This Tuesday, my girlfriend and I will go to Albuquerque where I will pose for pictures in which I will be half-naked. The positioning of my arms is important. My brests must be thrust forward, my back slightly arched to show a better angle.
Why, you ask, would a 58-year-old woman do such a thing? Who would be interest in seeing such pictures.
I honestly don't know who will be looking at those pictures. But I want them to. I hope they study thos pictures throughly and intently.
And I sincerely believe that most women of my age should be doing the same thing.
So, I'm getting my annual mamogram.
I just thought it would sound more exciting this way.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Do we Suffer from Collective Amnesia?
Two things brought this to mind.
On Memorial day (actually the Sunday before) I was watching a 60-Minutes interview with the (then) only recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor from the mid-East wars who was alive to receive it. He called himself an average if not medicore soldier and said that any other soldier would have done what he did. He made the comment regarding his fellow soldiers, "They all raised their hand and took the oath"
As it was meant to be, the story was touching and mildly thought-provoking -- "How heroic is the average man?" sort of item.
I recently finished reading H.W. Brands "American Dreams" This is a narrative history of the US since WWII. It ends in 2008.
Overally, the book is quite good at exxplaining what was occurring and some of the personalities and politics and facts and actions that influenced US history throughout that period.
I had purchased it because I had read his book "Traitor to his Class" regarding FDR and found it excellent and exciting.
I found, however, one glaring flaw. In discussing the period from 1963 through 1974, he mentions Vietman. He mentions the anti-war protests that almost tore the country apart. He mentions the shootings at Kent State. He discussed in passing how we became involved in Vietnam, the incident at the gulf of Tonkin, and the political corruption that plagued the South Vietnamese state.
What did he omit? What was the REAL explanation for the sometimes violent protests and demonstrations that beset the era? What were we really protesting against? And why is it that there are virtually NO protests today regarding our involvement in foreign countries?
He failed to mention in any sentence: THE DRAFT.
In retrospect, we were not protesting against America's sometimes mis-directed foreign policies. We were not protesting the attempt at "nation-building" We were not protesting the fact that the US was using military force to support a corrupt dictatorship.
We were protesting the fact that young men were being conscripted involuntarily and being sent oversees.
Look at the military 'adventures' the US has engaged in since the end of Vietnam. The protests today are political, and votes are taken in Congress. 500,000 plus do not assemble for three days on the Capital Mall to say "US OUT" Why not?
Today's military is purely volentary. In fact, given the state of employment in this country, the military is being selective about who may enlist. Today's soldiers are all willing to be soldiers.
It didn't used to be that way.
And I have to wonder, if we had a draft today, would we be involved overseas to the extent that we are?
I will not say that today's wars are any more or less moral than Vietnam was. But the fact that young men are not being forced into the military IS a more moral stance than we had previously.
Have we forgotten our outrage over Vietnam? Or is it that today we know that our brothers, our boyfriends, our sons will not be FORCED into the military.
Perhaps a volunteer army makes a voluntary war less morally repugnant.
On Memorial day (actually the Sunday before) I was watching a 60-Minutes interview with the (then) only recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor from the mid-East wars who was alive to receive it. He called himself an average if not medicore soldier and said that any other soldier would have done what he did. He made the comment regarding his fellow soldiers, "They all raised their hand and took the oath"
As it was meant to be, the story was touching and mildly thought-provoking -- "How heroic is the average man?" sort of item.
I recently finished reading H.W. Brands "American Dreams" This is a narrative history of the US since WWII. It ends in 2008.
Overally, the book is quite good at exxplaining what was occurring and some of the personalities and politics and facts and actions that influenced US history throughout that period.
I had purchased it because I had read his book "Traitor to his Class" regarding FDR and found it excellent and exciting.
I found, however, one glaring flaw. In discussing the period from 1963 through 1974, he mentions Vietman. He mentions the anti-war protests that almost tore the country apart. He mentions the shootings at Kent State. He discussed in passing how we became involved in Vietnam, the incident at the gulf of Tonkin, and the political corruption that plagued the South Vietnamese state.
What did he omit? What was the REAL explanation for the sometimes violent protests and demonstrations that beset the era? What were we really protesting against? And why is it that there are virtually NO protests today regarding our involvement in foreign countries?
He failed to mention in any sentence: THE DRAFT.
In retrospect, we were not protesting against America's sometimes mis-directed foreign policies. We were not protesting the attempt at "nation-building" We were not protesting the fact that the US was using military force to support a corrupt dictatorship.
We were protesting the fact that young men were being conscripted involuntarily and being sent oversees.
Look at the military 'adventures' the US has engaged in since the end of Vietnam. The protests today are political, and votes are taken in Congress. 500,000 plus do not assemble for three days on the Capital Mall to say "US OUT" Why not?
Today's military is purely volentary. In fact, given the state of employment in this country, the military is being selective about who may enlist. Today's soldiers are all willing to be soldiers.
It didn't used to be that way.
And I have to wonder, if we had a draft today, would we be involved overseas to the extent that we are?
I will not say that today's wars are any more or less moral than Vietnam was. But the fact that young men are not being forced into the military IS a more moral stance than we had previously.
Have we forgotten our outrage over Vietnam? Or is it that today we know that our brothers, our boyfriends, our sons will not be FORCED into the military.
Perhaps a volunteer army makes a voluntary war less morally repugnant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
