Back Into the "TIME" Machine

time-1938

Here’s another fascinating though heartbreaking glimpse at mid-1938 via that issue of TIME magazine I mentioned below. This time it’s an article titled “Wandering Jews.” Here’s an extended excerpt:

One night last week German Austrian storm troopers loaded 51 Jews, including an 82-year-old rabbi, into a Danube river launch, took them downstream to the point where Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary meet. There they dumped them on a stone breakwater in the middle of the swollen stream. All night they crouched on cold, slippery stones barely emerging from the water.

Next morning the Jews’ cries and frantic waving of handkerchiefs attracted the attention of Czech villagers. A Czech patrol boat took off the penniless, ill-clad, hungry group.

Czech authorities fed and clothed the 51, kept them sheltered in Bratislava for two days. But the Czechs feared that further charity to Jews would encourage Austrian Nazis to drive Jews in thousands over into Czechoslovakia. Therefore, the Czechs piled the Jews into trucks at night, dumped them over into Hungary.

Hungarian border patrols, after the Czechs hastily drove off, acted on the theory that the only thing to do was to dump the Jews back into Austria, now part of Greater Germany.

At the frontier strapping Greater German Nazis were more than ready to arrest, punish the tragic unfortunates for “illegal entry,” but 15 Jews broke away and made for the Danube. They eluded Nazi and Hungarian pursuers and managed to spend the night shivering on a sandspit. In the morning a French patrol boat took them aboard, compassionately anchored in mid-Danube, awaited orders from new Premier Edouard Daladier.

All this was a single, small, dramatic incident in what is apparently a ruthless Nazi drive to strip as many Austrian Jews as possible of their possessions, then further harass them by “expelling” them to neighboring countries which cannot support penniless refugees, are forced to acts of “expelling” Jews back into Greater Germany.

And Now for Something Completely Horrifying

I came across this on the BoingBoing blog the other day and have been meaning to mention it . . .

A collector/dealer of rare and used science books recently posted on his blog a description of a 1939 science book titled A Preliminary Atlas of Early Human Fetal Activity by one Dr. Davenport Hooker.

book-cover

Behind the book’s drab cover and innocuous title lies a gallery of horrors pictorially chronicling systematic experimentation on live fetuses. As the book’s discoverer describes it in his blog post:

. . . 42 fetuses subjected to experimentation, physiological and morphological, poked with needles to determine how they would respond during the integral period of development of motility (from the 8th to 14th weeks, in regard to reflexes). The fetuses float in front of the camera unencumbered, and then the long and very pointed needle comes into view, finding its target, then a series of stills from the film made to show how the fetus moved in reaction to having been touched or abraised.

The subject fetuses were “derived from either hysterectomy or hysterotomy…undertaken in the interest of the health, sanity or life of the mother.”

You can read the full post for a fuller picture of just how appalling this research really was. But it is consistent with the “Progressive” spirit of the era and of a piece with the work of eugenicist Margaret Sanger. A quick Google search on Dr. Davenport Hooker revealed a short blurb in Time magazine appearing in 1938, the year before the book was published:

At the meeting of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia last week (see above), Dr. Hooker announced that the grasping movement originates in the embryo at the age of about eleven weeks. At this age the embryo, whose thumb is not yet in place, flexes its fingers if the palm is stimulated. At twelve weeks it makes “a pretty fair fist.” At 13½ weeks it opens and closes its hand easily. At 15 weeks the thumb comes into play and at 22 weeks the grasp can be described as a real grip.

With admiration in his voice, Dr. Hooker told the spellbound philosophers of a 25-week-old fetus which snatched a glass rod weighing three grams from the scientist’s hand, waved it feebly but triumphantly for an instant before the spark of life went out.

In the 1930s, the American Philosophical Society mentioned in the article was a major center of Progressive thought. To really understand the horror of the Progressive movement in 1920s and ’30s America, you really need to read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism. Unfortunately, it’s also the best book to help you understand the current administration.

By the way, In that same May 2, 1938 issue of Time, there’s a subtly sarcastic write up about a German Adolf Hitler throwing himself a 49th birthday party parade:

With Greater Germany shouting “Heil!”, Celebrator Hitler’s followers strove hard to depict as a great soldier the former corporal of Kaiser Wilhelm II’s army. In radio broadcasts throughout Germany, Führer Hitler was being pictured as a military as well as a political genius. It fell to no army officer but to Dr. Otto Dietrich, Reich Press Chief, to reveal that Genius Hitler’s technical knowledge of things military “astonishes even the experts.” So exultant was the Hitler birthday celebration throughout the Reich that Dr. Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior, was moved to summarize: “Adolf Hitler is Germany and Germany is Adolf Hitler.”

Less than a year later Hitler would invade Poland and tear the lid off Pandora’s box.

Monday Morning Mish-Mash of Meandering Musings

My goodness, it’s been a while.

Thanksgiving was nice. For the first time since school started in August, we were “five” again. As soon as the college girls arrived home on Tuesday, we loaded up the Expedition and headed to my mom’s. This was to be her first holiday since Dad went to heaven two months ago and we wanted to make sure her house was filled with laughter and love and the smells of good food.

My brother, who lives in Atlanta, was in town as well–doing a little deer hunting with old school chums. He joined us for the big Thanksgiving meal and together we spent a day going through a couple of Dad’s many storage sheds.

My folks have lived on that property since 1968. And for the past 42 years, their practice was not to get rid of anything. As they accumulated, they simply built another storage shed. J.D. and I began the daunting process of sorting through all this stuff by classifying everything into one of three categories: 1. Keep; 2. Sell; or 3. Toss.

We barely made a dent. But it’s a start. I’m holding out hope that at some point we’ll come across some buried collectible worthy of the Antique Roadshow’s highlight reel, or maybe a mint Honus Wagner baseball card stuck in a book.

So far, it’s mostly broken floor fans and an astonishing variety of weed eaters.

@@@@@

As I noted on my Twitter feed, I caught a show promo on the A&E network the other night that un-ironically featured the most cliche’ line in all of television show promotion, i.e., “a very special . . .” You know, as in, “Next week on the Hallmark Channel, a very special Little House on the Prairie.”

In this case, the use of the cheesy phrase was jarring because I heard a somber-voiced announcer say, “Next week on A&E, it’s a very special Gene Simmons’ Family Jewels.”

Oh, isn’t that swee … wait … Wha?!

Once I got over the shock of hearing the “a very special” line used in earnest followed by the shock of it being used in connection to a reality show called Gene Simmons’ Family Jewels, I turned my attention back to the promo. As it turns out, the mother of the KISS guy with the freakishly long tongue is a holocaust survivor.

His Hungarian mother and her entire extended family were sent to a Nazi concentration camp when she was a little girl. She and her brother, Simmons uncle, were the only members of the family to survive. The promo shows Simmons visiting the Anne Frank museum and breaking down in tears.

So, I take it all back. It almost certainly will be “a very special Gene Simmons’ Family Jewels.

@@@@@

How’s the Sarah Palin book doing, you ask? Pretty good, actually.

It’s not setting the world on fire and rocketing up the New York Times non-fiction list . . . yet. But it has sold well enough to remain on the shelves of most booksellers–thanks in large part to the fact that Governor Palin remains consistently in the news, her Alaska show on TLC has launched, and it is becoming increasingly apparent to many that she intends to run for president.

The last I heard, the book was #16 on the Christian Booksellers Association “Non-fiction/Inspirational” bestseller list.

I’m told this forever endows me with the right to say I’m a “best-selling author,” which seems to be a fairly meaningless designation these days. And since Paul Harvey’s America won a “Retailer’s Choice” award earlier this year, I am also now allowed to claim the designation “award-winning writer.”

So here I am, your humble, best-selling, award-winning writer . . . looking for work and bracing the wife and family for the most humble Christmas they’ve ever experienced–and after the last couple of years, that’s saying something.

Speaking of talented failures . . . I came across a fascinating German documentary about Orson Welles’ final years the other night. It’s called One Man Band and it’s a heartbreaking yet often funny look at his struggles to get a project . . . any project . . . finished in the last decade of his life. (If you’re a Welles fan, it’s definitely worth viewing. (86 min., some artsy nudity)

Potemra: "Rumblings of Discontent on Palin"

Over at National Review Online, Mike Potemra posts an interesting analysis of the “Palin for President” electoral dynamics. He opens with this:

“When I see the fervor of Sarah Palin’s fans — and by no means just those who swell the adoring crowds who go to her public appearances — I am convinced that the question is not, “How can she win the GOP nomination?” but “How can she not win it?” When you have anywhere between five and fifteen GOP candidates, all expressing basically the same conservative views, how can anyone other than the only one with the passionate fan base possibly win? And yet: Reading between the lines of what conservative-movement people are saying and writing, there is a great deal of worry about the prospect of a Palin nomination. I would summarize the GOP political writers’ consensus as follows: She must never be criticized, and she must never be nominated.”

In media interviews about our book, The Faith and Values of Sarah Palin, my co-author Stephen Mansfield has repeatedly been asked if he thinks Sarah Palin will run for president. His answer has consistently been some variation on: “She may run in 2012, but I hope she doesn’t. I admire Governor Palin but I would like to see her wait, acquire some additional seasoning in dealing with hostile media, travel the world, meet with world leaders, expanding and deepening her experience in the realm of foreign affairs.”

Such an answer tends to sorely vex the most ardent Palin supporters. Many don’t appear willing to accept that it is possible to be friendly to and in agreement with Sarah Palin and not believe she should run for the presidency in this volatile, dangerous moment in history.

For my part, I have maintained for some time that what Palin is really interested in is a “do over” where being a running mate is concerned. Everything I learned about her in researching our book–her tenacity; her affinity for mastering new challenges; her demonstrated willingness to fail, pick herself up, dust herself off, and try again–all lead me to suspect that she would relish an opportunity to show the world she can perform much better than she did with McCain.

However things play out, it will remain true that the intensity of Palin’s supporters will make rivals think twice about criticizing her, no matter how fraught with peril her candidacy might be for the Republican Party.

[As cross-posted over at the Palin Book Blog]

Pity the Poor Airlines

tsa-great-day-to-fly

Is there a worse business in the world to be in than the commercial airline industry? That’s the thought that keeps coming to me as I watch the nightmarish TSA security screening story unfold in all it’s gropey, feeley, naked-scannery ugliness.

It’s bad enough that any company that wants to turn a profit by flying large numbers of people form point A to point B has to contend with a half dozen or more labor unions, all competing for a tighter grip on your short hairs. That fact, along with rising fuel costs and increased competition from upstarts that don’t carry the crushing burden of decades of union pension obligations, forces you to try to cram more and more people into jets with fewer and fewer amenities.

On top of that, over the last ten or 15 years blowing up one or more of your planes has become an obsession for a large, scattered group of religious fanatics. Meanwhile, an insane level of political correctness grips our culture, particularly our government, rendering it impossible to take rational security measures. Thus, only irrational security measures remain on the the table.

There are other, more troubling questions that keep presenting themselves to my mind each time I read another TSA strip search horror story . . .

What does the TSA know that we don’t know? What have our intelligence services uncovered that is driving this maniacal level of vigilance? And is the information of a nature that revealing it could panic the public, or represent a crippling blow to an already struggling airline industry?

The stubborn insistence by the TSA to continue these screenings in the face of a tidal wave of public outrage means something. The question is, “what?”

On a Lighter Note . . .

mamika11

Behold, Super Mamika. (via BoingBoing):

Sacha Goldberger found his 91-year-old Hungarian grandmother Frederika, a WWII survivor, feeling lonely and depressed. To cheer her up, he photographed her dressed up as a fictional superhero. To his surprise, she loved it.

What to do when your holocaust survivor grandmother is depressed? “Take pictures of her dressed up like a superheroine” is not the first answer that would come to my mind. But it worked for Sacha Goldberger. Most of these pictures made me laugh out loud. Enjoy.

mamika20

Skip This if You're in a Good Mood

I don’t want to harsh anyone’s buzz. So, if you’re still basking in the afterglow of the elections or simply working on focusing on happy thoughts today, then, (1) good for you and, (2) skip this post. This way lies sadness.

Yesterday brought us a pretty sobering analysis of the U.S. economic situation in light of the Feds new round of Quantitative Easing, a.k.a., QE2, from John Browne, Senior Market Strategist at Euro Pacific Capital. The whole thing is worth your time, but here are a couple of excerpts with comments. Browne begins by explaining QE2 and its objectives:

Despite its paternalistic rhetoric, the Fed really has just a few simple goals: allow for the perpetual expansion of the federal deficit, push up stock prices to create the illusion of wealth, and stimulate consumer spending. To do this, the Fed will hold interest rates near zero for the foreseeable future, and will buy some $600 billion of US Treasury debt by April of next year.

So, the Fed is printing money and using it to buy our government’s debt in the form of Treasury bonds. Now, upon hearing this, you may be wondering how the above scheme represents an “injection” of money in to the economy. Keep in mind that over the last two years, supposedly in order to unfreeze the credit markets, the Fed has been printing money like crazy and loaning to banks at 0% interest. And those banks have been taking that free money and loaning it to the government at whatever interest rate Treasuries are paying.

That’s great work if you can get it. But it doesn’t create a lot of jobs. Browne continues:

Having already committed $1.7 trillion in the first round of quantitative easing, the Fed is rolling the dice once again – despite ample evidence that their costly remedy won’t work.

Exactly. As I’ve pointed out in this space before, we are seeing a pathetically weak recovery in jobs because the Obama Administration has been waging and continues to wage a multi-pronged attack on the job creating class, i.e., businesses. Virtually every department of the Executive branch has been involved in some form of assault on business owners. Why? Because doctrinaire liberals are fundamentally opposed to  (non-unionized) business and view profits, profit-seeking, and rational business practices like hiring the best qualified candidate regardless of race or gender and firing slackers as evil.

So back to my original question . . . How does is the Fed buying a bunch of government debt supposed to help revive the economy? Browne helps us with that:

Now, by monetizing almost the entire federal deficit through QE-2, the Fed hopes to give Congress the breathing room to enact reforms before skyrocketing interest rates bankrupt the Treasury. Meanwhile, the central bank hopes that the expected inflationary consequences will be nullified by a resulting broad-based recovery. But an economist as knowledgeable and experienced as Chairman Bernanke should know by now that any real economic revival will come from private industry, not government. The money printed by the Fed will indeed flow into the economy, where it will push up asset prices in many sectors. Already commodity prices are soaring. But inflation cannot create real growth.

Exactly right. But please note Browne’s point that the primary goal of QE2 has been to stave off the national bankruptcy crisis caused by the skyrocketing Obama-Reid-Pelosi deficits long enough for Congress  to “enact reforms” that will help businesses (or at least stop threatening them). Meanwhile the Dems who still handily control both houses of Congress until January continue to talk about enacting Cap-and-Trade legislation.

What the Fed is doing, essentially, is forcing consumers to spend their cash hoardings. Until the economic and financial policies of the government change dramatically, those who are tempted to invest their savings within the United States risk increasing regime uncertainty. So, much of our domestic capital is flowing into hard assets and overseas markets.

This will do nothing to help the festering wounds underlying the US economy.

Yes. But here’s the problem. Even after January, the real war on business is likely to continue through the Executive Branch via Obama’s surrogates–Holder at Justice; Sibelius at HHS; Solis at Labor; Jackson at EPA; and so on.

What would it take to see those policies reversed before January of 2013 when a new president can be sworn in?  Only a bunch of doctrinaire socialists changing pretty much everything they believe and think about the way the world works. That’s all.

AQ Plane Bomb was 17 Minutes From Detonating

According to the large and impervious-to-reason 9/11 Truther crowd, Al Qaeda is pretty much a fictional construct of the neocons. A hapless bogeyman concocted by the sinister BusHitler and friends, a.k.a. “the powers that be” (TPTB), to scare the “sheeple” into surrendering their freedoms.

Side Note: If you’re ever reading a blog post and the writer uses the acronym TPTB or the term sheeple, and they are serious, you can safely disregard anything that follows. Just back slowly away from that web page without making any sudden movements that might be interpreted as an Illuminati hand signal.

tradition-hookem-large305x318

That brings us to the most recent attempt by Al Qaeda to blow up some commercial jets in mid-air. It now appears that was precisely what the Yemeni Al Qaeda cell was attempting to do. (I know, I know . . . that’s just what they want me to think.)

Today we learn AQ came astonishingly close to succeeding.

French and British intelligence have both confirmed that the cell phone to which the bomb on a UPS plane in East Midlands, UK was linked had 17 minutes remaining on its countdown timer when the bomb was defused.

Blowing up big planes in mid-air has been a dream of AQ planners going back well before 9/11. If you’ve read The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 which, by the way, still remains the best inoculation around against “9/11-was-an-inside-job fever,” you know that AQ’s Khalid Sheik Mohammed masterminded a nearly successful plan to blow up U.S. passenger jets over the Pacific back in 1995.

In know there are lots of people praying that these ongoing AQ plots will be exposed before they can bear fruit. Mark this one down as a win for the pray-ers. With a little help from the intelligence services.

A Few Words About "Smugstock I"

. . . a.k.a. Jon Stewart’s “Fear of Sanity” festival.

smugstock-3tiff

A big turnout, (though not quite as big as Glenn Beck’s event) is not surprising.

When two wildly popular comics throw a free concert on the mall in Washington D.C. promising to feature a some kicking musical acts; add jillionaires like Arianna Huffington offering free bus transportation from New York City; and then  throw in the bonus of encouraging attendees to feel superior to 80% of the U.S. population . . . well, you’re going to get a hundred thousand people or so to show up.

(For perspective, keep in mind that when Simon and Garfunkel staged a free reunion concert in Central Park back in 1981, about a half million people converged on the event.)

Naturally, at an event billed as a call for the restoration of sanity to American political discourse, many attendees wore silly costumes.

smugstock-1tiff

Advocates and apologists for the Stewart-Colbert event are quick to point out that, in arguably the most serious moment of the event, the playing of a slickly produced video, Keith Olbermann is held up for criticism alongside Bill O’Reilly.

Of course, it’s not that the Stewart-Colbert fans disagree with Olbermann’s politics. They just despise the uncool, ham-handed, spittle-flecked way in which he criticizes conservatives and Republicans. In other words, it’s not Olbermann’s message, it’s his style that all wrong. And with this group, everything is graded on style points.

smugstock-2tiff

Stewart has been tough on Obama lately and some have pointed to this as evidence against overwhelming liberal bias in the media. What these arguments ignore is that Stewart, as with Bill Maher, and other high-priest pundits of America’s emerging hipster class, is attacking Obama and the Democrats from the Left.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Respect My Authoritah
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

In other words, so hyper-liberal are Stewart and friends, that the most liberal President in 100 years is too conservative for them.

In fact, in his “serious” remarks at the D.C. rally, Stewart made some excellent points about the need for compromise, concession, and conciliation in politics. But on his show in recent months, he has consistently berated Obama, Pelosi and Ried for not using the Democrat’s sizeable majorities to jam even more liberal legislation down the throats of an unwilling American public.

We used to call that hypocrisy. But I believe the hipsters view it as nuanced irony.

smugstock-4tiff

Update: Here’s Jim Treacher offering: “Great Moments in Civility, with Your Host, Jon Stewart”