He was the man who invented the term "Iron Curtain" to describe the Soviet Union he so despised; he warned sleeping England, and the world, of the Nazi threat, only to be ignored until it was almost too late. He was Winston Churchill and he was born on this day in 1874. A man of contradictions, he was a soft, pink, pudgy fellow who enjoyed cigars and alcohol but distinguished himself under fire as both a soldier and war correspondent; he had a lisp but overcame that to become an orator who comforted Britain during the Blitz and inspired the British people to fight to save not just England but free people everywhere. During England's darkest hour, Churchill poked, prodded and cajoled President Roosevelt to lend aid and become the arsenal of democracy. Winston Churchill was not just a great leader but a truly interesting human being, the likes of which we may never see again.
From No Ordinary Time by Doris Kearns Goodwin:
In the morning, Churchill confronted the President's butler Alonzo Fields. "Now, Fields," Churchill began, his bare feet sticking out below his long underwear, his crumpled bedclothes scattered on the bed, the floor strewn with British and American newspapers, "we had a lovely dinner last night but I have a few orders for you. We want to leave here as friends, right? So I need you to listen. One, I don't like talking outside my quarters; two, I hate whistling in the corridors; and three, I must have a tumbler of sherry in my room before breakfast, a couple of glasses of scotch and soda before lunch and French champagne and 90 year old brandy before I go to sleep at night."
This was a man who knew how to live, I just don't know how he managed to stay awake.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Military Tribunals For Enemy Combatants
We are a nation at war.
You may already think you know that because we have soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the really big war we are in, the war which will truly decide the fate of free people throughout the world, is the war against Islamist terrorism. This is a war that encompasses more than just Iraq and Afghanistan. It truly is a World War. However, we don't seem to really acknowledge it as such.
Even though Attorney General Eric Holder stated "we are at war" while defending his decision to prosecute the 9-11 co-conspirators in civilian court, most Americans, and especially most American elected officials, don't grasp the seriousness or the enormity of this war against Islamist terror.
The heads of al Qaeda mince no words when they say they want to bring about the death of infidels. In case you don't know, anyone who doesn't share exactly the same beliefs as them is an infidel. Homegrown terrorists also make no bones about the fact that they would like to see infidels in this country murdered.
So, like it or not, believe it or don't, we are at war with Islamist terrorists on a worldwide scale. Which makes it tough for me to understand why the masterminds of the most deadly attack by a foreign foe on American soil should be tried in civil court.
On this day in 1945 the Nuremburg trials began. This was a military tribunal set up to prosecute Nazi war criminals. The Islamist terrorists who plotted to kill people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and elsewhere on September 11, 2001, were, and still are, enemies of the United States of America. They were enemy combatants engaged in warfare. They are war criminals. They should be put on trial before a military tribunal, just as our military enemies were put on trial sixty-four years ago. It is the right thing to do.
You may already think you know that because we have soldiers fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the really big war we are in, the war which will truly decide the fate of free people throughout the world, is the war against Islamist terrorism. This is a war that encompasses more than just Iraq and Afghanistan. It truly is a World War. However, we don't seem to really acknowledge it as such.
Even though Attorney General Eric Holder stated "we are at war" while defending his decision to prosecute the 9-11 co-conspirators in civilian court, most Americans, and especially most American elected officials, don't grasp the seriousness or the enormity of this war against Islamist terror.
The heads of al Qaeda mince no words when they say they want to bring about the death of infidels. In case you don't know, anyone who doesn't share exactly the same beliefs as them is an infidel. Homegrown terrorists also make no bones about the fact that they would like to see infidels in this country murdered.
So, like it or not, believe it or don't, we are at war with Islamist terrorists on a worldwide scale. Which makes it tough for me to understand why the masterminds of the most deadly attack by a foreign foe on American soil should be tried in civil court.
On this day in 1945 the Nuremburg trials began. This was a military tribunal set up to prosecute Nazi war criminals. The Islamist terrorists who plotted to kill people in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and elsewhere on September 11, 2001, were, and still are, enemies of the United States of America. They were enemy combatants engaged in warfare. They are war criminals. They should be put on trial before a military tribunal, just as our military enemies were put on trial sixty-four years ago. It is the right thing to do.
Do You Think There Are Secret Photos of Margaret Thatcher in a Bikini Somewhere?
I've never been one to be politically correct. It's not my style. Political correctness is an attempt to kill freedom of speech and freedom of thought. "Sexist" in one of those PC words that gets bandied about, and when I hear it I know the PC Police are on patrol and and wagging their fingers at someone who has probably done nothing wrong.
Yet...let's face it. There are times when people, or institutions, or countries, engage in bad, or at the very least, unfair behavior. Sarah Palin says the cover photo Newsweek magazine has of her in a running outfit is sexist. And she's right.
As a heterosexual male, I can appreciate a photo of an attractive woman. And from a merely aesthetic standpoint I'd much rather see a picture of Palin in running shorts than just about any other politician I can think of. If you can remember the vision from the 1990s of Bill Clinton and his pasty white thighs revealed by too-short running shorts as the president jogged from one Washington, DC McDonald's to the next, you can understand what I'm saying here.
But the Newsweek article isn't about Palin the runner, or Palin the MILF, or anything else equally inane and superficial. It is about Palin the political commodity. The photo was taken for a interview Palin did for Runner's World, and Newsweek didn't even have authorization to use it. But use it they did, knowing full well it would cause commotion and get them some much needed attention.
Remember, after the presidential election, Barack Obama and his family went on vacation to Hawaii? There were some photos of a shirtless Obama enjoying the ocean. Granted, he did not pose for these pictures, but they exist nonetheless. Imagine if Newsweek or Time were to do a piece on the Obama White House and used one of those photos on the cover. There would be an uproar of tremendous proportions. Democrats and the liberal Left would be up in arms, decrying the impropriety and the sexism of using flesh to sell a news magazine. Where is the uproar, especially from the so called feminists, now that a conservative Republican is being exploited based on her gender so that a magazine can sell more copies?
Therein lies the hypocrisy in America today. Therein lies the quirkiness of the American mind, a mind that can venerate women at the same times it degrades them, a mind that accepts powerful women in the home or in the schools, or even in the corporate boardrooms but is still manifestly uncomfortable with powerful political women, especially if they happen to be attractive as well.
We may live in a "post-racial" nation, but we are hardly post-sexist, not by a long shot. What else can you say about a country that seems light years from having a female president when other countries, some with fairly male-oriented traditions, have had women become presidents or prime ministers. Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia, the Philippines, all have had female heads of state. The US doesn't seem like it's on track to have one for a long, long time.
Perhaps Americans, both male and female, just can't accept, or prefer not to, a woman who is both attractive and successful. Don't give the beautiful too much power, they're not that bright you know. Once upon a time, at least in the world of tv commercials, we lauded the woman who could bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Yet...let's face it. There are times when people, or institutions, or countries, engage in bad, or at the very least, unfair behavior. Sarah Palin says the cover photo Newsweek magazine has of her in a running outfit is sexist. And she's right.
As a heterosexual male, I can appreciate a photo of an attractive woman. And from a merely aesthetic standpoint I'd much rather see a picture of Palin in running shorts than just about any other politician I can think of. If you can remember the vision from the 1990s of Bill Clinton and his pasty white thighs revealed by too-short running shorts as the president jogged from one Washington, DC McDonald's to the next, you can understand what I'm saying here.
But the Newsweek article isn't about Palin the runner, or Palin the MILF, or anything else equally inane and superficial. It is about Palin the political commodity. The photo was taken for a interview Palin did for Runner's World, and Newsweek didn't even have authorization to use it. But use it they did, knowing full well it would cause commotion and get them some much needed attention.
Remember, after the presidential election, Barack Obama and his family went on vacation to Hawaii? There were some photos of a shirtless Obama enjoying the ocean. Granted, he did not pose for these pictures, but they exist nonetheless. Imagine if Newsweek or Time were to do a piece on the Obama White House and used one of those photos on the cover. There would be an uproar of tremendous proportions. Democrats and the liberal Left would be up in arms, decrying the impropriety and the sexism of using flesh to sell a news magazine. Where is the uproar, especially from the so called feminists, now that a conservative Republican is being exploited based on her gender so that a magazine can sell more copies?
Therein lies the hypocrisy in America today. Therein lies the quirkiness of the American mind, a mind that can venerate women at the same times it degrades them, a mind that accepts powerful women in the home or in the schools, or even in the corporate boardrooms but is still manifestly uncomfortable with powerful political women, especially if they happen to be attractive as well.
We may live in a "post-racial" nation, but we are hardly post-sexist, not by a long shot. What else can you say about a country that seems light years from having a female president when other countries, some with fairly male-oriented traditions, have had women become presidents or prime ministers. Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel, Indonesia, the Philippines, all have had female heads of state. The US doesn't seem like it's on track to have one for a long, long time.
Perhaps Americans, both male and female, just can't accept, or prefer not to, a woman who is both attractive and successful. Don't give the beautiful too much power, they're not that bright you know. Once upon a time, at least in the world of tv commercials, we lauded the woman who could bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Run, Sarah, Run
Would it be so wrong to have a president that's hot? I think not.
"So easy to look at, so hard to define..."Thursday, November 12, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Hands Up, Tubby! You're Under Arrest!
This is one of the strangest articles I've come across, odd enough that I wonder if it's really true. There is a law in Japan that mandates waist sizes for it's citizens. Apparently the Japanese government, having solved all other problems, decided that the Japanese have been gaining too much weight in the last few decades and felt the need to decree a maximum waist size. It's 33.5 inches for men, 35.4 inches for women. With a 36-inch waistline, I would be a lawbreaker. And proud of it.
Say what you will about the decline of the United States in the 21st century, our beloved legislators have yet to make fat illegal. US citizens are still allowed to eat what we want, when we want (although let's hope no Congressmen find out about this bit of Japanese insanity - who knows what they'll try to do).
Some Americans may be overweight, but all Americans are still free.
Say what you will about the decline of the United States in the 21st century, our beloved legislators have yet to make fat illegal. US citizens are still allowed to eat what we want, when we want (although let's hope no Congressmen find out about this bit of Japanese insanity - who knows what they'll try to do).
Some Americans may be overweight, but all Americans are still free.
Friday, November 6, 2009
There Will Be Repercussions
What happened at Fort Hood on Thursday will have repercussions.
The shooter (do I need to say alleged?), Nidal Milak Hasan, was a person who was throwing up red flags as he moved along in life, but the flags didn't seem to get any notice from anyone with authority to do something.
As a psychiatric intern at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Hasan himself required counseling after having "difficulties" with patients.
Hasan was possibly the author of pro-terrorist internet postings.
Hasan was, by my reckoning, an Islamist, a hater of what America is doing in the war on terror, and he was "very vocal" about his feelings that the war on terror was really a war against Islam. He even got into arguments with other soldiers over his opinions.
How is it that this guy not only got promoted by the Army, but was being sent at Afghanistan to treat soldiers serving there?
One Army colonel described Hasan's work as "excellent." That may have been the case, but he was also apparently a troubled man and he should have been paid closer attention to. Any excuse that there is just isn't the money or the manpower to investigate everybody just isn't going to cut it anymore. There's plenty of tax money being paid by plenty of Americans and we should expect better, better from the military, better from our government.
The future will bring out politicians who will try to exploit this tragedy, but there will also be honest and concerned public servants who will hopefully push to make sure measures are taken so that something like this never happens again, but also to implement some way to investigate factions within our own military who may actually be our enemy.
The shooter (do I need to say alleged?), Nidal Milak Hasan, was a person who was throwing up red flags as he moved along in life, but the flags didn't seem to get any notice from anyone with authority to do something.
As a psychiatric intern at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Hasan himself required counseling after having "difficulties" with patients.
Hasan was possibly the author of pro-terrorist internet postings.
Hasan was, by my reckoning, an Islamist, a hater of what America is doing in the war on terror, and he was "very vocal" about his feelings that the war on terror was really a war against Islam. He even got into arguments with other soldiers over his opinions.
How is it that this guy not only got promoted by the Army, but was being sent at Afghanistan to treat soldiers serving there?
One Army colonel described Hasan's work as "excellent." That may have been the case, but he was also apparently a troubled man and he should have been paid closer attention to. Any excuse that there is just isn't the money or the manpower to investigate everybody just isn't going to cut it anymore. There's plenty of tax money being paid by plenty of Americans and we should expect better, better from the military, better from our government.
The future will bring out politicians who will try to exploit this tragedy, but there will also be honest and concerned public servants who will hopefully push to make sure measures are taken so that something like this never happens again, but also to implement some way to investigate factions within our own military who may actually be our enemy.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Not So Super Tuesday
Republicans won the governors seat in Virginia and New Jersey yesterday in the not so super Tuesday elections. Some pundits (I'll bet "pundit" looks good on the resume and business card) say this shows a tread towards the Republicans gaining back ground they lost in the 2008 elections and could show trouble for the Democrats in the 2010 mid-terms.
My reaction to yesterdays voting is "so what?" A lot can change in a year, so what happened yesterday is irrelevant to what problems voters are going to be facing 12 months from now. If more people are unemployed or underemployed, they are going to be ticked off at whoever's in power. If things are better, good for the party in power.
And what happens in 2010 will be irrelevant in terms of the 2012 presidential election. The Republicans swept to Congressional power in 1994 and Bill Clinton still managed to get reelected in 1996. All that matters on election day is what kind of mood the voters are in when they cast their ballot. Mood is everything, much more important than part or ideology.
I also saw a pundit (do people really refer to themselves as "pundits;" "Hi, I'm Mary. I'm a doctor." "Hi, I'm John. I'm a pundit." "You're a what now?") on tv this morning saying independent voters are trending towards Republicans, and this could have an effect in 2010. This guy needs to look up the word "independent."
I consider myself not just independent politically, but independent in thought as well. I'm married to a woman, not any ideology. Independents will vote for whoever seems to be the best candidate in an election. Speaking for myself, increasingly I prefer candidates from outside the two party system. Independents don't trend.
My reaction to yesterdays voting is "so what?" A lot can change in a year, so what happened yesterday is irrelevant to what problems voters are going to be facing 12 months from now. If more people are unemployed or underemployed, they are going to be ticked off at whoever's in power. If things are better, good for the party in power.
And what happens in 2010 will be irrelevant in terms of the 2012 presidential election. The Republicans swept to Congressional power in 1994 and Bill Clinton still managed to get reelected in 1996. All that matters on election day is what kind of mood the voters are in when they cast their ballot. Mood is everything, much more important than part or ideology.
I also saw a pundit (do people really refer to themselves as "pundits;" "Hi, I'm Mary. I'm a doctor." "Hi, I'm John. I'm a pundit." "You're a what now?") on tv this morning saying independent voters are trending towards Republicans, and this could have an effect in 2010. This guy needs to look up the word "independent."
I consider myself not just independent politically, but independent in thought as well. I'm married to a woman, not any ideology. Independents will vote for whoever seems to be the best candidate in an election. Speaking for myself, increasingly I prefer candidates from outside the two party system. Independents don't trend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
