I generally don’t do rule 5 entries but I’m going to make an exception here for a purely Sicilian reason, family interest.
This is Martha Raye from the 40’s. You likely remember her from of all things polident commercials but to the soldiers she entertained in war zones she was a lady.
So Why am I bringing this up. Well in the book I’ve already plugged and urged you to buy. The Army Insider by retired 30 year Sgt Major David C. Carden who served from Vietnam to the First Iraq war and beyond both in combat and undercover has a Martha Raye story on page 55 which I will partially repeat here:
I was a 19 year old kid in December 1966 when I first met Martha Ray(e). She came to my Special Forces camp at Kontum, Viet Nam as part of a USO tour. It was just her and her entourage. Martha Ray(e) was a movie star and a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Nurse Corps. This trip was a little entertaining an performing her Military duty. She was good people
It was early evening and I had just returned to camp after being out for about 10 days. We had a small one-room shack that served as a club and I headed over to get a Coke. I was unshaven, dirty and probably smelled a little ripe. Maggie was siting in the corner of the room at the poker take and a group of guys was standing around watching the game. I walked over and some of my friend were playing and there was an open seat. She looked at me and said, “Have a seat young Sergeant.” I told her I didn’t have any money with me and a voice behind me said, “Here kid”. Sergeant Major Johnson the Camp Sergeant Major handed me $200 in MPC’s So I sat down…
I’ll tell the end of the story next Sunday, but if you can’t wait the self published book is available at Amazon and is a great way to say thanks to a man (part of my family by marriage) who gave thirty years to serving his country while enjoying a bunch of great yarns.
Update: Welcome Rule 5 readers. The promised end of the story is here.
Although his Papacy and his faith were very powerful, practically a renaissance for Catholics Pope John Paul the II had one weakness that I believe affected his ability to deal with the Pedophile scandal among primarily gay priests in the US.
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
…he grew up in an era where Homosexuality was considered scandalous, not just in terms of sin but in terms of society as a whole.
Now consider living 35 years in such an era under Communist Rule. False personal scandal was (and is) a basic weapon used to discredit foes of the state under communist rule. I’m sure over the years he saw it many times.
That experience that stood him in good stead when his actions combined with Reagan and Thatcher helped speed the demise of the soviet block but it left a blind spot when the scandals broke.
Consider Boston, the papers were hitting the church long before the scandals, and the pols were claiming to be Catholic while acting and voting nothing of the sort. When this stuff came out and was pushed by the Boston Globe of all places it must have sounded all too familar. It is significant that Pope Benedict has been much more effective in this situation.
And on that note we turn to today’s news and Jimmy Carter and Bill Cosbey…
Carter was born the same year as my mother (1924) he grew up in the Jim Crow South of the Talmadges and Russell the great defenders of segregation. Any pol in the mid 50’s who wanted to have a future in Georgia was unlikely to be too loud in his opposition to segregation.
But no matter what he actually believed his views concerning racism were shaped by those days and it that perspective that he brings to the table.
In the same way Bill Cosby born 13 years later than Carter has those same memories and naturally has the same reaction. That should not surprise anyone as he dealt with this same thing but what my fellow conservatives forget it’s for that very same reason and the pre-great society strength and independence of the black family that and his memory of it that causes him to preach the gospel of self reliance and personal responsibility.
As a person who was brought up by parents born in the 20’s this is more viable to me than perhaps most. My upbringing would have been typical for someone born in the 40’s and 50’s like my brothers and sisters but my experiences were shaped by the culture of the 70’s and 80’s where I grew up and I can tell Mr. Carter and Mr. Cosby that this just isn’t the way most people in their 50’s or earlier think.
I’m reminded of a comment in a thread at Riehl’s world view that was deleted along with others in that thread. LGF had a screen capture of it and it encapsulates this argument perfectly.
I was beat up numerous times as a kid in the 70s and 80s for no other reason than for being white,it made me a racist. I hate black people for the most part.
Posted by: jimmy | Tuesday, September 15, 2009 at 04:16 PM
Reading that quote one can certainly understand Jimmy’s admitted racism, but just because one understands it doesn’t make it right or excusable.
Kirk is visibly horrified, but Spock notes that there is “a certain scientific logic” about the whole thing. “I’m glad you approve,” Anan 7 says, but Spock quickly corrects him: “I do not approve. I understand.” Anan 7 goes on to say that as a valid target, the Enterprise had been attacked by Vendikar—and classified as destroyed.
The full episode is here if you want to see the clip it is at about 12:20.
Part of growth is to be able to reach beyond limits. On this topic President Carter and Dr. Cosby have not, but there is a difference.
In Dr. Cosby’s case like Pope John Paul II it is a fault living in a long distinguished positive effect on. In Jimmy Carter’s case it is one more stone he has placed in the shoe of America.
How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?
We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?
What if they fly over anyway?
Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, off the Sinai Peninsula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the ship was the object of friendly fire.]
It’s interesting to note that the Beast fails to mention the subsequent apology and payment of over $12,800,000 in compensation for the dead and wounded and for damage to the ship itself.
In his newly published book The Army Insider. (My review here, Buy It!) Retired Sgt Major David C. Carden says this about the Jimmy Carter years on page 141:
Circa 1977 to 1981. There are more learned people than me that can write about Jimmy Carter’s presidency. I can only say that from day one, the Military started belt tightening; there was a 444 day black mark painted on the United States of America: eight American Servicemen died attempting to wipe away that black mark: and one payback is still owed.
There must have been something good during those years when Zbigniew was national security adviser. Dave?
The best thing that happened for the military Services and America during the Carter administration was that Ronald Reagan was elected the next president of the United states.
I’d have to agree.
Apparently like Buchanan ol Ziggy hasn’t gotten over the Liberty either.
His daughter is still a handsome woman no matter what Robert Stacy McCain says.
Speaking more of the Missile stuff it also a question of the deterrent value I have another question. What is the actual goal? If the goal is deterrence that you might not get what you are paying for. Consider the following:
Situation A: There are missiles deployed in and controlled by Poland and a threat (any threat) comes up. It is a question of Poland defending itself. It can employ it’s defense on their own terms. It doesn’t have to involve the US at all in terms of blood and treasure once they are deployed.
Situation B: The missiles are on a US ship and a threat comes up. It then becomes a question of the United States opening fire on another nation and all the political and geopolitical ramifications involved therein.
Not only are the costs greater for us, but if we decide that for whatever reason we don’t want to pay them, Poland is screwed.
If the goal is actual deterrence then situation A is better than situation B no matter what the technology is.
However if the goal is to appease Russia and Putin then it’s a great plan, but hey not to worry they said it’s ok and it’s not like the Pols think we are selling them out or something. Oh wait:
Strategic ally? Mainstay of our security? End of illusions. United States of America, for which we have for each call, turned his back to us. U.S. President lightly tossed into the trash heap construction of the Poland and the Czech anti-missile shield. The massive military installation was to give special meaning to us in NATO and to strengthen our position towards Russia. But America, instead of Warsaw, he prefers dialogue with Moscow. Yesterday the whole world went round decision Barack Obama Kremlin triumphs, and the Poles have been exposed to the wind.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 