I could go into some diatribe about the music of the 80s but I shall leave that for someone that is a fan.
I will close out my week with a little cultural history.
For generations upon generations men wore hats…..top hats. derby, cowboy, bowler, etc…..as late as the 1040s and 50s hats were still being part of the attire and then in the 1960s something happened….but why did it happen?
It was everywhere. Men, women, and even children did it every time they left the house. If you see old newsreel footage of men in the office or on commuter trains from the advent of the motion picture camera to the early ‘60s, nearly everyone is wearing a hat. Hats were just as common for women in that era. For a woman to go out without a hat in the first half of the 20th century was akin to going out without clothes.
The funny thing is that everyone’s headgear is so similar in the old-timey footage that it makes previous generations look like big-time conformists. Then, in the early ‘60s, everything changed, and men and women started to go out in public with their hair exposed. Why did such a big aspect of fashion seem to change overnight?
Warmbru Curiosity investigated the question recently in a popular YouTube video. Warmbru’s channel is a lighthearted look at some of the more unusual people and events from our history and how they have influenced the world in which we live.
Warmbru says fashion changed dramatically after World War II, when people in developed countries began to care less about expressing their social status. “This was especially true among the younger generation the rise of youth culture in the 1950s and 1960s emphasized rebellion against traditional norms, including formal dress codes,” the YouTuber says.
Another big reason for the change in fashion was technology. Cars became the preferred mode of transportation for many after World War II and indoor environments became more hospitable. “People spent far less time exposed to the elements as people increasingly moved to urban areas and started using cars,” Warmbru says. “The practicality of wearing hats diminishes. Hats can be cumbersome in cars and on public transport, improvements in heating and air conditioning reduce the need for hats to provide warmth.”
Warmbru adds that President John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, rarely wore a hat and his decision to go bareheaded became associated with modernity. Further, in 1963, the mop-topped Beatles proudly flaunted their hatless heads as they shook them while singing, “Wooooo.” Hat-wearing among women began to decline around the same time as the restrictive and complex headgear clashed with the burgeoning women’s liberation movement.
I shall forego the “Dump’ for this Saturday to bring you some history as we are beginning our celebration of the birth of America, 250 years and counting.
As a political historian I always like to look at cause and effect and the publication of Commonsense, was cause that lead a bunch of wealthy white guys to declare independence from Mother England.
Some believe that the DoI was the beginning of our struggle for independence….I disagree. It began with Thomas Paine and the publishing of his pamphlet ‘Commonsense’ on 10 January 1776.
Common Sense made a clear case for independence and directly attacked the political, economic, and ideological obstacles to achieving it. Paine relentlessly insisted that British rule was responsible for nearly every problem in colonial society and that the 1770s crisis could only be resolved by colonial independence. That goal, he maintained, could only be achieved through unified action.
Hard-nosed political logic demanded the creation of an American nation. Implicitly acknowledging the hold that tradition and deference had on the colonial mind, Paine also launched an assault on both the premises behind the British government and on the legitimacy of monarchy and hereditary power in general. Challenging the King’s paternal authority in the harshest terms, he mocked royal actions in America and declared that “even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their own families.”
Finally, Paine detailed in the most graphic, compelling and recognizable terms the suffering that the colonies had endured, reminding his readers of the torment and trauma that British policy had inflicted upon them.
(jackmillercenter.org)
The Constitution of the United States as proposed by Thomas Paine in Common Sense
Since Paine’s contribution is mostly overlooked by Americans here is the full text of Commonsense….
But for those lazy amongst us….these are the main ideas within Commonsense….
Monarchies Violate Laws of Nature and Religion
Thomas Paine believes monarchies are an invalid form of government because they violate the laws of nature and religion. Paine argues all people are born as equals, which is a function of nature. No person or family is better than another. That line of reasoning concludes there shouldn’t be a ruling class. Paine also thinks those who do rule should not be able to pass their position to their next of kin. Nature doesn’t grant one family superior intelligence or leadership abilities, and it’s very possible the next person in line for the job will lead his or her followers into ruin. Monarchal rule and hereditary succession violate the very laws of nature.
Monarchies also violate the word of God. Paine points out there were not any kings in the early days of humanity (at least according to scripture) and there weren’t any wars. Paine implies these two are related. He contends the devil invented kings, which were first adopted by the heathens, as a tool to promote idolatry. Both Gideon and Samuel warn their followers about the dangers of worshiping someone other than God. In Samuel’s case the Israelites don’t listen, and they are smitten for disobedience. Paine believes this biblical evidence proves God is the only true king.
Independent, Democratic America
Paine insists the British government doesn’t have the colonists’ best interest at heart. It cares only about its own profit and success, and it treats the colonists as second-class citizens. Americans do not have the same rights as those who live on British soil and are unfairly punished when they try to uphold their interpretation of the British Constitution. The grievances between the two parties, as well as the bloodshed and destruction caused by the British army, are too great to repair. The only answer is for the colonies to separate themselves from Great Britain.
To those who quaver in fear of losing the protection and benefits afforded by the British government, Paine points out Great Britain is much too far away to protect the colonists from any imminent danger, and it is much too small of an island to govern a territory as large as the American colonies. Though he admits there have been benefits to British rule, he contends life in the colonies would perhaps have been even more pleasant and fruitful had Great Britain never controlled them at all.
An independent America will need a government of its own. Paine has already proven monarchical rule is unsuitable for the success of a nation and the happiness of its people, so he suggests a representative government elected by the people. This structure is in line with what he believes nature intended, as each person’s voice will be represented equally. The law will be king in America, not a monarch.
The Fight for Independence Cannot Be Postponed
Paine urges his readers to take up the cause of independence now. The tensions between Great Britain and the American colonies are only going to get worse, and the damage done at the battles of Lexington and Concord and during the Siege of Boston cannot be repaired. If anything, the situation will worsen. Waiting for a better time would mean the loss of experience gained during the French and Indian War (1754–63), which would decrease the colonists’ chances of victory. Delaying the push for independence could mean being tethered to Great Britain indefinitely, and as Paine points out, a country dependent on another is weak in the eyes of the world.
America may be a young country, but it has a lot of assets, including its youth. “Youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals,” he writes. Developing continental unity now will be much easier than 50 years down the road when individual colonies are deeply entrenched in their own ways of life. Colonies are not yet at their peak populations, which means there aren’t too many people or ports to protect, yet there are still enough men to form a robust army. People haven’t yet developed strong roots in their communities, nor have they made their family fortunes in business. Unlike British civilians, who may carry the weight of wealth and family tree, the colonists have little to lose by going to war. That will surely change if efforts for independence are postponed, which will make it harder to raise a capable army.
American Independence Benefits the World
Paine argues American independence will help all friendly nations thrive, especially those who engage with trade. Separating the colonies from Great Britain will create open and free trade. That means the colonists decide to whom they will sell and for what price, which will help the American economy grow and which will benefit other, primarily European, economies as well. When no longer bound by Great Britain’s trading laws, they will be free to import goods from other countries, such as Spain and France, as well as to import goods to them, all of which will improve the international economy. Paine doesn’t leave out England—he thinks open trade will benefit the British government and its citizens alike.
Trade isn’t the only part of international relations that will improve with American independence. The colonies will be able to maintain strong and friendly relationships with other countries even if those countries are quarreling with Great Britain. As subjects of the British government, the colonies often found themselves in the middle of disagreements with other nations, and there was always the risk of going to war over matters that didn’t pertain to those living in North America. Freedom from Great Britain allows the colonies to declare neutrality during international conflicts, which preserves existing relationships and protects the American citizens, their property, and their economy.
Now after reading that who was the original Founding Father?
Sixteen years ago I wrote this piece doing my part to give Thomas Paine his due….something this country has never been able to bring itself to do.
The newest stupid act of attacking Venezuela is just an extension of the US ill-conceived plans for Latin America and the Caribbean….
You guys know I cannot let this go without offering a historical perspective, right?
America has a long history of intervening in Latin America and the Caribbean….all the way back to 1823 and the Monroe Doctrine…..
The Monroe Doctrine is the best known U.S. policy toward the Western Hemisphere. Buried in a routine annual message delivered to Congress by President James Monroe in December 1823, the doctrine warns European nations that the United States would not tolerate further colonization or puppet monarchs.
All well and good….but how has it all worked out over 200+ years?
…
U.S. policy, underpinned by the Monroe Doctrine, has shaped the region in the decades since World War II, leading to overt and covert interventions that have often — but not always — resulted in bad outcomes and unintended consequences.
Here are five examples:
The overthrow of Guatemala’s government
By 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower was concerned about a Guatemalan land-reform program that nationalized property owned by the U.S.-based United Fruit Company (now Chiquita Brands International). The initiative was carried out under Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz, the nation’s second democratically elected leader, whose term began in 1951. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles accused Árbenz of establishing what he described as a “communist-type reign of terror.”
…
Then there is the US biggest disaster….Bay of Pigs….
Shortly after taking office in 1961, President John F. Kennedy approved a covert plan to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro, who had grown increasingly aligned with the Soviet Union since seizing power two years earlier. The secret operation, originally developed under the Eisenhower administration, relied on a force of about 1,400 CIA-trained Cuban exiles who were expected to seize the Bay of Pigs on Cuba’s southern coast and spark a popular uprising against Castro.
Instead, the Bay of Pigs invasion ended in disaster. Castro ordered some 20,000 troops to the beach, forcing most of the U.S.-backed invasion force to surrender. More than 100 were killed. The incident became a major embarrassment for the United States.
I will dial back the research and ranting for the next few days of this year to let my brain recharge from the drain from the holidays…..a slow down not a pause.
This country has always been at the mercy of the rich….even in the beginning and it has not slowed down at all….now since Donny’s has taken over the nation these wealthy patrons of his are controlling everything….and I do mean everything.
Technology is moving ever faster and those leading the charge are the noveau rich….the tech bros….and soon they will have it all….
“Our world is being actively remade with profound implications for national and international security,” Metreweli declared in her first statement as chief of MI6. “Power itself is becoming more diffuse, more unpredictable as control over these technologies is shifting from states to corporations and sometimes to individuals.”
She also noted that “we’re now operating in a space between peace and war.”
“This is not a temporary state or a gradual, inevitable evolution,” she continued.
Over the past few months, politicians from the ruling Labour party have grown increasingly frustrated at political meddling from tech billionaires like Elon Musk, who called for the overthrow of the UK government at a far-right rally in September.
Notably, Metreweli stopped short of calling out any billionaires by name or identifying the systemic issues that got us here, according to The Paper. Instead, she followed other ministers in centering a vague loss of public trust, rather than the profit-driven forces reshaping global power for their own interests.
“The foundations of trust in our societies are eroding,” she said. “Information, once a unifying force, is increasingly weaponized. Falsehoods spread faster than fact, dividing communities and distorting reality. We live in an age of hyper-connection yet profound isolation. The algorithms flatter our biases and fracture our public squares.”
There is nothing that is safe from the prying eyes of these Tech bros….everything you do, say or write is their weapon against you, the people.
Maybe it is time to resurrect the ‘Luddites”…..
Luddite?
“Luddite” is now a blanket term used to describe people who dislike new technology, but its origins date back to an early 19th-century labor movement that railed against the ways that mechanized manufacturers and their unskilled laborers undermined the skilled craftsmen of the day.
The original Luddites were British weavers and textile workers who objected to the increased use of mechanized looms and knitting frames. Most were trained artisans who had spent years learning their craft, and they feared that unskilled machine operators were robbing them of their livelihood. When the economic pressures of the Napoleonic Wars made the cheap competition of early textile factories particularly threatening to the artisans, a few desperate weavers began breaking into factories and smashing textile machines. They called themselves “Luddites” after Ned Ludd, a young apprentice who was rumored to have wrecked a textile apparatus in 1779.
It is time for a movement against these Tech Bros and their growing power over us all….
Thanx to AI what I called for is beginning….a new ‘Luddite’ movement….
There is a genuine, Gen Z-driven Luddite renaissance building as some people reject the tech platforms that have clamored for our attention (and money) over the past two decades — a movement that seems to get stronger as those platforms, such as Instagram and TikTok, are flooded with increasingly sophisticated AI-generated content.
The original Luddites were textile workers in rural 19th century England who rose up against the rise of automated machines that threatened them with joblessness and starvation. And while the term today is often lobbed as a kind of insult for someone who doesn’t understand technology, the modern Luddites are redefining it.
I know it is a joyous time and the last thing most people want to think about is politics…..so I will refrain from my ranting and offer a little FYI and some history….
Most of us have that traditional tree with the colorful gifts and the lights and memories of Christmas past hanging from its limbs….but did you ever wonder where this tradition began?
I can help….
Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s consort, is usually credited with having introduced the Christmas tree into England in 1840. However, the honour of establishing this tradition in the United Kingdom rightfully belongs to ‘good Queen Charlotte’, the German wife of George III, who set up the first known English tree at Queen’s Lodge, Windsor, in December, 1800.
Legend has it that Queen Charlotte’s compatriot, Martin Luther, the religious reformer, invented the Christmas tree. One winter’s night in 1536, so the story goes, Luther was walking through a pine forest near his home in Wittenberg when he suddenly looked up and saw thousands of stars glinting jewel-like among the branches of the trees. This wondrous sight inspired him to set up a candle-lit fir tree in his house that Christmas to remind his children of the starry heavens from whence their Saviour came.
Certainly by 1605 decorated Christmas trees had made their appearance in Southern Germany. For in that year an anonymous writer recorded how at Yuletide the inhabitants of Strasburg ‘set up fir trees in the parlours … and hang thereon roses cut out of many-coloured paper, apples, wafers, gold-foil, sweets, etc.’
In other parts of Germany box trees or yews were brought indoors at Christmas instead of firs. And in the duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, where Queen Charlotte grew up, it was the custom to deck out a single yew branch.
The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834) visited Mecklenburg-Strelitz in December, 1798, and was much struck by the yew-branch ceremony that he witnessed there, the following account of which he wrote in a letter to his wife dated April 23rd, 1799:
‘On the evening before Christmas Day, one of the parlours is lighted up by the children, into which the parents must not go; a great yew bough is fastened on the table at a little distance from the wall, a multitude of little tapers are fixed in the bough … and coloured paper etc. hangs and flutters from the twigs. Under this bough the children lay out the presents they mean for their parents, still concealing in their pockets what they intend for each other. Then the parents are introduced, and each presents his little gift; they then bring out the remainder one by one from their pockets, and present them with kisses and embraces’.
Today is the day we set aside to honor our veterans that honored this country in service.
I also like to bring forth a few memories and such that I seldom talk about with anyone.
I served in Vietnam from 1967-1970 and today I am 79 years old……and I see fellow vets dying off at alarming rates and soon my war and the veterans will be just a fleeting memory that people roll out every November.
For years when people knew that I served in Vietnam they always put forth their opinions on how the war was fought and how we could have won that conflict.
Sadly there will always be these ‘experts’ on war and how it is fought. My response has always been the same….’if you were not there then your opinions are nothing more than fanciful bullshit’.
Vietnam War ended about 50 years ago and we that were there are still trying to come to terms with it….
April 30th marks the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War’s end when Vietnamese tanks rolled into Saigon, soon to be renamed Ho Chi Minh City. The war was a terrible experience for the United States, but even more so for the people of Vietnam and much of the rest of Southeast Asia. Estimates are that up to 3 million Vietnamese perished, as well many many thousands of Cambodians and Laotians. Fifty-eight thousand American died, and a trillion American tax dollars were wasted.
Many of us who were there are still trying to understand and come to grips with it. Based on years of study, here is what I think people still get wrong about the war. What I write will be controversial, but it is based on what I saw and learned. If I seem angry, it is because I still am.
In nearly all wars, the other side is demonized and made into evil caricatures of human beings; doing so makes it easier to kill them. From the U.S. perspective, the Vietnam War was no exception. Even the Vietnamese who were supposedly on our side were commonly referred to as gooks, zips (Zero Intelligence Personnel), slants, slopes and more, often to their faces. In my experience, the U.S. military chain of command made no effort to correct this. Given the pervasive racism among American troops, it should come as no surprise that violence against Vietnamese civilians was common. It is hard to understand how anyone thought the Vietnamese people would rally to the U.S. side while being badly treated.
I still feel that anger…..my country turned it’s back on me and my fellow vets and then 10 years later wanted to welcome us home…..it was too damn late.
The BBC had a very good breakdown of the war and why it was unwinnable from the start….
Another major reason why the USA could not win the war was the lack of support at home from the American public. The huge protest movement divided the country. A major pro–war movement also erupted. Many veterans of the war called the anti–war protesters traitors and communists.
Opposition to the war came from a number of sources and for a number of reasons
Media coverage
This was the first televised war. It was vividly reported by journalists who went to Vietnam in search of stories. Images of innocent civilians being killed, maimed and tortured were displayed on the TV and in newspapers – many Americans were horrified and turned against the war.
Opposition to support for the South Vietnamese Government
The South Vietnamese Government, which the Americans were committed to defending was revealed as corrupt and anti–democratic.
Many Americans questioned how the American Government could justify standing up for this oppressive regime. The USA was meant to fight to protect freedom and democracy.
It became clear that the Vietnamese peasants did not welcome American troops. Many Americans questioned why their country was involved if the local population did not want them there.
Opposition to the ‘Draft’
The ‘Draft’ was the conscription of American men into the US army and lasted from 1954-1975. As sons, brothers and fathers went to war, people began to question whether it was worth it. Draft Law hit African Americans hardest.
Many middle-class Americans opposed the war because, by 1967, the death rate had increased to 160 per week.
Opposition from Civil Rights Movement
There was opposition to the war from civil rights activists, who were fighting for more rights for African-Americans in the USA. Many African-Americans were drafted and because they were new recruits, they were often given the worst postings and assignments. Muhammad Ali had his boxing title revoked for refusing to fight in the war.
Opposition from youth
The main opposition came from students. In the 1960s, protest movements began in California but spread to all the major cities and universities across the USA by 1968.
On 4 May 1970, four peaceful student demonstrators at Kent State University in Ohio were murdered. They were shot by Ohio National Guardsmen during a noon-time campus anti-war rally – this became known at the Kent State Massacre.
Pacifists
Many believed that war was morally wrong. There were mass protests across the USA, including in Washington in December 1969.
Singers wrote anti-war songs and songs that criticised the Vietnam War itself. Bob Dylan wrote ‘Masters of War’ and John Lennon wrote ‘Give Peace A Chance’.
Political opposition
The American Government spent vast amounts of money on the war that could have been spent on domestic problems. Some politicians who had supported the war to begin with, such as Robert McNamara, began to turn against American involvement.
The end of the war in Vietnam
The resignation of President Nixon also weakened US enthusiasm for involvement in Vietnam.
In 1975, the North Vietnamese launched a major offensive and over-ran a series of South Vietnamese strongholds. In May 1975 communist forces took Saigon. In 1976 the two halves of Vietnam were united in a single Socialist Republic.
The Vietnam War was the greatest struggle of the Cold War era and the only major military defeat in United States history.
Please go out and do something nice for a veteran….keeping in mind the sacrifices they made to defend their country and their way of life.
That may seem like a silly question to some….but I think it is a valid one.
True many Americans know the term but how many know the document?
I would post a link about here but why no one would use it?
You realize the the Bill of Rights was not part of the original writing of the Constitution, right?
Nope it was not it was an add-on thanks to the work of the anti-Federalists….the BoR was put in to protect one group from the other….but was it a unanimous decision to do so?
What’s the first thing that comes to mind when you think about the U.S. Constitution?
For many people, the answer probably involves one of the famous individual liberties that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech, due process, or the right to keep and bear arms. When a person argues that something is unconstitutional, what that person often means is that it violates one or more of the provisions contained in the Bill of Rights.
Yet the Constitution did not originally include the Bill of Rights when it was ratified in 1788. Why not?
The answer is that some of the framers of the original Constitution feared that if certain rights were enumerated in the text, all of the other, unenumerated rights would be left wide open for government abuse.
“It would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up,” declared future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell at the North Carolina Ratification Convention in 1788. That is “because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation.” What is more, Iredell declared, “it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let anyone make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it.”
That was the position taken by those who came to be known as the Federalists. They thought that adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was a bad idea not because they were against individual rights, but because they despaired of what might happen to any rights that were not specifically written out.
But the Constitution’s Anti-Federalist critics were not persuaded by such concerns. “The want of a Bill of Rights to accompany this proposed system,” declared the Anti-Federalist pamphleteer who went by the pseudonym “John DeWitt,” “is a solid objection to it.” In his view, “to express those rights” which the government may not infringe was a necessary and proper safeguard against “the intrusion into society of that doctrine of tacit implication which has been the favorite theme of every tyrant from the origin of all governments to the present day.”
There is so much about our early history that most do not know and schools do very little to change all the misconceptions.
Some say that we as a nation are heading for a constitutional crisis….I disagree we are already ass deep in one….and I am not alone….
There is a lot of talk these days about the desire to be king….that has been going on for longer than you may think….
At no time in our history has there been so illustrious a gathering as the corps of delegates who came together in the State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia late in the spring of 1787 to frame a constitution for the United States of America. After Thomas Jefferson, the country’s envoy in Paris, ran his eyes over the roster, he wrote his counterpart in London, John Adams, “It really is an assembly of demigods.
Yet, distinguished though they were, the delegates had only the foggiest notion of how an executive branch should be constructed. Not one of them anticipated the institution of the presidency as it emerged at the end of the summer.
One frightful goblin haunted their deliberations. The study of history — ancient to modern — instructed them that republics were always short-lived, and they feared that America might quickly adopt kingship.
You got it! The Old Professor is going to drop some history that most have no idea about.
How well do you know your history of this country? (Purely rhetorical because most know little to nothing)
There has been numerous amendments considered to the Constitutional but we shot down….but what would this country look like if they had passed?
The United States Constitution had been in effect for little more than a year when Congress first moved to amend it. On September 25, 1789, the legislature sent a dozen proposed amendments to the then-13 states (soon to be 14) for ratification, as the law required. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-fourths of states had ratified 10 of the 12 amendments, which collectively became known as the Bill of Rights.
Another 17 amendments have been ratified in the 234 years since, for a total of 27. But these measures represent just a tiny fraction of the amendments that have been proposed in Congress over the years—nearly 12,000 to date.
“The U.S. Constitution was intended to be amended,” writes historian Jill Lepore in her new book, We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution. However, “almost all efforts to amend the Constitution fail. Success often takes decades. And for long stretches of American history, amending the Constitution has been effectively impossible.”
Most proposed amendments die quietly in congressional committees (if they even get that far), with only a few sent on to the states for ratification. At present, there are six proposed amendments awaiting possible state ratification—one of them dating back to 1789.
Many failed amendments have involved fairly minor administrative matters. But others would have changed the American government in substantial ways and possibly altered the course of history.
Here are a dozen of those failed amendments and what they set out to accomplish.
In 1866, Missouri Representative George Washington Andersonproposed dropping “United States” from the country’s name and simply calling it “America.” The current name was “not sufficiently comprehensive and significant to indicate the real unity and destiny of the American people as the eventual, paramount power of this hemisphere,” he argued, albeit unsuccessfully.
Weighing in from across the Atlantic, the Illustrated London News mocked the proposal as the “verbal appropriation of a hemisphere.”
Just one hemisphere wasn’t enough for Lucas Miller, a first-term representative from Wisconsin. On a single February day in 1893, he introduced 46 bills, one of which would have changed the country’s name to the “United States of the Earth.”
Miller’s rationale, in his own words, was that “it is possible for the republic to grow through the admission of new states into the union, until every nation on earth has become part of it.” Another source suggests that he might also have settled for the “United States of the World.” Miller’s proposal was widely ridiculed at the time, and perhaps unsurprisingly, the congressman didn’t return for a second term.
Time for another of the old professor’s look into our history.
Recently the Sec of War had a pep rally with every commend general and admiral to point a new way for the military….just a few of the highlights from his presentation….
Ethos: “The era of politically correct, overly sensitive don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings leadership ends right now at every level,” he said. Specifically, “no more climate change worship, no more division, distraction, or gender delusions.”
Non-toxic: He also promised to push back harder against complaints of “toxic” leadership within the military. “We’re undertaking a full review of the department’s definitions of so-called toxic leadership, bullying and hazing, to empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second-guessing.”
Fitness: “Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops,” he said. “Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon. … Whether you’re an Airborne Ranger or a chairborne ranger, a brand new private or a four star general, you need to meet the height and weight standards.” He said all members of the military, at every rank, will now have to pass a fitness test twice a year.
Facial hair: “No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression,” Hegseth said. “We don’t have a military full of Nordic pagans.”
Basically he was saying no fatties, hairless soldiers and mindless drones.
But being a historian I checked back to the early days of the Continental Army and their fearless leader, George Washington…..
Ten new directives, he said, would strip away what he called “woke garbage” and restore what he termed a “warrior ethos.”
The phrase “warrior ethos” – a mix of combativeness, toughness and dominance – has become central to Hegseth’s political identity. In his 2024 book “The War on Warriors,” he insisted that the inclusion of women in combat roles had drained that ethos, leaving the U.S. military less lethal.
In his address, Hegseth outlined what he sees as the qualities and virtues the American soldier – and especially senior officers – should embody.
On physical fitness and appearance, he was blunt: “It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world.”
As a historian of George Washington, I can say that the commander in chief of the Continental Army, the nation’s first military leader, would have agreed with some of Secretary Hegseth’s directives – but only some.
Washington’s overall vision of a military leader could not be further from Hegseth’s vision of the tough warrior.
For starters, Washington would have found the concern with “fat generals” irrelevant. Some of the most capable officers in the Continental Army were famously overweight.
This whole exercise was useless and a waste of time…..but like everything in the Donny admin there must be controls within all systems especially the military for he may need them in the near future.
This exercise would have been just effective in an email but the two clowns had to have their day on the stage.
Note: This was draft I was saving for when the country gets into the meat of the next election but my blogging buddy, Judy Thompson, over at https://sayitnow.wordpress.com/ asked a question about political parties whether there should be a 3rd or maybe none at all….so I decide to answer her with this post (it will be back during the next election).
College of Political Knowledge
American Politics And The Process
Paper #1
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
― George Washington
George was a sharp person and foresaw the problems these ‘parties’ will cause and yet the people flock to these unprincipled ‘people’ en masse.
“Evil’….yep the party system is evil look what it has done and continues to do this country.
I have been write against the whole two party system for decades….I feel that this country as long as it embraces this stupidity is doomed to failure.
Look what these monstrosities have done to the political system of this nation…they have made the divide deeper and more dangerous….they seldom deliver the needed programs and policies to keep this country moving forward….the candidates promise the world and deliver crumbs
Like many Americans, I have been increasingly disappointed by the candidates promoted by political parties because they tend to back candidates who are ultimately focused on personal gain and/or only advancing issues predetermined by party priorities while moving further away from responding to the needs of their constituents. According to The Guardian, in the 2024 election, the number of eligible voters who did not cast their ballot is more than the total of those who voted for either of the party candidates. So, maybe the real issue is that our political party system just isn’t working for most Americans anymore. Assuming this is even partially true, what if, instead of just complaining about the parties or holding our noses and voting for the “lesser evil” every November, we actually fired the parties—took away their grip on our democracy and built something better.
For decades, we’ve been told we only have two choices. But more and more Americans don’t feel truly represented by either major party. We’re exhausted by the noise, the blame games, the endless culture wars that solve nothing and only serve to increasingly marginalize portions of our citizenry. Americans want real solutions on housing, healthcare, education, wages, and the future we’re leaving for the next generation. And we’re not getting them. So, maybe it’s time to ask a radical but necessary question: What if the problem isn’t just the candidates but the political party system that keeps producing them?
The Case for Firing the Parties
A. They Were Never Supposed to Be Permanent
Political parties aren’t mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders didn’t design a system based on organized political factions. In fact, they explicitly warned against it. George Washington, in his 1796 farewell address, foretold that political parties would eventually “become potent engines” for individuals to seize and abuse power, dividing citizens and distracting the government from serving the public good. In a letter written by John Adams in 1780, he regarded the division of the republic into two great parties as “to be dreaded as the greatest political evil.” In a 1789 letter from Thomas Jefferson, he wrote: “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
Yet political parties arose almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified. These early versions of political parties formed largely out of necessity to organize debates and mobilize voters. Political parties were tools for winning elections. But over time, the tool began to control the system itself. Today, parties aren’t just optional organizers of ideas, they have become gatekeepers of power, often more loyal to themselves than to the people they claim to serve.
Our political system without these beasts would be more open and would promote collaboration between the politicians without the restraints of some silly party mechanism.
Gerrymandering would not be an issue….
I say the sooner we get rid of these thugs the sooner this country will return to its place as the trend setter for democracy.
