American Comfort Women

Give your daughter up to serve Uncle Sam. He’ll take real good care of her for you.

And she’ll get money for college.

166 thoughts on “American Comfort Women”

  1. The real problem is the culture of silence in the military about these matters. That and the old boys network.

  2. Having served in the US Army infantry I can attest first hand to the lack of justice in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). If you are a big brown noser you can get away with murder (literally). When the punishment is dished out by your own command instead of a court of law you will always have this problem. Instead of taking the information to their chain of command women would be wise to go to a local authority if here in the states, or if that is not the case they need to go directly to the Inspector Generals office. Expecting justice to be handed out by a friend and fellow soldier (of the offender) is not realistic. Unfortunately I also know the pressure that is put on Joes to conform. It is very difficult for anyone in the military to speak out. You are immediately blacklisted and deemed less than reliable. It will effect your promotions and chances to get into slots for schools such as Ranger training, air assault, etc. If you want to get ahead in the military these schools are the way to go as you get promotion points based on them. If you make waves with your command they will simply put someone else on the school lists or not vote for your promotions.

    Having said this I would also say that soldiers should be held to a higher level of conduct not a lesser one. I feel the same way in regards to officers of the law. When you are being paid to represent the people you should not abuse that authority and should be held more accountable rather than less.

    I would also like to say that I was glad I served in an Infantry unit rather than say an MP unit. Our unit was males only. This included everything from the cooks to the medics. The MP units had female soldiers that they fought side by side with. I know I am risking being labeled as sexist but I am glad that I did not serve with women. Most of us were very young sexually charged up adolescence. The military term was “young and dumb and full of c*m”. Most of the Joes who re-upped remained adolescent. Somehow it seemed the military stunted their development by taking care of their every need (food, housing, thinking, etc.). Serving with women would have been one more distraction and complication in an already volatile environment.

    Obviously women can and do serve with honor, distinction, and courage. However, as this article points out women are also left in a more vulnerable situation. I do not believe women should be fighting in combat units.

    I also don’t believe that children should be enlisted. The enlistment age should be raised to 21. However that’s a different subject.

    Peace!

    1. Many more years ago than I care to remember I advocated raising the enlistment and draft age to 31.

      I also opposed getting rid of the draft (which many of my contemporaries found strange) and argued that a voluntary army was the beginning of the end.

      Makes perfect sense if you think about it.

      Nowadays, it strikes me there might be some value actually in banning enlistments completely.

      The half-brains we have in common think along the same lines, though my half may be a bit more radical than yours.

      Who knows about the other two halves?

    2. Hello Brad Smith, I differ in your opinions but am glad that you shared them!

      I, too, enlisted in the U.S. Army and they were going to send me to Communication school but I gave that up for the Infantry. I carried a high powered rifle, the .30/06 M-1 Garand as well as the Browning B.A.R. and though we never had women in our units we had the W.A.C.’s (Women’s Army Corps) next door separated from us by a coupls strings of barbwire right through Basic and Advanced Infantry Training, and we never once ventured across that line of demarcation to rape, pillage or do them harm as we thought the world of them!

      Neither you, or anyone else, can take rights and choices from our women! The problem today is the lack of a human education just to know right from wrong! As a matter of fact we never lost a battle against worthy foes until these congressional poltroons made it mandatory that their appointed military officers should first be crippled by wasted years at the university! We had O.C.S. (officers candidate schools were regular soldiers could make it as high as full bird colonels)!

      To make my point, the Latinos today send their high school graduates straight into doctors schools without wasting time in so-called universities, and they have better doctors than we Americans now do!

      Matter of fact, Americans won WWII on both sifddes of the Equator and most of our G.I.’s then were not even high school graduates. And the high-ranking Nazi military officers called these G.I.’s “Those Devils in baggy pants!” as they were full of admiration for American ingenuity, free-thinking and able G.I.’s not being crippled by the confines of decayed trash these less than useless insane asylum graduates from dysfunctional institutions don’t have the means to find their way out of today! -Al Koppel.

      1. Wow, all that MILITARY GLORY wow! What Bush and Cheney, GREAT WARRIORS THEMSELVES, are riding on. Keep them hillbilles dumb and poor and joining up at 17 to eat. YASSSUH! A new Depression–BRING IT ON!

        WAR FOR A HUNDRED YEARS!

        I have an uncle (still living) landed at Normandy, was in Market Garden, and later with Patton in the Battle of the Bulge.

        Combat engineer.

        Never talked until very recently.

        I’ll stick with his testimony about all the GLORY. It is a bit at variance with the above.

        But who wants to get personal, eh?

        1. Yassuh, and all the dumb hillbllies without edoocayshun that produced those airplanes and tanks and bombs and guns.

          Dumb college kids!

          Them dumb hillbilliies were real men–wooda beat them Gerries and Nips with paper clips and rubber bands if they needed to.

          Who needs all that EDOOCAYSHUN?

          Jes’ gives folks fancy ideas about themselves, YASSUH!

        2. Gotdang! Send them kids to colledge they wown wahn go to war at 31, nossuh!

          They might even consider their NCO’s dumbasses, along with the whole US military way of screwing up the wettest of wet dreams.

        3. Course then you got the delicate problem with the vets from the First Gulf War–ah, er–radioactive semen from exploded DU.

          Giving their wives cervical cancer among other things, yessuh.

          Good thing they were keeping rape quiet in them days, imagine the legal complications.

      2. To Alfred Koppel.

        I agree completely that an education does not make a soldier. Nothing pissed me off more than having some butter bar straight from West Point giving me orders. for the most part (with a few exceptions they didn’t have a clue). The same goes for our current Universities. I used my G.I. bill to go through College and recieved two degrees. However, 90% of the garbage I learned had nothing to do with my chosen subject. However, I can tell you all about English Literature or Geology (Wow good for me right?). It’s legal graft, if you won’t pay for useless classes you can’t get the piece of paper that qualifies you for a job. Of course you will learn more in your first week on the job than you did in four or even six years at University.

        1. Oh and one more point for Alfred Koppel.

          We almost lost the Revolutionary war due to Washington’s attempts to modernize or educate our forces. I’m sure our local historian Eugene Costa would even agree, and could point out the mistakes Washington made.

        2. You know I don’t know a hell of a lot about him. But from what I remember he was quite a character and a scathing critic. I can’t stand poetry so I won’t comment on that as I wouldn’t have a clue.

        3. No Franklin–no French.

          No French–no victory at Yorktown.

          No victory at Yorktown–no victory.

        4. Grant’s memoirs? The hardest part of his military career–learning to write orders.

          Grant + Empson=?

        5. You got it. If the French hadn’t come to our rescue we would have been done. However, I don’t know anything about the conection with Grant and Empson.

        6. There’s a story in Patton’s memoirs that’s pertinent as well.

          Ambiguity, among other things–when to avoid it, when to exploit it.

          But that’s just scratching the surface.

          Jefferson, despite Hamilton and Washington’s urging, wanted to have nothing to do with serving in the army.

          Like Franklin and Adams and the rest–they would all of hanged, so it wasn’t lack of bravery.

          He knew he was more valuable elsewhere.

          He was right too.

          Cheney, who married and reproduced to avoid serving in Vietnam, tried to make a similar argument about himself in later years, when he finally admitted he avoided the draft.

        7. Rally hart tu void det ambidextriguity wen you doan eben no id eksists.

          I mean, ah–just talk planes Anglish–you know what I mean.

        8. Gee, Brad, wonder how hard it will be to understand some of this Hayden fella’s orders, you know?

          I mean, I read one report about what he had to say about, you know, EYE-ran, and goshdarn–I had to pull out my Empson Ruger single action to get his drift.

          Something about the Holy Trinity, was it?

        9. You know once again you have lost me. I have no idea what the F your talking about. I guess that is what makes you so great! I’m sure you would make a great educator or leader when every one is sitting around thinking, what the hell is he talking about? Having a big brain is about as useless as tits on a nun if you can’t make yourself understood. talking over everyones head is just showing off. It accomplishes nothing. Your point will not be understood. The best minds in the world can be understood with the least amount of words. So if you would really like to make a point and not just show off your staggering intellect, try making your point in a way that the rest of us can understand. Seriously think about it, what is your point? To show off or to educate?

          Peace!

        10. Okay, Brad–the other two halves at work.

          No rush. That AF fella probely doan no eyether.

          Geezus H! What’s the Amerindian sign language for “cross fingers”?

          Very likely NOT crossed fingers.

          False friends in French and all that.

  3. It’s easy to see why the military is a perpetual adolescence. They go from living with mom and dad with food, clothing, and shelter provided. In the military, all this is still provided.

    I think a similar thing happens with people who stay in college or grad school forever.

  4. My experiences are similar to those of Brads. Except, mine were in the Marines.

    I never understood why women would join the Marines. If they did, the only place for them should have been the admin sections. Our job was to go kill and break things. No need for more distractions within the units.

    All this adolescence talk is bunk. The Marines are a reflection of society at large. I was 20 and in charge of 15 Marines, their trucks, their missions, and all their gear. My platoon sergeant was 23. So, pound sand folks.

    “Give your daughter up to serve Uncle Sam. He’ll take real good care of her for you. And she’ll get money for college.” … I laughed good at that.

    Keep up the good work Antiwar.com.

  5. Why can other countries have women in their militaries without this bulls**t, but not us? And why the *hell* doesn’t one of these women shoot her rapist? You’re trained to kill, sister – fight back!

  6. In general, women are the most oppressed group on the planet. Why shouldn’t they be able to serve in the military? Why are men always telling them who they can marry and how many children they should have? I’m sick and tired of cultures, especially in the Middle East, that promote the subjugation of women. Women account for over half the population of this planet but according to governments like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc (all of which are controlled by men I might add) women should not have the right to vote or travel on their own. Their right to marry and procreate should be subject to the whims and caprice of their fathers, brothers, and husbands. In short, they are treated like property. Thankfully in America, Great Britain, and the rest of the civiilized world, most of us don’t think in such archaic, 7th century terms.

    1. The position of women among some orthodox Jews, in practice and theory, is so seldom treated in the American press.

      One can’t imagine why.

      Is there a wig-maker in the house?

      So too the position of women, again in practice and theory, among many fundamentalist Christian sects and similar groups, like the Latter Day Saints, presently and also in the old and new Testaments and through the ages in the “West”.

      An interesting and useful phrase one hears never or very seldom used by certain people–“the Abrahamic religions”.

      A comparative study may surprise some.

  7. To Kate.

    What makes you think that women in other cultures don’t suffer from the same bull? War is real and not some fictional place where ideals rule. I hear this all the time, if things were this or if things were that we could do this or that. However, that’s not the way things are. The facts are the facts and thats the way it is. Males are bigger, stronger, and ruled by the impulse to mate and control. Until we change this as a cultural whole women will be and are a distraction in the military.

    We allow children to fight and have power over other children. Some of them girls. why don’t women fight back? For the obvious reasons I pointed out. Pressure from their peers. The thought of going to prison for life etc. It is the fault of our CULTURE that women cannot serve without being raped. However, you might be surprised to find out that much of the harassment that women in the military receive is dished out and instigated by their fellow women soldiers. It’s a shame we live in an culture that is as messed up as it is. However, until it changes it’s unrealistic to believe that things are other than what they are. Being realistic is better than being politically correct when it comes to life and death (and rape). So please all of you, save your idealism and political correctness for some time in the future when we live in a better society.

    To Eugene.

    I think I get where your coming from. I have thought about the draft issue many many times. When you have a voluntary military it’s very hard to get people to appose war. I seriously doubt if the Vietnam war (Sorry, I mean police action) would have ended as soon as it did if we had a volunteer force. The other issue of course is related to deferments and who gets them. As long as the elite can get out it won’t be a determent to starting wars just ending them sooner.

    My opposition to the draft comes from a few points. First, I have three children that are draftable right now. So although it’s a personal reason it’s still there. The second reason is that I believe it is just another form of slavery. Furthermore, I don’t have enough faith or trust in our government to believe that they won’t continue their ridicules deferment policy, or that they care enough about the will of the people to base any of their decisions on what we care about. We would still end up with wars and my children would be forced into the worst type of slavery.

    Raising the enlistment age to 31 sounds good to me. Actually I don’t quite understand why we need any offensive military when we have thousands of nukes for defense. A National Guard would suffice.

    As for our half of brains, I’m actually glad we don’t agree on everything. What is the use of debating someone you agree with? What would I learn? The same goes for someone I am completely against. it’s very unlikely that either of us would change positions at all.

    To Tim.

    The reason that women cannot serve without the harassment they receive is that we are not nearly as far removed from the other cultures as you would like to make it seem. Someday we may be but unfortunately we are not yet there.

    One last off topic comment. Although I didn’t respond to your comment about respect for the President (in one of the last blogs). I do get where your trying to say and I will think about it. I am guilty of slamming the President and I probably shouldn’t. Although I don’t agree with the people who elected Bush I should have respect for the office of the President and my fellow Americans who believed he was the best person for the office. It’s kind of like pissing on the flag. Although you have the right to do it you should also realize that is a hurtfull act to many people.

    Peace!

    1. Brad Smith,
      Did I hear someone call for “respect for the President”? As in President Bush? As in destroyer of an ancient culture? As in murderer? As in war criminal? The hurtful act I want to see is is his conviction and execution at the Hague.

      1. And I vote for showing him a little respect at the end – just like old time England – hang the SOB with a silk rope

      2. I also agree that Bush is a war criminal and should be tried as such. However, Tim is right about the fact that demeaning the President with useless word calling also demeans your fellow Americans. Again it’s like pissing on the flag. It doesn’t do one damn bit of good and does inflict intentional emotional harm on many veterans our WWII vets in particular. If you want to lay out your case as to why Bush should be tried and by whom go for it, but name calling is pointless and that’s what I was talking about.

        Peace!

        1. If anyone cannot see what a criminal enterprise this Iraq invasion was, cannot realize that the whole damn Bush Administration went along with these Neocon liars, cannot feel a rising bile just from the mendacity and cowardice of our national media, and finally cannot feel a deep shame for personally not having done more to stop this crime against humanity; well then, they can just go to Hell as far as I am concerned; they are either too dumb or too corrupt to warrant any respect from me. Peace, my arse.

        2. There comes a time when corruption is so systemic, ignorance is so tolerated, and mendacity is so rewarded that the only way to really get attention is to punch the Establishment right on its nose. Jesus, for all his meekness, kicked over the money changer’s tables – he didn’t bother to lay out “his reasons”. Americans needs a good hard knuckled punch in the nose – especially all of those patridiotic morons that voted for Bush not only once but twice. I am 65 and I swear that unless some of us get nasty with these Neocons and the suckers they con, we will lose this once wonderful country of ours.

        3. Well Richard what is you have done about this problem? I hear an awful lot of talk but where are your solutions? Again I see all the blame being put on the neo-con hacks and no doubt they deserve much of the blame. However, I don’t see the Dems as being any better. You obviously have not read enough of my posts to realize that I am adamantly against war. I HATE war and the stench that comes with it and doesn’t go away even after you get back. I doubt if people who have not gone to combat ever truly realize how horrible it can be, not just when your there but also when you get back.

          So if your truly anti-war why don’t you find something more productive to do than slamming a Vet? A Vet by the way who has who has overcome the brainwashing and actually speaks out against the war and not just on this site but also in public. also, thanks for using your sly way of wishing that my ignorant corrupt ass rots in hell, that really made me feel all worm and fuzzy.

          “despite all my rage I am still just a rat in a cage”

          And yes Peace! And I don’t much care about your arse.

        4. Brad Smith,
          1. I am a Viet-Nam War vet myself
          2. I marched in all of the pre-invasion protests in Washington DC, donated money to every human rights or peace group that I knew of, spoke out to friends or acquaintances, and finally screamed/cursed at FOX News, etc. everyday (this last effort was not intended to be constreuctive; strictly for my own morale)
          3. My solutions – get out in 60 days, leave the crap we brought on the ground (but disable the weapons), apologize to the World, pay massive reparations, turn Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz over to international courts, and (most usefully) inform our Israeli friends that we will no longer support their ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
          4. I hardly consider my diatribes as “sly” – rather direct if I may so myself.

  8. No Franklin–no public libraries.

    Goshdarn, how all those pipples wrote the Consitution get so edoocated?

    1. Yes Eugene libraries are a great thing. In fact I doubt if even 1% of the people in the US read more than I do. I don’t watch TV other than for the history channel and once and a while to check on the idiots on FOX or my stocks. My bitch isn’t with learning it’s with indoctrination and useless spending.

      My Grandfather who came here from Russia couldn’t read or write but he could speak 12 languages and died a millionaire at 101. My father’s father was a 7th generation American who came from money went to the University of Michigan and died a pauper. Educated Idiots are a dime a dozen. (by the way I’m not calling you an idiot, you actually seem to know your shit). It’s just that nowhere in my life have I seen that you can equate education with intelligence.

      Peace!

      1. Geezus H. them half-brains agree on quite a bit.

        Gertrude Stein is well worth the effort.

        Got dang, do I have to go dig up the quotation?

        If you read it closely, she says “education” very likely doesn’t matter–er, after you get beyond it, hehe.

        That sometimes takes some getting, especially for dumbasses.

        Also children are little learning machines and what they learn is “education”, especially one to three.

        So GS meant “formal education”.

        1. To Eugene

          Well go ahead and resume. It seems that for tonight at least it’s all your good for (being a pompous ass). I don’t know if your a drunk or what, but you seem to loose your sense of balance after midnight. so, sober up and come back when you make sense.

          Peace!

        2. Toutes les pompeuses maisons
          Des princes les plus adorables
          Ne sont que de belles prisons,
          Pleines d’illustres miserables!

          Where’s my gotdang character set!

        3. By the way, all these political rags, like Reason and such, bore the s**t out of me.

          Raimondo is wasting time responding to someone like Welch, who is a two-bit smart ass with no education.

          And Raimondo’s own fine analytical abilities for politics disintegrate when he descends to that level and wastes time with polemics.

          Rothbard had the right gist in a lot of areas, but was a very sloppy thinker and a prisoner of his own limited world.

          There–got that off my desk.

        4. Hmmm, “Cavalcade of Chicanery” is good, and sufficiently comic by itself in an understated way. After Twain, when in doubt, strike it out. I am not sure about the “tragedy”, or whether being Euripedean and “tragi-comic” is worth jarring the rhythm in title and the hint of excess.

          Certainly one sees the GIC-CHIC play, but titles should be short, and much more subtle might have been to highlight the “tragi-comic” with the “chicanery” in the body of the article, at or near the end perhaps.

          Would have left an interesting echo perhaps in the reader’s mind.

          As it stands, on the other hand, there is the hint of a Loony Tunes title, and that fits neatly in another direction.

          At any rate, the article itself is excellent, as usual.

        5. corr: “Euripides”. Louis Gottshalk used to repeat the same endlessly funny story to me (as a young man) about the Italian tailor who had studied classics and a pair of trousers Gottshalk had brought in to be mended–“Euripides?”

        6. Merely, by the way, I must correct myself here. Though I knew him at the same time, it was not Louis Gottschalk who used to repeat the Euripedes joke, but a certain Professor Nicholson, one of his contemporaries.

    2. Eugene Costa, how such a highly educated and intelligent person as yourself (at least you think so) can miss such an obvious point is amazing. I’m not saying that education is pointless just that education and ignorance are not mutually exclusive. You can be educated and an idiot at the same time. If can’t grasp such a simple point as that then you are just making my case for me.

      Peace!

      1. My dear fellow, I grasped that point, likely before you were born.

        Apparently you think it is your discovery or some new communication on your part.

        Close reading, my dear fellow.

        That is also–with close hearing–what great poetry is for.

        I might mention Isocrates or Quintilian were I in a good mood.

        But the connection is not altogether graspable without hard work and an open mind, and I don’t have the time or inclination to explain “here”, wherever that may be.

        1. My dear fellow. If you grasped that point why do you continue to behave the way you do? Your know it all style is good for one thing, making yourself feel better by belittling others. As for where is here? “here” is this billboard or blog. Where else would it be? In your mind? Again I am not impressed with your stunning vocabulary, I also doubt if many others are, with the exception of your fellow blowhard John Lowell of course. What exactly is the point of your obscure references if not to show off and belittle? Make your points without acting like an Ass and I’ll have a lot more respect for your ideas. Otherwise I and others will likely not get it or just think your a pompous fool.

        2. “Believe” how or what?

          The rest of what you say is hogwash.

          You seem to be operating on the other half brain and it is not a pretty or encouraging sight.

          Actually, what “here” is is a key question “here”, that you might grasp at some point if you set your mind to it.

          Take your time.

          What others might think is a “pompous fool” is your problem.

          After cummings, “most people” don’t think at all. So why bother to worry about it?

  9. We could be talking about Roller Derby or Professional Wrestling and somewhere Tim R. will find an opportunity to do some Arab bashing. Do you really think any of this is getting thru on a website like Antiwar.com, you idiot?? For heavens sake, you sound like Archie Bunker bashing “da Colored People”.

  10. I really appreciate Scott Horton’s posting this article on the special horrors women face in the military, and, based on personal accounts I have been told, the number of women raped by fellow soldiers is probably much higher than reported.

  11. Yes it’s obvious that Tim R. takes every possible opportunity to “do some Arab bashing” However, that doesn’t mean that everything he says is wrong. When you ask “Do you really think any of this is getting thru on a web site like Antiwar.com” you make me believe that the readers of Antiwar.com are so close minded and biased that they refuse to hear any point of view other than their own. If that’s the case, what is the point of even having a blog? Is it possible that Tim R. continues to point out the faults of the Arab states because no one else here has the guts to do it? Being completely anti-Israeli or anti-Arab is short sighted. The issues are not as black and white as most of the people on this site seem to think.

    Peace!

    1. Is it possible that Tim R. continues to point out the faults of the Arab states because no one else here has the guts to do it?

      Highlighting the flaws of Arab states is redundant, since no one here is defending them and everyone knows what they are. It isn’t as though there’s a conspiracy of silence surrounding their depredations, though the same cannot be said of America’s Zionist auxiliary. He uses facts such as these as red herrings every time the topic of Israel comes up. The idea that it takes “guts” to denounce Arab states is, moreover, altogether risible. Criticizing Saudi Arabia and the like is about as edgy as retrospectively attacking the Soviet Union- no one’s going to savage you for fear of being labeled a sympathizer.

      1. Actually on this site it is more edgy to denounce Arab states. I guess I grew up with the knowledge that Israel was an impending disaster. It’s not exactly new news to me that Israel and the Americans that are complicit with Zionism are leading us into endless wars in the Middle East and possibly the world. Rev. Hagee and his bunch are so disgusting that words alone won’t describe it.

        However, I rarely see any evidence on this site that suggests that the Arab states are anything other than poor helpless victims. If it’s redundant to point out the crimes of the Arab states why isn’t it equally or more so redundant to continue harping on the crimes of Israel? Everyone or nearly everyone on this sell is well aware of the Zionist goals. Your simply preaching to the choir when you slam the obvious atrocities of the Israeli government.

        1. Really? A few specific examples of this would not go amiss, since Saudi Arabia and Egypt have been skewered quite thoroughly in their capacities as US allies, Iran is not an Arab state, and Syria is seldom remarked upon.

          If it’s redundant to point out the crimes of the Arab states why isn’t it equally or more so redundant to continue harping on the crimes of Israel?

          The crimes of the Arab states are well-known to Americans and not denied by the media. Israel, on the other hand, is relentlessly cast as a bold bulwark of humans in the Middle East and a perpetual victim. It is therefore necessary to correct for these fabrications. It was likewise necessary to do the same with Mikhail Sakaashvili’s regime in Georgia.

    2. Brad Smith writes:

      “The issues are not as black and white as most of the people on this site seem to think.”

      What a refreshing voice of reason! It is a pleasure to read your postings. I admit that I’m also guilty of seeing things in “black and white” sometimes and your posts are a breath of fresh air.

      1. Now, if only you could apply this reasoning to your own one-sided tirades against Islam and the antiwar movement…

  12. Which is why as patriotic and loyal Americans we should heed the advice of George Washington not to get involved in entangling alliances with any of these criminal regimes, no matter what religion or race.

    1. So basically your saying stay off this site unless you agree with me 100 percent. Again I ask what is the point of having a blog if all the people on it agree with each other. Endlessly reinforcing each other might make you feel better (or at least more sure of yourself) but what’s the point?

  13. Naw, I think Weston is saying don’t legitamize someone who is not legitamite. He’s a propagandist with only one tune no matter what the lyrics are. Sort of like when Ed Norton on the Honeymooners kept playing the intro for Swannee River no matter what song he was supposed to be playing.

  14. Good to see Mossad Tim R. is back and hating the Muslims while urging the stupid goy to fight Israel’s enemies for her..” Women should be allowed” to fight in these unjust modern wars where there’s never really a good side? These meat-grinders for profit and control of natural resources, pipelines and making the middle East safe for Israel?
    That’s like saying people should be allowed to work for less than the min. wage..or prostitute themselves..or swim in raw sewage….Speaking of prostitution; all the zionists out there must be real proud of the way the Israelis lure e. European girls to Israel under false pretenses and then make the work as prostitutes-in places like Nazareth, Bethlehem, Jerusalem….

  15. “There was an old woman who got great comfort from that blessed word Mesopotamia, and the derivation of it is “between two rivers”, between two meanings. The point of the joke, as I understand it, is to say that the effects of the word on her were “merely Emotive” because the senses of it were wholly confused. I should suspect that the old woman was giving the word some wrong meaning, or simply telling lies. But I don’t deny that the supposed process might occur in a softened brain; all I claim is that it does not account for the Regency argument about grammar.

    [William Empson]

    Now and again one has suspected a small misprint in this passage (1951 ed. var. repr.) but it is not really decisive for sense, and I have never bothered to pursue it.

  16. Not only is immediate impeachment structurally necessary to preserve even the remnant of Constitutional government, it is also the obvious move to shortcircuit an attack on Iran.

    Quite as important, it also points to a way out of Iraq.

  17. A few recent items along the lines of Aritstotle’s SEMEIA:

    (1) Fallon is out.

    (2) Hayden is in.

    (3) Olmert calls Ahmanijehad “Hitler”

    (4) Petraeus accuses Iran of interference in Iraq

    (5) American military presence in the Gulf is now greater than at any time since the invasion of Iraq

    (6) Cheney visits the Middle East

    (7) Spring has sprung

    That is the short list.

  18. Poe and Baudelaire proposed the creation of a world of terror, as did Blake’s tormented Urizen; it is natural for their work to teem with the forms of horror. In my opinion, Chesterton would not have tolerated the imputation of being a contriver of nightmares, a monstrorum artifex (Pliny, XXVIII,2), but he tends inevitably to revert to atrocious observations. He asks if perchance a man has three eyes or a bird three wings; in opposition to the the pantheists, he speaks of a man who dies and discovers in paradise that the spirits of the angelic choirs have, every one of them, the same face he has; he speaks of a jail of mirrors; of a labyrinth without a center; of a man devoured by metal automatons….he defines the near by the far, and even by the atrocious; if he speaks of eyes, he uses the words of Ezekiel (I.22) “the terrible crystal”; if of the night, he perfects an ancient horror (Apocalypse 4:6) and calls it a “monster made of eyes”. Equally illustrative is the tale How I Found the Superman. Chesterton speaks of Superman’s parents; when he asks them what the child, who never leaves a dark room, looks like, they remind him that the Superman creates his own law and must be measured by it. On that plane he is more handsome than Apollo; but viewed from the lower plane of the average man, of course—Then they admit that it is not easy to shake hands with him, because of the difference in structure. Indeed, they are not able to state with precision whether he has hair or feathers….

    These examples, which could easily be multiplied, prove that Chesterton restrained himself from being Edgar Allan Poe or Franz Kafka, but something in the makeup of his personality leaned toward the nightmarish, something secret, and blind, and central….for me, the emblems of that struggle are the adventures of Father Brown, each of which attempts to explain the an explicable event by reason alone….except that the “reason” to which Chesterton subjected his imaginings was not preciusely reason but the Catholic faith or rather a collection of Hebrew imaginings that had been subjected to Plato and Aristotle….

    [Jorge Luis Borges tr. Simms]

    1. corr: “to the pantheists”, “explain an inexplicable event”. Pardon these and any other typos.

  19. “As a defence attaché in Bulgaria during the Cold War, according to reports, he [General Michael V. Hayden] would dress up as a workman to eavesdrop on the conversations of Bulgarian conscripts.

    He is said to love Shakespeare.”

    [BBC News June 1, 2006]

  20. Richard Vajs writes:

    “I swear that unless some of us get nasty with these Neocons and the suckers they con, we will lose this once wonderful country of ours.”

    From your posts I know you love your country and so do I and so does Brad and others. But maybe we just have a different idea about what the real danger facing our country is? Who knows, maybe there is some truth in both our positions? For a second let’s assume everything you wrote about Iraq is totally correct. Do you think our nation was doing so good BEFORE we went into Iraq? The Islamic terrorists have been hitting us for years. If we pull out of Iraq tomorrow morning, will that satisfy their lust for our blood? They have been hitting us for years and we appease them. We can’t appease them. Appeasment is like giving red meat to a lion and thinking he will eventually become a vegetarian!

    Oh and by the way, I think one of the greatest dangers facing our once great country has nothing to do with the Islamic terrorists. We are losing the one thing that used to unite us, a common language. We are being invaded by hordes of million and millions of illegal immigrants who don’t, or won’t, assimilate, learn English, and learn about American history and culture. Our politlcally correct leaders have created a new religion called “multi culturalism” and bow down to this new God called ” diversity.” So the fact that we are being invaded does not even bother them, they welcome it.

    I’m sure you will agree that our nation’s first Chief Justice, John Jay, was not a Neo-Con. In Federalist Paper #2 he talks about the importance of a common language and having things in COMMON. He speaks nothing of diversity. And yet, we are losing our common language and becoming a balkanized bunch, we are becoming the Divided States, rather than the United States, many nations under God, not One nation under God. This might be worse and more of a dangerous threat than all of the other issues we have been debating and arguing about.

    1. PS:

      Just to add to my point last point, we are already losing our once great country and it has little to do with Islamic terrorists, Zionists, or Neo-Cons.

      I don’t think you’d call Teddy Roosevelt a neo con and you sure can’t call him a Zionist. And he once said as follows: “A hyphenated American is not an American at all.” He also said that “there is only room for one language in America, the English language.”

      In short, we are losing the common glue that once bound us together. Pat Buchannan is exactly right on this. And I fear this might put our nation in more jepardy than all the Zionists, Neo Cons and Islamic terrorists combined!

      1. Tim R. Although I don’t agree with many of your comments. I do defend your right to free speech.

        “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for
        people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
        -Noam Chomsky

        As for the Israeli policy and Zionism, I don’t believe they should treat their neighbors the way that do. But, how is that our business? I say leave them alone and let them sort out their own mess. If we are all so worried about their undo influence over the US. Why don’t we start here, and clean our own house. Vote out the politicians who have been bought by APAC. Boycott the stations that are promoting the Israeli policy over that of the US. The people of the US should be our concern not the policies of the rest of the world.

        I do agree with you that the English language is the glue that once bound us together. My Grandfather was from Russia and my Grandmother was from Poland. Although they both spoke multiple languages they taught my Mother and her siblings English and English only. They did it for a reason. The reason was they wanted their children to assimilate, and have their chance at the American Dream. The same is also true of my wife’s Grandfather. He came here from Mexico and taught his children English and only English. This has not stopped either of our families from celebrating our heritage. We are all proud of our ethnic backgrounds and we will pass on this pride to further generations. I think that in many ways its a shame that the languages where not passed on, however I would not second guess my Grandparents decisions. They had their reasons and it has worked out great for all of us. Knowing other languages is a great thing. However, all of us in the US should be fluent in English as it does hold us together.

        Peace!

        1. Oh and Tim R. I wasn’t using Noam’s quote to say I despise you I think your misguided but arn’t we all. The quote was actually pointed towards the people on this site that seem to belive you should shut up and go away. Although I’m not sure who they would have to bitch at if your were not here.

          Peace!

        2. Brad Smith,

          No problem, I understood what you meant by it. Thanks for the very intersting response to my posting. You da man!

    2. Tim R.- Once again I am forced to interdict your perambulation of imagination land. The Islamic terrorists do not, of course, view Iraq or Afghanistan as the sole issue, and nobody on this site has made such a contention. America’s iniquities in the Islamic world began long before Iraq, with the support for Israel that began in the immediate aftermath of WWII. America supports regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and maintains an extensive military presence in the region. That is what Bin Laden attacked America for, and that’s why the Islamic terrorists haven’t hit places like Japan or Sweden, both of whom are, by any objective measure, a good deal “freer” than America. Removing your enemy’s causus belli isn’t “appeasement”; it’s rationality.

      And yet, we are losing our common language and becoming a balkanized bunch, we are becoming the Divided States, rather than the United States, many nations under God, not One nation under God. This might be worse and more of a dangerous threat than all of the other issues we have been debating and arguing about.

      America’s passing will not be mourned, least of all by me.

      1. The United States of the War of independence, and through to the end of the Nineteenth Century was considerably more Balkanized and cosmopolitan than at anytime afterward.

        Neither the Neo-Know Nothings nor the Neo-Cons alone constructed the false history that they peddle to Yahoos of all colors and faiths and ideologies, but they know how to capitalize upon it, ironically enough toward ends that have nothing to do with American self-interest.

      2. “America’s passing will not be mourned, least of all by me.”

        Yes, Kenneth, your animus and hatred for my country you have made plenty clear. But I would not start writing America’s obituary just yet…we may still have some kick in us yet.

      3. Kenneth, to my mind your first paragraph is dead on correct. However, your last statement is pure ignorance. You won’t mourn the loss of America? If your an American or not you will be sorry to see the US fall. This site seems to be filled with people who can’t wait for the fall of the empire. Well guess what, when the US goes down so will you! Are you prepared to live on your own without the nanny state? Do you have a few years worth of food and the guns to protect it? Do you know how to hunt and grow your own food, spin your own wool, heat your own house? do you have a bunker ready in case of nuclear fallout or biological contamination? If not you might want to re-thing your position. Oh wait let me guess, you will be one of the lucky ones that is somehow miraculessly not effected (A far too common fantacy). Furthermore, if your idea of helping the anti-war movement is hoping for the end of the US it’s easy to see why the anti-war movement is so easily discredited. Statements like yours just makes it that much easier for the war mongers to state that we are a bunch of American Hating Fools. Damn, how could you believe you wont be effected or that the rest of the innocent people in our country should suffer for the ignorance of our leaders? Seriously, think about it. How could it be good for anyone? Hell, even if you don’t care for Americans, what about the rest of the world? In more ways than most people realize they are dependent on us. The fall of the US is likely, but it’s not going to be a good thing for anyone anywhere. We should be working to bring the US back to what it was, not hoping it goes down if flames with the rest of the world. Sorry to come across as so pissed off but I’m a father of three and I want my kids to grow up in peace and prosperity, not disaster.

        Peace!

        1. Brad- You conflate the collapse of the Empire with the fall of civilization. The world does not “need” America in any tangible way, as America consumes considerably more than it produces, a fact that surfaces in its massive trade deficit and negative savings rate. The implosion of America would produce economic realignment, not disintegration. The US may very well fall into chaos, but for everyone else life would continue as before, minus American military presence. Indeed, the fall of the American empire would redound to the benefit of many, since it would ease the structural pressure on the commodities markets- foodstuffs, in particular, if the money to finance the ethanol scam were no longer forthcoming. The fall of empire will be coextensive with a (temporary) resurgence of civilization, not its unraveling.

        2. Indeed the “ethanol scam”–one grows corn with petroleum-based fertilizers and insecticides using petroleum-fueled machines, and one then turns the result into a “gasoline substitute”?

          Brazil does indeed have something of a rationale, but the agriculture is considerably different, isn’t it?

        3. Kenneth, I think your analysis would probably be correct except for one thing: nuclear weapons. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the deterioration of its military has greatly increased the risk of proliferation, and it is hard to see how we would not be prone to the same thing. I think that fact alone makes continued US political and military stability extremely important.

        4. Actually I said empire not you, you said “America’s passing will not be mourned, least of all by me”. Your correct in saying the fall of our Empire would be a good thing. Bring all of our troops home from everywhere for sure. But your being nieve if you think that the fall of the US would not be the largest disaster in the history of the world as we know it. We have the largest economy the world has ever seen. we have enough nukes to blow up the world how many times? So you really believe that we won’t fight to the death to keep what we have? The US is not going down without a fight no matter what you think. We need to stop that before it happens not sit around hoping it does and think that that is some kind of solution. Should the world be weened off of the tit of the US dollar? Definately, but for now many countries are dependent on us and our consumerism. Just look at our current little blip in regards to finance and you will see what a complete meltdown would do to the world economy.

          You seem to believe that the US will somehow go out with a wimper, I think it will go out with a bang. I don’t want it to go out with a bang because I believe it will be a very big bang. Of course anything can happen, you could be right, it’s always possible that the power elite will desert the sinking ship along with their ill gotten gains and leave the rest of us to fend for ourselves. Of course most of us would still be F**ked. I guess thats alright with you. I don’t have the luxury of hoping for a collapse and that everything will eventually sort itself out (in a couple hundred years). I’m worried about here and now and how I will feed my kids, and how they will survive. I for one will still root for the US and hope we can pull it out before it’s too late.

          Peace!

        5. Well, “fighting to the death” is really a moot scenario if your country collapses of internal pressures or external pecuniary decisions (or both). If the world suddenly abandoned the USD, the US would be powerless to stop it- its ability to finance its own existence would be destroyed overnight without firing a shot. The result will be neither a bang nor a whimper, but a long, drawn out shriek of agony. The global financial system would take a hit, and the international order would be temporarily disrupted, but it would not, as you say, take “centuries” to “sort out”, whatever this is supposed to mean. A decade at most for relative stability to be restored. For the US itself (or what remained of it), there would be a massive financial shake-out, but once that passed, the economy would begin to rebuild on a much firmer foundation. Its not as though the basic institutions required for a functional economy are lacking.

          Weston- You’re correct that the collapse of the US would be followed by a surge in nuclear proliferation, but as the nukes would mostly end up in the hands of those already likely to acquire them within the next few decades, it would not fundamentally alter for the worse the dynamics of the international order. At most, it will make an abiding issue more pressing. But nuclear proliferation is merely one link in the chain of threats that confronts humanity, and can’t be accented to this degree with any justification.

        6. Eugene- I suspect in Brazil land is a good deal more abundant, and in any case the overall energy consumption is far lower. This, needless to say, makes “ethanol” hardly an applicable solution to an economy as energy intensive as America’s. I suspect, however, that you know a great deal more about this subject than I do, and I therefore shall leave it at this.

        7. I’m not sure about that, since doubling (roughly) the number of nuclear weapons on the market would lower their price substantially, making them available to a broader spectrum of potential belligerents. On the other hand, if you’re prepared to admit that large-scale proliferation cannot be stopped, I guess it wouldn’t make much measurable difference to the impending shit storm whether there are tens of thousands or merely thousands of weapons out there. But I’m more optimistic about the odds of sealing Russian leakage than it sounds like you are, and the world where that’s possible is also the world where insecurity at US nuclear facilities could have a significant impact on the rest of the world. In any case, it is to be hoped that US hegemony can be curtailed without complete collapse.

        8. The ethanol scam is truly a terrible idea. The cost of a ton of fertilizer has gone up about four fold from a year ago. Many of the farmers I know will have one hell of a time paying for it. It will lead to more loans and more foreclosure. The ethanol scam is one of the reasons. The other reason is that the shortage has been caused by large exports to China. I’m sure thats good for the petrol industry as they own most of the fertilizer industry. Knowing that most farmers buy in the spring they sold most of their supply this winter to China knowing it would cause a shortage this spring and drive the price through the roof, they stand to make a tidy little profit. However, in the end it will work out as most farmers will learn to make due without, by letting land lay fallow, using crop rotations, natural fertilizers, and low till techniques.

          As for Brazil’s ethanol it’s not based on Corn but on Sugar Cane, which is much cheaper to refine and they also have been running hybrid cars on it for years. Although their cars get a little less MPG’s it is offset by the cheaper cost of Sugar Cane based Ethanol.

        9. Weston- A diffusion of nukes like this would indeed enlarge the nuclear club, but it is doubtful, as you seem to imply, that it would alter the dynamics of the international order in a way that would make nuclear war more likely. I daresay nuclear war would be less, not more likely given the leveling effect of nuclear weapons.

        10. By the way Kenneth ( and everyone else who thinks America never does anything good)
          You want America to fall and don’t care if she does but tell me something, what will you say to people suffering from AIDS in Africa? Did you know that America donates billions of dollars ( and President Bush asked for an increase by the way) to fight HIV and AIDS around the world, especially in Africa, where millions of people suffer? Yes, we give money to Israel and you can be upset about that all you want, but we also give billions of dollars to food programs, programs to fight AIDS and things like that but I guess the good things we do are not worth mentioning. When the horrible tsunamis hit a few years ago, what country came to the rescue quickly? America? And former President George H.W. Bush and Pres. Clinton went around raising millions of dollars for the relief after and the US Navy was immediatly sent in to bring aid to the victims. So next time you are angry and ranting about America, just keep in mind the good things we do as well. It is easy to always point out the bad and to blame but why not also mention the good?

        11. Tim- What kind of sucker do you take me for? One might as well cite the example of the Soviet Union financing the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa to demonstrate the “magnanimity” of Kremlin as adduce the argument you just have, particularly when “fighting AIDS” in American lingo amounts to financing abstinence-only campaigns that empower domestic reactionary forces while varnishing America’s image. I wouldn’t call this charity- it would be better likened to a rapist who pays his victim hush money. Apparently, you have no concept of PR, but given your propensity for taking everything at face value this comes as no surprise. “America to the rescue”? Hah! Canada and Australia donated a much greater proportion of their GDP to the victims of the crisis than did America. In this respect, America isn’t even in the top ten. But I shan’t pester you further with such trifling facts. Imagination land is evidently too pleasant a place for most people to be justifiably removed from, even you.

        12. I’ll grant the leveling point, although that’s actually a fascinating–and open–empirical question. This will sound trite given contemporary political rhetoric, but I’m less worried about states having nuclear weapons than I am about terrorists.

        13. I’m not sure. It seems to me that the use of nukes presupposes some kind of infrastructure which can only really be supported by states. I’m not clear on the logistics of the process, however, so perhaps you can further instruct me.

        14. I don’t know much about the physics or design, and a brief look through Wikipedia turned up nothing either way, but the one book I have on the shelf about it cites this and summarizes, “The denial of access to fissile material is the only reliable means of denying access to nuclear weapons. Designers of US weapons have been repeating this basic truth sine the 1970s… There is a consensus among US weapons designers that most states and many terrorist groups could build a simple nuclear weapon given an adequate supply of fissile material” (cite).

          As I understand it, creating fissile material requires infrastructure; building a bomb does not. The primary barrier so far has been the material “choke point.” The expertise barrier precludes some but not all groups, as the skills and knowledge necessary are considerable. Presumably the incentives for attaining these will increase as proliferation increases.

        15. Oh, also it depends on the sophistication of the weapon. “Crude” nuclear bombs are easier to build but require more material. Sophisticated weapons would require much more in the way of facilities.

    3. Tim R,
      This country has absorbed large numbers of immigrants before – the Irish and the Eastern Europeans, and smaller more recent immigrations – the Cubans and the VietNamese. The impact was great at the time but all worked out inthe end. This recent wave of Mexican immigrants is due to mostly good ecomonic conditions here and lousy ones in Mexico. Economic conditions here are going bow down, stern up. A lot of Mexicans will leave on their own when construction jobs dry up and the rich lose enough money so that they will have to their own scut work. One aspect of the Great Depression was that a lot of Mexicans left America. Being an old time Libertarian, the concept of “illegal alien” is a little “alien” to me. Having traveled in Mexico, I know that there are a lot of Americans down there living in their own little communities. They have little interest in learning Spanish or local culture – they are there for warm weather and low cost.
      My own personal opinion of what is dividing America is that our lives are immersed in lies – e.g. Bush only speaks the truth by accident, the news media act as though they are co-ordinated, and special interests run our Congress. No-one dares speak the truth about corporate crime or our twisted national foreign policies. Add to the fact that we and our government are totally bankrupt. Given our present condition it will be the devil take the hindmost all the while the band plays the National Anthem.

      1. There are significant numbers of descendants of Spanish in the United States whose forebears were never part of the United States of Mexico. Many of them descend from families that were in the area of what is now the continental United States long before there was a United States. Some of them are still bilingual. There are also significant numbers of Mexicans who became inhabitants and citizens of the United States by treaty. Most of them are bilingual. Finally there are large numbers of more recent Mexican immigrants.

        1. There are also Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, etc. and the Amerindians

          Then there are any number of French-speakers and some German speakers, and some small groups of speakers of other languages, descended from groups who were in the United States before Independence.

          Recent immigrants, or descendents of recent immigrants, who adopt the Neo-Know Nothing stance, or play to it, like the Neo-Cons, most of whom the offspring of recent immigrants, are ignorant trash.

        2. Merely by the way, who were the “Pauls” of Green Tree, Pennsylvania?

          Is Paul another carpetbagger like Bush?

          Hey, how ’bout them Mormon pushcarts.

  21. Articulo IX

    Los Mexicanos que en los territorios antedichos no conserven el caracter
    de ciudadanos de la republica Mexicana segun lo estipulado en articulo
    precedente, seran incorporados en la Union de los Estados Unidos,
    y se admitiran en tiempo opportuno (a judicio del Congeso de los
    Estados Unidos) al goce de todos los derechos de ciudadanos de los
    Estados Unidos conforme a los principios de la constitucion,
    y entretanto seran mantenidos y protejidos en la goze de su libertad
    y propriedad, y asegurados en el libre ejercicio de su religion sin
    restriccion alguna.

    1. Nosotros, el pueblo de Puerto Rico, a fin de organizarnos políticamente sobre una base plenamente democrática, promover el bienestar general y asegurar para nosotros y nuestra posteridad el goce cabal de los derechos humanos, puesta nuestra confianza en Dios Todopoderoso, ordenamos y establecemos esta Constitución para el Estado Libre Asociado que en el ejercicio de nuestro derecho natural ahora creamos dentro de nuestra unión con los Estados Unidos de América.

      1. Eugene Costa,

        Mi Amigo, en los Estados Unidos hablamos Ingles, correcto?
        Por favor, habla Ingles en Lost Estados Unidos o callate!

        In other words, speak English or hush up.

  22. Pledge of Allegiance

    The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag is an oath of loyalty to the country. It is recited at many public events. Congress sessions open with the recitation of the Pledge.

    The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag reads as follows:

    “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

    It should be recited by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and stand at the position of attention.[1]

    Some U.S. states, such as Texas, also have pledges of allegiance to their state flags (see Flag of Texas).

    History

    The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian Socialist, and the cousin of Socialist Utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898) who wrote Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). Bellamy’s original “Pledge of Allegiance” was published in the September 8th issue of the popular children’s magazine The Youth’s Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s discovery of America, conceived by James B. Upham.

    Bellamy’s original Pledge read, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

    The pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be stated in 15 seconds. He had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided they were too controversial since many people opposed equal rights for women and blacks. Bellamy said that the purpose of the pledge was to teach obedience to the state as a virtue and that the United States supports the flag.

    After a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison, the Pledge was first used in public schools on October 12, 1892 during Columbus Day observances. This date was also significant as it was the dedication day of the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Illinois. Bellamy thought that the pledge itself and the involvement of children across the country would be a fine show of national solidarity.

    In 1923 the National Flag Conference called for the words my Flag to be changed to the Flag of the United States. The reason given was to ensure that immigrants knew to which flag reference was being made. The words “of America” were added a year later. The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on December 28, 1945.

    Official versions

    1892:

    “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

    1892 to 1923:

    “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

    1923 to 1954:

    “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

    1954 to Present:

    “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation, under God indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

    In 1940 the Supreme Court, in deciding the case of Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to recite the Pledge, even Jehovah’s Witnesses like the Gobitases (whose name was misspelled as ‘Gobitis’ in the court case), who considered the flag salute to be idolatry. In the wake of this ruling, there was a rash of mob violence and intimidation against Jehovah’s Witnesses. In 1943 the Supreme Court reversed its decision, ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that “compulsory unification of opinion” violated the First Amendment.

    Before World War II, the Pledge would begin with the right hand over the heart during the phrase “I pledge allegiance”. The arm was then extended toward the Flag at the phrase “to the Flag”, and it remained outstretched during the rest of the pledge, with the palm facing upward, as if to lift the flag.

    An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It also ended with the arm outstretched and the palm upwards, but began with the right hand outstretched, palm facing downward. However, during World War II the outstretched arm became identified with Nazism and Fascism, and the custom was changed: today the Pledge is said from beginning to end with the right hand over the heart.

    Addition of the words “under God”

    The Knights of Columbus in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity. Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words “under God” which were from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge. In New York City on April 22, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend their recitation of Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words “under God” after the words “one nation.” In the following two years, the idea spread throughout Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its President, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. These attempts failed.

    Though the Knights of Columbus tried, they were unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the United States government to amend the pledge. Bills were introduced as early as 1953, when Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution at the suggestion of a correspondent. It was a Presbyterian minister who made the difference in 1954 by preaching a sermon about Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The minister was George MacPherson Docherty, a native of Scotland who was called to succeed Peter Marshall as pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church near the White House, where, in 1863, the same year as the address, Lincoln attended and even rented a pew. After Lincoln’s death, the pew that he rented became something of a national monument. It became customary for later United States presidents to attend services at the church and sit in the Lincoln pew on the Sunday closest to Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) each year.

    As Lincoln Sunday (February 7, 1954) approached, Rev. Docherty knew not only that President Dwight Eisenhower was to be in attendance, but that it was more than just an annual ritual for him; while President, Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian. Docherty’s sermon focused on the Gettysburg Address, drawing its title from the address, “A New Birth of Freedom.”

    Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed Atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the “American way of life”. In the remainder of the sermon Docherty sought to define as succinctly as possible the essence of the American spirit and way of life. To do so, Docherty appealed to those two words in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation “under God.” Docherty took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

    After the service concluded, Docherty had opportunity to converse with Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty’s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty’s suggestion into law. On February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect….

    Criticism of requiring or promoting the pledge

    Government requiring or promoting of the Pledge has drawn criticism and legal challenges on several grounds. Prominent legal challenges have been based on the contention that state-sponsored requiring or promoting of the Pledge is unconstitutional because it violates one or both of the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Religious proponents have pointed to the phrase “under God” in the pledge as proof that Christianity is a required part of American life.

    Central to challenges in the 1940s were Jehovah’s Witnesses, a group whose beliefs preclude swearing loyalty to any power lesser than God, and who objected to policies in public schools requiring students to recite the Pledge. They objected on the grounds that their rights to freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment were being violated by such requirements.

    Other objections have been raised since the addition of the phrase “under God” to the Pledge in 1954. Many critics contend that a government requiring or promoting this phrase violates protections against establishment of religion guaranteed in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

    In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the Pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase “under God” an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism when the Pledge was promoted in public school. In 2004, the Supreme Court heard Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, an appeal of the ruling, and rejected Newdow’s claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on the merits of whether the phrase was constitutional in a school-sponsored recitation. On January 3, 2005, a new suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on behalf of three unnamed families. On September 14, 2005, District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled in favor of Newdow. Citing the precedent of the 2002 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Karlton issued an Order stating that, upon proper motion, he will enjoin the school district defendants from continuing their practices of leading children in pledging allegiance to “one Nation under God”

    In 2004, linguist Geoffrey Nunberg criticized the addition of “under God” for a different reason. The original supporters of the addition thought that they were simply quoting Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. However, Nunberg said that to Lincoln and his contemporaries, “under God” meant “God willing” and they would have found its use in the Pledge of Allegiance grammatically incorrect.

    A bill — H.R. 2389 — was introduced in Congress in 2005 which, if enacted into law, would have stripped the Supreme Court and most federal courts of the power to consider any legal challenges to government requiring or promoting of the Pledge of Allegiance. H.R. 2389 was passed by the House of Representatives in July 2006, but failed due to the Senate’s not taking it up. Even if a similar bill is enacted, its practical effect may not be clear: proponents of the bill have argued that it is a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate the jurisdiction of the federal courts under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, but opponents question whether Congress has the authority to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing claims based on the Bill of Rights (since amendments postdate the original text of the Constitution and may thus implicitly limit the scope of Article III, Section 2).

    In 2006, in the Florida case Frazier v. Alexandre, No. 05-81142 (S.D. Fla. May 31, 2006) “A federal district court in Florida has ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, even though the law allows students to opt out, because they can only do so with written parental permission and are still required to stand during the recitation.

  23. A shade surprized that no one here has mentioned that these problems just might be a direct consequence of that “enlightened” decision made a couple of decades ago to make soldiers of women. Had that not been done, would the ladies in question ever have faced the awful fact of the abuse and degradation they have suffered im these instances? If the outcome were not so dreadful, might we not be entertained to see a kind of poetic justice working itself out in the social engineering of the Bela Abzugs and the Barbara Boxers? Even today, we are forced to assume the outsized cost of the idiocies our system forever forces upon us. Barak Obama, our almost certain-to-be next President, while disowning his pastor’s very accurate analysis of the basis of our present Middle Eastern woes, graces us just this week with the opinion that unwanted children are a “punishment”. One is tempted to believe in the efficacy of curses so as to explain how it is that we are so consistently able to find and elevate amoeba of this kind.

    1. Merely by the way, I agree that Mr. Obama demonstrated a singular lack of imagination in supposedly “repudiating” Mr. Wright, and may have made his first tactical misstep as well.

      There were any number of other responses possible, which would have turned what was an altogether defensive action into a smashing counterattack.

      Mr. Obama really should have known this was coming, and should have had the ground ready, with various contingencies, long ago.

      Mr. Obama himself, or his “handlers”, are perhaps misunderstanding the electorate.

      On verra.

      1. “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”

        [Barack Obama]

        This certainly has a ring of being genuine. Demonstrates a degree of intelligence and taste as well.

        1. On the other hand, this may be less a slip of the tongue, than cagily designed both to patronize urban voters and to win over “white” suburban voters, who indeed are very bored and boring, particularly in the Midwest.

          Mexican restaurants, with denatured spices specifically designed for neurasthenic Gringos with erectile dysfunction, are booming in the same areas.

          It is wondrous how much a wave of garlic and a whiff of fresh cilantro can accomplish.

          To this point I have heard nothing about Mr. Obama’s own diet.

        2. Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Mr. Paul and Mr. Obama shared the same eating habits?

          Naturally I would like to see both put up.

      2. Yes, indeed, Eugene. I’ve found Obama as singularly unimaginitive and almost passionless. There seems a pecular tendency in him to shut down emotional intensity even when it might otherwise be considered heathy in someone. One gets the impression of there being a kind of governor in place. In politics, people expect their leaders to share their emotions and to do so spontaneously. Yet with Obama, the emotional content – unless it concerns the absolutely trivial – never gets engaged. While much might be said for level-headedness, much more is to be said for empathy.

        1. “Supporters in Illinois say Obama represents something of a Rorschach test: people project their viewpoints onto him….”

          [Jodi Enda]

        2. The State of Hawaii has two official languages recognized in its constitution adopted at the 1978 constitutional convention: English and Hawaiian. Article XV, Section 4, specifies that “Hawaiian shall be required for public acts and transactions only as provided by law” [italic added]. Hawaii Creole English (locally referred to as ‘Pidgin’) is the native dialect of many born-and-raised residents and is a second dialect for many other residents. After English, the second-, third- and fourth-most spoken individual languages are Tagalog (most are bilingual in Wikang Filipino), Japanese, and Ilokano respectively. Significant European immigrants and descendants also speak their native languages; the most numerous are Spanish, German, Portuguese and French.

          As of the 2000 Census, 73.44% of Hawaii residents age 5 and older speak only English at home. Tagalog speakers make up 5.37% (which includes non-native speakers of Wikang Filipino, the national co-official Tagalog-based language), followed by Japanese at 4.96%, Ilokano at 4.05%, Chinese at 1.92%, Hawaiian at 1.68%, Spanish at 1.66%, Korean at 1.61%, and Samoan at 1.01%.

          [wikipedia]

        3. Rijkstafel:An Indonesian rice table (in Dutch, rijsttafel) consists of rice accompanied by between twelve and thirty, often spicy, side dishes served in small portions. Popular side dishes include egg rolls, sambals, satay, fish, fruit, vegetables, pickles, and nuts. It is a Dutch colonial adaptation of the Indonesian dinner, and popular only in the Netherlands. However, a growing number of restaurants and hotels in the tourist areas in Indonesia serve rice table.

          The number of side dishes depends mainly on the number of guests; in a restaurant, as many as two dozen side dishes may be served. In many restaurants, the side dishes are brought to the guests’ table, covering the table with the many small plates.

          [Wikipedia]

        4. IV. Why Is There More Variety of Greene than of Other Colours?

          It is because it is figure of Youth, wherein Nature would provide as many Greene, as Youth hath Affections; and so present a Sea-greene for profuse wafters in voyages; a Grasse-greene for sudden new men enobled from Grasiers; and a Goose-greene for such Polititians as pretend to preserve the Capitoll. Or else Prophetically foreseeing an Age wherein they shall all hunt. And for such as misse-demeane themselves a willow-greene; For Magistrates must aswell have Fasces borne before them to chastize the small offences, as Secures to cut off the great.

          [John Donne]

        5. Obama took an active role in the Senate’s drive for improved border security and immigration reform. In 2005, he cosponsored the ‘Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act’ introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). He later added three amendments to the ‘Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act’, which passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the U.S. House of Representatives. In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border. President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it ‘an important step toward immigration reform’.

          What’s wrong with this picture?

        6. I may have missed it, but I have not seen Mr. Obama in a sombrero yet, nor a Lakota headdress.

          On verra.

        7. McCain? Born in Panama, wasn’t he? Hmmm. Interesting legal questions there. I wonder how many other Panamanians are eligible to run for US President? And what does it mean when he talks of being of Scotch-Irish and “English” ancestry?

        8. [Jeremiah] Wright was born and raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. His parents are Jeremiah Wright, Sr., a Baptist minister who pastored Grace Baptist Church in Germantown from 1938 to 1980, and Mary Henderson Wright.[5] His wife is Ramah Reed Wright, and he has four daughters, Janet Marie Moore, Jeri Lynne Wright, Nikol D. Reed and Jamila Nandi Wright, and one son, Nathan D. Reed

          Mr. Wright, interestingly, is also a Marine.

          Hmmm.

        9. It is amusing to ponder what Ronald Syme (“Sir Ron”) might have done with, say:

          “Elizabeth MUSSELMAN HAGEE (1847)”.

        10. Green Tree is a main suburb of Pittsburgh and is a borough within Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, United States. The population was 4,719 at the 2000 census, but has dropped to about 4,453 as of 2005.

          The town is the birthplace of 2008 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul and Heroes star Zachary Quinto.

          Green Tree is connected to Pittsburgh via the Fort Pitt Tunnel.

          Wikipedia

        11. I get it–like Anthony Quinn, right? ‘Cept he ain’t descended from one them Irishmen deserted to the Messkins, right?

    2. A shade surprized that no one here has mentioned that these problems just might be a direct consequence of that “enlightened” decision made a couple of decades ago to make soldiers of women. Had that not been done, would the ladies in question ever have faced the awful fact of the abuse and degradation they have suffered im these instances?

      Many fewer people would be mugged if the state established and enforced a curfew that kept us indoors at night. And yet, we do not blame the state when people get mugged; we blame the mugger. Rape and sexual harassment were no doubt a predictable consequence of allowing women to be soldiers. The military could protect them by not allowing them to serve, or it could protect them by deterring and punishing rapists. The latter, though certainly more difficult, has the advantage of restricting the rights of the wrongdoers, rather then the rights of their would-be victims.

      1. If we’re to absolutize the notion of rights – which is what you’ve done here to make your point – are we not required to consider the full gamut of how one might reckon the term and not merely confine it as you have to the permissive sense? I’d most certainly think so. What is to prevent prior, clear knowledge of a specific risk to entitle the one exposing someone else to it to a “right” of refusal? Is there not a point at which a bartender becomes liable when continuing to serve the town drunk? I think you make a mistake to cast the question in these terms. How are we to understand “rights” in this instance, as legal, natural or, perhaps both? To quibble about “rights” in an instance where common sense would identify an obvious risk to young women situated in a combat zone with men ages 18 to perhaps 25 borders on sophistry. A one point a cigar is a cigar, Weston.

        1. John- If we were to extend your criterion for “rights” to all spheres of human endeavour, we would rapidly end up with severe attenuation or complete elimination of personal sovereignty. Certainly, there are times when “voluntary” transactions of this nature should be limited or forbidden- ie, when third parties are involved in some way- but from what I can glean of your argument you seem to arbitrarily accord bodily security the status of ethical primary. Should we then prohibit extreme sports? Or have I missed something basic in your reasoning?

        2. How are we to understand “rights” in this instance, as legal, natural or, perhaps both?

          If anyone’s quibbling here, it’s you. But we can make this as technical as you want. I was only using rights-talk for convenience, and I wasn’t “absolutizing” the notion, since my point is compatible with the prevalent view that rights can be overridden by competing concerns. To put it in the contemporary jargon, I only meant that a woman’s prima facie right to serve in the military is an important consideration, and the fact that deterring and punishing rape respects this right counts in its favor (hence: “has the advantage of…”). I did not mean to imply (nor did I) that this was a decisive consideration. It is, however, a significant one.

          But that’s all moot, because the point can be put without reliance on rights. Many women have morally and legally significant interests in military service, and the only good reason I can see for discriminating against them is that women, and not men, are likely to be raped. Yes, the risk is obvious. (So is the risk of being mugged at night.) But it is not as if the only way to keep them from getting raped is to keep them out of the military, unless you believe–falsely–that male soldiers cannot be compelled to restrain themselves. (Just like a curfew isn’t the only way to keep people from getting mugged.) That keeping women out of the military would be the easiest and cheapest way to keep them from getting raped in the military is not a knock-down argument in favor of doing so. (For the same reason that a cheapness and ease of a curfew is not a knock-down argument in its favor.)

          I’m actually not so dead-set against your argument as it may seem; I was only stating the obvious first rejoinder to your argument (since you said you were surprised), though I recognize such a case can be made. To make it, though, you’d need to show either that protecting women from rape in the military would be prohibitively costly, or that women’s interests in (or rights to) military service are so insignificant that they can be justifiably curtailed even if protecting them from rape would not be that expensive.

        3. Kenneth and Weston,

          Since Weston would seem to acknowledge that the two of you make much the same argument and that Kenneth’s is the more brief, you’ll forgive me, Weston, if I fail to do justice to any points you might consider of the essence.

          “John- If we were to extend your criterion for “rights” to all spheres of human endeavour, we would rapidly end up with severe attenuation or complete elimination of personal sovereignty.”

          The notion of “personal sovereignty”, as is the idea of freedom, is at its basis ontological, Kenneth, and is, therefore, ultimately unassailable. What we address when we speak of “rights” as we do here at the moment are political rights. It is, of course, possible to enjoy “personal sovereignty” or to possess freedom in this sense even in the teeth of the worst sort of political oppression. Conversely, it is equally possible to impair one’s “personal sovereignty” though the exercise of unrestrained license. Its the relation between these two elements that needs to be grasped, it seems to me. Political rights are derivative and are not unsituated. They have a context: Truth. And God is both Truth and the guarantor of “personal sovereignty”.

          “Certainly, there are times when “voluntary” transactions of this nature should be limited or forbidden- ie, when third parties are involved in some way- but from what I can glean of your argument you seem to arbitrarily accord bodily security the status of ethical primary”

          Oh, no, not so. My concern in this case is rather for the women themselves as persons,
          their being placed so obviously in harms way and that in no small part initially at least to serve the purposes of some socio-ideological contruct, one, I might add, all too closely identified with the injurious – and limiting – notions of license mentioned above. What surprized me going in was that those concerns were not widely enough shared here to cause someone else to mention them earlier than I had. Indeed, times have changed. In the now endemic drive to contravene nature, women rush to make pigs of themselves, and many men would seem willing to help them to the trough.

        4. John- Your first paragraph, as far as it can be deciphered, is a casuistry, and in any case your final contention consists of little more than a category error. “God as X” is both a reification of truth and personal sovereignty, and in any case the existence of this “God” is not proven. In the prior passage, you commute the moral definition of “personal sovereignty” with the literal one- that is, control over one’s being. At least, this is my impression of your argument, but it is, frankly, quite nebulous.

          Oh, no, not so. My concern in this case is rather for the women themselves as persons,
          their being placed so obviously in harms way and that in no small part initially at least to serve the purposes of some socio-ideological contruct, one, I might add, all too closely identified with the injurious – and limiting – notions of license mentioned above.

          Is the legitimacy of women’s service then tied to the legitimacy of the military as a whole? In that case, why not simply attack the latter?

          In the now endemic drive to contravene nature…

          What is “nature”? The term does not mean anything when applied to human affairs. Women’s “natural” status is a cultural artefact, and in any case the implied value of “nature” is not a useful moral cynosure.

        5. John, you didn’t respond to any of my points. I guess we got different things out of Kenneth’s post.

        6. John Lowell writes:

          “In the now endemic drive to contravene nature, women rush to make pigs of themselves, and many men would seem willing to help them to the trough.”

          Mr. Lowell, up until 1967 when the US Supreme Court struck it down, it was considered a crime against nature, and thus illegal, for a black person to marry a white person in the State of Virgina. The Constitution does not speak of crimes against nature. Who appointed you the arbiter of what is or is not natural for a woman? Maybe we should let women decide for themselves? I don’t think we should ever lower standards; women should of course have to meet the same physical standards required of men, however, if they can meet the same standards the men can, then who are you to tell them what to do?

      2. Kenneth,

        So you'll look for it, I'll have a reply for you in a short time. I run a small business,

        its tax week, I do all of my own tax preparation, and I'm up to my eye balls in alligators at the moment.

        Weston,

        If you feel your points weren't addressed, by all means let's address them. But, as you can see from the above, I'm under the gun at the moment. It may take me a few days, actually.

      3. Weston & Kenneth,

        Well, taxes are behind us and I’d now be in a position to reply to you at a reasonably early time. I’d want to know that you’re still expecting a response before going to the trouble of writing one, however. Please confirm.

  24. The “Pledge of Allegiance” is not only completely without legal or constitutioanl significance, as is Lincoln’s Gettysberg Address, it is also a “pseudo-pledge”, that is a “pledge” in form only.

    The Enlistment Oath on the contrary is, interestingly, to the Constitution, not to any “flag” or country oir person:

    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    The orders referred, naturally, are legal and consitutional orders.

    Not doubt many American citizens, by various treaties, and also by historical origin, have the right enlisting or being drafted, to swear the enlistment oath in their own language, Spanish for example, or French or German or Navajo or Lakota, and so forth.

    Indeed, some of these groups, like the Navajo and the Germans, may even have civil suits against various governments and municipalities for denying their right to speak their own recognized language, and destroying their American but non-English cultural traditions.

  25. Sounds about right to me. However, I doubt they would be willing to leave behind billions of dollars worth of equipment for the world to poke their noses through. I agree we should be gone from there now if not yesterday. We marched our asses in we can march them right back out. Trust me I do understand the rage and frustration that comes from seeing so many people who just don't get it and probably never will. However, preaching to the choir isn't the answer and neither is attacking people who also believe in the anti-war movement. I think I will need to take my own advice and spend less time on this site and more on the neo-con sites trying to wake up the sheeple.

    Peace!

  26. Summary Outline of Illinois School Laws that Pertain to Private Homeschools

    Specific Home School Statutes: None.

    Alternative Statutes Allowing for Homeschools:

    1. Section 26-1: “Any child attending a private or a parochial school where children are taught the branches of education taught to children of corresponding age and grade in the public schools, and where the instruction of the child in the branches of education is in the English language” is in compliance with the Illinois compulsory attendance law and is therefore not truant.

    According to People vs. Levisen, a homeschool is a private school if it does those things that private schools are required to do.

    Academic Requirements: None, other than you must teach those branches of education taught to children of corresponding age and grade in the public schools and in the English language.

    NOTE: Students using American Sign Language (ASL) are considered as being taught in English. Children for whom English is a second language must still be taught in English. Of course, in addition to teaching the branches of education in English you may teach anything else including the branches in any language(s) you choose.

    Pero hay otros modos de acabar esta historia….

  27. My “wife” at the time met Noam Chomsky in the ’60’s.

    She returned to our small apartment breathless and said, “I just met Noam Chomsky!”.

    I said, “Yes–but did Noam Chomsky meet you?”

    1. “X meets y”

      “Y meets X”

      “X is met by Y”

      “Y is met by X”

      Chomsky perhaps follows–Chao Yuen Ren certainly would.

    1. Hmmm, wonder if Mr. Obama has had this statute brought to his attention?

      Harvard Law School, Harvard Law Review–hmmm.

  28. The US military treats women poorly, the private sector treats women poorly and the church treats women poorly. Women treat other women poorly. Some women even treat their husbands poorly. Some husbands treat their wives poorly. Some of them just golf.

    1. Out of the noise of tired people working,
      Harried with thoughts of war and lists of dead,
      His beauty met me like a fresh wind blowing,
      Clean boyish beauty and high-held head.

      Eyes that told secrets, lips that would not tell them,
      Fearless and shy the young unwearied eyes–
      Men die by millions now, because God blunders,
      Yet to have made this boy he must be wise.

      Sara Teasdale

  29. While reading this entery about American women serving in the military,for a while the comments dealt with the subject at hand.but,suddenly everything veered into different directions.Instead of focusing on the issue ,we diverted to debating the issues of women in some arab countries in Iran.I wonder why is that.This brings to mind the method used by supporters of the White rules in south Africa who would counter the argument of opponents of aperthide by pointing out the bad condetions of blacks in other blacked ruled countries, and how there is democracy,and free elections in white ruled South Africa and lack of in many Afican states.Therefore,aperthide should be accepeted.

  30. Une fois de plus grand poste. Vous semblez avoir une bonne compréhension de cesthemes.Come sur et garder sur votre écriture blog.expecting pour quelque chose de plus attrayant.

  31. Costumes de marin, comme are generally tentation, couleurs éclatantes et intervalle blanc, haut profil élément homosexual pour stimuler vos glandes surrénales. Ralph Lauren Printemps 2012 Exposition Mme maillots de bain, du coup de maître à l'aquarelle de l'inspiration, l'utilisation de couleurs solubles dans l'eau apparaissent l'ensemble des effets magiques, pour être imprimé sur the maillot de bain, mis sur elle, peu importe où vous êtes à are generally recherche pour are generally mise au phase

  32. thank you very much executives like you, I yemek tariflerireally like your blog verymetin2 pvp clean and reliable link to a web site trying to get the ban I hope I do not eat many thanks
    Web sites with the music here is actually fun, chat, friendship, bi kind of people that I'm mt2 pvptrying to create an ideal environment for fusion with each other and chat environments, chatand sexual issues, as well as food, drink, and even my own social networking areas, such as creating bayan giyima single goal is to serve our valuable administrators chathope you understand
    If you need
    to make

Comments are closed.