But is that all it was? And why did it become the astrological/astronomical observatory that it undeniably is? This discovery doesn't answer those questions.

New radiocarbon dates from human cremation burials among and around the brooding stones on Salisbury Plain in England indicate that the site was used as a cemetery from 3000 B.C. until after the monuments were erected around 2500 B.C., British archaeologists reported Thursday.

What appeared to be the head of a stone mace, a symbol of authority, was found in one grave, the archaeologists said, indicating that this was probably a cemetery for the ruling dynasty responsible for erecting Stonehenge.

“It’s now clear that burials were a major component of Stonehenge in all its main stages,” said Mike Parker Pearson, an archaeologist at the University of Sheffield in England.

In other words, we still have some serious questions that need to be answered -- but it is exciting to have one more bit of history to add into the mix.

Posted by: Greg at 10:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm not a fan of Pat Buchanan. I flip the channel or change the station when I hear his voice or see his face. And I certainly don't read his column unless someone directs me to it because of specific content.

This is one of those cases -- and ought to be sufficient grounds for my fellow conservatives to excommunicate him from the movement.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement. ..."

Again, Bush has made a hash of history.

Appeasement is the name given to what Neville Chamberlain did at Munich in September 1938. Rather than fight Germany in another great war -- to keep 3.5 million Germans under a Czech rule they despised -- he agreed to their peaceful transfer to German rule. With these Germans went the lands their ancestors had lived upon for centuries, German Bohemia, or the Sudetenland.

Chamberlain's negotiated deal with Hitler averted a European war -- at the expense of the Czech nation. That was appeasement.

German tanks, however, did not roll into Poland until a year later, Sept. 1, 1939. Why did the tanks roll? Because Poland refused to negotiate over Danzig, a Baltic port of 350,000 that was 95 percent German and had been taken from Germany at the Paris peace conference of 1919, in violation of Wilson's 14 Points and his principle of self-determination.

Hitler had not wanted war with Poland. He had wanted an alliance with Poland in his anti-Comintern pact against Joseph Stalin.

But the Poles refused to negotiate. Why? Because they were a proud, defiant, heroic people and because Neville Chamberlain had insanely given an unsolicited war guarantee to Poland. If Hitler invaded, Chamberlain told the Poles, Britain would declare war on Germany.

From March to August 1939, Hitler tried to negotiate Danzig. But the Poles, confident in their British war guarantee, refused. So, Hitler cut his deal with Stalin, and the two invaded and divided Poland.

The cost of the war that came of a refusal to negotiate Danzig was millions of Polish dead, the Katyn massacre, Treblinka, Sobibor, Auschwitz, the annihilation of the Home Army in the Warsaw uprising of 1944, and 50 years of Nazi and Stalinist occupation, barbarism and terror.

Pat Buchanan is clearly more than an idiot in this column -- he is one who is deluded in his thinking. It is quite clear from Mein Kampf and Nazi campaign rhetoric that Hitler had a plan for expansion that went well-beyond the "recovery" of land that was inhabited by ethnic Germans. It was undeniable that the evils of the Final Solution have their roots not in the intransigence of Poland in the face of militaristic threats by Germany, but in a deeper seated hatred of the Jews. After all, the Nuremberg laws and other restrictions of Jews predated the invasion of Poland by years, and are clearly presaged in Hitler's earlier writing. For that matter, the spring of 1939 had seen the blitzkrieg into parts of Czechoslovakia which Hitler had promised to leave unmolested only a few months before. One has to at a minimum be ignorant of the historical record to make the claims that Buchanan does in his column.

But we all know that Buchanan is not ignorant of History.

No, for Buchanan to praise the appeasement of Hitler and condemn those who stood up to him is clearly based in something else -- either an antipathy to the Jews (a charge we've heard against him before) or an anti-Communism run so deep that even Hitler can be rehabilitated in the name of that cause. Indeed, i find myself looking for a proposal that the British and French would have done better to ally with Hitler to attack Stalin in 1938 & 1939, despite the fact that the most acute threat to European security was the Nazi regime and not the Red Menace.

So let me make it clear -- Pat Buchanan has clearly moved beyond the pale of conservatism, into that shadowy realm of right-wing authoritarianism which circles around to meet its left-wing siblings of socialism, communism, and fascism. He has therefore earned a place of shame with Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times

H/T Gateway Pundit, One Jerusalem, Below the Beltway, Soccer Dad

Posted by: Greg at 10:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 752 words, total size 5 kb.

The Seattle Times should have fired Bruce Ramsey on Friday for whitewashing Hitler's evil in order to attack our president and give support to Barack Obama. But now his stunning dishonesty is exposed for the world to see, and that should be grounds for his dismissal.

Here's what appeared on Friday.

What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germany’s eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years before—and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.

In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless. And so when Bush recalls the unnamed senator who, in September 1939, lamented that he had not been able to talk to Hitler, he hits an easy target. But the moment of September 1939 is nothing like today.

And here's what appears today in the same space.

The narrative we're given about Munich is entirely in hindsight. We know what kind of man Hitler was, and that he started World War II in Europe. But in 1938 people knew a lot less. What Hitler was demanding at Munich was not unreasonable as a national claim (though he was making it in a last-minute, unreasonable way.) Germany's claim was that the areas of Europe that spoke German and thought of themselves as German be under German authority. In September 1938 the principal remaining area was the Sudetenland.

So the British and French let him have it. Their thought was: "Now you have your Greater Germany." They didn't want a war. They were not superpowers like the United States is now. They remembered the 1914-1918 war and how they almost lost it.

In a few months, in early 1939, Hitler ordered the invasion of what is now the Czech Republic—that is, territory that was not German. Then it was obvious that a deal with him was worthless--and the British and French did not appease Hitler any more. Thus the lesson of Munich: don't appease Hitlers.

But who else is a Hitler? If you paste that label on somebody it means they are cast out. You can't talk to them any more. And it has gotten pasted on quite a few national leaders over the years: Milosevic, Hussein, Ahmadinejad, et. al. In particular, to apply that label to the elected leaders of the Palestinians is to say that you aren't going to listen to their claims to a homeland. I think they do have a claim. So do the Israelis. In order to get anywhere, each side has to listen to the other. To continually bring up Hitler, the Nazis, the Munich Conference and “appeasement,” is to try to prolong the stalemate.

Notice -- a total re-write of what was there. A total whitewashing of his defense of Hitler and his praise of appeasement. The changes made are not minor editorial fixes like spelling, grammar and coherence -- they are a wholesale effort to obscure the defense of evil and the praise for its accommodation that had appeared in that space only a short time before.

Sorry, Mr. Ramsey -- this isn't 1984 and you don't get to send such stuff down the memory hole. You were caught -- and your response was to cover it up. And as you folks in the press like to remind us, the cover-up is worse than the initial offense.

H/T Ace, STACLU

Posted by: Greg at 02:19 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 753 words, total size 5 kb.

It dates to 46 BC, making it the oldest depiction of the Roman Consul that we have.

The life-sized bust showing the Roman ruler with wrinkles and hollows in his face is tentatively dated to 46 B.C. Divers uncovered the Caesar bust and a collection of other finds in the Rhone near the town of Arles — founded by Caesar.

Among other items in the treasure trove of ancient objects is a 5.9 foot marble statue of Neptune, dated to the first decade of the third century after Christ.

Two smaller statues, both in bronze and measuring 27.5 inches each also were found, one of them, a satyr with his hands tied behind his back, "doubtless" originated in Hellenic Greece, the ministry said.

"Some (of the discoveries) are unique in Europe," Culture Minister Christine Albanel said. The bust of Caesar is in a class by itself.

"This marble bust of the founder of the Roman city of Arles constitutes the most ancient representation known today of Caesar," the ministry statement said, adding that it "undoubtedly" dates to the creation of Arles in 46 B.C.

No other depiction of the Roman leader is known to date from his lifetime -- making this potentially the only depiction of him w have made by someone who actually saw him in life. That means that this face is potentially the most accurate view of how he actually appeared -- allowing us to put a face with the name we have heard since our childhood.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

The entire Russian Imperial family was murdered in 1918 at the order of Lenin -- and the remains of the "missing Romanovs" have now been positively identified.

For nine decades after Bolshevik executioners shot Czar Nicholas II and his family, there were no traces of the remains of Crown Prince Aleksei, the hemophiliac heir to RussiaÂ’s throne.

Some said the prince, a delicate 13-year-old, had somehow survived and escaped; others believed he was buried in secret as the country lurched into civil war.

Now an official says DNA tests have solved the mystery by identifying bone shards found in a forest as those of Aleksei and his sister Grand Duchess Maria.

The remains of their parents, Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra, and three siblings, including the czarÂ’s youngest daughter, Anastasia, were unearthed in 1991 and reburied in the imperial resting place in St. Petersburg. The Russian Orthodox Church made all seven of them saints in 2000.

The murder of the family was simply one of the many atrocities committed in the name of Communism over the course of many decades, and the family are only a few of the millions of victims of that Satanic ideology. May the closing of the book on this historical question serve as one more pointed reminder of the malignant nature of Communism and the fact that it is antithetical to any valid notion of human rights.

Posted by: Greg at 10:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.