Rambling Rants

A collection--actually, more a clutter, of rambles about all sorts of subjects.





Archives:





E-Mail Me

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

 
A few weeks ago my 'boy' (he's just turned forty) returned from his trip to England. As you might expect from any decent Englishman he took in a few football matches. One was to the team that he has supported since a child, Liverpool. The other is not a team you'll hear about unless you really know your football. That team is AFC Wimbledon, the Dons.

Arran, my son, had attended a couple of Wimbledon games, also as a youngster, they were our local team. Now, all these years later he wanted to experience it all again. But I get ahead of myself. Let me tell you the story behind AFC Wimbledon, or rather let a certain Mr. Scrivener tell it. It's a fairy tale in it's way.


From Crazy Gang to Culture Club

By Peter Scrivener

Seven years ago, a Football Association-appointed committee said that "resurrecting 'Wimbledon Town' was not in the wider interests of football".

It was a statement that outraged many Wimbledon fans who were already hurting from the decision to move their club to Milton Keynes and they took it upon themselves to prove the doubting three-man FA panel wrong.

Fast forward to 2009 and 'Wimbledon Town', or AFC Wimbledon as the team became, has done just that in spectacular fashion by reaching the Blue Square Premier League after a fourth promotion in seven years. Their rise from the ninth tier of the football pyramid draws inevitable comparisons with Wimbledon's climb from Division Four to the top flight of English football in the 1980s.

That rise was punctuated with a victory over Liverpool in the 1988 FA Cup final, prompting BBC commentator John Motson to utter the immortal line: "The Crazy Gang have beaten the Culture Club." And this Crazy Gang spirit lives on in the supporters who give up their time to run the club.

AFC Wimbledon was conceived on 28 May, 2002 in supporter Ivor Heller's factory. The date is a particularly poignant one in Dons history as exactly 25 years earlier the club had been elected from the Southern League, which they had won in the previous three years, to the Football League. Hellor, Mark Jones and Trevor Williams were plotting the conception while other supporters were in London's Soho Square to protest against, and then hear, the decision to move the club to Milton Keynes.

"We all felt that if Milton Keynes happened, we had to start another club," Heller who is now AFC Wimbledon's commercial director, told BBC Sport.

"We were in touch with Kris Stewart (who was chairman of the Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association and eventually became chairman of AFC) and he turned up the next day which really galvanised things. The rest is history."

And what a history. In seven years, the team have climbed from the Combined Counties League, the ninth tier of the football pyramid, to the fifth. They cantered to their first title in only their second season with an unbeaten league record and followed that by winning the Isthmian League Division One at the first attempt. After losing two Isthmian League Premier Division play-off semi-finals, the Dons made it third time lucky in 2008 to reach Conference South. And this season, the club raced through the division, effectively securing promotion with a 1-1 draw at second-placed Hampton & Richmond in their penultimate game.

"I'm ecstatic," said Heller. "It's amazing. My major ambition was to get to the Conference.

"I've always been just a fan and I live and breathe every kick.

"But this is different to back in the 70s and 80s. It's a part of me and I'm a part of it. Everybody at the club feels a part of it.

"Some fans won't be satisfied until we're back in the Premier League, but the Conference was my ambition."

And now they are there, there is no rush to launch an assault on winning promotion to the Football League. The club have vowed to stay part-time in its first season in the Conference. It is a calculated gamble, but one that fits in with the club's ethos of living within their means.

"It's a massive financial leap to go full-time," said Heller. "So we'll do the best we can in the Conference and if that's good enough to get us into the play-offs or better, then great. If not, it's not a worry.

"We also have to get our youth policy right, develop our community scheme and stay true to our ethos, every club has its limits.

"The club is built on a solid foundation and it was my dream to have my football club to follow when I got old."

Club president and former Wimbledon goalkeeper Dickie Guy has also been involved since the start after he received a phone call asking him to check out potential goalkeepers at the club's initial trial on Wimbledon Common, in the summer of 2002. He played for Wimbledon throughout the 1970s and was in goal during their famous 1975 FA Cup run where they beat Burnley at Turf Moor to become the first non-League team to defeat a top flight club on their own ground. He then saved a Peter Lorimer penalty as the Dons held reigning First Division champions Leeds to a draw at Elland Road in round four before losing to an own goal in the replay.

"We will get back into the Football League, but it won't be next season," said Guy who made about 20 appearances for Wimbledon in the Fourth Division in 1977.

"It would benefit us to be a bit more physical next season, but I don't want to lose the style of football way we play.

"I feel fortunate to have been involved in the good times at the club when we were winning the Southern League and now in our current run.

"But playing was much easier than watching. It was always more relaxing to be on the pitch.

"But it has been a fantastic season and much better than I expected - I would have been happy to be in and around the play-offs.

"We had a terrific start, tailed off by Christmas and were about 12 points behind Chelmsford, but then we steamrollered them all.

"We've felt the pressure and tension in the last few games and when we equalised against Hampton & Richmond last week I thought I was going to have a heart attack."

That 1-1 draw effectively sealed promotion ahead of Saturday's last game of the season. The Dons welcomed St Albans to their home at Kingsmeadow, which has a capacity of 4,700, and had been sold out for days. The Wombles ended the season on a high, with a 3-0 win and several supporters completed a charity walk from the Hertfordshire club to south-west London to watch the game. Among them was board member and club mascot Dean Parsons, aka Haydon the Womble, who is looking forward to visiting places like Luton and Mansfield next season.

Just 17 years ago, Wimbledon v Luton was a top-flight fixture and the Dons beat the Hatters 2-1 in the semi-final of the 1988 FA Cup at White Hart Lane.

"The first game I ever went to, in 1983, was against Mansfield," he said.

"We are just one step away from the Football League and I'd like to think we can now beat our 15-year plan to return.

"In manager Terry Brown we've got a man who has done it before.

"He almost took Aldershot up from the Conference when they were only part-time in 2005 and lost to Shrewsbury in the play-offs.

"He said it was a bit of a blessing because of their part-time status and they wouldn't have been prepared.

"But we've come this far in seven years and it may take us another five to go this next step, but I won't be disappointed if it takes longer."

The club's resurrection has certainly been stunning and was retold on the stage at a Wimbledon theatre in 2004.

"Ours really is a great story," laughed Heller, "and if we get to the Football League, believe me, they'll turn it into a film."

Maybe the Crazy Gang is turning into the Culture Club.

posted by Dennis at 6:57 AM

Friday, May 01, 2009

 
I think Clarence Thomas is right on with his comment regarding 'Fairness Doctrine' - what a piece of doublespeak that is, it's quite the opposite of fairness, it's about using dilution to stifle criticism and comment. ANyway, back to Thomas' views.

He suggested that the off-the-books policy could be declared unconstitutional if it's revived and brought before the bench. He went on to say that "the policy was "problematic" and a "deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters."

The doctrine requiring broadcasters to air opposing viewpoints on controversial issues was brought to an end in the 1980s under the direction of President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission.

The leader of a newly formed public awareness campaign to alert U.S. citizens about an effort to stifle free speech says he expects local "boards" will be assembled within 90 days to begin censoring talk radio, a move that will come as an "Arctic blast" against the expression of opinion in the United States.

"I think the FCC is on the cusp of enacting regulations that would fundamentally alter the traditional American assumption that we have the right to share and debate political opinions," said talk-show host Roger Hedgecock, whose new initiative is called "Don't Touch My Dial."

"The assault on the First Amendment that is being planned by the government and the extremist Left is not limited to their desire to silence conservative talk radio," Hedgecock said.

"Newspapers and television are not immune to the anti-First Amendment efforts that are at work here. In addition, the Internet
is also a target for receiving the restrictive aspects of the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine.'"

I, for one, will continue to do whatever I can to undermine and fight the Left on the control it seeks to effect.

When I came to the U.S.A thirty years ago I did it partly out of frustration with the stifling effect of trade unionism and the way they wished to cooerce their members and the public down a path of socialism.

The least I can do is fight government that attempts to push us down a similar path.

Labels: , , ,



posted by Dennis at 7:41 AM

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

 
Most days I'm a pretty happy person. I hear some of you saying, "Jeez, I'd never have guessed form some of the stuff you send out." Not true, but I can see where you're coming from. Anyway, my day is ticking along quite nicely and then someone sends me something and I think, "You've got to be kidding. Why are some folks so hell bent on turning the whole world upside down?"


Needless to say, this occured in California (sorry to my CA frinds...but really). Here is what I received from the Liberty Action organization.


A very disturbing, some would say shocking, report has just crossed my desk that could fundamentally shift the marriage debate in America. In fact, if this new strategy works, it could literally mean the "End of Marriage."


Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the homosexual activists' challenge to Proposition 8 -- the amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman that was approved by voters last November. Liberty Counsel's amicus brief for this case makes it clear that the California Supreme Court has no legal or constitutional grounds to reject Proposition 8. But as I learned when I argued the original same-sex marriage case before this same Court last year, the homosexual activists (and judges with an agenda!) are not deterred by the facts.


How the California Court could "end" marriage


During the arguments in this year's case, a "compromise" was discussed that would supposedly satisfy all parties -- affirming the result of Proposition 8 but resolving the alleged "equal protection" problem of not allowing homosexuals to marry. What was that compromise? Simply end the use of the term "marriage" altogether by the state of California! When asked by one of the justices, lawyers from both sides agreed that the so-called "compromise" would resolve the legal disputes. But the ramifications of a new legal principle that ends marriage would be devastating!


Dangerous phase in the battle over marriage


We do not know what the California court will do but one thing is clear: We are entering the most dangerous and most difficult phase in the battle to save marriage we have yet seen. The California court ruling could be announced any day and Liberty Counsel must be ready. No matter who the decision favors, many Californians will be outraged. If the decision goes against pro-homosexual interests, we expect dramatic public demonstrations and possibly even rioting. Our lawyers are working on several marriage-related cases right now, but I expect a flood of new cases to result from the California decision, no matter which way it goes.


We cannot allow these activists and judges to "end" marriage.

Labels:



posted by Dennis at 2:33 PM

Thursday, January 29, 2009

 
 

Posted by Picasa


posted by Dennis at 12:58 PM

Thursday, May 31, 2007

 
What is reality?

I ask this not from a philosophical standpoint but more as cry against what constitutes reality according to modern society. I see your brows furrow...what is he talking about?

Let me explain.

Whist back in the U.K. a couple of months ago I had occasion to spend time with a friend who, like myself, encounters an ignorance in the general population that defies belief. I always smile when I hear a politician say, "...don't underestimate the intelligence of the average American/British man and woman, they won't be fooled". Who are they kidding? The vast majority speak in cliches and are swayed by factors that defy logic, hence my rationale that they don't understand fundemental logic, rational thought or the means to decipher complex argumentation.

To return to my friend. "I can't understand why they don't see what I see," he said to me, "They look at me as though I'm speaking double-Dutch when I point out some seemingly-obvious point." I nodded. I knew exactly what he meant. What is somewhat worrying is that it covers such a varied subject matter. Now, before you go off and say, "well, you are probably referring to some political or religious point of view which is really just a matter of opinion", let me state that is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about stating facts, just facts, and from those facts making logical extensions to other points. If there are cases for rebuttal, then examining them until they are satisfied, and so on. Classical argumentation.

Why do I bother? Why expend the energy? Because we must not stand by and let pseudo-science, pseudo-theology, societical mumbo-jumbo become accepted. The TV-Reality model must not be allowed to become real. That is NOT reality.

posted by Dennis at 11:18 AM

Thursday, January 01, 2004

 
Well, 2004 is upon us.

Yet another year has passed under the bridge of time. I wrote to a few friends and colleagues today on a variety of subjects. Let see, there was issue of the separation of church and state,
commentary on Sir William Blackstone and the law, cussing in Arabic, and let's see, oh, yes, technology and the big brother syndrome.

I also did more work on my "Hillary Rodham Clinton" document. Actually, it is more like a compilation than anything else. All sorts of bits and pieces about that shrewd and dangerous spin creature. It is coming along quite nicely, I must say.

Well, that'll do it for today. Happy new year everybody.



posted by Dennis at 12:04 PM

Monday, February 24, 2003

 
One more thing as a follow on to my piece on the media yesterday. When you want to complain--and you should exercise that right--make sure you follow the four cardinal rules of media activism:

1) Concise. Make your complaint brief and to the point, and focus on one specific and quantifiable error, rather than vague generalities that are easily dismissible.

2) Factual. Make a complaint that is backed up by facts, and cite the source for your information.

3) Polite. Make complaint that is stated respectfully, without name-calling or accusations.

4) Diligent. When you do not get satisfaction the first time, write to complain again, restating your complaint and again requesting a reply.


posted by Dennis at 11:41 AM

 
There is a concerted effort by our mainstream media to fight back against allegations of the liberal bias. I've heard it many times over the last few weeks and we must show every piece that supports our claim that there really is a bias. They, the liberals--say that so many right-wing radio shows are appearing that the bias can't be true. I prefer to look at it in these terms: it has been so difficult to get balanced reporting that many of the general population welcomed an alternative to what they were hearing.
Anyway, I offer this piece that shows how even corporate America has succumbed, all because of the almighty dollar. Read on.


U.S. corporations support Hezbollah hate

"These all-American brands are used to help celebrate murder, terrorism, anti-Semitism and coarse hatred of American values."

By Avi Jorisch

Why are local Lebanese subsidiaries of major American corporations -- such as PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble and Western Union -- lending comfort and support to terrorists by advertising on Hezbollah television?

Al Manar -- the Arabic word for beacon -- is the official television station of Lebanon's Party of God, more commonly known as Hezbollah. That Iranian-backed and -funded group has been implicated in the attacks against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans in 1982, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 12 Americans in 1984, the Israeli Embassy and Jewish cultural center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people in 1994 and numerous other terrorist attacks, murders and kidnappings over the years.

Al Manar is Hezbollah's outreach to the world, a self-described "station of resistance." Founded in 1991 as a mom-and-pop operation that barely reached beyond Beirut's southern suburbs, Al Manar now transmits via satellite 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with the expressed goal of waging "psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy."

As Al Manar's Chairman of the Board Nayef Krayem said , "There is no act of resistance that can be classified as terrorism."

It is no surprise then that Al Manar's programming glorifies suicide bombers, exhorts Palestinians to kill Jews and revels in the carnage of terrorist attacks on civilians. The fact that Al Manar almost always has immediate footage of terrorist outrages or Hezbollah attacks across the Israel-Lebanon border adds to the speculation that Al Manar officials are themselves party to Hezbollah's operational planning.

As emerged during a recent North Carolina trial of two Hezbollah operatives, Al Manar employees conduct pre-operational surveillance of potential targets and engage in other logistical and financial support activities for terrorist acts. Hezbollah, of course, targets America as well as Israel.

Sheik Hassan Izz-Adin, in his capacity as a member of Hezbollah's political council and director of Hezbollah's media-relations unit (which directly oversees Al Manar), said to me: "America will fall just like the Romans and the British. While it now controls the world, this will change. We cannot accept American domination and American terrorist actions."

What is most shocking is not the vitriol of Al Manar's message or its high-tech facility for international broadcasting. What is most shocking is the extent of advertising it carries by local subsidiaries of major U.S. corporations. The fact that they advertise only on Al Manar's local television outlet in Lebanon, not on Al Manar's satellite station, suggests they want to keep their commercial links to terrorists away from the prying eyes of U.S.-based viewers.

For Americans, advertising on Al Manar may not only be in bad taste; it may be illegal. Hezbollah is officially named a "specially designated terrorist group" under Executive Order 13224. This designation empowers the U.S. government to impose financial sanctions against those "that support or otherwise associate" with Hezbollah.

Additionally, Executive Order 12947 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prohibit the provision of "financial, material or technological support" to any specially designated terrorist group. And the U.S. code makes it illegal to "knowingly provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization." At the very least, these statutes and executive orders provide the basis for an investigation into the legality of Al Manar advertising by U.S. companies.

But even if there are technical loopholes behind which corporate lawyers can hide -- that is, it is the subsidiary's fault, not headquarters' -- should they? After all, the millions of Americans who hold stock in these companies would be outraged to know that these all-American brands are used to help celebrate murder, terrorism, anti-Semitism and coarse hatred of American values.

Of course, maybe corporate honchos have no idea what is going on in their names in faraway Lebanon. Regardless, all commercial dealings between U.S. companies, their subsidiaries abroad and Al Manar must come to an immediate end.

In the meantime, with American lives put at stake every day by the venality of Hezbollah and its allies in the jihad against America, Pepsi and other U.S. corporations should be put on notice -- by shareholders and the Department of Justice alike -- that advertising on Al Manar is not the choice of a "new generation," or any other generation for that matter.



posted by Dennis at 11:39 AM

 
Now I get on pretty well with the hispanics I come into contact with. I like the fact that they're, generally, very family oriented and seem to believe in live-and-let-live. However, because I came to this country legally and observed all the rules and regulations I get a bit ticked off when I see concession being made to anyone who enters illegally. To my way of thinking if someone tries to get in illegally and has to cross a desert to do so, the last thing the U.S. should be doing is by making it safer. That's why I object to so-called humanitarians who want us to set up water-stops or some such nonsense. Listen, if you want to try something illegal then the risk is all yours. So, in case you didn't catch Michelle Malkin's article on Border Madness, here it is.

How many of Saddam Hussein's sleeper terrorists are waiting dormant in the United States to retaliate against us when the War on Iraq begins?

The Bush administration has begun to monitor Iraqis inside our country to identify potential domestic terrorist threats posed by sympathizers of the Baghdad regime, according to The New York Times. But while the new intelligence program is tracking thousands of Iraqi citizens and Iraqi-Americans with dual citizenship who are attending our universities or working at private corporations, there is no indication of what federal authorities are doing to locate the untold numbers of illegal aliens from Iraq who have streamed across our open borders.

More than 115,000 people from Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries are here illegally. Some 6,000 Middle Eastern men who have defied deportation orders remain on the loose. And an international crime ring, led by Iraqi native George Tajirian, demonstrates the scope of the alarming problem of potential terrorists pressing at our southern gate.

Tajirian's ring guided aliens from all over the world into the United States -- usually across the Rio Grande or through El Paso, Texas, checkpoints -- and arranged transportation and lodging for them once inside. According to federal prosecutors, Tajirian charged up to $15,000 a head -- chump change for deep-pocketed terrorist enterprises. During Tajirian's trial, which resulted in a 13-year prison sentence, prosecutors introduced evidence that Tajirian was responsible for smuggling individuals with known ties to subversive or terrorist organizations as well as individuals with known criminal histories.

All told, law enforcement officials believe Tajirian and his Mexican collaborator, Angel Molina, may have smuggled more than 1,000 Middle Eastern aliens across the southwest frontier. The whereabouts of many of the smugglees remains unknown.

So far, Hussein and his Iraqi henchmen have refrained from direct, conventional terrorist attacks on American soil. But as Central Intelligence Agency Deputy Director John McLaughlin recently noted: "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or (conventional biological weapons)."

And yet, our borders remain wide open to infiltrators who may be toting more than suntan lotion and disposable cameras in their luggage. Among the few smugglers who have been caught in the past year:

In late May 2002, federal agents arrested two Egyptian nationals for allegedly trying to smuggle illegal Middle Eastern immigrants into New Jersey by way of Mexico. For a fee of $8,000, court documents say, the suspected smuggling ring flew customers on tourist visas to Brazil, then sent them to Guatemala, through Mexico, and finally across the southwest border into America.

Just last month, a Washington, D.C., jury convicted Mohammed Hussein Assadi of smuggling Iraqis into the United States through Cali, Colombia, Ecuador, and other locations in South America. Assadi supplied illegal alien Iraqis with stolen and altered European passports and round-trip airline tickets to the U.S. in exchange for up to $8,000 per person.

These Iraqi smugglees purchased documents at a commercial vendor in Northern Iraq called the "Market of Passports," which they used to travel through Turkey and Ecuador into Colombia. According to a statement from the U.S. attorney's office, Assadi instructed the aliens to destroy the fraudulent passports and tickets while en route to America and to surrender to U.S. immigration authorities without disclosing their true place of origin. The scheme relied on smug knowledge of our government's "catch and release" policy for illegal aliens who are freed pending deportation proceedings -- a policy that remains in place today.

"There is simply no way to know all those who illegally entered the United States through this defendant's efforts," Assistant U.S. Attorney Laura Ingersoll stated in a memorandum to the court.

Meanwhile, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is busy building light beacons and water stations for illegal aliens from around the world penetrating our country from the south, and the Bush White House is preparing to reward illegal border-crossers from Mexico with "earned legalization."

Our border insanity continues.


posted by Dennis at 11:29 AM

 
Media manipulation is alive and well. See this piece that I found.

Daniel Seaman, director of the official Israeli Government Press Office (GPO), has touched off a media scandal by accusing some international news organizations of gross bias in favor of the Palestinians. The GPO is responsible for issuing press credentials to all foreign journalists.

In an interview with the Israeli newspaper "Kol Ha'Ir" (translated by the Israel News Agency), Seaman claims that journalists coordinated their reporting with terrorist leader Marwan Barghouti. "He used to call them and inform them about what was about to happen. They always received early warning about gunfire on Gilo. Then they shot for TV only the Israeli response fire on Beit Jala. Those producers advised Barghouti how to get the Palestinian message across better."

Seaman singled out four correspondents who have recently been removed from their assignments in Israel: Suzanne Goldberg (UK Guardian), Lee Hockstader (Washington Post), Sandro Contenta (Toronto Star), and Gillian Findlay (ABC).

Seaman says: "The editorial boards got the message and replaced their people."

The four news organization denied that the reassignments were related to GPO pressure. Ha'aretz reports that Andrew Steele, BBC Jerusalem bureau chief, lashed back by asking BBC London to boycott Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's bureau. Steele has reportedly decided not to ask Sharon's people for comments or reactions, because of what he says is the government's refusal to give press accreditation to Palestinians employed by the BBC.

To put things into perspective, HonestReporting readers should recall the words of Fayad Abu Shamala, BBC's correspondent in Gaza for the past 10 years, who spoke at a Hamas rally in Gaza: "Journalists and media organizations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people."

Seaman says that Palestinians who work with the media attend a course in media manipulation at Bir Zeit University, and exercise control over information flow. He says: "The Palestinians let the foreign journalists understand: if you don't work with our people we'll sever contact with you, you won't have access to sources of information and you won't get interviews."

Seaman gives further examples of Palestinians manipulating the media coverage: "The IDF announces that it is going in to demolish an empty house, but somehow afterwards you see a picture of a crying child sitting on the rubble. There is an economic level to that. The Palestinian photographers receive from the foreign agencies 300 dollars for good pictures; that is why they deliberately create provocation with the soldiers. They've degraded photography to prostitution."

Seaman also says that "today we know that the entire Mohammed al-Dura incident was staged in advance by the Palestinian Authority in collusion with Palestinian photographers, who worked for the foreign networks."

Seaman contrasts how foreign journalists had far more freedom to report from the territories prior to Oslo. "From the moment Arafat arrived," Seaman told Kol Ha'Ir, "their dependence on Palestinian media staffers grew. And the more the PA tightened its hold on the ground and the closer the date of the conflict grew, the Palestinian hold on the foreign press became firmer... The Palestinians let the foreign journalists understand: if you don't work with our people we'll sever contact with you, you won't have access to sources of information and you won't get interviews."

Seaman says: "At the direct instruction of the Palestinian Authority, the offices of the foreign networks in Jerusalem are compelled to hire Palestinian directors and producers. Those people determine what is broadcast. The journalists will certainly deny that, but that is reality."

posted by Dennis at 11:22 AM

 
These times are of potential military conflict and I came across this piece. I know it's old news but just in case you want to understand why veterans abhor Jane Fonda.

Claim: During a 1972 trip to North Vietnam, Jane Fonda propagandized on behalf of the North Vietnamese government, declared that American POWs were being treated humanely and condemned U.S. soldiers as "war criminals" and later denounced them as liars for claiming they had been tortured.
Status: True.

Example: [Collected from veteran accounts, 1999]

When I was at Camp Pendleton receiving combat corpsman training, I noticed that the pickup truck belonging to the gunnery sergeant in charge of our training was adorned with bumper stickers containing extremely unflattering remarks about Jane Fonda. I also noticed a few referred to Ms. Fonda and Vietnam, but at the time I honestly had no idea why.
Being an E-5 and close to rank to our E-7 gunny, after a training rotation one afternoon I decided to ask him about those stickers, and what they had to do with Fonda.

He muttered a few obscenities and proceeded to tell me the story. Fonda, he said, became a traitor during the Vietnam War -- a war in which "gunny" had served two tours and for which he had received three Purple Hearts (which is why he enjoyed training Navy corpsmen to be Marine Corps combat corpsmen -- they'd saved his life a time or two).

The following excerpts are not "gunny's" words, but when received them in an e-mail recently, it reminded me of his story. And, as ABC's Barbara Walters prepares to honor the traitorous Jane Fonda during Walters' "100 years of great women" program soon, I thought the American people needed to hear this story again. You see, Fonda isn't just exercise videos and the third wheel in "Nine to Five" (the movie).

* * * * * * *
"There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to, but Jane Fonda's participation in what I believe to be blatant treason, is one of them. Part of my conviction comes from exposure to those who suffered her attentions.

"In 1978, the Commandant of the USAF Survival School, a colonel, was a former POW in Ho Lo Prison -- the Hanoi Hilton. Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJs, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American 'Peace Activist' the 'lenient and humane treatment' he'd received. He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and dragged away. During the subsequent beating, he fell forward upon the camp Commandant's feet, accidentally pulling the man's shoe off -- which sent that officer berserk.

"In '78, the AF colonel still suffered from double vision -- permanently grounding him -- from the Vietnamese officer's frenzied application of a wooden baton.

"From 1983-85, Col. Larry Carrigan was 347FW/DO (F-4Es). He'd spent 6 [product] years in the Hilton -- the first three of which he was listed as MIA. His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned/fed/clothed routine in preparation for a 'peace delegation' visit.

"They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his Social Security number on it, in the palm of his hand. When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like, 'Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?' and, 'Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?'"

"Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper. She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge ... and handed him the little pile of notes.

"Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Col. Carrigan was almost number four.

"For years after their release, a group of determined former POWs, including Col. Carrigan, tried to bring Ms. Fonda and others up on charges of treason. I don't know that they used it, but the charge of 'Negligent Homicide due to Depraved Indifference' would also seem appropriate. Her obvious 'granting of aid and comfort to the enemy' alone should've been sufficient for the treason count. However, to date, Jane Fonda has never been formally charged with anything and continues to enjoy the privileged life of the rich and famous.

"I, personally, think that this is shame on us, the American Citizenry.

"Part of our shortfall is ignorance: Most don't know such actions ever took place.

"The only addition I might add to these sentiments is to remember the satisfaction of relieving myself into the urinal at some air base or another where 'zaps' of Hanoi Jane's face had been applied."

And there is this account:

"I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a 'black box' in Hanoi. My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I later buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.

"At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lb. [my normal weight is 170 lb.). We were Jane Fonda's 'war criminals.'"

"When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with her. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs were receiving, which was far different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as 'humane and lenient.' Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a piece of steel re-bar placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane every time my arms dipped.

"Jane Fonda had the audacity to say that the POWs were lying about our torture and treatment. Now ABC is allowing Barbara Walters to honor Jane Fonda in her feature "100 Years of Great Women." Shame on the Disney Company.

"I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda for a couple of hours after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She did not answer me, her husband (at the time), Tom Hayden, answered for her. She was mind controlled by her husband. This does not exemplify someone who should be honored by '100 Years of Great Women.'"

"After I was released, I was asked what I thought of Jane Fonda and the anti-war movement. I said that I held Joan Baez's husband in very high regard, for he thought the war was wrong, burned his draft card and went to prison in protest. If the other anti-war protesters took this same route, it would have brought our judicial system to a halt and ended the war much earlier, and there wouldn't be as many on that somber black granite wall called the Vietnam Memorial. This is democracy. This is the American way.

"Jane Fonda, on the other hand, chose to be a traitor, and went to Hanoi, wore their uniform, propagandized for the communists, and urged American soldiers to desert. As we were being tortured, and some of the POWs murdered, she called us liars. After her heroes -- the North Vietnamese communists -- took over South Vietnam, they systematically murdered 80,000 South Vietnamese political prisoners. May their souls rest on her head forever."

In the words of Paul Harvey, America, "now you know the rest of the story."

ABC and Babs Walters will undoubtedly include "Hanoi" Jane in their televised celebration because their black souls are too hardened and too imbued with an anti-American sentiment to do anything else. And ultimately, they will all answer for what they have done in their lives. In the meantime, I don't plan on watching anything that has Jane Fonda's face anywhere near it. I won't buy her videos; I won't rent or go see her movies. As far as I'm concerned, she's already dead to me.

Whether or not you agreed with the war in Vietnam, whether you're a Vietnam vet or a former member of the protest movement, or whether you're too old or too young to have been there, the behavior of Jane Fonda towards our own military men is reprehensible beyond belief. All I ask is that you think about these accounts the next time you see her. Let your conscience guide your actions from there.

Origins: The right to freedom of speech is one of our most cherished rights. It is also a double-edged sword: the same right that allows us to criticize our government's policies without fear of reprisal also protects those who endorse and promote racism, anti-semitism, ethnic hatred and other socially divisive positions.

Rarely is this dichotomy so evident as when a democratic nation engages in war, and the protection of civil liberties clashes head-on with the exigencies of a war effort. Protesting a government's involvement in a war without also interfering in the prosecution of that war is a difficult (if not impossible) feat, a situation that has sometimes led the government to curtail the freedom of speech, such as when the U.S. Sedition Act (passed during World War I) made criminals of those who would "willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States." Under this law, peacefully urging citizens to resist the draft or simply drawing an editorial cartoon critical of the government became illegal. (The Sedition Act was later overturned.)

The most prominent example of a clash between private citizen protest and governmental military policy in recent history occurred in July 1972, when actress Jane Fonda arrived in Hanoi, North Vietnam, and began a two-week tour of the country conducted by uniformed military hosts. Aside from visiting villages, hospitals, schools, and factories, Fonda also posed for pictures in which she was shown applauding North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunners, was photographed peering into the sights of an NVA anti-aircraft artillery launcher, and made ten propagandistic Tokyo Rose-like radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals." She also spoke with eight American POWs at a carefully arranged "press conference," POWS who had been tortured by their North Vietnamese captors to force them to meet with Fonda, deny they had been tortured, and decry the American war effort. Fonda apparently didn't notice (or care) that the POWs were delivering their lines under duress or find it unusual the she was not allowed to visit the prisoner-of-war camp (commonly known as the "Hanoi Hilton") itself. She merely went home and told the world that "[the POWs] assured me they were in good health. When I asked them if they were brainwashed, they all laughed. Without exception, they expressed shame at what they had done." She did, however, charge that North Vietnamese POWs were systematically tortured in American prison-of-war camps.

To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted. She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States have POWs come home looking like football players. These football players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according to law."

Were Jane Fonda's actions treason, or were they the exercise of a private citizen's right to freedom of speech? At the time, the legal aspects of this question were moot: President Nixon was engaged in trying to wind down American involvement in Vietnam and had to face another election in a few months, so politically he had far more to lose than to gain by making a martyr out of a prominent anti-war activist. (No requirement in either the Constitution or federal law states that the U.S. must be engaged in a declared war -- or any war at all -- before charges of treason can be brought against an individual.)

On the one hand, Jane Fonda provided no tangible military assistance to the North Vietnamese: she divulged no military secrets, she gave them no money or material, and she did not interfere with the operations of the American forces. Her actions, offensive as they were to many, were primarily of propaganda value only. On the other hand, Iva Ikuko Toguri (also known as "Tokyo Rose") was convicted of treason for making propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the Japanese during World War II (although she claimed her betrayal was forced and was eventually pardoned many years later by President Gerald Ford), and Fonda's efforts could fall under the definition of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." It is also undeniable that some American soldiers came to harm as a direct result of Fonda's actions, an outcome she should reasonably have anticipated.

The most serious accusations in the piece quoted above -- that Fonda turned over slips of paper furtively given her by American POWS to the North Vietnamese and that several POWs were beaten to death as a result -- are proveably untrue. Those named in the inflammatory e-mail categorically deny the events they supposedly were part of.

"It's a figment of somebody's imagination," says Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the 'slips of paper' incident. Carrigan was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967 and did spend time in a POW camp. He has no idea why the story was attributed to him. "I never met Jane Fonda."

The tale about a defiant serviceman who spit at Jane Fonda and is severely beaten as a result is often attributed to Air Force pilot Jerry Driscoll. He has repeatedly stated on the record that it did not originate with him.

The story about a POW forced to kneel on rocky ground while holding a piece of steel rebar in his outstretched arms is true, though. That account comes from Michael Benge, a civilian advisor captured by the Viet Cong in 1968 and held as a POW for 5 years. His original statement, titled "Shame on Jane," was published in April by the Advocacy and Intelligence Network for POWs and MIAs.

The unknown author of the "Hanoi Jane" e-mail appears to have picked up Benge's story on-line and combined it with fabricated tales to create the forwarded text. Some versions now circulate with Benge's name listed; others quote his statement anonymously.

In fact, Fonda carried home letters from many American POWs to their families upon her return from North Vietnam, and rumors that a POW was beaten to death when he refused to meet with her were nothing more than rumors. Still, legally treasonous or not, Jane Fonda's actions merit the contempt felt towards her, and her inclusion in ABC's 30 April 1999 "A Celebration: 100 Years of Great Women" rightly angered many who failed to see what was so "great" about this woman. She didn't go to North Vietnam to try to bring about peace or to reconcile the two warring sides or to stop American boys from being killed; she went there as an active show of support for the North Vietnamese cause. She lauded the North Vietnamese military and citizens while she denounced American soldiers as "war criminals" and urged them to stop fighting, she lobbied to cut off all American economic aid to the South Vietnamese government even after the Paris Peace Accords ended U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, and she publicly thanked the Soviets for providing assistance to the North Vietnamese. And she did all this not as a reckless youth who rashly spouted ill-considered opinions now best forgotten, but as a 34-year-old adult who should be expected to bear full responsibility for her actions.

In 1988, sixteen years after denouncing American soldiers as war criminals and tortured POWs as possessed of overactive imaginations, Fonda met with Vietnam veterans to apologize for her actions. It's interesting to note that this nationally-televised apology (during which she attempted to minimize her actions by characterizing them as "thoughtless and careless") came at a time when New England vets were successfully disrupting a film project she was working on. It's also interesting that not only was this apology delivered sixteen years after the fact, but it has not been offered again since. More than a few have read a huge dollop of self-interest into Fonda's 1988 apology. (Finally, in an interview in 2000, almost thirty years after the fact, Fonda admitted: "I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft carrier, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes. It hurt so many soldiers. It galvanized such hostility. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless.")

Whether the war was right or wrong, those who risked (and gave) their lives fighting it deserve respect, and for Fonda to brand men who were held captive and tortured as "liars" and "hypocrites" (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) in order to defend her political views was and is unpardonable.



posted by Dennis at 11:17 AM

 

Powered By Blogger TM