Cliff Varnell

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

All the social media companies rely on public utilities for electricity (also satellites operated by the US, and under a defense umbrella provided by US taxpayers). 

So...the restaurant analogy is...what?

Is the customer denied service because of the color of their skin or because they scream obscenities at other diners?

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Why should a restaurant on private land be forced to serve people it does not want to serve? As it sits adjacent to a public road?

If the problem is race or religion they better put their private club behind their abode.

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

So do all the HQs of all the social media companies. Probably they bank through federally insured banks. I could go on. 

And the social media companies are excluding people due to race and religion?  No, it’s because people who signed a moderation agreement don’t want to behave.

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Anyway, let's see how Musk does. He looks to have fumbled so far. 

I hope he goes broke.  Just another right-winger bitching about a right-tilt company not being right-wing enough.

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I do not think "free speech" includes inciting or enabling physical violence. 

How about telling people ivermectin prevents covid?  Lots of folks in Trump country died from that.

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Matt A. has an interesting post on controlling algo's. 

Interesting topic.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Good point. As I recall, the N's got a parade permit to march through city streets. 

I take your point that Twitter is privately owned and can do what they want. 

What would think of a restaurant that refused to serve a minority group? 

If it’s open to the public by way of public sidewalks and public roads then the restaurant should serve the public, whomever that should be.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

And also... if Big Tech manipulates the playing field to make sure there is no Parler or other social media rivals....

Is that what’s happening?

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There is also the question of whether Facebook, Twitter, Google have became de facto town squares and thus should be open to all, within reason. 

Not my town square.  I don’t need them.  I need water and electricity from public utilities — but if all 3 of those tech companies went belly up I’d give a half a cheer.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Like Musk, I have a "free speech agenda." 

So you think that free speech would extend to posting photos on Twitter of Elon Musk’s children, their addresses, and the routes they took to school every day?

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Interesting topic. 

Mark Zuckerberg and the other owners of Facebook have the right to enforce moderation policies as an exercise of their right to free speech.

2 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

You guys are baseball fanboys.  

So was Marilyn.  Big Yankee fan.

18 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Boy Cliff, your Philly story about Richie Allen sounds really twisted! I see Allen had over 1,000 ops  with a career high 40 HR's in 1966! What are those people thinking?

The Sunday supplement for the Philadelphia Inquirer once carried a front cover color photo of Joe Kuharich hung in effigy.  Wiki:

“The 1968 season was Kuharich's last. The Eagles vied most of the season for pro football's worst record, which would have earned them the chance to draft Heisman Trophy winner O. J. Simpson No. 1 overall. But the Eagles won the twelfth and thirteenth games of the season, then a 14-game season, for a final record of 2-12-0, and the Buffalo Bills, with a record of 1-12-1, won the rights to Simpson. So despised by Eagles' fans by this time was Kuharich that a plane towing a banner reading "Joe Must Go" circled Franklin Field, the Eagles home field at that time, for all home games of the 1968 season, and for three of the home games a large banner was draped over the upper deck of Franklin Field which read simply "Joe Please Do Us a Favor and Die". This was the season of the game of legend in which Santa Claus was pelted with snowballs as he circled the track at Franklin Field at halftime of the final game of the season (December 15, 1968, a loss to the Minnesota Vikings, 24-17), precipitated as a result of the fans realizing that they would not be getting the No. 1 overall draft pick as they had hoped only three weeks earlier.”

4 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

An interesting question.

In the not-so-distant past the ACLU defended the right of N*zis to march in Skokie, Illinois, which happened to have a high concentration of concentration camp survivors.  

BTW, I loath, detest and revile N*zis. 

What is your view of the ACLU? 

They didn’t march on private property, did they?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yes, this is a headline--a vetted headline!---in the WaPo:

Elon Musk’s free-speech agenda poses safety risks on global stage

It has come to this. The "bad guys" have free speech agendas. 

Musk is un-good. 

Let us highlight all disagreeable Musk personality traits, and then send in the torpedoes....

Only one person at Twitter enjoys the right to free speech on that platform — Musk.  He can put whomever or whatever he wants on the venue he owns.  If someone goes on his platform and spins vile lies about his advertisers it is his free speech right to ban them.

The right to free speech is not a right to access a venue belonging to someone else.

Right-wing snowflakes cry “Censorship!” when they run afoul of moderation policies they had agreed to prior.

I don’t go on social media, got no respect for snowflakes playing victim.

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

In the summer of ‘68 my family moved from Northern California to suburban Philadelphia.  We went to see the Giants play the Phillies at Connie Mack Stadium.  They say Candlestick was a dump but Connie Mack made the ‘Stick look luxurious.  The outfield fence was all advertising.  They served this strange sandwich called a hoagie.  

 In the bottom of the 1st with two on the PA guy announced: “Now batting...Richie Allen.”  The place erupted with boos, the loudest crowd I’d ever heard.  Booing their own guy, I couldn’t believe it!  Allen hit a 3-run homer and the joint broke out in robust cheers. A couple of innings later with two on the PA guy announced: “Now batting...Richie Allen.”  This time the booing was more intense.  Allen cracked a double off an outfield advertisement, 2 runs scored, place goes nuts cheering.  In his next AB Allen struck out, the booing was on steroids.  I’ll never forget the silent dignity Allen carried himself with as he walked back to the dugout amidst thundering derision.

Philadelphia sports fans are...different.

As a stickler for accuracy I double checked my 54 year old memory with an internet box score for August 18, 1968 — Allen went 3 for 4 with 2 runs scored, a double, a home run and a strike out but he only had 1 RBI.  

The booing is what I remember the most.  

In 1964 the Phillies had a 6.5 game game lead with 12 games to go when Phil’s manager Gene Mauch decided to pitch his aces Jim Bunning and Chris Short on 2 days rest — they lost 10 in a row and finished 1 game behind the St. Louis Cardinals.  

How the fans blamed Allen I’m not sure.

In the summer of ‘68 my family moved from Northern California to suburban Philadelphia.  We went to see the Giants play the Phillies at Connie Mack Stadium.  They say Candlestick was a dump but Connie Mack made the ‘Stick look luxurious.  The outfield fence was all advertising.  They served this strange sandwich called a hoagie.  

 In the bottom of the 1st with two on the PA guy announced: “Now batting...Richie Allen.”  The place erupted with boos, the loudest crowd I’d ever heard.  Booing their own guy, I couldn’t believe it!  Allen hit a 3-run homer and the joint broke out in robust cheers. A couple of innings later with two on the PA guy announced: “Now batting...Richie Allen.”  This time the booing was more intense.  Allen cracked a double off an outfield advertisement, 2 runs scored, place goes nuts cheering.  In his next AB Allen struck out, the booing was on steroids.  I’ll never forget the silent dignity Allen carried himself with as he walked back to the dugout amidst thundering derision.

Philadelphia sports fans are...different.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't read Varnell for reasons I have stated prior. 

And yet around the 32 minute mark of his 2hr doc Jim DiEugenio acknowledges JFK had a shallow back wound at T3.

Looks like my 24 years of T-3 shaming the Experts sank in.

16 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

One less than his father. 

Bobby Bonds!  He hit 332.  I saw the first one with my own eyes, cold night at the 'Stick in late June '68 against the Dodgers, Bonds' first game in the majors, Ray Sadeki on the mound for the G-men (one of the few games he won for the Giants -- the guy we traded Orlando Cepeda for).  Bases loaded in Bonds' second AB bam! way over the chain link fence in left.  Next AB he came up with the bases loaded again and walked.  Giants won 9 - 2...

Thanks Pat, I needed that.

This thread deserves a bump.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

From Wikipedia, this is what I mean.

"Hammer was regarded by Pike as being "very loyal personally to Diem" and being "bitter" about his demise."

This colors her work to a large degree.

I mean in the face of what DIem and his brother did to that country, I mean whew.

I repeat, it was a mistake not to listen to Collins. DIem should have been removed then.

 

 

Americans always know better about who should rule other countries.

55 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't read Varnell for reasons I have stated prior. 

The fireworks start on page 3.

55 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But when someone else posts him, well...

As more than one person has said, Ellen Hammer was quite bitter about what happened in the coup.  And this tinges her writing.

Jim DiEugenio is super-loyal to JFK and bitter about any criticism of Kennedy -- or his own work.  This tinges his writing.

55 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would not rely on her as a sole source for what  happened.

I don't.

55 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And certainly not as a definitive source.

In fact, that whole thing about a reconciliation with the north is a giveaway about her agenda. 

Thanks to Karl Kinaski for the following (emphasis added)

Quote: Merry, Robert. TAKING ON THE WORLD: JOSEPH AND STEWART ALSOP - GUARDIANS OF THE AMERICAN CENTURY

The day after, on August 22, there arrived in Saigon the new U.S. ambassador, Joe Alsop’s lifelong friend, Henry Cabot Lodge. By the time Joe reached Vietnam in mid-September 1963 for ten days of reporting, Lodge had concluded that Diem must go. At the ambassador’s invitation, Joe stayed at the embassy, and there he had ample opportunity to hear Lodge decry the misrule of Diem and his brother. Indeed, Lodge already had set in motion a U.S. plan to sanction a coup by the South Vietnamese military. On two successive days Joe spent several hours in conversation with Nhu and Diem at their lush offices at the Palais Gia Long. He had become well acquainted with the pair during his many visits to Saigon, and he had felt a strong sense of confidence in their patriotism and judgment. Based on his conversations with Lodge, he was prepared to revise his opinion, but he was not prepared for what he encountered. He first visited Nhu in his long, high-ceilinged office lined with books and mementos and overlooking the palace gardens. The state councillor, as Nhu was called, motioned Joe to a chair near his cluttered desk and then, pacing back and forth along the length of the office and lighting cigarets in quick succession, commenced a long tirade against Saigon’s American press corps, the American government, his own military, and his own brother. He proclaimed himself to be the world’s greatest living expert on guerrilla warfare, but said he couldn’t bring his brilliance to bear because he was obstructed at every turn by the obstinate Americans and by his brother. Then Nhu announced that he had been involved in secret negotiations with Hanoi, conducted through the French ambassador, Roger Lalouette. He said he expected to reach a settlement with the communist regime soon, and that he would bring his brother along on any accommodation he found acceptable. When Joe asked what he would do if the communists later reneged on their agreement, as they had done so often in the past, the councillor dismissed the question as unimportant. He had only to go into the countryside and wave a handkerchief, he boasted, and a million men would spring to arms at his back. He was, after all, the world’s greatest living guerrilla expert. As Joe put it years later, “Nhu had gone stark, raving mad.” 

The next day Joe went back to Gia Long for lunch with President Diem, who greeted him cordially. Joe soon discovered that Diem’s thinking echoed Nhu’s. Diem repeated much of what his brother had said the previous day in almost identical terms, and he seemed just as impervious to reason.

</q>

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In Newman's last book before the Popov book, he admitted that the evidence was ambiguous.  As I noted earlier, even Conein said they were getting differing messages.

But to me, this is all sound and fury. Signifyng nothing.

As John Newman told me: Diem's government was collapsing.  And even Nhu understood that.  The demands from Hanoi were not going to be accepted. 

That 's not what was reported, and not what the coup plotters thought.

"Today's World Report: Truce Moves Reported In Viet Nam," New York World-Telegram & Sun, (Friday), 25 October 1963, p.6:*

"LONDON - The government of South Vietnam and Communist North Viet Nam are apparently making exploratory contacts that could lead to a truce, diplomatic sources said. There was no official confirmation…Diplomatic sources said the current moves were believed to be aiming at some sort of truce arrangement with possible wider ramifications." <quote off>

Ellen J. Hammer, A Death in November, pg 251

<quote on, emphasis added>

There would be no coup until a reply was received from [President Kennedy], General Khiem told his CIA contact that September.  But he reassured the American that the generals had not given up their plotting.  They feared that Nhu might actually succeed in working out a reconciliation with the North.  A dangerous prospect, according to Conein, because “what the devil were they fighting for if the central government was negotiating behind their backs?” </q>

It appears John Newman and James DiEugenio share the ability to peer into alternate historical realities and tell us the outcome of negotiations cut off by bullets.  Maybe they can tell me how many home runs Barry Bonds would have hit if he hadn't started juicing.  That I'd like to know.

On 11/21/2022 at 11:47 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Having said that, when I read Jim D. being interviewed, this is what I got from it:

      (Ignore #2 for now.)

1. The S. Vietnamese Military was planning a coup against Diem.

That's not how it happened.

Ellen J. Hammer, A Death in November, pgs 250-1

<quote on>

Ever since the military conflict [with the Viet Cong] had sharpened under the Kennedy administration, many American officials had envisioned a change in the Saigon government and made contacts in the Vietnamese army and administration with that in mind; different groups of Americans had different candidates.

But now the decision had been made to act through the generals.  </q>

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

So Cliff, Do you think JFK was aware of this in May  1963?, or  is it worse if he wasn't?

He swallowed the “Buddhist Crisis” narrative whole.  He relied on advisers who had their own agenda, like Averell Harriman and Roger Hilsman.

On 11/23/2022 at 6:24 PM, James DiEugenio said:

And as Jim Douglass points out, the so called negotiations Nhu had with Hanoi were going nowhere since they demanded that Saigon remove all American advisors.  

Didn't Kennedy want to remove all US advisors?

On 11/23/2022 at 6:24 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Diem was going to be overthrown. 

Factually incorrect, borderline academic malpractice.

The CIA incited the "Buddhist crisis" with two deadly explosions at a Buddhist protest in Hue, May 8, 1963.

JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass, pg 130-1

<quote on, emphasis added>

Dr. Le Khac Quyen, the hospital director at Hue, said after examining the victim's bodies that he had never seen such injuries. The bodies had been decapitated. He found no metal in the corpses, only holes. There were no wounds below the chest. In his official finding, Dr. Quyen ruled that "the death of the people was caused by an explosion which took place in mid-air," blowing off their heads and mutilating their bodies...

...In May 1963, Diem's younger brother, Ngo Dinh Can, who ruled Hue, thought from the very beginning that the Viet Cong had nothing to do with the explosions at the radio station.   According to an investigation carried out by the Catholic newspaper, Hoa Binh, Ngo Dinh Can and his advisers were "convinced the explosions had to be the work of an American agent who wanted to make trouble for Diem." In 1970 Hoa Binh located such a man, a Captain Scott, who in later years became a U.S. military adviser in the Mekong Delta. Scott had come to Hue from Da Nang on May 7, 1963. He admitted he was the American agent responsible for the bombing at the radio station the next day. He said he used "an explosive that was still secret and known only to certain people at the Central Intelligence Agency, a charge no larger than a matchbox with a timing device."
<quote off>

The CIA stoked the "crisis."

Ellen J. Hammer, A Death in November, pg 156:

<quote on, emphasis in the original>

When [Diem and Nhu] had first claimed that Americans were active behind the scenes in the agitation spreading in Saigon, they had sounded paranoid – a favorite word among Americans for Diem and Nhu that summer.  But who could disbelieve [David] Halberstam, with his excellent sources in the Central Intelligence Agency, when he reported that the CIA had been openly sending its agents into the pagodas and making daily contact with Buddhist priests and “other participants in this crisis”?  These agents were acting under orders – and they did not go to the pagodas to discuss the finer points of Buddhism.

<quote off>

Roger Hilsman bragged about it:

Buddhists bit – tasted a little bit of political blood.  Bit harder – tasted more political blood -- and then finally began to use American television.  None of them spoke English but their signs were all in English.

By the end of October the phony crisis petered out.

Ellen J. Hammer, A Death in November, pg 278:

<quote on, emphasis added>

On Thursday, October 31, General Don went to Gia Long Palace and talked with both Diem and Nhu.  He inquired about the petition he and General Dinh had given Diem in September, asking for cabinet posts and policy changes.  He was told that since everything had resumed to normal there was no need for changes…

General Don was busy on Thursday with last-minute preparations for the coming action.  That was the day [activist professor] Buu-Hoi went with two Buddhist monks to see Ngo Dinh Nhu.  They asked him to intervene with Diem to set free “all Buddhist dignitaries, laymen and students still under detention,” and Nhu “promised to obtain from the president a favorable answer to this request.”

The news was announced in an official press release.  It would be a banner headline on the front page of the Times of Vietnam the next day.

This was awkward news for the generals.  The Buddhist issue, which had been slipping away ever since the arrival of the mission from the United Nations [Oct. 24], seemed to be disappearing before their eyes, and a convenient excuse for their coup with it.

<quote off> 

18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W-

Explain how in 18 months of "investigating"....the 1/6 committee never found out that the No. 2 guy at the Oath Keepers...is an FBI asset? 

Ben, why do you assume an FBI asset couldn't be a Trump supporter?

On 11/19/2022 at 9:18 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Like Ron I suspect Lodge. But I’m certain that Cliff has studied Diem more than I.

I've spoken to an eye-witness to the coup.

On 11/19/2022 at 9:18 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Does he think Jfk was killed as payback for Diem’s murder?

I suspect not.  I think the plot was to remove the 3 leaders who stood in the way of a SEAsia-to-Havana heroin pipeline: Diem, Kennedy and Castro.  I think Fidel worked out an accommodation and they left him alone after that.

On 11/19/2022 at 9:18 PM, Paul Brancato said:

 

I recall him suggesting that assassins from that Asian milieu, CIA or military covert operatives, were part of the hit team in Dealey Plaza.

Indeed.

May 8, 1963. Hue, South Vietnam.  In a beef over the flying of religious flags, Buddhist protesters crowded around a radio station when two explosions killed eight people.  The Catholic Diem regime blamed the Viet Cong; the Buddhists blamed Diem.

JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass, pg 130-1

<quote on, emphasis added>

Dr. Le Khac Quyen, the hospital director at Hue, said after examining the victim's bodies that he had never seen such injuries. The bodies had been decapitated. He found no metal in the corpses, only holes. There were no wounds below the chest. In his official finding, Dr. Quyen ruled that "the death of the people was caused by an explosion which took place in mid-air," blowing off their heads and mutilating their bodies...

...In May 1963, Diem's younger brother, Ngo Dinh Can, who ruled Hue, thought from the very beginning that the Viet Cong had nothing to do with the explosions at the radio station.   According to an investigation carried out by the Catholic newspaper, Hoa Binh, Ngo Dinh Can and his advisers were "convinced the explosions had to be the work of an American agent who wanted to make trouble for Diem." In 1970 Hoa Binh located such a man, a Captain Scott, who in later years became a U.S. military adviser in the Mekong Delta. Scott had come to Hue from Da Nang on May 7, 1963. He admitted he was the American agent responsible for the bombing at the radio station the next day. He said he used "an explosive that was still secret and known only to certain people at the Central Intelligence Agency, a charge no larger than a matchbox with a timing device."
<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA in 1978:

<quote on, emphasis added>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's 1978 sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on, emphasis added>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely....Following discussion  among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and   with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

 <quote off>

The explosions in Hue and the back and throat wounds in JFK left no metal, no evidence of that which caused the wound.

JFK had shallow wounds in soft tissue in his back and throat.  6.5mm FMJ doesn't leave that kind of wound.  What conventional weaponry does?

On 11/19/2022 at 5:20 PM, Paul Brancato said:

I don’t think one needs to be a Kennedy fan boy in order to observe and analyze the posthumous assassination of the Kennedy brothers. 
Jim D isn’t the only one who writes about JFK’s foreign policies, but you will never see anything serious about that important perspective in mainstream media, and Jim does an excellent job explaining it with cogent references. What does being a fan boy have to do with that?

DiEugenio's adoration of JFK has led him to shoddy scholarship in regard to the Bay of Pigs, the partition of Laos, and the overthrow of Diem.  He repeats Kennedy's face-saving talking points as if Holy Writ.

3 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

I have been online in various discussion groups of one kind or another since before Windows was invented.

Terribly

Redundant

Obtuse

Lazy

Laggard

Snowflakes.

Live to fight. That’s their only purpose. The reason doesn’t matter. Arguing is an end unto itself. More often then not, they are late teen incels living in their mother’s basement, or someone who is emotionally stuck at that age. You cannot win arguments with Terribly Redundant Obtuse Lazy Laggard Snowflakes because they are not interested in growing. If you don’t fight with them, eventually they will get bored and move on to somewhere else where they can pick fights. That’s the only way they can get attention.

Steve Thomas

A word to the wise, Steve.  See y’all in 2024!

14 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Deflection right on cue. 🙂 

 

Hows life, Cliff? 

Good!  Thanks for asking.  I actually went 16 months between posting as I work on a screenplay.  Took a break from that to weigh in on the overthrow of Diem, and the midterms.  Now I bask in schadenfreude thanks to the crypto-fascists who rooted for the GOP.

Just now, Chris Barnard said:

No need, I am not emotional about it like you guys. You had a 9 month sulk or breakdown didn’t you?! 😌

Projection right on cue.

4 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I was rather hoping you’d say that, Matt, as I didn’t want to be unfair. Its sets a precedent, and it really says that anything goes. I do wonder how much this moment will affect you moving forward. 

A promise of chrissyfits to come...

https://ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/173/261

“Defamation is essentially an attack on reputation', by the publication of libellous statements, which identify a person or company.  Thus 'an action for defamation ... provides a remedy to a claimant who can prove that a publication lowers his or her reputation in the view of reasonable people.'  America and England have different approaches to this area of law. In fact, according to Robert Balin, 'in many ways, libel laws in the United States and England constitute mirror images of each other--with the burden of proof placed on the claimant in the United States, but on the media defendant in the United Kingdom'.  Their different approaches stem from how they balance the right to freedom of speech against the competing right to protection of reputation. America favours protecting free speech, whilst England favours protecting reputations. Both libel approaches have attracted criticism; America for making successful defamation suits too difficult, and England for conversely making them too easy, and enabling the proliferation of libel tourism.”

<quote off, emphasis added>