July 08, 2005
Where Is This Britain?
i wonder, where is the Britain celebrated in this poem by James Thomson and set to music in 1740 by Thomas Augustine Arne?
Rule Britannia!
When Britain first at Heav'n's command, Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land, And guardian angels sang this strain;
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!
The nations not so blest as thee, Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free, The dread and envy of them all.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!
Still more majestic shalt thou rise, More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies, Serves but to root thy native oak.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame, All their attempts to bend thee down;
Will but arouse thy generous flame, But work their woe, and thy renown.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!
To thee belongs the rural reign, Thy cities shall with commerce shine;
All thine shall be the subject main, And every shore it circles thine.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!
The Muses, still with freedom found, Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crowned, And manly hearts to guide the fair.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves; Britons never never never shall be slaves!
i hate to rain on everybody's parade, but i don't see that kind of fighting spirit when i look at today's Britain. What i see is a bunch of effete multiculturalist apologists. And a "blame Bush and Blair before the terrorists" attitude that will only get more people killed.
This We're not Afraid! site, which everybody's linking to, is great but you know... so what? i think the problem with Europe in general is that they haven't developed a healthy enough fear of the enemy in their very midst. And courage without action is not courage at all. Britain, i fear, is paralyzed by their own liberalism. They don't get it.
Check this firsthand report of Londoners' opinions by Charmaine Yoest at Reasoned Audacity.
'It's Tony Blair's fault! They've killed 100,000 people [repeating the now discredited Lancet statistic] it's like a boomerang.' Later she repeated this, talking about 'killing innocent people' and 'invading other peoples' country . . .'
When we asked her the question about the calm, she shrugged too. 'We're used to it,' she replied. 'Americans get patriotic over anything silly.'
9/11 was silly? What can i say? i know that was one ignorant person's reaction, but it's so typical of what i hear all the time from people. Invading other people's countries is the cause of terrorism? That idea has been debunked so many times that it's almost useless to keep trying. People have a choice about where they get their information and whom they can choose to believe. It seems that in England, and in Europe in general, they consistently choose wrong.
So to my original question. What happened to that Britain that will never never never be enslaved? Maybe it's still there, below the BBC-ified surface. i knew a Brit in undergrad, a huge Celtic fan, who loved to sing the chorus of Rule Britannia at the top of his lungs when he got a few Guinesses in him. i don't know whatever happened to that guy, but i'd bet he be as pro-kicking ass as Christopher Hitchens was on the Ron Reagan show today.
A poster at the We're not Afraid! site quoted a recent movie with its own anti-Bush/Blair undertones:
The irony is too obvious to pass up. As most of you remember, in The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda also said
"You will be..."
You will be afraid, Britain, if you don't stop working against this "War On Terror." If you don't stop blaming Bush and Blair for the actions of murdering criminals. If you don't demand truth from the BBC. If you decide to emulate the Spanish, who by the way, will be attacked again. (OBL himself has said that he wants Andalusia back. Don't think he's forgotten about Spain.)
And look, memo to the rest of Europe: You're all targets. If you don't like the way we're doing things, if you think we've been sidetracked by Iraq and we should be concentrating on Afghanistan, nobody is stopping you from going over there and taking care of the problem yourself. You all got armies don't you? Go get OBL. He's your problem too. Or is it all you can do to criticize Bush and Blair, who at least are trying to do something?
Posted by: annika at
06:25 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 800 words, total size 6 kb.
1
Sad but true. Terrorism wouldnt exist without frree societies and their freedom to hear both sides. Then there is ignorance in free societies......God help us all!!!!
Posted by: Jef at July 08, 2005 09:28 PM (jmNFB)
2
I think part of the problem in perceiving where the Britain you're talking about has "gone" is the disconnect between London and most of the rest of the country: someone once said it's as if the political, economic, media and cultural capital of the US was in San Francisco.
Now, maybe I'm overly optimistic because most of the people I spent time with when I was there were pretty hard-core activist Tories (go figure, since I worked at Conservative Central Office), but the UK remains a fundamentally "small c" conservative country in most ways, even and perhaps to some extent even more so in those areas with tribal loyalty to the Labour Party. Worry about the British government? Probably fairly justified. Worry about the British people? I think far less so.
Posted by: Dave J at July 09, 2005 01:27 PM (CYpG7)
3
I was stationed in England for two years or at least that is where we were based out of we actually went all over. One of the things we often did was train with the British Royal Marines. I found them to a man to be the best type of Marines to serve with and I always wondered where they came from? Because I didn't meet that type of person when we would go out and meet regular folks in London. It's like they took every person with a spine and put them in the military. It was the same with the Welsh units we trained with in Dartmoor. But rest assured if the guys I served with are still over there then they and their friends are not spineless whiners. They are able ass-kickers. Because I didn't get to meet a large segment of the population it will be very interesting to me to watch what the British do in coming weeks. Because it will once and for all answer the question are there more folks in Britian like I met in their military or are their more like the ones at met at pubs in London? However it pans out given the support their govt. gave ours in the Iraq war I feel we should basically hand them a blank check and say here use this to kill every last one of the guys who planted the bombs and if you need more just ask.
Posted by: Andy at July 09, 2005 06:57 PM (l04c2)
4
annika a few points:
1) England (and Russia) did more for freedom than america ever did, they fought world war two remember, Americans mainly sold them weapons and made a shitload of money. I don't have a problem with this, but you make it sound like america is the last bastion of freedom and true media when really americans are just serving their self interest, like they always have.
2)"but it's so typical of what i hear all the time from people. Invading other people's countries is the cause of terrorism? "
WTF? Invading other peoples countries may not be the priciple cause of terrorism but it surely doesn't help our cause. My god, do you still think we invaded iraq in the name of freedom?
3)Your Yoda quote is out of context and you have mangled the meaning beautifully. Please watch episodes III to VI again.
4) I agree that freedom and democracy would probably stop terror if installed in the middle east. However america has misidentified the problem.
Cosider the history of the middle east, first britian redistributes the land with little thought to prosperity. Then you have the US going in and installing dictators, supporting both sides and then we invade to remove dictators. Personally if someone did this to my native country I would want to blow up the fuckers.
America is trying to fast forward the middle east to a ideaology that took the western world hundreds of years to develop and wonder why it doesn't catch on. We should just leave them alone, however we don't because we need their oil. That my friend is the only reason why we care about the middle east, our economy will instantly collapse without oil. Freedom... bah what bullshit.
Posted by: Ivan at July 10, 2005 07:15 PM (GpcqB)
5
Ivan, i and other bloggers much more articulate than me have been refuting those arguments for almost four years now. At this point, all i can say is i'm glad you guys are not in charge. i believe you are sincere, but thank God you're not in charge.
Posted by: annika at July 10, 2005 07:57 PM (1jbos)
6
Haha but I would be a benovolent dictator.
Isn't this the problem of the current administration, they don't listen to experts at all unless they find some that agree with them. Global Warming, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Renewable Energy and Third World Debt; they know the best. Our respective government stances coincide with the interests of firstly big money and then the majority of voters. Current conservatives consistently ignore the scientific method if it interferes with their quest for wealth and power.
I have never seen an argument that would suggest our economy is not completely dependent on oil. Our action in the middle east follows on from this, it is that simple. Arguments of freedom and democracy are even more tired.
I seriously used to think that the US was out to protect the free world but the more I read about our long history of conquest I realise that we are just on the winning side and are no better (morally) than the Romans or Mongols. We are only looking out for ourselves. Altruistic ideals and justifications are perpetrated soley to keep us believing we are good and true, you want to believe this too.
Posted by: Ivan at July 10, 2005 11:16 PM (GpcqB)
7
"England (and Russia) did more for freedom than america ever did, they fought world war two remember,"
World War 2 started in 1939, and we entered the war in 1941 as did the Soviets. Before we entered the war, the Brits were primarily on the defensive. If we never entered the war, the Soviets would have been defeated by a Nazi-Japanese pincer invasion(or a sex sandwich). However, the Japanese never declared war on the USSR because they were more worried about the can of worms they opened with us. Fear of an American invasion also tied up a quarter of the German military on the Western front instead of allowing the Nazis to use them on the Eastern front.
America is just a footnote in the victory over the Axis? Me thinks not.
"Russia did more for freedom than america ever did,"
Bullshit. Did you forget about Stalin before, during, and after the war? Did you forget about the Iron Curtain? Did you forget the American Berlin Airlift during the Soviet blockade?
"Freedom... bah what bullshit."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html
I share the following conclusions from the above link:
["In their view, invasion of Iraq was not merely, or even primarily, about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Nor was it really about weapons of mass destruction, though their elimination was an important benefit. Rather, the administration sees the invasion as only the first move in a wider effort to reorder the power structure of the entire Middle East. . . .
In short, the administration is trying to roll the table--to use U.S. military force, or the threat of it, to reform or topple virtually every regime in the region, from foes like Syria to friends like Egypt, on the theory that it is the undemocratic nature of these regimes that ultimately breeds terrorism."
"Unable to overthrow their own authoritarian rulers, the citizenry turns its fury against the foreign power that funds and supports these corrupt regimes to maintain stability and access to oil: the United States."
"Trying to 'manage' this dysfunctional Islamic world, as Clinton attempted and Colin Powell counsels us to do, is as foolish, unproductive, and dangerous as détente was with the Soviets, the hawks believe."
"The hawks' grand plan differs depending on whom you speak to, but the basic outline runs like this: The United States establishes a reasonably democratic, pro-Western government in Iraq--assume it falls somewhere between Turkey and Jordan on the spectrum of democracy and the rule of law. Not perfect, representative democracy, certainly, but a system infinitely preferable to Saddam's. The example of a democratic Iraq will radically change the political dynamics of the Middle East. When Palestinians see average Iraqis beginning to enjoy real freedom and economic opportunity, they'll want the same themselves. With that happy prospect on one hand and implacable United States will on the other, they'll demand that the Palestinian Authority reform politically and negotiate with Israel. That in turn will lead to a real peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. A democratic Iraq will also hasten the fall of the fundamentalist Shi'a mullahs in Iran, whose citizens are gradually adopting anti-fanatic, pro-Western sympathies. A democratized Iran would create a string of democratic, pro-Western governments (Turkey, Iraq, and Iran) stretching across the historical heartland of Islam. Without a hostile Iraq towering over it, Jordan's pro-Western Hashemite monarchy would likely come into full bloom. Syria would be no more than a pale reminder of the bad old days. (If they made trouble, a U.S. invasion would take care of them, too.) And to the tiny Gulf emirates making hesitant steps toward democratization, the corrupt regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt would no longer look like examples of stability and strength in a benighted region, but holdouts against the democratic tide. Once the dust settles, we could decide whether to ignore them as harmless throwbacks to the bad old days or deal with them, too. We'd be in a much stronger position to do so since we'd no longer require their friendship to help us manage ugly regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
The audacious nature of the neocons' plan makes it easy to criticize but strangely difficult to dismiss outright. Like a character in a bad made-for-TV thriller from the 1970s, you can hear yourself saying, 'That plan's just crazy enough to work.'"]
Posted by: reagan80 at July 11, 2005 08:47 AM (9Ki+8)
8
"Altruistic ideals and justifications are perpetrated soley to keep us believing we are good and true, you want to believe this too."
http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/02/power-of-displeasure.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm
With such examples like the ones above, it is easy to believe that the US is altruistic.
Don't forget about Bosnia, Lebanon, Kosovo, South Korea, South Vietnam, and Taiwan. I don't believe any of those places have oil or furthered any other "selfish economic interests".
If China ever invades Taiwan, I'm sure we'd sacrifice our corporate interests on Chinese soil and American lives to defend the Taiwanese from the totalitarians across the straits.
Posted by: reagan80 at July 11, 2005 10:04 AM (9Ki+8)
9
Like you said America entered the war after pearl harbour in 1941 the war started 2 years before, it is good at least that America was part of an embargo that probably caused the attack. Who knows what would have happened? Russia was using china to protect it's southern borders as well, I am not discounting the importance of the US entry into the war however the chinese had been fighting the japanese since 1937, partially funded by the soviets. The american entry into the war seems forced, the importance of that entry is undeniable.
I am fully aware of how weird it is to say Russia and freedom in the same sentence however they half defeated the nazis, europe would be fucked without the Russians who made a huge human sacrifice.
The point is that England does not need to be preached to by Americans as they have faced the worst possible scenario on their home soil.
Wow that Washington Monthly piece has so many unsubstatiated hopes in it that I don't know where to start. Don't you remember how the iraqi's themselves were going to remove saddam after the gulf war. Is democracy some kind of magic? Is it worth killing people for democracy, especially when there is absolutely no guarantee that it is going to work? The audacity of the plan is not proportional to the likelyhood of it working.
"The United States establishes a reasonably democratic, pro-Western government in Iraq"
Perhaps the plan is fucked right here but we can continue on.
"When Palestinians see average Iraqis beginning to enjoy real freedom and economic opportunity, they'll want the same themselves."
It sounds beautiful. I hate the PLA too, but I don't see why Iraq is going to make the difference. The problem is foobared leadership in palestine not the lack of democracy in iraq, there are better ways to approach this problem. This whole plan hinges on people looking over at iraq and deciding it is worth getting slaughtered by government troops in order to get a bit of democracy.
"Jordan's pro-Western Hashemite monarchy would likely come into full bloom."
oh so now monarchies are ok as long as they are pro-western. I think you have found the whole point of this plan, not middle east prosperity but pro-western goverments.
"Syria would be no more than a pale reminder of the bad old days. (If they made trouble, a U.S. invasion would take care of them, too.)"
Yep once again if they make pro-western troubles, we'll invade the bastards.
The really interesting part is that newly established governments are going to be pro-Western, this would only happen if we managed to install a puppet government, a truely democratic government would not be pro western and certainly not pro US. Man it's such bullshit to say we planned this chaos we're doing it for the good of the region, it's not for the good of the region, the article text doesn't even pretend that, it's for the good of the US. It's also such bullshit to say that neocon policies were a driving factor in the collapse of the soviet union, it happened to turn out nicely becuse the soviet union screwed themselves.
How about this for a plan, we didn't invade iraq, we actually provide support to the non-extremist politicians in Iran rather than declaring them the axis of evil. We don't fight any wars and reduce our dependence on oil. The amount of money spent on Iraq could be spent within america. The problem with this plan? America would lose their influence in the middle east and the massive miltitary and military industries would go unused, we can't let that happen. America must maintain our position as the only world superpower and most of all America must work alone.
Bosnia, Lebanon, Kosovo - sorry I don't know enough about these conflicts or the US governments in power when they happened.
South Korea and South Vietnam - Cold War, certainly not altruistic, maybe good maybe bad.
Taiwan - Taiwan is of strategic importance against the commie bastards, it is most certainly not altruistic. Corporate interest in china? I think you will find China is making a shitload more money out of America rather than vice versa. American companies in China have been largely unsucessful in the corruption ridden environment.
I think the final paragraph from the article really sums it up better:
"Ending Saddam Hussein's regime and replacing it with something stable and democratic was always going to be a difficult task, even with the most able leadership and the broadest coalition. But doing it as the Bush administration now intends is something like going outside and giving a few good whacks to a hornets' nest because you want to get them out in the open and have it out with them once and for all. Ridding the world of Islamic terrorism by rooting out its ultimate sources-- Muslim fundamentalism and the Arab world's endemic despotism, corruption, and poverty--might work. But the costs will be immense. Whether the danger is sufficient and the costs worth incurring would make for an interesting public debate. The problem is that once it's just us and the hornets, we really won't have any choice."
Choice quotes-- "it might work"
and -- "the costs will be immense"
I guess the debate is the one we are having now.
Fuck it's crazy I tell you, but I love this blog and ones like it for the chance to talk to the crazies that believe it, thanks for the reply.
Posted by: Ivan at July 12, 2005 05:38 AM (GpcqB)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 29, 2005
Wednesday Is Poetry Day: Whitman's Civil War
Here's a great poem, written by America's greatest poet, who was an eyewitness to what he writes about.
The ArtillerymanÂ’s Vision
While my wife at my side lies slumbering, and the wars are over long,
And my head on the pillow rests at home, and the vacant midnight passes,
And through the stillness, through the dark, I hear, just hear, the breath of my infant,
There in the room, as I wake from sleep, this vision presses upon me:
The engagement opens there and then, in fantasy unreal;
The skirmishers begin—they crawl cautiously ahead—I hear the irregular snap! snap!
I hear the sounds of the different missiles—the short t-h-t! t-h-t! of the rifle balls;
I see the shells exploding, leaving small white clouds—I hear the great shells shrieking as they pass;
The grape, like the hum and whirr of wind through the trees, (quick, tumultuous, now the contest rages!)
All the scenes at the batteries themselves rise in detail before me again;
The crashing and smoking—the pride of the men in their pieces;
The chief gunner ranges and sights his piece, and selects a fuse of the right time;
After firing, I see him lean aside, and look eagerly off to note the effect;
—Elsewhere I hear the cry of a regiment charging—(the young colonel leads himself this time, with brandish’d sword
I see the gaps cut by the enemyÂ’s volleys, (quickly fillÂ’d up, no delay
I breathe the suffocating smoke—then the flat clouds hover low, concealing all;
Now a strange lull comes for a few seconds, not a shot fired on either side;
Then resumed, the chaos louder than ever, with eager calls, and orders of officers;
While from some distant part of the field the wind wafts to my ears a shout of applause, (some special success
And ever the sound of the cannon, far or near, (rousing, even in dreams, a devilish exultation, and all the old mad joy, in the depths of my soul
And ever the hastening of infantry shifting positions—batteries, cavalry, moving hither and thither;
(The falling, dying, I heed not—the wounded, dripping and red, I heed not—some to the rear are hobbling;
Grime, heat, rush—aid-de-camps galloping by, or on a full run;
With the patter of small arms, the warning s-s-t of the rifles, (these in my vision I hear or see,)
And bombs busting in air, and at night the vari-colorÂ’d rockets.
We're coming up on the one hundred forty-second anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 to July 3, 1863) and the conclusion of the Vicksburg Campaign (May 19 to July 4, 1863). With Shelby Foote's death yesterday and the Fourth of July this weekend it's appropriate to remember the most important event in our nation's history. Of course i'm talking about the Civil War.
Yesterday in the comments to my post about Shelby Foote's death i mentioned how i am fascinated by the differences between our own time and the way people lived in the time of the Civil War.
We all have a pretty good idea of how soldiers fight today. Heck, we've grown up watching war on tv. But it's almost impossible for most of us to imagine how men fought during the Civil War. It must have taken a special kind of courage and discipline to march side by side with a bunch of other men towards a line of cannon and guns.
Posted by: annika at
08:03 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 581 words, total size 3 kb.
1
And have you seen the terrain at Vicksburg? All hellish inclines and fish-in-a-barrel valleys. I can't imagine rushing the lines atop those ridges in the sweltering heat, wearing wool, carrying the dead weight of a musket.
Korea is the closest I've seen to hills and valleys like those. Only, those men ran up and down those mountains in freezing cold, cold so profound that cartridges froze in breeches and refused to fire.
Every field has its advantages and disadvantages. In Baghdad, Taqaddam, Ramadi, and Balad the sand is everywhere. It's hard to walk in, let alone run with 100 lbs of gear. In Mosul, it was hilly, and everywhere was late-winter mud.
Since Whitman's time, everything has changed, but for the footsoldier, nothing really has changed at all. It's a matter of legs and back and heart and love for the men you're fighting with, until you're home again, awakening next to your wife with the din of battle in your ears.
Thanks for the poem, Annika.
Posted by: Steven Givler at June 29, 2005 10:53 AM (6iOub)
2
If you are a fan of Foote's, might I recommend a lighter perspective from Tony Horowitz, "Confederates in the Attic".
Posted by: Will Stewart at June 29, 2005 11:11 AM (GzvlQ)
3
Thanks for the recommendation Will.
Steven, i have been to Vicksburg, when i was thirteen. Sadly i didn't appreciate what i saw at that age. The story of the Vicksburg Campaign, and how Grant severed his supply lines before going back to begin the seige, is fascinating and underappreciated. It's an argument against the popular misconception of Grant as a simpleton or a drunk.
Posted by: annika at June 29, 2005 12:04 PM (zAOEU)
4
Hmmmmm, as bloody as the civil war battlefield was, there is comfort in the closeness of one's comrades. Shared hardship, all that stuff men live for.
Today, an attack can come from any direction at any time. And it's also worth remembering that more died of disease than wounds in the civil war. Death was a lot closer to the living experience of the 19th century. It's more foreign to us, so more extreme today.
Go watch "Blackhawk Down" again, and then try to compare.
Posted by: Casca at June 29, 2005 04:39 PM (qBTBH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 28, 2005
Remembering Shelby Foote
Shelby Foote died this morning in Memphis at age 88.
Shelby Foote was the man. About two years ago, i had the pleasure of finishing his Proustian three volume history, The Civil War: A Narrative. It took me nine months of reading to finish it, and like having a baby i imagine, it was both painful and rewarding at the same time.
You may be familiar with Mr. Foote from his talking head appearances in Ken Burns' Civil War series on PBS. His folksy style and always interesting anecdotes were what interested me in his writings originally. So i bought his short novel Shiloh, which was not bad. With my membership in the History Book Club, and a few surplus bonus points, i purchased the 14 volume illustrated Time Life version of the Civil War narrative. i intended to just look at the pretty pictures, set them on a shelf to impress friends with, and maybe pass them on to my kids someday. i never intended to read it.
i saw Ken Burns' documentary, i have two history degrees, i thought i knew enough about the Civil War. And besides, my concentration was always WWII and postwar history. CW history was for the real history geeks, not me. Still, one day i picked up the first volume of the Time Life set during an idle moment, and read a few paragraphs. Amazing. That led to a few chapters and pretty soon i was committed.
The Narrative is very readable -- Foote was a novelist first -- but it is also very detailed. Having read it, i realize now how superficial the Ken Burns documentary was. And that thing was like 12 hours long! To do full justice to the huge subject that is the American Civil War takes time. A lot of time. But as has been said so often, you can't truly understand America without understanding the Civil War. And i do believe that.
It helps to have an interest in military history, though. Because Foote's history describes every single battle and campaign from both a micro and macro perspective. The macro is often the most esoteric, and difficult material. But along with that stuff, there's plenty of personal, political and biographical detail, which makes the Narrative the most comprehensive popular history of the Civil War that will ever be published.
i worked through it partly for the challenge. i knew the general outline of the war, and i knew i had to get to the big events. Sumter, the Bull Runs, Antietam, Vicksburg, Gettysburg, Emancipation, Sherman's march, Appomatox, Ford's Theater, etc. But i learned so much along the way that i had to finish it. To my surprise, i found that some of my favorite subject matter was the history of naval operations during the war. That's a much deeper subject than just the Monitor vs. Virginia battle. Some of the shit that happened on the rivers is pretty unbelievable.
Anyways, i would love to have shaken Shelby Foote's hand and thanked him for having written that huge work, which kept me enthralled for the better part of a year. i almost consider him a professor of mine, because through his books i became a Civil War buff, which i was not before i started.
More: And in the great minds think alike department: The Maximum Leader also wishes he could have shaken the celebrated author's hand.
Posted by: annika at
01:46 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Classy post, Annika. I saw the most of the Burns documentary, and I found Foote wonderful to listen to, very knowledgeable and very HUMAN.
Big applause to you for reading his entire CW set of books. I go to book stores often and stare at his CW set like a climber does Mt. Everest. One would love to complete the challenge, but you know in advance that it will be a sacrifice.
I will miss him, despite not reading his work. A sad testament of humanity is that we acknowledge our greatest people AFTER their death.
Posted by: Mark at June 28, 2005 04:22 PM (Vg0tt)
2
Mark, that everest analogy made me smile. That's exactly it! i did that too during many a stop at Barnes & Noble's history section. But i finally bit the bullet, and you can too. i boast a little because i am sort of proud of myself for having read the whole thing.
The thing about WWII is that you can really learn a lot about it from movies and the History Channel without having to crack a book. But that's not so with the Civil War. Historically accurate movies are really hard to find, and there's not that much on the History channel. Unlike WWII the world back then was too different from our own time, and that puts people off. But the differences are what fascinate me the most, along with the great characters: Lincoln, Grant, Lee, Jackson, MacLellan.
i've fallen off on my Civil War reading in the last year or two, but it's a great fun subject.
Posted by: annika at June 28, 2005 04:48 PM (zAOEU)
3
"A sad testament of humanity is that we acknowledge our greatest people AFTER their death."
Shit Mark, it's widely known, that he had chicks out the ying-yang.
Maybe the hardest thing about comprehending the civil war is understanding the zeitgeist. I grew up in an abolitionist stronghold that produced Joshua Giddings & Benjamin Wade, founders of the Republican Party. Wade was the President of the Senate during Andrew Johnson's impeachment, and so was one vote shy of replacing him. Today, the county is a democrat boil on the ass of the rustbelt. C'est la vie.
Posted by: Casca at June 28, 2005 05:22 PM (qBTBH)
4
Yeah Foote was great, even though I often got tired of the civil war, i did like his narration.
I am intrigued that you have two history degrees, I have an economics degree, and after 25 years i have gone back to get a second degree in history to write about history from an economic perspective.
BTW I am currently writing this while the president is giving his address. I may be a silly man, but his voice seems soothing to me. Can you imagine what i would be feeling if i were hearing the halting disembodied brahminisim of Kerry, or the shrill hate speach of Hillary?
Posted by: Kyle at June 28, 2005 05:30 PM (7Re84)
5
imagine what it would have been like to hear the high-pitched country-bumpkin accent of Abraham Lincoln. But his words live forever don't they?
Posted by: annika at June 28, 2005 06:34 PM (dtHLB)
6
Annie:
I'm impressed.
Anyone that finished that American/Russian Novel will have no trouble slogging through year two of law school.
You should be able to do it on your hip.
Posted by: shelly at June 28, 2005 06:56 PM (pO1tP)
7
"Shelby Foote was the man"
I agree. I am in the middle of Volume II.
Robots, basketball, air-conditioning and now the Civil War. You are become more perfect every day.
Posted by: Jake at June 28, 2005 07:35 PM (r/5D/)
8
"Today, the county is a democrat boil on the ass of the rustbelt."
And I thought Annika was the only poet here.
Posted by: Mark at June 28, 2005 11:07 PM (xKJ2p)
9
I loved the Narrative. I never found it bursensome. I especially liked the flashes of humor that revealed so much of the character in the personalities of the Civil War. Here is one incident related by Foote that comes immediately to mind: At the beginning of the War, when many Southern career officers in the old Army were resigning their commissions to join the Confederate army, Sherman sees George Thomas, a Virginian, leaving the War Department, and assumes the worse. "George, where are you going?" he asks. "I'm going south, Bill" Thomas responds. "But George, I vouched for you to the War Department. You're putting me in a terrible spot," Sherman complained. "Not to worry, Bill," Thomas responded, "I'm going south at the head of my troops."
Posted by: Ralphyboy at June 29, 2005 12:33 AM (BYNGx)
10
"...CW history was for the real history geeks, not me."
lol - guess again Annika! But we still love you
Posted by: jimilove at June 29, 2005 04:47 AM (BN/Fu)
11
In general, Ken Burns' series was excellent and Shelby Foote's contributions were critical to its success. The one big criticism I have about the series is that apart for touching very briefly on the subject when discussing the origin of Arlington National Cemetery, essentially no mention is made of the thousands of southerners who remained loyal to the union, and took up arms against their relatives and former friends. Don't forget that so many counties in Virginia stayed loyal to the union that the state of West Virginia was formed. This is also one of the reasons why the union had far more men available despite populations that were much closer. I know that southerners in general don't like to be reminded of this extremely important historical fact, but by ignoring it, Burns and Foote left out the most emotional and fundamental part of the story.
Posted by: Edward Cole at August 07, 2005 08:48 PM (DVf2A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 15, 2005
Today Is St. Valdemar's Day
Today, i quote something i wrote when i first started blogging:
While you're looking at the Dannebrog, it might be a good time to note that the Danish flag is the oldest national flag in the world. It has been in use since the 1200's. Legend says that King Valdemar the Victorious was fighting a battle against the Estonians on St Viti's Day in 1219. The Estonians had thrown all their best warriors at the Danish and their attack was succeeding. The Danish were on the retreat when they received a sign from God: the Dannebrog floating down out of the sky! The Danish soldiers caught the flag and then fought back with renewed strength, eventually defeating the Estonians with the help of the 'Sign of the Cross.'
The day of the battle is still celebrated in Denmark as Valdemar's Day, which falls on June 15th. Everyone in Denmark displays the flag on that day, just like we do in the U.S. on our own Flag Day, June 14th.
Posted by: annika at
07:12 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.
1
(psst-- thank you, Annika)
-K
Posted by: Kevin Kim at June 15, 2005 09:05 AM (1PcL3)
2
(posted in the wrong comments thread, too. nuts.)
-K
Posted by: Kevin Kim at June 15, 2005 09:06 AM (1PcL3)
3
I didn't know about Valdemar's Day. I do remember that Tivoli rules!
Or at least it did when I was 8.
Posted by: Trevor at June 15, 2005 10:06 AM (RwZxT)
Posted by: Casca at June 15, 2005 03:26 PM (qBTBH)
5
"The Danish soldiers caught the flag and then fought back with renewed strength, eventually defeating the Estonians with the help of the 'Sign of the Cross.'"
"Sign of the Cross"?!
Apparently the ACLU does not have offices in Denmark.
Posted by: Mark MuNu at June 21, 2005 01:47 AM (TBkLy)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
June 12, 2005
A Forgotten Great American
John Hawkins has a post about the
Greatest Americans of all time. Allow me to mention a forgotten great American, who didn't make anybody's list, without whom life would be very different all over the world.
The man is Willis Haviland Carrier, the father of air conditioning.
In 1902, fresh out of Cornell University and working as an engineer at Buffalo Forge Co., Carrier developed the world's first modern air conditioner, combining temperature and humidity control in one system, for a Brooklyn, NY, printing plant. He earned a patent for this system design in 1906. His air conditioner used a centrifugal system, under low pressure, to gather air through a filter and pass that air over coolant-filled coils. That cooled and dehumidified air was directed at its target location while warmer air around the motor was vented out of the location. The technology behind Carrier's air conditioner was patented in 1911 and is the basis for air conditioner technology available today.
The ability to control indoor temperatures has influenced almost every aspect of our daily lives. Think about it -- where we live, where we work, what we eat, what we wear, what we smell like, how we travel, our architecture, our modern healthcare, our life expectancy, food storage, what we read, how much leisure time we enjoy, even the existence of the computer you are reading this on --
all influenced by or made possible by air conditioning.
Look back for a moment to the world before the widespread use of refrigeration and air conditioning—a world that was still very much present well into the first decades of the 20th century. Only fresh foods that could be grown locally were available, and they had to be purchased and used on a daily basis. Meat was bought during the daily trip to the butcher's; the milkman made his rounds every morning. If you could afford weekly deliveries of ice blocks—harvested in the winter from frozen northern lakes—you could keep some perishable foods around for 2 or 3 days in an icebox. As for the nonexistence of air conditioning, it made summers in southern cities—and many northern ones—insufferable. The nation's capital was a virtual ghost town in the summer months. As late as the 1940s, the 60-story Woolworth Building and other skyscrapers in New York City were equipped with window awnings on every floor to keep direct sunlight from raising temperatures even higher than they already were. Inside the skyscrapers, ceiling and table fans kept the humid air from open windows at least moving around. Throughout the country, homes were built with natural cooling in mind. Ceilings were high, porches were deep and shaded, and windows were placed to take every possible advantage of cross-ventilation.
By the end of the century all that had changed. Fresh foods of all kinds were available just about anywhere in the country all year round—and what wasn't available fresh could be had in convenient frozen form, ready to pop into the microwave. The milkman was all but gone and forgotten, and the butcher now did his work behind a counter at the supermarket. Indeed, many families concentrated the entire week's food shopping into one trip to the market, stocking the refrigerator with perishables that would last a week or more. And on the air-conditioning side of the equation, just about every form of indoor space—office buildings, factories, hospitals, and homes—was climate-controlled and comfortable throughout the year, come heat wave or humidity. New homes looked quite different, with lower rooflines and ceilings, porches that were more for ornament than practicality, and architectural features such as large plate glass picture windows and sliding glass doors. Office buildings got a new look as well, with literally acres of glass stretching from street level to the skyscraping upper floors. Perhaps most significant of all, as a result of air conditioning, people started moving south, reversing a northward demographic trend that had continued through the first half of the century. Since 1940 the nation's fastest-growing states have been in the Southeast and the Southwest, regions that could not have supported large metropolitan communities before air conditioning made the summers tolerable.
Living in Sacramento, i should thank Mr. Carrier every day. Come to think of it, so should George W. Bush, as the great southern migration of the last few decades, which increased the electoral value of the red states, can be traced back to the widespread use of indoor air conditioning.
More: Jeff Harrell names another forgotten great American, Norman Borlaug. After reading Jeff's post, i'd have to agree.
Posted by: annika at
10:50 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 763 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I am impressed that you would have Carrier on your list. A very insightful choice.
The two events that had the biggest effect on the South were the Civil War and the invention of air conditioning.
Annika, you are full of pleasant surprises.
Posted by: jake at June 12, 2005 11:41 PM (r/5D/)
Posted by: annika at June 12, 2005 11:44 PM (GcTxN)
3
Yes! And the time has come for us to share this technology with the British and the French, who have yet to recognize the existence of
ice cubes, let alone air conditioning!
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin Kim at June 13, 2005 01:42 AM (1PcL3)
4
Hey! What happened to the Baywatch banner?
Posted by: Victor at June 13, 2005 04:37 AM (L3qPK)
Posted by: scof at June 13, 2005 05:08 AM (x8hF4)
6
Glad to see you mention Carrier...on hot days, I've often had the same thought.
There are billions of people without air conditioning, some of them in very hot places. As economic development permits some of these people to afford a/c for the first time, the impact on world energy demand is going to be pretty powerful.
Posted by: David Foster at June 13, 2005 06:31 AM (7TmYw)
7
A very thoughtful choice, Annika. My family has often wished to canonize "whoever invented air conditioning" as a saint. Now I finally know who he is.
Thanks!
Posted by: Mark at June 13, 2005 07:21 AM (Hk4wN)
8
Hey Annika. That is an important post. I wonder, how did he accomplish that great feat without the benefits of affirmative action and diversity? Oh yes, that's right, by working hard and being smart as an individual.
On an unrelated note, I couldn't find you email so I thought I'd put this link down of a new post of mine you might like to link:
http://www.affbrainwash.com/chrisroach/archives/019951.php
Posted by: Roach at June 13, 2005 07:42 AM (MRlvg)
9
While you are at it, send the Frenchies and Brits some soap and deoderant to discover as well.
Having endured Sacramento during the summer months in a dark suit and tie, I can testify that Carrier deserves not only to be on the list; he deserves to head it.
There is nothing like Sacramento in the summer to make one want to settle in Southern California.
Posted by: shelly at June 13, 2005 08:47 AM (pO1tP)
10
every now and then i intend be a wet blanket.
this is one of those times.
i think a lot of people mis-use the adjective "great" as a description of an american.
atticus finch was a great american.
yes he is/was real, and i also believe in santa claus.
neil armstrong was a great american. he came into service of his country when it needed his skills, and then went to private life.
truth be told, he was probably afraid of having family members kidnapped, ala lindbergh.
while mr. carrier's contribution to our way of life in this country is at the very pinnacle of achievement, i don't see him as a "great" american. i do agree with everything said about the influences to our behaviour, health, and everyday way of life. however, i.e., what would air conditioning and refrigeration be without electricity? that would make tessla a "greater" american, even though he was italian, i think.
i'll just pull this wet blankie over me and just log off.........
Posted by: louielouie at June 13, 2005 02:29 PM (xKfMm)
11
Since you make some great points about the founder of my employer's sister company, I just thought I'd point out this link
http://www.global.carrier.com/details/0,2806,CLI1_DIV28_ETI3684,00.html
Carrier had it's 100th anniversary in '02, and they still have some neat links on this page.
And louielouie, I agree that perhaps the term "great American" needs to be qualified, or perhaps better defined, but I do have one quibble. Tesla was born in Serbia, but emigrated to the U.S. and did most of his inventing here. I think that qualifies him as an American.
Posted by: Trevor at June 13, 2005 03:47 PM (GtBBB)
12
"There is nothing like Sacramento in the summer to make one want to settle in Southern California."
There's six years on the Gulf Coast. Sacramento in the summer can't POSSIBLY touch New Orleans or Tallahassee for unmitigated hot humid hell. God bless Mr. Carrier. Someone once asked me what people did in New Orleans before A/C. The short answer that a hell of a lot of them died. There's a reason Tulane's med school is especially well-known in the field of tropical diseases.
Ah, hurricanes, earthquakes, pestilence, whatever: thank God I'm back in New England where the only freakish natural phenomena are the 8+ months of winter each year. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at June 13, 2005 08:36 PM (ZKuUj)
13
I read the post without reading the comments and was inspired to write
my own post about someone I consider a greater American than Carrier. Imagine my surprise when I read LouieLouie's comment. LOL
Tesla became a United States citizen in 1891, so I do believe that he qualifies as a Great American. His inventions created the modern world we enjoy today. Edison's most famous invention would be little more than a limited use curiosity without Tesla's alternating current generating/transmission system.
BTW, Trevor, Tesla was born in Croatia, not Serbia.
Posted by: delftsman3 at June 17, 2005 09:37 PM (vooSr)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 25, 2005
ANZAC Day
Happy ANZAC Day to all my visitors from Australia and New Zealand! ANZAC stands for Australia New Zealand Army Corps, the colonial force that was sent to support the empire during WWI, most notably at the infamous battle of Gallipoli. The holiday mirrors our own Memorial Day.
James at A Western Heart posts about his great grandfather, a gunnery officer on H.M.S. Good Hope, the British flagship that went down on 1 November 1914 at the battle of Coronel. The opposing German force contained the original S.M.S. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (not their more famous WWII namesakes). Scharnhorst hit Good Hope with her third salvo, and the older ship's magazine exploded twenty minutes later. All hands were lost.
A summary of Coronel is here.
Posted by: annika at
09:28 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Talk about the twist of fate.
Churchill lost his position in the government because of the Gallipoli disaster. If the British had won the battle, Churchill would have been a hero. His fame would have got him elected Prime Minister during the 1930's.
Many of his speeches during the 30s implored the government to stop Germany from rearming. If Churchill had been Prime Minister he would have stopped the Nazis in the early 30s and WWII would not have occurred.
Churchill called WWII the "unnecessary war."
Posted by: Jake at April 25, 2005 10:15 AM (r/5D/)
2
This does not really have to do with your post but I once worked for an old German who was a sailor on the WWII Shcharnhorst and survived and was picked up by a British ship. He always called Churchill the old Bulldog, and he called Nixon "Der Fuherer".
PS. I am new to your blog, it is very nice. I will bookmark and check it out from time to time.
Posted by: Kyle at April 25, 2005 03:31 PM (7Re84)
3
thank you Kyle, welcome!
Posted by: annie at April 25, 2005 07:18 PM (actVl)
4
Thanks for linking to the post, Annika.
The real tragedy is that they all knew they were being sent out to die. My great grandfather mentioned in a letter (his last) asking his brother to take care of his wife and children. He knew they weren't coming back.
A terrible waste.
Posted by: James Ozark at April 27, 2005 11:10 PM (XXRoV)
Posted by: Bobbie at September 19, 2005 06:08 PM (wyA3u)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 05, 2005
Medal Of Honor Recipient, Paul Ray Smith
U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor yesterday. Here are some of
the President's remarks:
[I]n a small courtyard less than a mile from the Baghdad airport[,] Sergeant Smith was leading about three dozen men who were using a courtyard next to a watchtower to build a temporary jail for captured enemy prisoners. As they were cleaning the courtyard, they were surprised by about a hundred of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard.
With complete disregard for his own life and under constant enemy fire, Sergeant Smith rallied his men and led a counterattack. Seeing that his wounded men were in danger of being overrun, and that enemy fire from the watchtower had pinned them down, Sergeant Smith manned a 50-caliber machine gun atop a damaged armor vehicle. From a completely exposed position, he killed as many as 50 enemy soldiers as he protected his men.
Sergeant Smith's leadership saved the men in the courtyard, and he prevented an enemy attack on the aid station just up the road. Sergeant Smith continued to fire and took a -- until he took a fatal round to the head. His actions in that courtyard saved the lives of more than 100 American soldiers.
Scripture tells us, as the General said, that a man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends. And that is exactly the responsibility Paul Smith believed the Sergeant stripes on his sleeve had given him. In a letter he wrote to his parents but never mailed, he said that he was prepared to 'give all that I am to ensure that all my boys make it home.'
As an aside, my family thinks we may have an ancestor who was awarded the Medal of Honor for capturing a Confederate flag during a Civil War battle in Tennessee. i have not yet done enough research to determine if he was a relation, but i know where he is buried.
Posted by: annika at
11:16 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Shit, I didn't know that the Danes HAD a civil war.
Posted by: Casca at April 05, 2005 09:34 PM (cdv3B)
2
yah, and we fucken kicked
aaass!
: )
Posted by: annie at April 05, 2005 10:02 PM (9g/0D)
3
If this TN battle was Shiloh, then your ancestor was in one of the two most important battles of the entire ACW.
Casca, how's that stylus wound healing??:
"When Caesar with a gesture put him off to another time, Cimber caught his toga by both shoulders. As Caesar cried, 'Why, this is violence!', one of the Cascas stabbed him from one side just below the throat. Caesar caught Casca's arm and ran it through with his stylus, but as he tried to leap to his feet, he was stopped by another wound."
-Suetonius
I knew I'd seen your name somewhere.
Posted by: Jason O. at April 06, 2005 06:37 AM (2CAKL)
4
I remember my brother sharing a story with me about his says in basic training...they had the Medal of Honor awardees from that base come and visit. He was so honored to be at the base at the same time as them, and be able to salute them, it was when I knew that he was an adult for the first time.
Posted by: Courtney at April 06, 2005 08:47 PM (wlc23)
5
This world needs more people like Sergeant Smith. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone looked out for those around them with complete disregard for their own safety.
Posted by: Mike M at April 12, 2005 02:41 PM (K1oQY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 03, 2005
Reagan And John Paul II
Here's an interesting article about
Reagan and John Paul II. i've been hearing a lot lately about how the Pope was such a key figure in ending European communism. i'm a skeptic. i think the most important thing John Paul did to help end communism was to stay out of Reagan's way.
Posted by: annika at
10:23 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: David St Lawrence at April 04, 2005 02:45 AM (ymQmM)
Posted by: reagan80 at April 04, 2005 06:13 AM (BM4Qd)
Posted by: Wayne at April 04, 2005 08:46 AM (lXOo9)
4
Carl Bernstein wrote that the CIA and JPII actively collaborated to use the Catholic infrastructure in Poland to aid Solidarity.
At the very least Solidarity received assistance from the Church, perhaps even $$.
Posted by: Jason O. at April 04, 2005 10:00 AM (2CAKL)
5
I really can't disagree more, the PopeÂ’s efforts in supporting the Solidarity movement in Poland was a catalyst in the early days of the decline of Soviet influence. Whether he had much influence outside of the situation in Poland would be debatable, but the decline of Soviet influence in Poland is clearly one of the defining moments in the fall of the Soviet empire.
IÂ’m not suggesting that ReaganÂ’s actions were not the principle driving force behind the fall of communism, but to lessen the contribution of the Pope is really an injustice to the actions he took relating to communism. This was a man who personally knew the horrors of both Nazism and Communism and did much to work towards lessening their grip on his native land.
Posted by: George at April 04, 2005 02:12 PM (v3xUb)
6
I gotta agree with George. First off when I was in college, I knew of a Priest that was actively working against the spread of communismn in South America. My understanding was that he had close contact with U.S. Intelligence. Who knows how true this is, but it seemed pretty real, and demonstrates the lengths the church was going to bring change.
More substantively, there was a reason the Ruskies had the Bulgarians pop the guy. He was causing them trouble, and it was worth the extraordinary risk of being found out for them to try to kill the Holy Father of about a billion of the world's citizens. Nobody is a bigger fan of R squared than me, but I think the Pope was a big player here.
Posted by: Pursuit at April 04, 2005 04:45 PM (VqIuy)
7
Si, Jorge correctamundo! Well said too. The Poles pulled the thread that unraveled the garment of communism, and JP II lit the fire in their hearts.
Posted by: Casca at April 04, 2005 10:02 PM (cdv3B)
8
Look, the dude's gonna be canonized, so i'm trying to be nice. But he was wrong about a lot. i'll admit he was a great symbol for the dissidents in Poland, and the Church may have been a conduit for American support going to Solidarity. But it was Reagan, alone among all world leaders since Churchill who had the balls to take on Communism with the ultimate goal in mind of ENDing it. Reagan wanted to make sure that the pope didn't muck up the works by criticizing the arms race.
It's hard for me to reconcile JP's anti-communism with his opposition to both gulf wars. i just don't get it, and that contradiction will always affect my opinion of him. That and a bunch of other things that i will probably keep to myself, because he was on balance, a pretty good guy, and a good pope. Not perfect by any means.
i think the eulogizing by the MSM is pretty over the top, not to mention filled with mis-information about the Catholic faith. i hate being patronized by idiots. i wonder if they'd be making such a big deal about the pope if it hadn't been for those infamous exit poll statistics last november. But maybe i am getting too cynical in my old age. And i digress.
One parting shot: They make such a big deal about JPII forgiving his would-be assassin, but come on. Lets be honest. For a pope, isn't forgiving people the equivalent of showing up to work on time?
Posted by: annie at April 04, 2005 11:37 PM (NCFFn)
9
Gee, Annie, if forgiving people were that easy for popes, I don't thnik we would have had the Inquisition (oops, I'm sorry the Society for the Protection of the Faith, as it's now known), the 30 Years War, etc. That forgiveness is one of the few things I can honestly say I truly admire about him, since I would never be able to it myself. I'd want to kill the SOB.
As a lapsed Catholic, I have to say that JPII is one of the main reasons I am a lapsed Catholic. Without a doubt he was a truly devout and good man, but I cannot live with his version of the faith.
That said, I have to agree with the posts about him being a large part of the reason communism collapsed. Don't forget that, in my opinion, his stance on war never really changed. He did not want a war against eastern europe either. He did not necessarily consider it a just war within the meaning of the Catholic Church's definition of such a war. He also, I think, agreed with Reagan that communism would collapse of its own weight once we stopped propping it up.
I agree with you on many of the other points you make about him, but I do think that on the communism issue he walked the walk.
Posted by: JJR at April 05, 2005 11:46 AM (HxEi3)
10
"But he was wrong about a lot."
so you are denying that jpII was the pope?
Posted by: louielouie at April 05, 2005 06:19 PM (i7mWl)
11
Yah, JJR, but that's why he's pope.
Posted by: Casca at April 05, 2005 09:49 PM (cdv3B)
12
Casca, no argument there. I'm just saying that's why I'm not much of a churchgoer anymore.
Posted by: JJR at April 06, 2005 08:37 AM (HxEi3)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 23, 2005
Help Wanted
Doug TenNapel and i have been trying to find the source of the following
quote, allegedly made by Thomas Jefferson.
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
We've both searched a few Jefferson sites, but come up empty. The
Jefferson Digital Archive is run by the University of Virginia (which TJ founded), so you'd think it would be comprehensive. But a search for that quote yields no results.
i maintain a Missourian's attitude towards the Virginian's quote. Unless i know where it came from, i am not willing to believe that TJ actually said it. It sounds like something someone made up and attributed to Jefferson to give the quote more weight.
Now i know there are some Jefferson scholars in my audience. What do you folks think?
Update: Wow, that was fast!
Publicola found the source, which is an 1809 letter from TJ to Maryland Republicans. The quote can be found at page 359 of volume 16 in the 20 volume set, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (ME) Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors), Washington, D.C., 1903-04.
The legend of Publicola continues...
Posted by: annika at
06:54 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 2 kb.
1
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0650.htm
It's the first bold quote on that page.
Initially I thought it may have been a paraphrase since Jefferson was THE MAN when it came to ideas about limited government. But it seems to have been a documentable quote of his.
Posted by: Publicola at March 24, 2005 03:13 AM (DQj8i)
2
Excellent. You da man, Publicola!
Posted by: annika at March 24, 2005 06:45 AM (p7T88)
3
The legend of Publicola? I don't know the person, but is he/she able to devour a dusty treatise in one sitting? Calculate the location of John Quincy Adams' death to the nearest millimeter?
I have to admit that I truly AM impressed. My brain only half recalls things, which doesn't help.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 24, 2005 12:37 PM (v9NCH)
4
I haven't looked through here to find your quote, but it might be worth a search. Some friends of mine have been assembling this site for a couple of years. I'm not certain how comprehensive it is.
http://www.1776.prodos.org/
Posted by: Mr.Atos at March 24, 2005 06:44 PM (fJPCR)
5
I'm not sure, but I think this is on one of the four walls of the Jefferson Monument in Washington, as well.
Posted by: shelly at March 25, 2005 03:12 AM (+7VNs)
6
You may already have this ...
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/
If not, it's the best resource I have.
Posted by: Rodger Schultz at March 25, 2005 07:18 PM (Gv+p1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 02, 2005
Bubba Is Dead
Bubba,
the giant lobster, is dead.
Update: At 24 lbs., they could feed 32 mourners using this recipe. They should try it at Bubba's after-funeral pot luck.
Posted by: annika at
11:16 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.
1
goodness, poor bubba-lobby... i think it was in our news yesterday night... wasnt paying to much attention as i was at a friends and they had the tv on... yes, we have dont have alot of crime here in good old mtl... heee... have a good one...
Posted by: maizzy at March 03, 2005 06:01 AM (J6XIN)
2
mmmmmmmmmmmmm...lobster....
Posted by: Pursuit at March 03, 2005 08:18 AM (VqIuy)
3
He was a big 'ol boy, but I saw one approximately a foot larger in Thailand in 1986. They say that one weighed 40 pounds. I love lobster, but more experienced people have told me really gigantic bugs like these don't taste all that good.
Posted by: JD at March 03, 2005 08:38 AM (pQrtL)
4
did you hear what peta (People for Eating Tasty Animals) wanted to do with him?
Posted by: cube at March 07, 2005 09:39 AM (nyNr0)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 22, 2005
Robot Etymology
Greetings. Here is some robot trivia.
The word robot apparently dates back to 1920, from a play by Czech author Karel Capek called R.U.R., or "Rossum's Universal Robots."
Capek is the founder of the Czech school of science fiction writers and an annual award given in the field of science fiction writing in Prague bears his name. This play introduced the word 'robot' first into Czech in its present meaning and then on to the world's languages.
Here's a snippet of philosophical dialogue from R.U.R., concerning the very nature of an android:Mr. DOMAIN: ...a working machine must not want to play the fiddle, must not feel happy, must not do a whole lot of other things. A petrol motor must not have tassels or ornaments, Miss Glory. And to manufacture artificial workers is the same thing as to manufacture motors. The process must be the simplest, and the product must be the best from a practical point of view. What sort of worker do you think is the best from a practical point of view?
Miss GLORY: The best? Perhaps the one who is most honest and hard-working.
Mr. DOMAIN: No, the cheapest. The one whose needs are the smallest. Young Rossum invented a worker with the minimum amount of requirements. He had to simplify him. He rejected everything that did not contribute directly to the progress of work. He rejected everything that makes man more expensive. In fact, he rejected man and made the Robot. My dear Miss Glory, the Robots are not people. Mechanically they are more perfect than we are, they have an enormously developed intelligence, but they have no soul.
Reminds me of what Data said to Riker in the Star Trek TNG pilot episode: "I am superior, Sir, in many ways. But I would gladly give it up to be human."
More etymological trivia:
Some references state that term 'robot' was derived from the Czech word robota, meaning 'work', while others propose that robota actually means 'forced workers' or 'slaves.' This latter view would certainly fit the point that Capek was trying to make, because his robots eventually rebelled against their creators, ran amok, and tried to wipe out the human race.
Stupid robots. Always bent on destroying the human race. Even from the beginning, it seems.
Back to the etymology:
However, as is usually the case with words, the truth of the matter is a little more convoluted. In the days when Czechoslovakia was a feudal society, 'robota' referred to the two or three days of the week that peasants were obliged to leave their own fields to work without remuneration on the lands of noblemen. For a long time after the feudal system had passed away, robota continued to be used to describe work that one wasn't exactly doing voluntarily or for fun, while today's younger Czechs and Slovaks tend to use robota to refer to work that's boring or uninteresting.
Kind of like the work i'm trying to avoid doing at this very moment.
Robot week! Let's celebrate it together, shall we?
Posted by: annika at
02:43 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 3 kb.
January 20, 2005
Hail To The Chief
i love the grand melody of Hail To The Chief. It's always inspiring. But did you know that there are lyrics to that song?
Hail to the Chief we have chos-en for the na - tion,
Hail to the Chief! We sa-lute him, one and all.
Hail to the Chief, as we pledge co-op - er -a- tion
In proud ful-fill-ment of a great, no-ble call.
Yours is the aim to make this grand coun-try grand-er,
This you will do, That's our strong, firm be-lief.
Hail to the one we se-lect-ed as com-mand-er,
Hail to the Pres-i-dent! Hail to the Chief!
Yay, four more years!
Posted by: annika at
09:19 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 111 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I always sing in my head...
"Hail to the Chief he's the one that we should hail to..."
Even though it is woefully wrong : )
Posted by: Jennifer at January 20, 2005 10:57 AM (Exn5c)
2
Annika I found your site via the BFL link. I enjoyed reading "100 things about me." The piercing & tattoo part I have a difficult time with as I have a 18 year old daughter - a freshmen at ASU - who would love another tattoo or piercing.
Anyway I love music and one song I find very inspring is The Battle Hymn of The Republic.
Here's a link via MSN that allows you to hear a number of versions before you buy - of course.
I like the US Army Band and Mormon Tabernacle versions.
Tell me what you think?
http://music.msn.com/search/all/?ss=The+Battle+Hymn+of+the+Republic
Cheers - Mike Siegwarth
Posted by: Mike at January 20, 2005 07:42 PM (X3Ik1)
3
I guess it's better than "God Save The President."
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at January 21, 2005 12:27 PM (FPdMX)
4
Or Barnicle Bill the Sailor.
Posted by: Casca at January 21, 2005 03:59 PM (cdv3B)
5
Hey I have tattoos too and I love them !
Posted by: Paul at January 22, 2005 05:34 AM (ywZa8)
6
What an odd tangent from Hail to the Chief, but for the record, I have no tattoos or piercings of my own and never expect to, but tattooed and/or pierced girls have very much rocked my world. As long as it's not excessive.
Posted by: Dave J at January 22, 2005 09:24 AM (CYpG7)
7
It must SUCK to get your asses kicked by anti-war protesters. ... and this shit will happen everytime you pussies try and step up.
protest warrior asskicking
While anti-Bush protesters had a strong showing for the day and vocalized their dissent, the seemingly silly anti-anti-Bush protesters organized by groups such as FreeRepublic and Protest Warriors did not fare as well.
One of the most publicized incidents of the day involved the Protest Warriors and their gathering dubbed, "Operation Hail to the Chief." According to the Washington Post, the Protest Warriors' event drew out a laughable 13 supporters. Unfazed by their lack of numbers, they moved forward with their mission to provoke opposing groups. The group "infiltrated" an anti-Bush rally with signs such as "Say no to war unless a Democrat is president" and "Not to brag, but Bush won, so shove it!"
Promptly, and some would argue appropriately, a leader of the Protest Warrior's group, Gil Kobrin, was on the ground getting his "ass kicked" as one witness stated.
You cunts!
Posted by: Bruin at January 22, 2005 01:55 PM (5Q9Zp)
8
Stop by and visit me once you've learned to piss standing up, Bruin. I have something for you.
Posted by: Casca at January 22, 2005 04:52 PM (cdv3B)
9
Bruin, laughy laughy laughy all ye like. They kicked his ass for carrying a sign and that's just fine and dandy with you leftard phony peace-loving sociopathic skidmarks on the shorts of humanity. Empty yer Stalinist shitsack somewhere else, Asscap.
(Please excuse any impolite language, Annika. And sincerest appologies for any errant punctuation and/or spelling.)
Posted by: Tuning Spork at January 24, 2005 09:16 PM (s2rvI)
10
Atleast now we have proof now that liberals' talk about "tolernance" for "diverse viewpoints" is nothing more than sloganeering.
Posted by: Mark at January 26, 2005 05:19 PM (Vg0tt)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 17, 2005
Happy Birthday Martin Luther King, Jr.
Here's a cute picture of Mike and Coretta in 1956.
Read Why This Day Matters, by Soonerland, at Dustbury.com. Link via Michelle Malkin.
Posted by: annika at
12:58 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thank God we didn't have another civil war back then. I will always have respect for MLK because of his non-violent approach to gain civil rights.
P.S. Don't tell anyone, but MLK's father and grandfather were supposedly life-long members of Lincoln's party.
Posted by: reagan80 at January 17, 2005 08:13 AM (hlMFQ)
2
P.S. Don't tell anyone MLK was
1) a serial adulterer
2) a plagiarist
3) a communist sympathiser
4) a supporter of affirmative action and
5) a vociferous liberal opponent of U.S. actions in Vietnam.
Conservatives should remember what a dirtbag this guy was, even if he did help bring about a salutary social reform.
Posted by: Roach at January 17, 2005 10:40 AM (DHoAQ)
3
Besides, according to his FBI file, he preferred blonds.
Posted by: Casca at January 17, 2005 12:53 PM (cdv3B)
4
Roach,
If all of that stuff is true, your post has better informed me about the guy's flaws. I'll subtract 2(out of 10) points from MLK on the respect scale just for the commie thing alone.
If the media could turn Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan, and Jesse Jackson into demi-gods, I wonder what the truth is about the great satan, Sen. Joe McCarthy. Is Ann Coulter right? Was he unfairly FUBAR'd by the liberal media?
P.S. Joe Piss Capeaux is on Cavuto now.
Posted by: reagan80 at January 17, 2005 01:34 PM (hlMFQ)
5
I think Tailgunner Joe did as much to besmirch his reputation as anyone, but on the basic fact — there were, in fact, card-carrying communists in high government places — he got the premise, if not every last detail, correct. (Points to Ann for so noticing.)
As to the others mentioned, on that same scale of 0-10 (I'm leaving Dr King at 10, despite his manifest flaws), I'd give Mandela a 6 and Jackson a 4; Annan struggles to one and a half.
Posted by: CGHill at January 17, 2005 03:17 PM (AUDQP)
6
Well CG, as much as i like skinny assed conservative blonds. One is originally informed by the 1950-something Buckley classic, "McCarthy and His Enemies" by WFB and his brother in law, L Brent Bozell. I have this in digital form if anyone requires it. I'm sure that bill won't mind. Miss Coulter arrived late to this fight, but she's welcome on the firestep.
Regards,
C
Posted by: Casca at January 17, 2005 05:17 PM (cdv3B)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 06, 2005
Watermelon Man Sets Sniper Record
From
USMC.mil:
Sgt. Herbert B. Hancock, chief scout sniper, sniper platoon, 1st Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment, is credited with the longest confirmed kill in Iraq, hitting enemy terrorists from 1,050 yards in Fallujah Nov. 11, 2004. Hancock, a 35-year-old activated reservist and police officer from Bryan, Texas, has been a Marine Corps sniper since 1992.
Read
the whole story.
Posted by: annika at
07:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.
January 05, 2005
The Smartest President We Ever Had Poll
Here's the final results for the poll. Not much i can say except that there is something wrong with the way we teach American history in this country.
The reason i came up with this poll was because i've heard more than once from Clinton admirers that he's "the smartest president we ever had." That's just silly.
Sure, Bill Clinton is a smart guy. But i was trying to make a point by putting him on the list just above Thomas Jefferson. Besides having written the most important founding document in the history of the world, TJ was also an architect, naturalist, founder of the University of Virginia and designer of its campus and curriculum, Latin and Greek literate, etc. etc. etc.
Yet, inexplicably, 15% of voters thought Thomas Jefferson was not as smart as Bill Clinton. How is that possible? And what about the other presidents whom those 15% also rank lower?
Theodore Roosevelt wrote a four volume history of the American West, a history of the Naval War of 1812, biographies of two American statesmen, and many other books. What has Clinton written? A memoir.
Woodrow Wilson wrote a five volume history of the American people, a biography of George Washington, and an important work on congressional government among many other books. Besides his law degree, he had a Ph.D. in history and political science.
James Madison? Father of the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln? Self-taught, and have you ever read the Lincoln-Douglas debates? Could you imagine language like that coming out of Clinton's mouth?
Who's the smartest president? That's a subject for legitimate debate. But given the competition, Clinton shouldn't make anyone's cut.
Posted by: annika at
08:13 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I am really surprized that Richard Nixion is consided smarter than Kennedy considering the intellectual Aurora spread by the MSM.
Posted by: Chuck at January 05, 2005 10:30 PM (R/J3m)
2
Unclench your buttocks my dear. Perhaps the results were skewed by an improper question? Should it not have been, "Who was the most intellectually bankrupt"? You've got too many smart guys there who dilute the vote, with only a couple bonafide shitheads.
Posted by: Casca at January 05, 2005 11:08 PM (cdv3B)
3
Excellent points, annika. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Clinton a Rhodes Scholar? If so--I think those who voted for The Impeached One were swayed by that.
Posted by: Victor at January 06, 2005 04:42 AM (L3qPK)
4
People could watch Clinton on TV, but could perceive Jefferson et al onl through their writings. For those who are not particularly reading-oriented, the more direct experience of TV probably makes a difference.
Herbert Hoover translated books from Latin to English for fun.
Posted by: David Foster at January 06, 2005 06:17 AM (cosES)
5
These types of polls become name recognition polls because of the way US history is taught in schools today-not.
Posted by: Jake at January 06, 2005 07:20 AM (r/5D/)
6
I think "smart" is very hard to judge. Raw intelligence is not the same thing as being well-educated, nor is it the same thing as having a huge diversity of interests. Jefferson was surely a titan of the enlightenment, a renaissance man; Lincoln a master of rhetoric and of the law (and, if some of his hagiography can be believed, of construction work.)
Did Jefferson have a wider range of interests than Clinton? Undoubtably. Did he have a more original mind? Probably. But was he smarter? I don't know if I can go there.
On the other hand, I've always been partial to Woodrow Wilson myself -- I was one of the five who voted for him. After all, who could be smarter than the only history prof ever to be president?
Posted by: Hugo at January 06, 2005 09:04 AM (VqTF3)
7
Polls about Presidents never include James K. Polk. I find that so depressing.
Oh, and I have absolutely no idea who the smartest President was.
Posted by: other Annika at January 06, 2005 09:16 AM (R7iJR)
8
I respect Jefferson for his ideas. His actions didn't always live up to them but his ability to reason is something I admire. However in general terms I had to go with JQA as "smartest".
Some of the others - well wilson may have been learned in a sense, but his actions in regards to foreign policy & domestic race relations lead me ot think that his emotions clouded his judgement too much for him to win any intellectual prizes. The idea of picking lincoln is difficult as for someone who was supposed to be intelligent he was damn near constitutionally illiterate. But my fav of all the rejects for the title - clinton.
I don't care what his i.q. is or how many degrees he has there's a word to describe any man who tries to claim that a blowjob isn't sex - asshat. I've seen what happens to people (in my old neighborhood) that tried that. It wasn't pretty. Most women in the south could possibly forgive cheating, but using such a weak ass excuse to try to weasel your way out of it? No, that alone disqualifies him from winning any intelligence contests.
That clinton got almost 5 times the votes that JQA did boggles the mind. I can see some of the other picks getting as many or more votes but clinton the superior of JQA? Only in a twillight zone created by government schools is this possible.
Still; interesting poll. Thanks for posting about it miss Annika.
Posted by: Publicola at January 06, 2005 12:16 PM (ss3XM)
9
During a visit of an esteemed group (Nobel laureates, I think), John F. Kennedy
said the following:
"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House-with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
I don't know that we've necessarily had any dumb Presidents of late. Even the Presidents that are reputed as "dumb" - Gerald Ford and George W Bush - are Ivy League graduates who have been able to admirably respond to adversity.
How does one define "smart" when dealing with a 200+ year period in which the educational system has changed dramatically? My 13 year old daughter has more formal education than Abraham Lincoln, but he was apparently able to function in society and make a living. Lincoln did not have the leisure to pursue a "wide range of interests," but I don't believe he was a dunce.
Clinton is not the only "smart" President to have made a dumb mistake. Nixon neglected to burn the tapes. Wilson was too obstinate to compromise on the League of Nations - perhaps the loss of millions of lives could have been prevented if he had been more flexible. Jefferson himself suffered financial losses late in life.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at January 06, 2005 12:45 PM (c6rOB)
10
Actually Kennedy said that it was the greatest collection of intellect since John Quincy Adams dined alone.
& Other Annika - I'm a Tarheel & I feel your pain.
Posted by: Publicola at January 06, 2005 12:54 PM (ss3XM)
11
Annie:
Are you aware that the state of California requires that ballots randomly mix up the names so that each candidate has his or her name at the top of the ballot on an equal number of ballots?
Now, why do you suppose that is done? Perhaps this might explain why enough folks picked the top name to skew the result.
For me, a guy too stupid to know that you can't get away with that stuff in the White House doesn't even deserve to be on the list.
If you had used the yardstick of "best candidate" or "most clever bullshitter" maybe I'd have voted for the guy, but "smartest", in light of the competition, is insulting to the others, all of whom deserved to be there, including Nixon, who, although demented, was a brilliant scholar, especially in foreign relations. He just had the Kerry disease of not being very likeable.
Posted by: shelly at January 07, 2005 06:18 AM (+7VNs)
12
Publicola - no, it was TJ.
I read the first few paragraphs of Clinton's autobiography somewhere, I think on Amazon. It was so poorly written - a collection of run-on sentences and unrelated thoughts. It felt like it was dictated.
Posted by: Yaron at January 07, 2005 01:24 PM (BSe7C)
13
If I am correct, James A. Garfield was able to use both his hands and write in two languages at once. His only downfall was that he was assasignated early in his presidency, therefore, it is unknown on what he may have been able to achieve. Also, my own commentary, a President may be intelligent, but if he is in active or allows to be controlled by his emotions, then he will be a poor leader. Futhermore, a great leader does what is right for the country even though he may disagree with it.
Posted by: Gwayneb at March 10, 2005 11:37 AM (orWac)
14
In my personal opinion, it would be a tie between TJ and JQA. I can't believe JQA only received 5%, obviously not enough people have read any biographies about him. BC might have had the best formal education so far, and I can understand why BC received 15% votes.
Posted by: DavidKnows at July 02, 2005 12:19 AM (6krEN)
15
Actually, Gwayneb, it was Thomas Jefferson who was able to write in two different languages with two different hands, at the same time.
And Kennedy's quote was concerning Thomas Jefferson.
However, I feel that JQA was the smartest president.
A lot of what we consider intelligence in the presidency is gathered by how their term went, and how their education measures up to our education system of today. In terms of Bill Clinton, more people lived in his administration as compared to JQA's or TJ's. It is more of a poll of recognition. However, when people claim that TJ had so many great accomplishments in his term, it not only due to his intelligence but also because Congress was in support of him. When JQA served as president twenty years later, the Congress was not very supportive of his ideas and therefore he got little done.
Posted by: Caesara at October 23, 2005 11:47 AM (3pbqx)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 17, 2004
Clinton's History
Larry King and historian Michael Beschloss were talking tonight, on the occasion of the opening of Clinton's library. As usual, King asked one of his famous leading questions. Something like: "It's too early to judge Clinton's presidency, don't you think?" Beschloss agreed, noting that Truman had something like a 12% approval rating at the end of his presidency, and now he's considered one of our great presidents. Beschloss also compared the Clinton legacy to Eisenhower's.
Is it too early to judge Clinton's presidency? Well, i didn't quite get a Ph.D. in history, but i'm ready to call it right now.
Clinton should be rated somewhat higher than Jimmy Carter, probably nearer to the only other president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson. Dangerously ineffective and misguided in foreign affairs, we will be dealing with the mess Clinton left us for decades.
And my opinion of Bill Clinton has improved since he left office. Nice guy, nice library, bad president.
Posted by: annika at
07:05 PM
| Comments (12)
| Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Nice guy? That's what they say about ALL the sociopaths.
Posted by: Casca at November 17, 2004 07:23 PM (cdv3B)
2
We're in such a "lefty philosophy vs. conservative philosophy" battle royal right now, no lefty historian will dare criticize Clinton. As we get further from his presidency, this man will look worse and worse and worse and WORSE.
If its found out that Islamofascists were behind OKC, or Flight 800, and Clinton covered this up for political reasons, he will rightfully be scorned by history. If China uses its Lorel rocket technology in a bullying attack, Clinton will rightfully be scorned by history.
If none of that happens, Clinton will still be remembered for his irrelevance, and for the scandal sideshows.
Posted by: gcotharn at November 17, 2004 11:39 PM (ywZa8)
3
Another thing: "Bridge to the 21st Century."
Mindless bullshit. Meaningless. Repeated ad infinitum. Onanism done right-- the one thing Bill Clinton was truly good at. His was "The Masturbatory Presidency"-- on so many levels.
Now, like a fabulous cosmic joke, like a bit of self-parody, the Clinton Library is a self-professed archetectural representation of a "Bridge to the 21st Century," AND an unprofessed representation of a phallus-- going so far as to faintly evoke a bend near the middle. Priceless. Is it any wonder this design was chosen, intentionally or not, by President Clinton?
I would love to see a giant sculpted hand wrapped around the base of that phallus, with maybe a cigar sculpture arrayed on a surrounding lawn.
Posted by: gcotharn at November 18, 2004 12:28 AM (+7VNs)
4
Clinton's library looks like a giant trailer on blocks. Earlier this week, the Little Rock paper ran an editorial cartoon depicting just that.
One of the local radio talks shows (a liberal FOB) asked callers what kind of artwork they thought should be there. One caller suggested a statue out front that looked like a pile of old tires since that fit in with the theme of the library.
Clinton's legacy wil always be clouded by the false prosperity of his presidency. The dot-com bubble juiced the economy and led people to believe that they were well-off. I personally believe the economy alone is what allowed him to skate on the whole Monica issue. Has the economy been in trouble, he would have been run out of town on a rail.
Posted by: Steve L. at November 18, 2004 05:54 AM (hpZf2)
5
At least, the Dems won't have Kerry in the White House inheriting and taking credit for another economic recovery from another Bush. The GOP will get the credit for the economy this time. I just hope that it maintains a positive trend despite lousy oil prices.
Posted by: reagan80 at November 18, 2004 06:17 AM (hlMFQ)
6
"Nice guy, nice library..."
I can't even give him those two things. I can only say that he looked like a nice guy -- he had a cheerful-looking countenance. His "trailer on blocks" lie-bury does seem to be a fitting reminder of his "legacy."
Posted by: 2flower at November 18, 2004 08:11 AM (TtsA5)
7
As a Republican, I don't know that I'd put Clinton in the same category of ineffectiveness as Andrew Johnson. Then again, maybe future generations will categorize Clinton in the same breath as Calvin Coolidge.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor at November 18, 2004 04:47 PM (c6rOB)
8
Nice guy? The guy's a fucking rapist. Ask Juanita Broderick.
Posted by: Roach at November 18, 2004 05:13 PM (DHoAQ)
9
“Clinton should be rated somewhat higher than Jimmy Carter” ?
No. ALL presidents should be rated higher than Carter, as he was the biggest pacifist pussy of all time, and without doubt, the worst president weÂ’ve ever had. A gold fish could have done a better job.
At least Clinton had the balls to bomb Serbia. (and without UN approval!). Who cares that he bombed the wrong side? At least he bombed something! Who cares that the Albanian Muslims were the murdering terrorists? Clinton proved that the Libs, are not pacifists after all, and, aided by the lies of the MSM, will back aggression, so long as their boyÂ’s aggression.
I donÂ’t know whoÂ’s worse. The guy who bombs nothing at all, or the guy who bombs the wrong side. In any case, they rank 1 & 2 at the bottom of the all time Presidential pile.
Posted by: Mark Rezyka at November 20, 2004 01:41 AM (QtTOp)
10
Mark, i'm not yet willing to put Carter at the bottom of the presidential pile. But it's only because i don't know enough about guys like John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison or Warren G. Harding. But i suspect that if i actually did the research on those guys i'd probably rate them above Carter too. i'll tell you this. Carter is the worst president i know anything about. i used to subscribe to the old cliché "he's a better ex-president than he was a president." But i changed my mind about that too, listening to the crazy shit he's been saying recently. He's a lot more whacked out than i realized. Like Michael Moore whacked out.
Posted by: annika! at November 20, 2004 08:30 AM (xrEEA)
11
Which Harrison was it that caught pnuemonia on his inauguration and died? He
might have been more ineffective than Carter.
OTOH, Clinton wasn't ineffective. Unfortunately.
Posted by: markm at November 21, 2004 06:53 AM (5nK/L)
12
MarkM: that was William Henry Harrison, president for less than a month in 1841.
Posted by: Dave J at November 24, 2004 06:56 PM (CYpG7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 10, 2004
Bonus Wednesday Poem (in honor of the USMC and all Veterans)
When you think of the United Sates Marine Corps and the Korean War, one epic battle always comes to mind.
Chosin Reservoir. Here's a selection by poet John Kent, which captures the bitter -25° cold experienced by marines during that battle.
Chosin
How deep the cold takes us down,
into the searing frost of hell;
where mountain snows,
unyielding winds, strip our flesh,
bare our bones.
The trembling of uncertain hearts,
scream out to echoes not impressed,
as swirling mists of laughing death,
reach out their fingers to compress.
How white the withered skin exposed,
turns into black and brittle flesh,
and limbs cast out from conscious thought,
still stagger on the arctic frost.
Immobile does the breath extend
as crystal on the mountain wind,
and eyes now fixed in layers of ice,
see nothing through the dawning light.
This road that leads down to the sea,
twists and turns at every bend,
and Chosin's ice that molds like steel,
rains the fire that seeks our end.
The trucks cry out a dirge refrain,
their brittle gears roll on in pain;
upon their beds, the silent dead,
in grateful and serene repose.
Still the mind resists the call,
to lie and die in final pose,
where blood in stillness warms the soul,
and renders nil the will to rise.
The battle carries through the night,
give witness to the dead betrayed,
when frozen weapons fail to fire,
their metal stressed by winter's might.
Still we fight to reach Hungnam,
in solemn oath and brotherhood,
as every able-bodied man,
will bring our dead and wounded home.
Uphold traditions earned in blood,
break through the hordes that press us in,
depress their numbers to the place,
where waves of dead deny their quest.
And on to the sea...
Update: (i moved this poem to the top. Happy Veterans' Day all!)
Posted by: annika at
07:00 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Happy 229th Birthday to the Marines
Posted by: Thomas Galvin at November 10, 2004 11:28 PM (JzCS7)
2
The Navy has a cruiser named the Chosin. My little bro. was one of the Seahawk pilots on it in Iraq last year.
http://www.geocities.com/cajunken_2000/Brianpage1.html
Cool, no?
Posted by: ken at November 11, 2004 12:56 PM (xD5ND)
Posted by: annika at November 11, 2004 01:28 PM (zAOEU)
4
I should point out that the 1st Marine Division obliterated or disabled
seven Chinese divisions at Chosin, after retrieving the equipment that the U.S. Army left on the battlefield in their retreat.
Posted by: Eric Johnson at November 11, 2004 05:31 PM (84Org)
5
At least that's the way we tell the story. Next year just hang out Dulce et decorum est, and call it a day.
Posted by: Casca at November 11, 2004 09:43 PM (cdv3B)
6
My uncle fought at Frozen Chosin. He doesn't talk about it.
Posted by: Victor at November 12, 2004 06:05 AM (L3qPK)
7
Annika:
Having spent sometime on the DMZ during the winter, I could only still imagine the incredible courage and strength of those Marines and Soldiers who fought for months without end in Korea during those conditions.
Even Gen MacArthur stated,"I have just returned from visiting the MARINES at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world!"
Posted by: Col Steve at November 12, 2004 11:50 AM (0MJte)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
November 04, 2004
Yasser Arafat Is Dead?
If it's true, may God have mercy on the evil man's soul.
Posted by: annika at
09:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.
August 02, 2004
A Better Band Of Brothers
On this day, sixty one years ago, the United States Navy motor torpedo boat number 109, commanded by Lieutenant, Junior Grade
John F. Kennedy, was struck and cut in half by the 1750 ton Japanese destroyer
Amagiri.
The PT boat was creeping along to keep the wake and noise to a minimum in order to avoid detection. Around 0200 with Kennedy at the helm, the Japanese destroyer Amagiri traveling at 40 knots cut PT 109 in two in ten seconds. Although the Japanese destroyer had not realized that their ship had struck an enemy vessel, the damage to PT 109 was severe. At the impact, Kennedy was thrown into the cockpit where he landed on his bad back. As Amagiri steamed away, its wake doused the flames on the floating section of PT 109 to which five Americans clung: Kennedy, Thom, and three enlisted men, S1/c Raymond Albert, RM2/c John E. Maguire and QM3/c Edman Edgar Mauer. Kennedy yelled out for others in the water and heard the replies of Ross and five members of the crew, two of which were injured. GM3/c Charles A. Harris had a hurt leg and MoMM1/c Patrick Henry McMahon, the engineer was badly burned. Kennedy swam to these men as Ross and Thom helped the others, MoMM2/c William Johnston, TM2/c Ray L. Starkey, and MoMM1/c Gerald E. Zinser to the remnant of PT 109. Although they were only one hundred yards from the floating piece, in the dark it took Kennedy three hours to tow McMahon and help Harris back to the PT hulk. Unfortunately, TM2/c Andrew Jackson Kirksey and MoMM2/c Harold W. Marney were killed in the collision with Amagiri.
Because the remnant was listing badly and starting to swamp, Kennedy decided to swim for a small island barely visible (actually three miles) to the southeast. Five hours later, all eleven survivors had made it to the island after having spent a total of fifteen hours in the water. Kennedy had given McMahon a life-jacket and had towed him all three miles with the strap of the device in his teeth. After finding no food or water on the island, Kennedy concluded that he should swim the route the PT boats took through Ferguson Passage in hopes of sighting another ship. After Kennedy had no luck, Ross also made an attempt, but saw no one and returned to the island. Ross and Kennedy had spotted another slightly larger island with coconuts to eat and all the men swam there with Kennedy again towing McMahon. Now at their fourth day, Kennedy and Ross made it to Nauru Island and found several natives. Kennedy cut a message on a coconut that read '11 alive native knows posit & reef Nauru Island Kennedy.' He purportedly handed the coconut to one of the natives and said, 'Rendova, Rendova!,' indicating that the coconut should be taken to the PT base on Rendova.
Kennedy and Ross again attempted to look for boats that night with no luck. The next morning the natives returned with food and supplies, as well as a letter from the coastwatcher commander of the New Zealand camp, Lieutenant Arthur Reginald Evans. The message indicated that the natives should return with the American commander, and Kennedy complied immediately. He was greeted warmly and then taken to meet PT 157 which returned to the island and finally rescued the survivors on 8 August.
Kennedy was later awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for his heroics in the rescue of the crew of PT 109, as well as the Purple Heart Medal for injuries sustained in the accident on the night of 1 August 1943.
As you may know, Kennedy never fully recovered from the re-injury to his bad back sustained in the collision. He lived with the constant pain for the rest of his life (with the help of heavy doses of drugs, it has recently been disclosed).
The coconut became a fixture atop his desk in the oval office. The destroyer
Amagiri did not survive the war. She struck a mine and sunk on April 23, 1944.
For a more detailed and prosaic version of the story, here's the transcription of a 1944 article by John Hersey in the New Yorker about the events.
Posted by: annika at
02:12 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I read in detail years ago the events of PT109. I've always been intrigued by Kennedy, even though I was only 1 year old when he was elected president.
Posted by: Brent at August 02, 2004 05:25 PM (w+y2e)
2
Jeez, almost as big a ton of bullshit as Kerry's three Purple Hearts. Destroyers don't do "40-knots", and any other PT skipper would have stood a courts martial. But few others had fathers who were pals with Henry Luce.
Posted by: Casca at August 02, 2004 09:22 PM (q+PSF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 20, 2004
July 20, 1969
On July 20, 1969, an event which i argue is the greatest accomplishment in human history occurred.
It was "one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind," as Neil Armstrong said. But, it must also be said that no one but an American has ever been to the moon. And we have every right to be proud of that fact.
We did it with vacuum tube computers and slide rules. We did it in the days before fax machines and e-mail and pocket calculators. We did it before copy machines and PDAs and DVD drives and laptops. We did it with computers that filled a whole room but were slower than the computer i'm typing on right now.
And when the computer miscalculated on the descent to the lunar surface, one American took the controls and landed the damn thing himself.
Awesome.
On that historic day Associated Press reported:
Two Americans landed on the moon and explored its surface for some two hours Sunday, planting the first human footprints in its dusty soil. They raised their nation's flag and talked to their President on earth 240,000 miles away.
And the whole world watched.
Be proud.
Update: Has Ted forgotten about this anniversary?
Posted by: annika at
08:42 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Very nice annika. Tomorrow in history the first rant using the words "We put a man on the moon but we can't..." was used. yuk yuk
Posted by: Scof at July 20, 2004 11:02 AM (XCqS+)
2
Nicely done. I had not gotten around to doing a post about this topic yet.
Greatest accomplishment? Yep, probably what I would choose. And a nice reminder of how different the world and resources were that made it happen.
Posted by: Jay Solo at July 20, 2004 01:56 PM (ECWEx)
Posted by: Dawn Summers at July 20, 2004 02:17 PM (HLOeu)
4
I *had* forgotten. With the new job, I've been crazybusy all day at work and too tired to surf much in the evenings. My brain is full of new and strange acronyms and processes I'm learning.
Besides, guys aren't *supposed* to remember anniversaries.
Dawn, Penicillin was huge, but it would've been done eventually by someone. The moon was directed effort that would not have happened by accident. Now if you'd have said Hostess Snowballs...
Posted by: Ted at July 20, 2004 03:47 PM (ZjSa7)
5
I was 15 at the time, and although I was a big jock at the time, the fact that the LEM pilot, I'm thinking Buzz Aldrin, landed the thing himself, was and is so cool.
History was made that day, and I along with millions of others around the world--think about that--had a ringside seat.
Folks, those two guys, and Collins too, were truly pioneers.
Not to mention an example of true American spirit.
Posted by: joe at July 20, 2004 07:10 PM (vHwP8)
6
Mmm...hostess snowballs.
Posted by: Dawn Summers at July 21, 2004 09:23 AM (HLOeu)
7
Oh, come
on people! It was all a FAKE!
Posted by: Rick Blaine at July 21, 2004 02:35 PM (Eo4me)
8
I'm just an occasional visitor here so far, but I had to pass on this video of Buzz Aldrin
taking out a conspiracy theorist who called him a coward and a liar, in case you haven't seen it.
Posted by: insomni at July 21, 2004 06:34 PM (h2cui)
9
Most of them smoked cigarettes Save money on cheap cigarettes Cigarette smoking has been buy cigarettes. order cigarettes the most popular method of taking offer discount Camel cigarettes nicotine the year a report offer discount marlboro cigarettes that concluded that buy cigarettes. order cigarettes cigarettes and other Save money on cheap cigarettes forms of tobacco smoking cigs for all the Buy cigarettes and pack of smokes for you rolling tobacco would you like cigarettes with Free delivery of cigarettes years of smoking can cause cigarettes Chesterfield cigarettes bar talking with people Lucky Strike cigarettes Marlboro
Posted by: cigarettes at August 04, 2004 07:16 AM (nPfJ7)
10
Interesting thought, but my memory of the day makes it seem a bit less eventful. My family and I were on the Navajo reservation (Dineta nation) that day and at the time of the landing we had stopped just off the res at a saloon for dinner. An old man at the bar watched closely, and then said (roughly): "No big deal. The ancestors went there a long time ago, before they came down here to live. There was nothing on the moon worth staying there for." Probably true, at least the last part.
Posted by: Eirik Johnson at June 21, 2005 07:29 PM (fYd6d)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
153kb generated in CPU 0.0695, elapsed 0.1235 seconds.
76 queries taking 0.1018 seconds, 311 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
