Wolverine sent me this info.Thanks Wolverine.
Pearl Harbor and Iraq / Terrorisn
For your information.......a rebuttal to what you see / hear in the 'talking heads' media today.
Plenty of links for your review.
This partial quote is one I fully believe, and agree with the author.
".........I also think that on this day of memories we owe President Bush a special thanks. Like President Roosevelt, he has risen to the events of his timeand then some. He has responded with honor, candor, steel will, and smart strategy. Where did he get this "unexpected" backbone and brainpower? In part he got it from his own father, who fought in World War II, a conflict that Pearl Harbor forced us to enter. Thus the past reaches out to give strength to the future. It has energized Mr. Bush. And the resolve that he shows today will assure that tomorrow's presidents will respond well to the surprises of their day. As long as evildoers walk the earth, surprises will be with us. That is in the nature of humanity. We can minimize the danger, but never eliminate it. From time to time, the bad guys will bushwhack us. But that is not the main thing to remember. The main thing to remember is that America does respondintelligently, vigorously, and ferociously. Let us hold our heads high, for that is exactly how free men should carry on in defense of their liberty and way of life..........." Excerpted from E.G. Ross, Editor http://www.objectiveamerican.com/
Saturday, December 7, 2002.
U.S. Army Military Intelligence History:
Edited by James P. Finley
That well known photograph of the USS Arizona, enshrouded in smoke, her superstructure tilting crazily, about to slip into the sizzling shallows of Pearl Harbor, stings the American consciousness. It has become a symbol of ìintelligence failure,î that too common condition that embarrasses governments,
outrages congressmen, energizes the press, and causes servicemen to die. It is the nightmare of every member of the intelligence community. People find the anatomy of a blunder both fascinating and instructive.
It is, therefore, a phenomenon that bears periodic reexamination.
Given that the United States could read top secret Japanese codes in 1941, how could it be so completely surprised as it was on the morning of December 7, 1941?
American military and political leaders all had access to information that indicated a Japanese attack.
But the information was fragmented, located in different agencies, or slowed in bureaucratic channels.
There was no central clearing house for intelligence that could pull together the entire picture. Because there was so much information pouring in on the situation before Pearl Harbor, ìno single person or agency ever had at any given moment all the signals existing in this vast information network.î3
The information could be contradictory. The MAGIC source pointed to a Japanese attack in Southeast Asia. Coast watchers, on the other hand, were sighting Japanese troop movements to Manchuria. In Hawaii there were a number of reports that pointed to a Japanese attack on Soviet Russia as well as alerts against local sabotage. All of these signals were competing at the Washington, D.C. level with intelligence reports flowing from the Atlantic and Europe where the threats were frequent and paramount in the minds of the leaders.
Army and Navy intelligence predicted a Japanese attack on 30 November or 7 December on British (Malaya, Singapore), Dutch (Borneo) or American targets (Guam or the Philippines). There was no shortage of information that a attack was imminent. The question was where would it fall. Wohlstetter puts the question this way: ìIf we could enumerate accurately the British and Dutch targets and give credence to a Japanese attack against them either on November 30 or December 7, why were we not expecting a specific danger to ourselves? And by the word ëexpecting,í we mean expecting in the sense of taking specific alert actions to meet the contingencies of attack by land, sea, or air.î4
It is always easier to pick out of the fog the clear signal after the event.5 Wohlsetter concludes that we failed to anticipate Pearl Harbor not for want of the relevant materials, but because of a plethora of irrelevant ones.î Then there was the matter of reacting to the danger in time. She added: ìThere is a difference, then between having a signal available somewhere in the heap of irrelevancies, and perceiving it as a warning; and there is also a difference between perceiving it as a warning, and acting or getting action on it.î6
It has always been easier for intelligence analysts to measure the enemyís capabilities and determine if they had the means for an attack, than to predict the enemyís intentions or willingness to use those means.
So they are understandably reluctant to make these kinds of educated guesses because they will be blamed for the failure to read minds.
At Pearl Harbor it was not only enemy intentions that were misread, but their capabilities as well.
Information on Japanese torpedoes said they needed a depth of about 60 feet and instilled confidence that they would be worthless in the 30-40 foot shallows of Pearl Harbor. Only a week before the attack, the Japanese developed an improved torpedo that could navigate the shallower depths.
Japanese capabilities were seriously misjudged when their aircraft production was underestimated by half, their pilot training pronounced inferior, their Zero fighter remained a mystery, their sonar gear was written off as substandard, and the number of aircraft on their carriers was undercounted.7
The question of where an attack would fall was wrongly answered just before Pearl Harbor when analysts prepared a list of possible targets which omitted Hawaii altogether. Although U.S. planners had considered Hawaii a potential target in their training exercises for many years, the widespread belief that the islands were an impregnable fortress tended to cause U.S. intelligence to write it off as a possibility.
Warnings were dispatched to Admiral Kimmel by the Chief of Naval Operations and by the War Department. On 27 November the CNO sent this message: ìAn aggressive move by Japan is expected within the next few days.... The number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organization of naval task forces indicated an amphibious expedition against either the Philippines, Thai or Kra Peninsula, or possibly Borneo. ...Execute an appropriate defensive deployment.î On the same day the War Department said, ìNegotiations with Japan appear to be terminated...hostile action possible at any moment.î On 3 December the CNO warned, ìHighly reliable information has been received that categoric and urgent instructions were sent yesterday to Japanese diplomatic and consular posts at Hongkong, Singapore, Batavia, Manila, Washington, and London to destroy most of their codes and ciphers at once and to burn all other important confidential and secret documents.î8 Since none of these messages specifically mentioned Hawaii and because the Japanese were not told to burn all of their codes, no special importance was attached to them.
Sometimes even apparent signals are rendered useless by operational inaction. U.S. defense plans anticipated that a single submarine attack would mean that a larger surface force was in the area. Yet when an enemy submarine was confirmed in the area on 7 December at 0640, there was no change in alert status.9
When Col. Rufus S. Bratton, the chief of Army Far Eastern Intelligence in Washington was troubled by the implications of the new information intercepted via the ìwindsî code and wished to relay that information to his counterpart in Hawaii, he was thwarted by the high security classification which could not be sent through normal channels. So instead he sent a message in the clear instructing the Army intelligence man in Hawaii, Lt. Col. Kendall J. Fiedler, to ìContact Commander Rochefort immediately thru Commandant Fourteenth Naval District regarding broadcasts from Tokyo reference weather.î Upon receipt, the untrained and inexperienced Fiedler in Hawaii filed the message and did not try to see Commander Rochefort. He simply did not see any urgency in this routine kind of message, especially since he did not expect any Japanese attack.10
Likewise, when Admiral Husband E. Kimmel was informed that the Japanese were destroying their codes in London, Washington and Far Eastern consulates, he attached no particular importance to it visa-vis his situation. To congressmen and military leaders studying the event after the war, destruction of codes was an ìunmistakable tip-offî and put Admiral Kimmelís judgment in question. But while the admiral might assume, as everyone did after the fact, that this meant war, he did not necessarily come to the conclusion that Pearl Harbor would be attacked. And burning of classified documents by the Japanese was a regular occurrence at the consulate in Honolulu.
No one in the Far East U.S. military establishment seriously believed that Pearl Harbor was a serious target to the Japanese. So it became easier to misinterpret those signs that pointed to this possibility. The human tendency to explain events according to their own expectations and beliefs, and the resistance to any information that overturns their opinions were key factors in the Pearl Harbor intelligence failure.
Other factors were the mass of conflicting information, the Japanese success at keeping their intentions quiet, deception operations, sudden changes in military capabilities that caused, for instance, U.S. estimates of the range of the Zero to fall short, and our own communications security which not only denied information to the enemy but to key American officers as well.
After Pearl Harbor, congressional findings made note of the tendency of military men to accept personal responsibility for actions without asking for orders from a superior.
While there is an understandable disposition of a subordinate to avoid consulting his superior for advice except where absolutely necessary in order that he may demonstrate his self-reliance, the persistent failure without exception of Army and Navy officers...to seek amplifying and clarifying instructions from their superiors is strongly suggestive of just one thing: That the military and naval services failed to instill in their personnel the wholesome disposition to consult freely with their superiors.11
Wohlstetter found in her study of Pearl Harbor that there was a general prejudice against intellectuals and intelligence specialists. She said, ì[intelligence officersí] efforts were unsuccessful because of the poor repute associated with Intelligence, inferior rank, and the province of the specialist or long-hair.î12
Analysts receive information piecemeal over a period of time and seldom are able to evaluate the cumulative weight of their information. This was true before Pearl Harbor when Magic intercepts were sent to decision-makers one at a time. A messenger waited outside their offices until the file was read and then carried it to the next person on the list. So the fragments were never considered as a body of evidence.
Expectations have a big part in determining how information will be interpreted. For example, the chief of Army intelligence in Hawaii was not expecting a Japanese attack. As a result, when he received warning of the Japanese destroying their codes, he attached no importance to it and merely filed the message.13 An Army lieutenant received information from a radar station of a flight of approaching aircraft on morning of December 7th. He readily believed that the flight was friendly and told the radar operators to forget it. The ìwishful-thinkingî phenomena is closely related to expectations. It projects the desires of an individual into the expected outcome.
It is easy to misjudge the importance of new information in light of strongly held theories. Admiral Kimmel probably did so when he learned in a ìfor actionî warning that the Japanese were destroying their codes. This Japanese action was conveniently taken to mean that an attack would take place in Southeast Asia, the belief of the American leaders in Hawaii all along. So this report was not even passed on to the Army headquarters in Hawaii.
Another example of the tendency to reshape information to fit preconceptions was the October 1941 intercept of a Tokyo request of the Honolulu consulate for information on the exact number and location of U.S. warships in the harbor. No special importance was placed on this request because, said the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Harold Stark, ìWe knew the Japanese appetite was almost insatiable for detail in all respects. The dispatch might have been put down as just another example of their great attention to detail.î14
Of course, it was not entirely a failure of intelligence. Operational planning must be faulted as well.
Even if the signs of the imminent attack on Pearl had been correctly interpreted and the warning disseminated, the victims of the attack must have sufficient time to react, to get into their defensive posture.
Because the surprise attackers have a definite advantage in timing, seldom is there time to get ready.
Placing troops on constant alert is not feasible. That exhausts both soldiers and patience. High levels of readiness cannot be sustained over long periods of time. There are always peaks and valleys.15
Wohlstetter concluded her definitive study of the catastrophe at Pearl Harbor with this caution for the future: ìWe have to accept the fact of uncertainty and learn to live with it. No magic, in code or otherwise, will provide certainty. Our plans must work without it.î16
Ephraim Kam reached a similar conclusion that surprise attacks were inevitable when he said, ìHistory does not encourage potential victims of surprise attack. One can only hope to reduce the severityóto be only partly surprised, to issue clearer and more timely warnings, to gain a few days for better prepara-tionsóand to be more adequately prepared to minimize the damage once a surprise attack occurs.î17
The War Department General Staff began its own study of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack and published its findings in January 1947. The study analyzed the ìevidence from the broad intelligence viewpointî and drew its lessons from the analysis. Many of their findings and recommendations have been overtaken by changes in military intelligence organization and technology. But some of the lessons they surfaced can be valid in any era.
Its first conclusion was there was a lack of appropriations for military intelligence. That is a perennial problem that will stay with American society. A second finding was that ìintelligence training was not given sufficient weight in the selection of high-level intelligence staff officers.î Emphasis was put on operations and command in Army schools and that meant that more prestige was attached to those positions.
ìThe net result was a tendency to consider the Intelligence Officer in a junior advisory capacity and to usurp his evaluation functions. The study recommended that ìthrough the school system and military intelligence publications, the importance of strategic intelligence and its evaluation by trained personnel be stressed.
A third conclusion was that ìat every level there were failures to place sufficient credence in the incomplete intelligence at hand to insure that within existing capabilities no action was omitted which might improve our security against attack.
Dissemination of intelligence and information from Washington to the field was not adequate...to keep the field...informed. Conversely, the field personnel did not at all times forward all the information collected by their commands which would be of interest to the various intelligence agencies in Washington.
Often security precautions kept information from being disseminated or slowed its flow.
A final finding found fault with the analysis and dissemination of information.
The principles of the importance of first information and of prompt dissemination of the conditions of first contact were widely overlooked. Japanese intention to attack Pearl Harbor was widely rumored in Japan at about the time we later learned it was first proposed by Yamamoto, but the rumors were disregarded as fantastic and soon forgotten. Later, when the Japanese moved into Indo-China, this was properly interpreted at all levels as indicating a complete break soon. However, no one in a position to act realized that the logical target for initial surprise attack was our fleet at Pearl Harbor, the one means we then had to oppose their further obviously advertised intention to continue south.
Finally, when their forces were first contacted at Hawaii, the significance of the contacts was missed until the bombs fell.
The five members of the study commission recommended ìthat there be required as a part of every course in all service schools a subcourse stressing the importance of rapid dissemination of first information and first contact, not only in a meeting engagement after hostilities have commenced but also at any time the status of foreign relations indicates that there is a possibility of war.î18
Every year just about December I send some of the following to my list. I sent it when everyone was hyped about the movie Pearl Harbor.
Take the time to view the 'Know Your Enemy.' IT IS EXTREMELY POWERFUL!! The Philippine sequence is graphic, and, don't forget the medical experiments the Japanese did on our soldiers!
Check out the links..YOU WILL BE THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE one amongst all the libs who will love the film for the wrong reasons.
Be sure to check out the Japanese Operational Monograph No. 97 below: The Japanese Master Plan.
Check below to see what FDR knew.
This is another perspective, on the web: A MUST SEE..!!
'Know Your Enemy': Japan 1945 63 min. Free **A MUST SEE** (See it on the computer) http://www.movieflix.com/movie_info.mfx?movie_id=1981
A very simple FREE registration is required.
or you can cut and paste this to your browser: http://www.movieflix.com/cgi-bin/special/movie.mfp/speed=fast/movie_id=1981/player=real/1981.ram?speed=fast&id=1981&player=real
'Know your enemy Japan' is an American propaganda film from 1945. It was directed by Frank Capra on behalf of the US War Department. The film is made up of sequences from documentaries with narration and music. There are bits that clearly are re-constructions of passed events but are presented as though they are real news footage. Animated sequences exist. Walter Huston and Dana Andrews do the narration.
'PEARL HARBOR' Movie:$$$$ vs HISTORY:GET THE FACTS BELOW:
Excellent links below especially in light of the recent Hollywood PEARL HARBOR movie.
This movie DID NOT GET GOOD REVIEWS...but if you like special effects...
Check below to learn the FACTS OF THE ATTACK..!!
Note: See the suggested research path below
A chronological chart of the investigations from the "Dorn Report".
Use a hyperlinked map of the Investigations to navigate or scroll down. http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/file_map.html
The "NINE INVESTIGATIONS" in chronological order: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html
The Knox Investigation http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/knox/knox_0.html
Dec. 9-14, 1941.
The Roberts Commission http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/roberts/roberts.html
Dec. 18-January-23, 1941
The Hart Investigation http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/hart/hart-00.html
Feb. 12-June 15, 1944
The Army Pearl Harbor Board http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/army/chap_0.html
Jul. 20-Oct. 20, 1944
The Navy Court of Inquiry http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/navy/navy_0.html
Jul. 24-Oct. 19, 1944.
The Clarke Investigation http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/clarke/clarke_0.html
Aug. 4-Sep 20, 1944
The Clausen Investigation http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/clausen/clausen.html
Jan. 24-Sep. 12, 1945
The Hewitt Inquiry http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/hewitt/hewitt-0.html
May 14-July 11, 1945
The Joint Congressional Committee http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_0.html
Nov. 15, 1945-May 23, 1946
Suggested research path:
The Joint Congressional Committee http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/congress/part_0.html
Table of Contents gives a good over-view of the Report
and the Report itself refers back to the previous reports.
The Pearl Harbor Investigation Listing http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html
including the Joint Congressional Committee report and
the other eight official investigations
into the attack.
The Listing of Additional Files http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/extra.html
Holds several items that are of interest but weren't included in all of the
Naval Historical Center Images of Pearl Harbor http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/pearlhbr/pearlhbr.htm
Photographic collections related to Pearl Harbor http://ibiblio.org/pha/images/index.html
A Chronological Collection of Documents Relating to the U.S. Entry Into WWII http://ibiblio.org/pha/timeline/
Magic intercepts listed in the Pearl Harbor Attack Hearings.
Communications between Washington and the US embassy in Tokyo, other
relevant US documents.
International chronology, listing various documents from around the world
Military document chronology, listing important military plans, studies and communications.
Japanese Operational Monograph No. 97 PEARL HARBOR OPERATIONS:
General Outline of Orders and Plans http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/myths/jm-097.html
was rewritten in English by the Japanese Research Division, Military History
Section, Headquarters, Army Forces Far East and is based on the translation
of the Japanese original.
Pearl Harbor Revisionism http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3682/phrevisionism.html
First Order revisionism holds President Franklin D. Roosevelt personally
responsible for the debacle at Pearl Harbor and regards him as having used
the incident as a means to get the United States involved in the War and
subsequently used the Hawaiian commanders as scapegoats to shift public
attention away from the activities of the Administration.
Food for thought, you decide:
26 Nov 1941: Winston Churchill Warning FDR About Japanese Attack http://home.att.net/~dericker/Errors/FDRsDayofTreason.html#Conversation%20Participants
Roosevelts Day of Infamy: Nov. 26, 1941
This is an excerpt of a telephone call from Winston Churchill to Franklin Delano Roosevelt on November 26, 1941 just 11 days before the fully known attack on the U. S. Fleet at Pearl Harbor. The democrat party, in full control of the government since 1933, intentionally let thousands of sailors be slaughtered in what appeared to be a sneak attack but was not. Millions of innocent civilians were also slaughtered in an unnecessary war in the Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Guam, Wake, and hundreds of Pacific Islands. All for the political convenience of Franklin Roosevelts remaining in power as the first fellow traveling communist president of the USA.
Heinrich Müller's Gestapo Chiefs files contain a large number of historically interesting documents among which are a selection of transcripts of German intercepts of personal telephone conversations held during the war between US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. On March 6, 1942, German Minister of Post, Dr. Wilhelm Ohnesorge, sent the following letter to Adolf Hitler. To it was attached a sample manuscript of an intercepted conversation:
The Reichspost Minister Berlin W 66 6 March 1942
Leipziger Str. 15
(Secret State Matter)
U5342-11Bfb Nt. 23 gRs
Decoding of the American-England telephone system
The research section (Forschungsanstalt) of the German Reichspost has, as the latest of its efforts, completed a unit designed to intercept the telephone message traffic between the United States and England which had been tendered unintelligible by their use of current communications technology. Because of the significant work of its technicians, the Reichspost is the sole agency in Germany that is now able to make immediate interception and decoding of these hitherto unintelligible conversations. I will present these results to the Reichsführer SS Pg Himmler who will forward them on the 22nd of March. It is my intention, pending your approval, to strictly limit the circulation of these communications in order that no news of our success reaches the English. This might seriously jeopardize future interceptions.
Heil mein Führer! Ohnesorge 1
In 1937, the American Telephone & Telegraph Company put into use a telephone scrambling device called the A-3. This device, which permitted telephone conversations to be scrambled at one end and descrambled at the other, effectively prevented interception of the conversations en route. The German Reichspost (state post system responsible for the telephone and telegraph systems in Germany) had purchased the A-3 system from AT&T before the war for use on lines in service between Germany and the United States. However, each set of scrambling devices was different and in practice, the possessors of one set could not intercept the transmissions of another. The A-3 system in use between Roosevelt and Churchill was housed, in America, in a secure area of the AT&T offices at 47 Walker Street in New York and the British A-3 counterpart was located in London. Roosevelt's calls to Churchill were routed through this New York office where technicians constantly supervised the conversations to be certain that the transmitted speech was unintelligible after passing through the scrambling devices.
In September of 1939, the A-3 system was in use by the White House and on the first day of that month, Roosevelt heard from his personal friend and Ambassador to France, William Bullitt, that the Germans had invaded Poland. The Germans were well aware that Roosevelt used this device through an indiscreet article in the New York Times of October 8,1939 entitled Roosevelt Protected in Talks to Envoys by Radio scrambling to Foil Spies Abroad." The spies abroad found this indiscretion stimulating and Dr. Ohnesorge determined to find a way to unscramble the President's messages. He assigned a specialist in the field, Kurt Vetterlein, to work on the project using the A-3 equipment then in the hands of the Reichspost as a basis. By late 1940, Vetterlein and his team of specialists had effectively broken Roosevelt's secure system. Vetterlein then built a device that was able to descramble each conversation as it progressed without the loss of a single word and Ohnesorge ordered an intercept station to be established in the occupied Dutch coastal town of Noorwijkaan Zee, just north of den Haag. Here, in a former youth hostel, Vetterlein set up all the equipment he needed to begin a full-scale 24 hour program of interception and transcription of the trans-Atlantic radio telephone traffic. The first intercept was made at 7:45 PM on September 7, 1941. The daily number of intercepted calls, on a 24 hour basis, ranged from a high of sixty to a low of thirty' and were screened by experts for their intelligence value Important material was transcribed in the original English and sent by courier either to Hitler's military headquarters or to Heinrich Himmler in Berlin.
Himmler, in turn, had copies made and distributed them within his organization. General Gottlob Berger, head of Himmler's main office, was one of the recipients and the head of the Overseas Intelligence branch of the Sicherheitsdienst, or SD, received others. In his capacity as chief of the government's counter-espionage section, Müller received occasional intercepts. It was no doubt Müller's interest in the Soviet intelligence sphere that resulted in his being given an original intercept between Roosevelt and Churchill of a highly secret, and in retrospect, explosive, conversation of November 26, 1941. Ever since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7,1941 and the subsequent entry of the United States into what then became World War II, there has been a heated and protracted debate about the historical role played by Roosevelt. His detractors have claimed that the President was fully aware of the impending Japanese attack and allowed it to proceed because it supplied him a causus belli that would permit him to actively engage his real enemy, Hitler. Much is made of the interception and decoding of Japanese messages, which in hindsight would appear to point clearly to a Japanese attack. Certainly, the decoding of Japanese Foreign Office diplomatic traffic would indicate the possibility of some kind of an attack if the Japanese and American governments were unable to resolve their problems in the Pacific. None of the diplomatic messages, however, were specific about such an attack and all that can be gained from them is that the Japanese did not want war with the United States and were desperately seeking some kind of a peaceful solution. Given that Roosevelt was aware of this attitude, which he clearly was, there has been no proof that the President was aware of a specific attack on the United States. On November 26, 1941, the German intercept station in Holland recorded the following conversation between Roosevelt and Churchill concerning the situation in the Pacific. It is of such historical importance that it is reproduced in full. (See Appendix for the actual documents.) The original is in English with German technical remarks about interruptions that have been translated into English, and proper names are capitalized.
Secret State Matter No.321/41 Time: 26.11.41 Hour: 13.15
A:=Franklin Roosevelt, Washington
B:=Winston Churchill, London
In this conversation, Winston Churchill explains to Franklin Roosevelt about the Japanese planned action against America. The conversation is as follows:
B: I am frightfully sorry to disturb you at this hour, Franklin, but matters of a most vital import have transpired and I felt that I must convey them to you immediately.
A: That's perfectly all right, Winston. I'm sure you wouldn't trouble me at this hour for trivial concerns.
B: Let me preface my information with an explanation addressing the reason I have not alluded to these facts earlier. In the first place, until today, the information was not firm. On matters of such gravity, I do not like to indulge in idle chatter. Now, I have in my hands, reports from our agents in Japan as well as the most specific intelligence in the form of the highest level Japanese naval coded messages (conversation broken) for some time now.
A: I felt that this is what you were about. How serious is it?
B: It could not be worse. A powerful Japanese task force comprising (composed of) six of their carriers, two battleships and a number of other units to include (including) tankers and cruisers, has sailed yesterday from a secret base in the northern Japanese islands.2
A: We both knew this was coming. There are also reports in my hands about a force of some size making up in China and obviously intended to go (move) South.3
B: Yes, we have all of that. (Interruption)... are far more advanced than you in our reading of the Jap naval operations codes.4 But even without that, their moves are evident. And they will indeed move South with the force I spoke of is not headed South, Franklin, it is headed East...
A: Surely you must be.. will you repeat that please?
B: I said to the East. This force is sailing to the East... towards you.
A: Perhaps they set an easterly course to fool any observers and then plan to swing South to support the landings in the southern areas. I have...
B: No, at this moment, their forces are moving across the northern Pacific and I can assure you that their goal is the (conversation broken) fleet in Hawaii. At Pearl Harbor.
A: This is monstrous. Can you tell me... indicate... the nature of your intelligence? (conversation broken) reliable? Without compromising your sources...
B: Yes, I will have to be careful. Our agents in Japan have been reporting on the gradual (conversation broken) units. And these have disappeared from Japanese home waters.5 We also have highly reliable sources in the Japanese foreign service and even in the military...
A: How reliable?
B: One of the sources is the individual who supplied us the material on the diplomatic codes that (conversation broken)6 and a Naval offices (sic) whom our service has compromised. You must trust me, Franklin, I can not be more specific.
A: I accept this.
B: We cannot compromise our code breaking. You understand this. Only myself and a few (conversation broken) not even Hopkins.7 It will go straight to Moscow and I am not sure we want that.
A: I am still attempting to.. . the obvious implication is that the Japs are going to do a Port Arthur on us at Pearl Harbor.8 Do you concur?
B: I do indeed. Unless they add an attack on the Panama Canal to this vile business. I can hardly envision the canal as a primary goal, especially with your fleet lying athwart their lines of communications with Japan. No, if they do strike the canal, they will have to first neutralize (destroy) your fleet (conversation broken).
A: The worst form of treachery. We can prepare our defenses on the islands and give them a warm welcome when they come. It certainly would put some iron up Congress' ass (asshole).
B: On the other hand, if they did launch a bombing raid, given that the aircraft would only be of the carrier-borne types, how much actual damage could they inflict? And on what targets?
A: I think torpedoes would be ruled out at the outset. Pearl is far too shallow to permit a successful torpedo attack.9 Probably they would drop medium bombs on the ships and then shoot (conversation broken) damage a number of ships and no doubt the Japs would attack our airfields. I could see some damage there but I don't think either an airfield or a battleship could sink very far. What do your people give you as the actual date of the attack?
B: The actual date given is the eighth of December. That's a Monday.10
A: The fleet is in harbor over the weekend. They often sortie during the week..
B: The Japs are asking (conversation broken) exact dispositions of your ships on a regular basis.
A: But Monday seems odd. Are you certain?
B: It is in the calendar. Monday is the eighth (conversation broken)
A: .. .then I will have to consider the entire problem. A Japanese attack on us, which would result in war between us.. and certainly you as well.. would certainly fulfill two of the most important requirements of our policy. Harry has told me repeatedly... and I have more faith in him than I do in the Soviet ambassador that Stalin is desperate at this point. The Nazis are at the gates of Moscow, his armies are melting away... the government has evacuated and although Harry and Marshall feel that Stalin can hang on and eventually defeat Hitler, there is no saying what could transpire (happen) if the Japs suddenly fell on Stalin's rear. In spite of all the agreements between them and the Japs dropping Matsuoka, there is still strong anti-Russian sentiment in high Japanese military circles. I think we have to decide what is more important. keeping Russia in the war to bleed the Nazis dry to their own eventual destruction (conversation broken) supply Stalin with weapons but do not forget, in fact he is your ally, not mine. There are strong isolationist feelings here and there are quite a number of anti-Communists...
A: Certainly, but they would do all they could to block any attempt on my part to more than give some monetary assistance to Stalin.
B: But we too have our major desperations, Franklin. Our shipping upon which our nation depends, is being sunk by the huns faster than we could ever replace (conversation broken) the Japs attack both of us in the Pacific? We could lose Malaya which is our primary source of rubber and tin. And if the Japs get Java and the oil, they could press South to Australia and I have told you repeatedly, we cannot hold (conversation broken)11 them much but in truth I cannot deliver. We need every man and every ship to fight Hitler in Europe... India too. If the Japs get into Malaya, they can press on virtually unopposed into Burma and then India. Need I tell you of the resultant destruction of our Empire? We cannot survive on this small island, Franklin, (conversation broken) allow the nips (knips?) to attack, you can get your war declaration through your Congress after all. (Conversation broken)
A: Not as capable as you are at translating their messages and the army and navy are very jealous of each other. There is so much coming in that everyone is confused. We have no agents in place in Japan and every day dozens of messages are (conversation broken) that contradict each other or are not well translated. I have seen three translations of the same message with three entirely different meanings (conversation broken) address your concern about British holdings in the Pacific... if the Japanese do attack both of us, eventually we will he able to crush them and regain all of the lost territories. As for myself, I will be damned glad to be rid of the Philippines.(sic) -
B: I see this as a gamble (conversation broken) what would your decision be? We cannot procrastinate over this for too long. Eleven or twelve days are all we have. Can we not agree in principle now? I should mention that several advisors have counseled (advised) against informing you of this and allowing it to happen. You see by my notifying you where my loyalty lies. Certainly to one who is heart and soul with us against Hitler.
A: I do appreciate your loyalty, Winston. What on the other hand, will happen here if one of our intelligence people is able to intercept, decipher and deliver to me the same information you just gave me? I cannot ignore it.. all of my intelligence people will know about it then. I could not ignore this.
B: But if it were just a vague message then?
A: No, a specific message. I could not just sweep it under the rug like that (conversation broken)
B: Of course not. I think we should let matters develop as they will.
A: I think that perhaps I can find a reason to absent (leave) myself from Washington while this crisis develops. What I dont know cant hurt me and I too can misunderstand messages, especially at a distance (conversation broken)12
B: Completely. My best to you all there.
A: Thank you for your call.
2Hittokappu Bay in the Kuriles.
3There was such force destined for Malaya.
4The Americans had broken the Japanese Naval Operations codes, called by the US Navy JN-25, but were not as advanced in translating them as were the British.
5The Pearl Harbor Strike Force was sent by different routes to their assembly point, leaving behind their radio operators who kept up a regular traffic to mislead eavesdroppers.
6It has long been thought that the breaking of the so-called Japanese Purple diplomatic code was due to treasonable activities on the part of a Japanese diplomatic official and not to the efforts of US code breakers.
7Harry Hopkins was Roosevelt`s confidant whom the British strongly suspected was selling highly secret material to the Soviets on his visits to Stalin.
8In 1904, the Japanese Navy launched a surprise attack against the Russian fleet stationed in Port Arthur, inflicting considerable damage on the unsuspecting Russia `is and beginning the Russo-Japanese War.
9This was a common error in US thinking. The Japanese had developed special fins for their aerial torpedoes that would permit them to he used in shallow waters. Normally, torpedoes dropped from an aircraft would sink to a considerable depth before beginning their run. hi shallow anchorages like Pearl Harbor, in effect these torpedoes would embed themselves in the mud at the bottom of the harbor.
10The date quoted by Churchill accurately reflects the one given in Japanese Naval intercepts. Unfortunately, neither Churchill nor British intelligence realized that the eight was Tokyo time, one day ahead of the time at Pearl Harbor. The International Date Line lies between Hawaii and Japan.
11The missing words here obviously were "I have promised" which in fact he did . Delivery consisted of two battleships the Repulse and the Prince of Wales which he sent to Singapore and which were promptly sunk by Japanese bombers off Kuantun on December 10, 1941
12On Friday, November 28, Roosevelt left Washington in his special armored train for what he called a belated Thanksgiving at Warm Spring, Georgia. Although Roosevelt did not like to travel on a Friday, he did so on this occasion. The trip took twenty-three hours and he was in Warm Springs long enough to deliver a speech and carve the Thanksgiving turkey. He was recalled by frantic messages from Henry Stimpson, Secretary of War, and Cordell Hull his Secretary of State. Roosevelt arrived back in Washington on December 1 to deal with the mounting crisis.
Citations: Nr. 3212/41 gRs
NOTE THIS: This excerpt is provided by the California Coalition for Geopolitical Awareness as part of an on going project to correct the Errors of History of Our 20th Century. This project will establish an Internet Web site for our youth to gain access to accurate historical fact as opposed to the fallacious versions provided by the NEA and its tribe of Euro-Marxists who are a front for international communism and who have no allegiance nor loyalty to the United States. It is our intent to also publish this material on CD-ROM format, and to provide a copy to every student in the English speaking world.
Pearl Harbor Revisionism http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3682/phrevisionism.html
First Order revisionism holds President Franklin D. Roosevelt personally
responsible for the debacle at Pearl Harbor and regards him as having used
the incident as a means to get the United States involved in the War and
subsequently used the Hawaiian commanders as scapegoats to shift public
attention away from the activities of the Administration.
What about Japanese-Americans?
There were far more Americans of Japanese descent, many of them only 2nd
generation, known as Nisei, who fought for the United States, or served as
linguists translating Japanese documents and communications.
You can read all about these Americans who fought the Germans (and Italians)
even as their parents and siblings were being held in internment/relocation
camps, what we would call concentration camps in another country: http://www.katonk.com/index.html
There were a few of German descent who were disloyal as well. But the
overwhelming majority from both Germany and Japan were not in that category.
We should never forget the Japanese men who served in the US Army, are heroes,
while their families were in the camps in California. They were extremely heroic in
the European theatre.
Preparing For The Future
This is a film I highly recommend! It depicts the rationale of Why We Fought World War II.
A current version of a film similar to the Frank Capra film 'War Comes To America' should be made now, to tell the American people why we are in a war against terrorism!
3. A simple free registration is required http://www.movieflix.com/registration.mfx
'War Comes To America' (1945) Frank Capra, 66 minutes.
Why We Fight Series O.F. -7
The mood of World War II America is accurately depicted in this film in the WHY WE FIGHT series. America's attitude toward entering the war slowly changes as the aggressive campaigns of the axis power increase.
(Watch this on your computer). A very simple FREE registration is required.
or cut and paste this to your browser: http://www.movieflix.com/cgi-bin/special/movie.mfp/speed=fast/movie_id=1876/player=real/1876.ram?speed=fast&id=1876&player=real
NEVER FORGET September 11, 2001
There are plenty of images here: 'JIHAD IN AMERICA' Recruiting in your town!
America's Fifth Column ... watch Steve Emerson/PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video) http://us.share.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Lights/3390/jihad.ziphttp://www.terrorismvictims.org/terrorists/jihad-in-america.htmlhttp://www.jihadinamerica.com/
SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
THE 2DAY OF INFAMY http://wtc.nac.net/
September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks on America
Complete News Archives of September 11, 2001 and the Year That Followed
News, Images, Photographs, Headlines, Newspapers, Timelines, Mysteries, and History
Videos/Books Newspaper Pages
Magazine Covers International Reaction
Bush & bin Laden 9/11 News & Photos
FDNY & Mysteries
September 2001 Timeline USA Newspapers Main World Leaders Reaction Attack Images & Timelines
October 2001 Timeline USA Newspapers A-D International Community Aftermath & Space Images
October 7 Attack Archives USA Newspapers E-M President Bush Sept. 11th USA Archived 9/11 Sites
November 2001 Timeline USA Newspapers N-S Bush 9/20 U.S. Congress World Archived 9/11 Sites
December 2001 Timeline USA Newspapers T-Z Bush 10/11 The Pentagon FDNY - Fireman Images
Jan- March 2002 Timeline World Newspapers Main Bush 11/8 Atlanta, Ga. 9/11 USA Flag Images
April-June 2002 Timeline World Newspapers A-L Bush 11/10 United Nations Heroes of 9/11 Flight 93
July-Sept 2002 Timeline World Newspapers M-Z Osama bin Laden & Jihad Mysteries - Cross / Images
Historical 9/11 Videos World Newspapers U.K. Osama bin Laden Evidence Mysteries - Number Eleven
Historical 9/11 Books Magazine Front Covers Osama bin Laden Speeches Mysteries - 9/11 Early Signs
September 11 in History WTC Statistics & Art About Sept. 11 News Home / Index
USA Flag History & Art 9/11 Statistics & Art Search Sept. 11 News Today's 9/11 War News
America One Year Later - September 11, 2002 - The World Remembers 9/11/01
Very clear statement on the first war of the 21st Century
You will find particularly instructive and a MAJOR CONTRAST from clinton. President George W. Bush audio.
Load this for a very clear statement on the first war of the 21st Century. The whole clip is an excellent example of how President Bush thinks and leads our country.
This will be appropriate for VN Veterans
Look specifically at the segment at 10:19 to 13:48.
Look at 16:02 to 18:29 for the interest of Gulf Veterans.
Look at 26:56 to 28:22 for nations and families/children.
Look at 33:48 to 37:20 for what are the scacrifices and positives.
Look at 40:45 to 42:04 for what Americans should do. http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/events01/world/afghan_attacks/bush01_12oct.ram
The events of September 11th affected the entire world. Reactions around the globe have been captured in this archive of television news broadcasts from the period following the attacks. http://tvnews3.televisionarchive.org/tvarchive/html/index.html
Access to the Archive's Collections is provided at no cost to you and is granted for scholarship and research purposes only.
Chronology of 911 http://tvnews3.televisionarchive.org/tvarchive/html/chronology.html
Detailed 911 http://tvnews1.televisionarchive.org/prog?date=20010911&time=0800
HE WON'T FOLD..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oval Office Tour President Bush WATCH THIS http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/ovaloffice.v.smil
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio October 7, 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.a.ram
November 10, 2001
President Bush Speaks to United Nations
Radio Address by the President to the Nation
Listen to the President's Remarks http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110.a.ramhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-6.v.smil
President George W. Bush's remarks at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta
Read the speech http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/08/rec.bush.transcript/index.html
November 8, 2001
"......Ours is the cause of freedom. We've defeated freedom's enemies before, and we will defeat them again. (APPLAUSE)
We cannot know every turn this battle will take, yet we know our cause is just and our ultimate victory is assured. We will no doubt face new challenges, but we have our marching orders.
My fellow Americans, let's roll."
Hear the speech http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011108-13.a.ramhttp://www.npr.org/ramfiles/news/20011108.bush.ramhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011108-13.a.ram
October 7, 2001
Presidential Address to the Nation 'Endearing Freedom'
View the President's Remarks http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011007-8.v.smil
Listen to President's Remarks http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011007-8.a.ram
September 20, 2001 (Recognition of Todd Beamer, A Strong Union).
President Declares "Freedom at War with Fear" Joint Session of Congress
View the President's Remarks http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.v.smil
Listen to President's Remarks http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.a.ram
September 15, 2001
President Addresses Nation in Radio Address
Listen to President's Remarks http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010915.a.ram
September 11, 2001
Statement by the President in Address to the Nation
Listen to President's Remarks http://mfile.akamai.com/5913/rm/akamai1.download.akamai.com/5913/20010911-16.a.ram
View President's Remarks http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-1.v.smil
Listen President's Remarks http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-1.a.ram
As the current Middle East crisis develops, keep this in mind as you listen/watch RADIO/TV and read the newspapers: This is the Rosetta Stone of media bias regarding Islam and Islamic Terrorism..
90% of journalists think 'THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS KIND OF APPROACH TO JOURNALISM TODAY'!
If you've ever wondered why reading a newspaper is like reading a manual of politically correct indoctrination, here is your answer.
These guidelines are from the "Diversity" section of the Society of Professional Journalists:
PC Indoctrination: Guidelines for Countering Racial, Ethnic, Religious Profiling *Must Read*
Society of Professional Journalists http://www.spj.org/diversity_profiling.asp|
Society of Professional Journalists
On Oct. 6 at its National Convention in Seattle, the Society of Professional Journalists passed a resolution urging members and fellow journalists to take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism and to redouble their commitment to:
Use language that is informative and not inflammatory; Portray Muslims, Arabs and Middle Eastern and South Asian Americans in the richness of their diverse experiences; Seek truth through a variety of voices and perspectives that help audiences understand the complexities of the events in Pennsylvania, New York City and Washington, D.C.
Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing Americans mourning those lost in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
Seek out people from a variety of ethnic and religious backgrounds when photographing rescue and other public service workers and military personnel.
Do not represent Arab Americans and Muslims as monolithic groups. Avoid conveying the impression that all Arab Americans and Muslims wear traditional clothing.
Use photos and features to demystify veils, turbans and other cultural articles and customs.
Seek out and include Arabs and Arab Americans, Muslims, South Asians and men and women of Middle Eastern descent in all stories about the war, not just those about Arab and Muslim communities or racial profiling.
Cover the victims of harassment, murder and other hate crimes as thoroughly as you cover the victims of overt terrorist attacks.
Make an extra effort to include olive-complexioned and darker men and women, Sikhs, Muslims and devout religious people of all types in arts, business, society columns and all other news and feature coverage, not just stories about the crisis.
Seek out experts on military strategies, public safety, diplomacy, economics and other pertinent topics who run the spectrum of race, class, gender and geography.
When writing about terrorism, remember to include white supremacist, radical anti-abortionists and other groups with a history of such activity.
Do not imply that kneeling on the floor praying, listening to Arabic music or reciting from the Quran are peculiar activities.
When describing Islam, keep in mind there are large populations of Muslims around the world, including in Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, India and the United States. Distinguish between various Muslim states; do not lump them together as in constructions such as "the fury of the Muslim world."
Avoid using word combinations such as "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim extremist" that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity. Be specific: Alternate choices, depending on context, include "Al Qaeda terrorists" or, to describe the broad range of groups involved in Islamic politics, "political Islamists." Do not use religious characterizations as shorthand when geographic, political, socioeconomic or other distinctions might be more accurate.
Avoid using terms such as "jihad" unless you are certain of their precise meaning and include the context when they are used in quotations. The basic meaning of "jihad" is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself.
Consult the Library of Congress guide for transliteration of Arabic names and Muslim or Arab words to the Roman alphabet. Use spellings preferred by the American Muslim Council, including "Muhammad," "Quran," and "Makkah ," not "Mecca."
Regularly seek out a variety of perspectives for your opinion pieces. Check your coverage against the five Maynard Institute for Journalism Education fault lines of race and ethnicity, class, geography, gender and generation.
Ask men and women from within targeted communities to review your coverage and make suggestions.
They forgot one cast-iron rule: "Always refer to Islam as a Religion of Peace"
You have the information you need...YOU DECIDE..!!
For your consideration:
Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing, by Marilyn Schwartz and the Task Force on Bias-Free Language of the Association of American University Presses
A review by P.J. O'Rourke
[From The American Spectator August, 1995.]
For your consideration:Says the press release that arrived with this volume, "Anyone who spends even a few minutes with the book will be a better writer." And, indeed, I feel a spate of better writing coming on. The pharisaical, malefic, and incogitant Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing is a product of the pointy-headed wowsers at the Association of American University Presses, who in 1987 established a "Task Force on Bias-Free Language" filled with cranks, pokenoses, blow-hards, four-flushers, and pettifogs.
The foolish and contemptible product of this seven years wasted in mining the shafts of indignation has been published by that cowbesieged, basketball-sotted sleep-away camp for hick bourgeois offspring, Indiana University, under the aegis of its University Press--a traditional dumping ground for academic deadwood so bereft of talent, intelligence, and endeavor as to be useless even in the dull precincts of Midwestern state college classrooms. But perhaps I'm biased. What, after all, is wrong with a project of this ilk? Academic language is, I guess, supposed to be exact and neutral, a sort of mathematics of ideas, with information recorded in a complete and explicit manner, the record formulated into theories, and attempts made to prove those formulae valid or not.
The preface to Guidelines says, "Our aim is simply to encourage sensitivity to usages that may be imprecise, misleading, and needlessly offensive." And few scholars would care to have their usages so viewed, myself excluded. The principal author of the text, Ms. Schwartz... (I apologize. In the first chapter of Guidelines, titled "Gender," it says, in Section 1.41, lines 4-5: "Scholars normally refer to individuals solely by their full or their last names, omitting courtesy titles.") The principal author of the text, Schwartz ... (No, I'm afraid that won't do. Vid. Section 1.41, lines 23-25: "Because African-American women have had to struggle for the use of traditional courtesy titles, some prefer Mrs. and Miss," and it would be biased to assume that Schwartz is a white name.) Mrs. or Miss Marilyn Schwartz ... (Gee, I'm sorry. Section 1.41, lines 1-2: "Most guidelines for nonsexist usage urge writers to avoid gratuitous references to the marital status of women.") Anyway, as I was saying, Ms. Schwartz... (Excuse me. Lines 7-9: "Ms. may seem anachronistic or ironic if used for a woman who lived prior to the second U.S. feminist movement of the 1960s," and the head of the Task Force on Bias-Free Language may be, for all we know, old as the hills.) So, Marilyn... (0ops. Section 1.42, lines 1-3: "Careful writers normally avoid referring to a woman by her first name alone because of the trivializing or condescending effect.") And that's what's wrong with a project of this ilk. Nonetheless, the principal author--What's-Her-Face--has crafted a smooth, good-tempered, even ingratiating tract. The more ridiculous neologisms and euphemistic expressions are shunned. Thieves are not "differently ethiced," women isn't spelled with any y's, and men aren't "ovum-deprived reproductivity aids--optional equipment only." A tone of mollifying suggestion is used: "The following recommendations are not intended as prescriptive..." (Though in a project this bossy it is impossible for the imperative mood to completely disappear: "Writers must resort to gender-neutral alternatives where the common gender form has become strongly marked as masculine." Therefore, if the Fire Department's standards of strength and fitness are changed to allow sexual parity in hiring, I shall be careful to say that the person who was too weak and small to carry me down the ladder was a fire fighter, not a fireman.) And pains are taken to extend linguistic sensitivity beyond the realms of the fashionably oppressed to Christians ("Terms may be pejorative rather than descriptive in some contexts--born again, cult, evangelical, fundamentalist, sect..."), teenagers, and adolescents ("these terms may carry unwanted connotations because of their frequent occurrence in phrases referring to social and behavioral problems"), and even Republicans ("some married women ... deplore Ms. because of its feminist connotations"). Levity is attempted. Once. This unattributed example of textbook prose is given to show just how funny a lack of feminism can be:
Man, like other mammals, breast feeds his young.
A mea culpa turn is performed at the end of the preface:
Finally, we realize--lest there be any misunderstanding about this--that there is no such thing as truly bias-free language and that our advice is inevitably shaped by our own point of view--that of white, North American (specifically U.S.), feminist publishing professionals.
And there is even an endearing little lapse on page 36:
A judicious use of ellipses or bracketed interpolations may enable the author to skirt the problem [italics, let this interpolation note, are my own].
Why then do the laudable goals claimed and the reasonable tone taken in Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing provoke a no less laudable fury and a completely reasonable loathing in its reader? First, there is the overweening vanity of twenty-one obscure and unrenowned members of the Task Force on Bias-Free Language presuming to tell whole universities full of learned people what is and what is not an "unwarranted bias." No doubt in the future the Task Force will sit down and use feminist theory to map the genes in human DNA. Then there is petitio princippi, begging the question, the logical fallacy of assuming as true that which is to be proven. This book, a purported device to assist in truth-finding, instead announces what truths are to be found: "Sensitive writers seek to avoid terms and statements implying or assuming that heterosexuality is the norm for sexual attraction." Which is why the earth is populated by only a few dozen people, all wearing Mardi Gras costumes.
Fallacious disregard for the truth is habitual in Guidelines. We are told that "sexist characterizations of animal traits and behaviors are inappropriate" (thereby depriving high-school biology students of a classroom giggle over the praying mantis eating her mate after coitus). We are warned against considering animals in "gender-stereotyped human terms," and are given, as an admonitory example, the sentence, "A stallion guards his brood of mares," though the stallion will do it no matter how many task forces are appointed by the Association of American University Presses. We hear that it is permitted to use "traditional technical terms, such as feminine rhyme," but are told to "avoid introducing gender stereotypes--e.g., 'weak' rhymes." Never mind that a feminine rhyme, with its extra unaccented syllable, is, in fact, lame. Note the effect on this children's classic by Clement Clarke Moore:
'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the housing Not a creature was stirring--not even a mousing; The stockings were hung by the chimney with caring, In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be thereing.
We are scolded for using "illegal alien" when "undocumented resident or undocumented worker is generally preferred as less pejorative." What, they aren't illegal? And Guidelines goes so far as to urge utter dishonesty upon translators, saying they should make up their own sanctimonious minds about "whether gender-biased characteristics of the original warrant replication in English." When the book is not lying or creating reasons to do so, it is engaging in the most tiresome sort of feminist scholasticism. Thirteen pages are devoted to wrestling with alternatives to the generic "he."
A central thesis of Guidelines is thereby nearly disproven. If they need thirteen pages to discuss a pronoun, maybe women are inferior. Why doesn't the Task Force just combine "she" and "it" and pronounce the thing accordingly? This would be no worse than the rest of the violence the book does to the language. Use of the obnoxious singular "they" is extolled. Shakespeare is cited by way of justification, and let me cite Taming of the Shrew as grounds for my critique. Dwarfism is described as a medical condition "resulting in severe short stature." Gosh, that was a strict midget. And the word "man," meaning humanity, is to be discarded, replaced by "people" or "person." What a piece of work is person! No, not even the members of the Task Force on Bias-Free Language are this tin-eared. They admit "these terms cannot always substitute for generic man" and suggest that "other revisions may be preferable." For instance, the sentence can be recast so that the first person plural is used. --What a piece of work we are!
Much of Guidelines is simply mealy-mouthed, touting the Mrs. Grundyisms (she lived before the second U.S. feminist movement) that pompous nonentities have always favored: "Congenital disability ... is preferable to birth defect" and "manifestations of epilepsy are termed seizures not fits." But on some pages, pretension progresses to delusion, e.g., "Terms such as mentally deranged, mentally unbalanced, mentally diseased, insane, deviant, demented, and crazy are not appropriate." Which statement is--how else to put it?--mentally deranged, mentally unbalanced, mentally diseased, insane, deviant, demented, and crazy. The members of the Task Force on Bias-Free Language should be exiled to former Yugoslavia and made to teach bias-free Serbo-Croatian to Serbs and Croats for the rest of their natural lives, that is to say until their pupils tear them limb from limb. But this is just for the book's minor sins. Bad as Guidelines is so far, it gets worse. The text assaults free will:
Most people do not consider their sexuality a matter of choice.
Oh, oh. Left my zipper down and there goes Mr. Happy. Who knows what he'll do? Better lock up your daughters. Also, of course, your sons. And, since "Writers are enjoined to avoid gratuitous reference to age," better lock up granny, too. The authors deprecate common-sense standards of good:
Designating countries as undeveloped or underdeveloped implies an evolutionary hierarchy of nations based on wealth, type of economy, and degree of industrialization.
Of course it does, you feebleminded idiots.
Labels such as feebleminded , idiot, imbecile, mentally defective, mentally deficient, moron, and retard are considered offensive.
I mean, you possessors of "a condition in which a person has significantly below average general intellectual functioning." Morals are attacked. We are told that "many stereotypical terms that are still found in writing about American Indians" are "highly offensive." One of them being "massacre (to refer to a successful American Indian raid or battle victory against white colonizers and invaders)." Ugh, Chief. Log cabins all burn. Heap many scalps. And U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees got-em all women and children. And even the idea of normal is condemned:
The term normal may legitimately refer to a statistical norm for human ability ("Normal vision is 20/20") but should usually be avoided in other contexts as ... invidious.
Thus deprived of all tools of independent judgment and means of private action, the gender-neutral, age-non-specific, amoral, abnormal person is rendered helpless. Or, as Guidelines puts it, "The term able-bodied obscures [a] continuum of ability and may perpetuate an invidious distinction between persons so designated and those with disabilities." We're all crippled. And we're all minorities, too, because "a 'minority' may be defined not on the basis of population size, color or ethnicity (e.g., women and people with disabilities are sometimes described as minorities), but in terms of power in a particular society." Guidelines then goes about treating these overwhelming minorities with absurd "sensitivity."
We are warned off "the many common English expressions that originate in a disparaging characterization of a particular group or people." "Siamese twins," "get one's Irish up," and even "to shanghai" are cited. Nonwhite is "objectionable in some contexts because it makes white the standard by which individuals are classified." Far East is "Eurocentric. East Asia is now preferred." "The expression ghetto blaster for a portable stereo (or, more colloquially, a 'boom box') is offensive as a stereotype [the pun goes unremarked in the text] of African American culture." Objection is made to the designation Latin American "because not all persons referred to as Latin American speak a Latin-based language."
We are told that "some long accepted common names for botanical species--Niggerhead Cactus, Digger Pine (from a derogatory name for California native people who used the nuts from the Pinus sabiniana)--are offensive and are now undergoing revision in the scientific community." Artwork, also, must be carefully reviewed. "Graphic devices and clip art used by production and marketing staff can be generic and misleading ... a traditional Zuni design gracing chapter openings in a book about the Iroquois; an illustration of a geisha advertising a press's books on Japan." Law enforcement, too. "Mafia" is held to be "Discriminatory against Italian Americans unless used in the correct historical sense; not interchangeable with organized crime." And we mustn't say anything good about minorities either. "Gratuitous characterizations of individuals, such as well-dressed, intelligent, articulate, and qualified... may be unacceptably patronizing in some contexts, as are positive stereotypes--the polite, hard-working Japanese person or the silver-tongued Irish person."
What's going on here? Is the Task Force just going to bizarre lengths to avoid hurt feelings? Or is it trying to make those feelings hurt as much as possible? Has the Association of American University Presses crossed the line between petting minorities and giving them--as it were--a Dutch rub? So we're all pathetic members of oppressed minority factions, and the whole world--now wildly annoyed by reading Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing--hates our guts. And everything, everything, fight down to the grammar itself, is terribly unfair. Oh, what will become of us? Whatever shall we do?
Some enormous power for good is needed. Government will hardly answer, since Guidelines has shown that even such well-meaning political entities as Sweden and Canada are no better than Cambodia or Zaire. Perhaps there is a religious solution. But when we encounter the word "heathen" in Guidelines we are told that "uncivilized or irreligious" is a "pejorative connotation." So God is out. And, anyway, He is notorious for His bias in favor of certain minorities and for the gross inequities of His creation. Really we have only one place to turn--the Association of American University Presses and, specifically, the members of its Task Force on Bias-Free Language. Who has been more fair than they? Who more sensitive? Who more inclusive? Who more just? Sure, the Task Force seems to be nothing but a rat bag of shoddy pedagogues, athletes of the tongue, professional picknits filling the stupid hours of their pointless days with nagging the yellow-bellied editors of University Presses which print volume after volume of bound bum-wad fated to sit unread in college library stacks until the sun expires. But nothing could be further from the truth. The very Association of American University Presses says so in the position statement adopted by the AAUP Board of Directors in November 1992:
Books that are on the cutting edge of scholarship should also be at the forefront in recognizing how language encodes prejudice. They should be agents for change and the redress of past mistakes.
And that is exactly what Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing means to do. If its suggestions are followed diligently by the acknowledged cultural vanguard, everything will change, all ills will be rectified, and redemption will be available to us all.
The Task Force on Bias-Free Language shall be our salvation, truth, and light. If you close your eyes, if you open your heart, if you empty your mind--especially if you empty your mind--you can see the Task Force members. There they are in a stuffy seminar room in some inconvenient corner of the campus, with unwashed hair, in Wal-Mart blue jeans, batik print tent dresses, and off-brand running shoes, the synthetic fibers from their fake Aran Island sweaters pilling at the elbows while they give each other high fives. "Yes! Tremble at our inclusiveness! Bow down before our sensitivity! Culturalism in all its multi-ness is ours! No more shall the pejorative go to and fro in the Earth! Woe to the invidious! Behold Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing, ye Eurocentric, male-dominated power structure, and despair!" The nurse (either a man or a woman since it is no longer proper to use the word as a "gender-marked" term) is coming from the university infirmary with their medications.
Get this to play audio/video: Download the Free RealOne Player Only
YUMMM!! That solid food sure looks good. Especially that mocha layer cake!! I've got one heck of a sweet tooth.
Don't worry, I'm quite sober. I don't drink ... but that recipe I posted was something I couldn't resist sharing. LOL!!!
Hi ms. feather.
Yes, the party was fun.
And it's because of our troops that silly hillbillys like my sweet hubby and me can go to a Christmas party....or any party for that matter.
THANX TROOPS AND VETS!!! God bless y'all for keeping this country free!
What's cool is a friend of mine may (I hope) soon join us here at the Canteen! I'd told her about it before and tonight she asked me for the site. She and her husband are veterans (she A.F. and he Navy) and I think she'll like it. I've got my fingers crossed she'll soon be one of the Canteen Girlz.
Sure, why not. As if I haven't been sitting long enough already today. LOL!! Not a flake of snow here. Looks very very strange. 30 degrees, but the temp doesn't help without precipitation! Waaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Thanks, aomagrat, for the history of the USS Arizona. One of my Dad's friend's father is still on her. Being at the memorial is quite an experience, and seeing a name you recognize is too.
Thanks, knighthawk, for sharing Pearl Harbor Remembrance day with us. You are so right. "They should have known we would not give in."
That is so strange that there hasn't been any snow up there yet. Another thing I've noticed is that it's been a little warmer up your way than it's been down here the past week or so. I just checked the thermometer and it's 27 degrees right now..a tad cooler. brrrrr! No snow but there's a heavy frost that's sparkling out there.
A hossie ride'll do ya some good. You've been cooped up in planes and the fresh air will do wonders. I'm calling my hossie Ringo tonight. That's the name of the horse I had years ago. I still miss that guy. He was a coooool horse.