. Any other wild guesses? Now, is it possible that a shot came from the Knoll? Yes, but you won't find it on that belt. The House concluded that the (mythical) Knoll shot missed. Do you agree, or do you cherrypick only the stuff you find useful? Beats me. But it wasn't a rifle.

1. Read Mike O'Dell's report. The notion of gunshots on that belt is now a minority position. 2. And some of them saw motorcycle exhaust. Even Oliver Stone had to resort to a smoke machine to make this one come true. 3. LHO fired three times; it was a windy, swirly day. If they indeed smelled it, you can't discount that it was Oswald's. Then you had car exhaust, motorcycle exhaust, and bus exhaust on top of it. It was a virtual stew of emissions. And two people out of hundreds is indicative of nothing.

Because I don't recognize the House's findings as legitimate. Their alleged Knoll shooter was based on faulty dictabelt readings. Further analysis conducted after they had wrapped up proceedings confirmed the earlier mistake. Besides, you don't need a faded dictabelt to tell you what so many earwitnesses in DP heard that day: no shot from the fence area.

Wow. We're such a rotten, evil, conniving country. Why did you even bother coming over? P.S. Has your boss assaulted anyone today? She's due.

"I am not a crook." "Read my lips: no new taxes." "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." People lie, Norm.

delete

Actually it's my govt's theory, which I subscribe to. He didn't plan to get away with it, which accounts for his meandering course of action after the shooting. I think he counted on being killed or apprehended on the spot. Soviet Union? Unlikely. Cuba would have been a likelier destination--but just as futile. What makes you think the Texas Theater was some sort of rendezvous setting? Isn't it likely that he happened upon it and ducked in to escape the heat? Why did he dick around the front of the shoe store if the Theater was his goal? And what kind of "innocent" person, upon learning of the President's shooting/death, decides to take in a movie .. with a gun? The rest of the country was huddled around tv sets. Not good ol' Lee.

Hey Ray, I'm still posting! You're lucky I kept reading past Gary "back of the head" Aguilar's name, but I did. No motorcycles or fake SS agents for the re-enactment? Big deal. The men trailing the limo that day posed no such obstacle or potential interference. From the sixth floor, Oswald had more than enough height to clear the heads of anyone on the QM. And he did.

Brendan, you say the above as if you find glee in what happen to JFK. Bill Miller Pathetic. A mere 88 yards, with a scope?

Hitting JFK in the head with the first shot probably would have constituted "the luckiest act in the history of the world," but let the record show that it took three attempts to hit Kennedy's big bulbous noggin. That's about what we'd expect from a rusty ex-Marine like Oswald. Slow car + rigid, upright target + military-trained sniper = death. Not too complicated. Sounds like you're laying the groundwork for a "patsy" defense. No sale.

Never claimed Al wasn't a "serious" researcher; he (errantly) leveled that charge against me. Please try to pay attention. Really? His "only" claim to fame? And Blakey's doubts are supposed to put me off? Is he infallible or something? I like Blakey, but he's out to lunch on his mob hunch. A lot of people hated Kennedy, but they didn't kill him. Ray made a pun! When your starting template is "The WC was wrong and nothing you can say will change my mind," you can kiss "serious inquiry" goodbye. Another coward has joined the ranks. People like Ray are always complaining that the US is disintegrating into a fascist society, yet they're the first ones to pounce on speech they don't like. The irony--and shame- escapes them.

Mark Stapleton: “I feel sympathy for Lee. Look what the lone nut loonies are doing to his excellent thread.”Mark, I feel the same way, and would ordinarily apologize for sticking my own dim-witted butt into the thread. But apparently that’s the point and the strategy when someone like Lee posts an excellent thread—if you’re opposed to what he’s after or what is being said, then the best approach is to [expletive deleted] all over it. And it works: people get bored, irritated, tired, confused, and then drop out.................And why should anyone bother to stay in when confronted with gems like these? Since the later gems were based on the member’s apparent total confusion as to what he was talking about, and no one had the goodness of heart to correct him, this all speaks for itself, doesn’t it? It’s like watching the drunkest, mouthiest guy at the bar going on and on and on; he deserves to be knocked on his arse, but you always know he’s eventually gonna do something stupid or really embarrassing. And has no shame and/or can't stop when it does happen. (Keep your eye on the ball, and when you don’t know enough about a subject, just shut up. Something to ponder.) This is not, unfortunately, about someone who's totally oblivious and has no self-consciousness. It might seem that way when he writes, "If my posts routinely abused and harassed others in a trollish manner, or contained frequent profanity, then he’d have every right to exile me. But we all know that’s not what's happening here." He has to be aware that he "routinely abuses and harasses others in a trollish manner," doesn't he? That's what trolls are about, and then they deny they're doing it. So keep up the good work, Lee; you must really be onto something to have gained the honor of this kind of all-out assault. And everyone: try as much as possible to ignore this mouthy punk; he ain't worth the strain and effort we all had to endure when we squeezed out the last [expletive deleted] we took. Typical buff tactic of taking quotes out of context to prove your point. BTW, one of those barbs was directed towards my own grandfather, but why let facts get in the way? And to think Ken Rahn refuses to participate here due to its lack of seriousness.

I did my research, Al. I laboriously scrolled through all 16 pages of this provocative thread. Lots of "This Old Car" talk, but no spotter or radioman to be found. That leaves us with one corner of one very ugly building, concealing one very ugly and dangerous individual. Don't like my posts? Don't read 'em.

Al, you're a coward. You have so little faith in your own convictions that you ruthlessly attempt to snuff out any and all dissent. Even worse, you had to tattle to the moderator like an 8-yo girl. In short, anything that’s protected in regular society should be permissible in a group such as this. Wanna keep child porn and spam out? Be my guest. But don’t take away my right to offend, either wittingly or unwittingly. That’s what a democracy is all about. Otherwise, you’re left with the Internet’s version of a banana republic with the moderator as dictator. If my posts routinely abused and harassed others in a trollish manner, or contained frequent profanity, then he’d have every right to exile me. But we all know that’s not what's happening here. And “hurt feelings” is not an adequate excuse for banishment. If someone can say there was a spotter in the flower bed, then I can claim that LHO was the sole assassin. In a mere two weeks, I have provided tons of useful and on-topic photos on all aspects of the assassination, from Bill Greer, to the Rybka controversy, to motorcade security in general. Does that not constitute "research"? Last time I checked, this was the "JFK Assassination Debate," not the "Pro-Conspiracy Forum." Purvis is pro-LN; so am I. Are you trying to eliminate the competition and turn this into one big echo chamber? John McAdams, to his credit, is constantly bombarded and harassed by conspiracy enthusiasts on his newsgroup. Number of people banned? Zero. Please try to follow his example.

So bizarre that none of you losers has managed to put a dent in it lo these past 43 years. I liken you to isolated Japanese soldiers in 1946 and beyond, blissfully unaware that the war has ended. Of course, they were detached from their units and from all forms of official communication. What's your excuse? Nah, there's so much to ridicule right here. I imagine I'll be busy for quite some time, provided the super scary "military industrial complex" doesn't get me first. Time to up your meds, Mark.