 |
| Image Source |
"Jamie Farr's crossdressing character, Corporal Maxwell Q. Klinger, debuts on the CBS television show M*A*S*H [1972] - the first transgender-related character to appear regularly on TV. Although Klinger was said to crossdress only as an attempt to be given a discharge from the Army, it is the first moment of particular visibility that deviates from comedians' sporadic use of crossdressing for comedic purposes (popularized by Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in the movie "Some Like It Hot" as well as by comedians ranging from Milton Berle to Jerry Lewis to Monty Python's Flying Circus), and develops into sympathetic characterization."I was reminded of this by a new LA Times story that says transgender troops in other countries is nothing new. Well, we had a cross dressing role model on television back in 1972. I realize that young men are still forming their self-identity including their sexual personas when they enter the military, and some have had some pretty anti-gay / transgender brainwashing. Let the military recognize this and educate them, and help them to get over any hangups. Let them watch M*A*S*H reruns.
"Ten years ago we found evidence that al-Qaeda was far more organized and adept than we had previously given them credit for. It took us nearly that long to locate and execute their leader, Osama bin Laden, and we are far from finished. Al-Qaeda has morphed into a much more dangerous, menacing threat: ISIS. A war is being waged against us by radical Islamists, and, as current events demonstrate, they are only getting stronger. This book aims to inform the American people of the grave danger we face in the war on terror―and will continue to face―until our government takes decisive action against the terrorists that want nothing more than to destroy us and our way of life.I'm not sure being an active participant in the Iraq war, where we resoundingly restored democracy to a country that had never had it before, is that great a recommendation.
Lt. General Michael T. Flynn spent more than 33 years in Army intelligence, working closely with Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus, Admiral Mike Mullen, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and other policy, defense and intelligence community, and war-fighting leaders. From coordinating on-the-ground operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, to building reliable intelligence networks, to preparing strategic plans for fighting terrorism, Flynn has been a firsthand witness to government screw-ups, smokescreens, and censored information that our leaders don’t want us to know. A year before he was scheduled to retire, Flynn was sacked as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency for, among other things, telling a Congressional Committee that the American people are in more danger than we were just a few years ago. Why?
The Field of Fight succinctly lays out why we have failed to stop terrorist groups from growing, and what we must do to stop them. The core message is that if you understand your enemies, it’s a lot easier to defeat them―but because our government has concealed the actions of terrorists like bin Laden and groups like ISIS, and the role of Iran in the rise of radical Islam, we don’t fully understand the enormity of the threat they pose against us. A call to action that is sensible, informed, and original, The Field of Fight asserts that we must find a way to not only fight better, but to win."
 |
| click to enlarge and focus |
"After a sumptuous Italian dinner and drinks with friends, I was jogging to the subway at Columbus Circle—I was running late to meet another set of friends at a concert downtown. I heard someone shouting and I looked up to see a police officer approaching with his gun trained on me. “Against the car!” In no time, half a dozen cops were upon me, chucking me against the car and tightly handcuffing me. “Why were you running?” “Where are you going?” “Where are you coming from?” “I said, why were you running?!” Since I couldn’t answer everyone at once, I decided to respond first to the one who looked most likely to hit me. I was surrounded by a swarm and tried to focus on just one without inadvertently aggravating the others.
It didn’t work. As I answered that one, the others got frustrated that I wasn’t answering them fast enough and barked at me. One of them, digging through my already-emptied pockets, asked if I had any weapons, the question more an accusation. Another badgered me about where I was coming from, as if on the 15th round I’d decide to tell him the truth he imagined. Though I kept saying—calmly, of course, which meant trying to manage a tone that ignored my racing heart and their spittle-filled shouts in my face—that I had just left friends two blocks down the road, who were all still there and could vouch for me, to meet other friends whose text messages on my phone could verify that, yes, sir, yes, officer, of course, officer, it made no difference.
For a black man, to assert your dignity before the police was to risk assault. In fact, the dignity of black people meant less to them, which was why I always felt safer being stopped in front of white witnesses than black witnesses. The cops had less regard for the witness and entreaties of black onlookers, whereas the concern of white witnesses usually registered on them. A black witness asking a question or politely raising an objection could quickly become a fellow detainee. Deference to the police, then, was sine qua non for a safe encounter.
The cops ignored my explanations and my suggestions and continued to snarl at me. All except one of them, a captain. He put his hand on my back, and said to no one in particular, “If he was running for a long time he would have been sweating.” He then instructed that the cuffs be removed. He told me that a black man had stabbed someone earlier two or three blocks away and they were searching for him. I noted that I had no blood on me and had told his fellow officers where I’d been and how to check my alibi—unaware that it was even an alibi, as no one had told me why I was being held, and of course, I hadn’t dared ask. From what I’d seen, anything beyond passivity would be interpreted as aggression.
The police captain said I could go. None of the cops who detained me thought an apology was necessary. Like the thug who punched me in the East Village, they seemed to think it was my own fault for running.
Humiliated, I tried not to make eye contact with the onlookers on the sidewalk, and I was reluctant to pass them to be on my way. The captain, maybe noticing my shame, offered to give me a ride to the subway station. When he dropped me off and I thanked him for his help, he said, “It’s because you were polite that we let you go. If you were acting up it would have been different.” I nodded and said nothing."I first became aware of 'walking while black' in the summer of 1967 when I visited my Peace Corps roommate from the summer before (on my way to the second summer of training) at the University of Missouri and he pointed out all his escape routes and the people he needed to escape from. I wrote about that in a post about the University of Missouri football players speaking up about racism on campus last November.
"None of the cops who detained me thought an apology was necessary."I can understand cops stopping suspects and being nervous. But when they find out they made a mistake, why wouldn't they apologize? Because they figure he's guilty of something else and deserves this? Because they enjoyed getting their aggression out on him? Because they think they don't have to?
 |
From Online Etymology:"nasturtium (n.) |
| "While most edible flowers have a subtle flavor, nasturtiums knock your socks off with their peppery taste. Plus, it's not just the flowers and buds that are packed with a zippy flavor; the young leaves are tender and edible as well. Nasturtiums are popular with chefs and home gardeners because their colorful flowers not only dress up a plate, they're high in vitamins A, C (10 times as much as lettuce), and D." [From National Garden Association] |  |
 |
|
| "This Peruvian native was introduced into Europe back about 1686. During the late 1700s, the famous Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus noted the similarity in appearance between the plant's brilliant flowers and the gold (and often blood-stained) helmets — called tropaea — worn by ancient Roman warriors. Hence the Latin name Tropaeolum." [From MotherEarthNews] |  |
 |
In Observations on the Colors of Flowers (1899), Eliphalet Williams Hervey writes that the stripes going down on the nasturtiums are 'honey guides' for insects. (pp 57-59) |
Recipe from Horcticult We call this salad The Loro: Ingredients (serves two) – 10 nasturtium flowers, rinsed thoroughly in cold water – goat cheese – 6 oz. baby greens – 2 tablespoons almonds – balsamic vinaigrette – raisins – 1 clove garlic, minced |
 |
 |
Recipe continued Directions: 1. Roll goat cheese into balls of about ½-inch diameter. 2. Peel away and discard nasturtium sepals, then gently pluck the petals. 3. Smooth petals onto goat cheese balls, arranging them into a floral shape. 5. Toss remaining ingredients 6. Salt and pepper to taste. 7. Garnish with petal-covered cheese balls. 8. Graze! |
 |
"'Any little kid's dream is to roll a rock down a hill. This is times 10,' said Arnie's son, Dustin Hrncir."And there's even some science in the video (at the online link above) when one person comments, "Gravity always wins."
"Mr. Kushner’s role was described in more than two dozen interviews with friends, colleagues and campaign staff members, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity so they could disclose interactions that were supposed to remain private. Mr. Kushner declined to be interviewed." [emphasis added]I can't help but translate the bolded part in my head into: "I'm not supposed to tell you this, but I have no integrity and I just can't keep a secret."
"The closest the interceptor came to the target was a distance 20 times greater than what was expected, said the Pentagon scientists, who spoke on condition they not be identified."Why is this different? The person is revealing that the government agencies and private businesses have been lying about the performance of potentially life saving equipment the government's already spent $40 billion in since 2004 (over $3 billion per year.) The story quotes a second scientist and the first acknowledgement from the agency that there were actually problems.]
"On NBC’s “Meet The Press” last week, an appearance facilitated by the Clinton campaign, Kaine offered a quick summary of his experience: mayor of Virginia’s capital of Richmond, its lieutenant governor, governor, Democratic Party chairman and now U.S. senator.
But, he added, 'I have got one job and one job only right now, and that is to work hard for Hillary Clinton.'”If I were a Virginia resident, I'd be wondering when I lost half my Senatorial representation. As a US citizen, I'm wondering why we're paying this US Senator who seems to have abandoned his Senate job to campaign for Clinton. OK, I realize this might be taken out of context, but dammit, he's being paid to be a US Senator and he should be careful about what he says.
"Amazon wants to be so deeply embedded in a customer’s life that buying happens as naturally as breathing, and nearly as often."Do I really have to say anything about that truly appalling thought? We've gone from 'the customer is always right' to 'the customer is totally brainwashed.'
Politics. Which is appropriate for the 4th of July. |
 |
"I know the British establishment felt the same way when the North American colonies voted for independence. Our US history books paint it as a singularly good thing, but there was just as much angst in the colonies over it. Perhaps this vote gives us a new perspective on 1776. Or not. At least the EU is not sending troops to prevent this."So it seemed appropriate to write with this view in mind for the 240th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
"Happy #Amerexit my ex colonial chums— Hari Kunzru (@harikunzru) July 4, 2016"
"I should therefore be impertinent if I attempted to show in what case a whole people may be justified in rising up in opposition to the powers of government, altering or abolishing them and substituting, in whole or in part, new powers in their stead; or in what sense all men are created equal; or how far life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may be said to be unalienable. Only I could ask the delegates of Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas how their constituents justify the depriving more than an hundred thousand Africans of their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and in some degree to their lives, if these rights are so absolutely unalienable. . .
From a disposition to receive willingly complaints against rulers, facts misrepresented have passed without examining. Discerning men have concealed their sentiments, because under the present government in America, no man may, by writing or speaking, contradict any part of this Declaration without being deemed an enemy to his country, and exposed to the rage and fury of the populace.” [emphasis added]Pennsylvanian John Dickinson, who had enjoyed great popularity when he led the opposition to the Stamp Act, could not bring himself to sign the Declaration. From the History Net:
Yet on July 1, 1776, as his colleagues in the Continental Congress prepared to declare independence from Britain, Dickinson offered a resounding dissent. Deathly pale and thin as a rail, the celebrated Pennsylvania Farmer chided his fellow delegates for daring to “brave the storm in a skiff made of paper.” He argued that France and Spain might be tempted to attack rather than support an independent American nation. He also noted that many differences among the colonies had yet to be resolved and could lead to civil war. When Congress adopted a nearly unanimous resolution the next day to sever ties with Britain, Dickinson abstained from the vote, knowing full well that he had delivered “the finishing Blow to my once too great, and my Integrity considered, now too diminish’d Popularity.”
"Indeed, following his refusal to support and sign the Declaration of Independence, Dickinson fell into political eclipse. And 234 years later, the key role he played in American resistance as the leader of a bloc of moderates who favored reconciliation rather than confrontation with Britain well into 1776 is largely forgotten or misunderstood.
To be a moderate on the eve of the American Revolution did not mean simply occupying some midpoint on a political line, while extremists on either side railed against each other in frenzied passion. Moderation for Dickinson and other members of the founding generation was an attitude in its own right, a way of thinking coolly and analytically about difficult political choices. The key decision that moderates ultimately faced was whether the dangers of going to war against Britain outweighed all the real benefits they understood colonists would still enjoy should they remain the king’s loyal subjects.
Dickinson and his moderate cohorts were prudent men of property, rather than creatures of politics and ideology. Unlike the strong-willed distant cousins who were leaders of the patriot resistance in Massachusetts—John and Samuel Adams—moderates were not inclined to suspect that the British government was in the hands of liberty-abhorring conspirators. Instead, they held out hope well into 1776 that their brethren across the Atlantic would come to their senses and realize that any effort to rule the colonies by force, or to deny colonists their due rights of self-government, was doomed to failure. They were also the kind of men British officials believed would choose the benefits of empire over sympathy for suffering Massachusetts, the colony that King George III, his chief minister, Lord North, and a docile Parliament set out to punish after the Boston Tea Party of December 1773. Just as the British expected the Coercive Acts that Parliament directed against Massachusetts in 1774 would teach the other colonies the costs of defying the empire, so they assumed that sober men of property, with a lot at stake, would never endorse the hot-headed proceedings of the mob in Boston. Yet in practice, exactly the opposite happened. Dickinson and other moderates ultimately proved they were true patriots intent on vindicating American rights."
