It seems all of our lives we look forward to retirement – right up to the time when it actually happens. Then we are faced with the reality that we must fill every day with interest and activity. For some this isn’t a challenge, they simply substitute paid work for unpaid work in the form of volunteering and others choose to travel while others simply go back to work. But then there is that small minority who simply try to withstand the daily adventure and mini-disasters that seem to follow them around, my wife and I seem to fall into that category. I offer a typical day in our retirement paradise.
Being retired we have no reason to rise before the chickens but after 40 years of greeting the sun with mixed emotions, it is now impossible to sleep in. Well not really – we sleep late now and don’t get up before 6 AM, which some see as the reason senior citizens are so crabby – they’re sleep deprived. But not us – we bounce out of bed each day ready for adventure. Of course we must admit there is less bounce than there used to be and some days we have to have a full Homeland Security groping just to ensure all of the body parts are intact, but still we start each day with enthusiasm. But – as the usual day in our retirement paradise progresses our enthusiasm wanes and today was very typical.
As usual we were up with the chickens and skipped downstairs, the skipping was due to having left our glasses downstairs and not being able to see all of the steps, so we skipped a couple. THAT gave us a good adrenalin rush, which we counted as our cardio-workout for the day. And now we were ready for breakfast. Contrary to what we tell our doctors we really don’t eat high fiber, low cholesterol, low carbohydrate, health foods so widely advertised on TV. You know the ones that promise perfect children, tight butts for life, and no need for health insurance. Instead we opt for the traditional breakfast of bacon, eggs, and toast, which would send our doctors into cardiac arrest if they knew, so we feel we are actually helping save their lives by telling them that we have given up real food and rely on better living through chemistry. But it isn’t like we are ignoring all aspects of the healthy life style. We no longer fry our eggs in the bacon grease but instead we use real butter – totally natural foods for us – no longer any of that processed junk peddled by the Pillsbury Dough Boy and his junk food pushing buddies like General Mills.
So this morning’s menu called for poached eggs on buttered toast with sausage. This was a simple healthy breakfast – easy to make, which I managed to whip up within minutes, but as usual nothing ever goes according to the plan. So I sat down for my breakfast and poked my fork into my poached egg. POW!!! My egg exploded!! This was not just some little poof – I mean it was like a car bomb. The yoke blew up and threw the yoke all over me, the table, and the floor. I figured I had been attacked by an egg bomb planted by some extremist militant PETA inspired chicken. Or maybe it was my doctor sending me the message to stick to egg whites, I don’t know which but I definitely was left with egg on my face. Well there was the sausage left so I stuck my fork into it. It was like releasing Niagara. It began to shoot a liquid clear across the plate and right onto my chest. I jumped back and yelled “My sausage just pissed on me!!” That turned out to be a poor choice of words because my wife wasn’t clear on just what sausage I was referring to and sort of took the position of “SO--? what else is new?” Another one of my failures in communications, but it seemed clear to me that I had been attacked by my breakfast, but I quickly decided I wasn’t dealing with an attack by PETA, the sausage was just showing solidarity with that Chicken or maybe it was the doctor delivering a symbolic message regarding my health choices.
So as you can see it wasn’t even 6:30 AM and our day was already off to a rocky start. But the sun came up, the day dawned, and so began another day in our little retirement paradise. I began working on my computer while The Commander In Chief (aka the wife) started her usual mysterious banging, tearing, squashing, and talking to herself. Suddenly there was an animal like scream and she immediately activated her emergency -- knight in shining armor alarm – that’s me, although the response time isn’t quite as fast as it used to be. So I dash downstairs – well dash at my age isn’t quite as fast as it once was but I arrive out of breath and in a rush of adrenalin (second cardio for the day). Of course I hadn’t heard the initial cry but I certainly hear the second one. It definitely sounds like an animal and it is in the HOUSE!! We immediately launch a search – well I search while my wife remains barricaded behind the chairs. After searching high and low, I bump into the package of toys she had wrapped for our grandchildren -- VOILA` The package emits this animal like cry!! She shouts “IT’S THE MONKEY!!” and of course being totally involved in all domestic events -- at a casual interest level -- I shout “WHAT MONKEY” Well it seems that as a welcome gift for my new iPhone, Verizon sent a monkey – Don`t ask because I don’t get the symbolism either. It seems my darling wife – had packed this monkey with the other toys destined for our grandchildren. This monkey makes screaming sounds as if it were being tortured (probably by a competitor like AT&T?)when moved or disturbed – mystery solved. So it was now lunch time and we have had two cardio-work outs and enough excitement for another typical day in retirement paradise. How the United Postal Service will react to this package is to be determined.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Bradley Manning and Julian Assange
The problem with history is that so few people read it or understand it so society is doomed to endlessly repeat the mistakes of the past. We see this in the wars that have plagued Europe for a thousand years, we see it in the political corruptions that brought down Rome and Byzantium, we see it in the rigid tyrannical governments that have dominated the Middle East, and now we are seeing the lessons unlearned from the French Revolution being taught once again by Julian Assange and the Cold War Lessons being taught once again by Bradley Manning.
Guy Burgess was a homosexual and member of the “Cambridge Five.” A Soviet Spy ring headed by Kim Philby. This group spied for the Russians before, during, and after the Cold War. It was composed of both MI5 and MI6 intelligence officers all of whom had hard left ideals beginning in their University days. Of these Burgess was certainly the most unstable and unpredictable and in addition to his overt homosexuality he was an alcoholic.
Burgess was the son of a Naval Officer and attended Eton, The Royal Naval College, and Cambridge. His poor eyesight kept him from continuing his military training. One would have thought that his obvious homosexuality would have kept him out of military training as well as his subsequent career in the foreign and intelligence services, but it didn’t. While at Cambridge he became a strong supporter of the communist party and joined a debating society that was strongly Marxist. With the rise of Hitler, Burgess renounces Communism and joins a Pro-Nazi group, apparently in an effort to hide his pro-Marxist and pro-Soviet views. He begins his career working for the BBC and with the opening of WW II he is transferred to MI 5 to work on war propaganda. His career progresses with assignments in the Foreign Office and for MI 5 in Washington DC.
Even though the events in the USSR compromised his hard left ideals regarding equality and wealth distribution he continued throughout his career to feed secret information to the KGB. His access to secret information was never questioned or compromised in spite of his obvious homosexuality, his past political record, and his raging alcoholism. He ticked all of the boxes normally used to prevent a person access to sensitive information, which brings us to Bradley Manning – a highly unstable young man.
Manning’s father had been in the Navy and Bradley had wanted to join the Army from the time he was a little boy. However, early on he refused to say the pledge of allegiance and rejected all references to God. He was outspoken in class and would frequently have altercations with his teachers. He was small and tormented at school for being “queer”. He threatened his father with a knife and as a result he left the family home living in his truck and holding several low paying jobs. Finally he joined the Army in 2007 and after basic training he was sent to Fort Huachuca where he was trained as an Intelligence Analyst. While there he was reprimanded for posting sensitive information to friends on YouTube. He was then posted to Fort Drum where he began his first homosexual relationship and was introduced to a group of hackers. During this period he had a falling out with his military roommates and screamed at his superior officers and was referred for medical counseling.
In spite of this track record and questions regarding his fitness to be deployed he was posted to Iraq. By the end of 2009 he was clearly showing signs of his instability and was once again referred to a Chaplin for counseling. He started counseling for his “gender” confusion and complaints about being harassed for being gay. He also announced he was opposed to the war and punched a female soldier in the face. He was told he could be discharged from the Army. Before this happened he had already had begun his contacts with Assange and was fully engaged in betraying his country, endangering the lives of fellow soldiers, and under cover agents. Unlike Burgess who at least had solid and long standing beliefs in communism, Manning had no such justification other than spite and a long standing resistance to authority – any authority. What he was doing in the Army and in such a sensitive position is a failure by virtually everyone who came into contact with him. Today he is viewed by the extreme left as a hero when he has no claim to any sort of moral courage and is in fact a traitor.
Julian Assange is a person who does not believe in secrets and professes that no government has the right to any secret. He started hacking into other people’s computers at age 16 apparently with no moral regret because he believed all information should be public. He was caught and convicted although only lightly punished. His hacking had cost the firms he hacked and various governments thousands of dollars in damages. He does not appear to have seen anything wrong with his activities because much like Robespierre, he is so convinced he is right and that everyone else is wrong that he feels guiltless.
He progressed to programming and a member of the open source software movement, and joined a group of hackers who believe all software should be free and there should not be any private ownership. He had a very unstable childhood and never really stabilized as an adult. Like so many in the Open Source movement he is essentially anti-authority and anti-government and does not see that any government has authority to have secrets or any control over him. Consequently he refuses to accept that his actions have any consequences or could cost lives, but if they do then that is simply collateral damage and the responsibility is the government’s and not his.
Robespierre and Assange have similarities. Robespierre believed in equality and democracy and was a disciple of Rousseau. He was passionate in his beliefs to the point where he abandoned his resistance to the death penalty and enforced his ideals by executing those who he felt were resisting his views on the ideal society. Much like Assange is doing today except Robespierre signed the orders of execution while Assange lets other’s do it. Robespierre was viewed as a patriot just as Assange is viewed as a patriot by some, but the reality is that both betrayed their societies. Robespierre was executed for his actions and both Assange and Manning should be seen as traitors and punished accordingly. They are not heroes.
Guy Burgess was a homosexual and member of the “Cambridge Five.” A Soviet Spy ring headed by Kim Philby. This group spied for the Russians before, during, and after the Cold War. It was composed of both MI5 and MI6 intelligence officers all of whom had hard left ideals beginning in their University days. Of these Burgess was certainly the most unstable and unpredictable and in addition to his overt homosexuality he was an alcoholic.
Burgess was the son of a Naval Officer and attended Eton, The Royal Naval College, and Cambridge. His poor eyesight kept him from continuing his military training. One would have thought that his obvious homosexuality would have kept him out of military training as well as his subsequent career in the foreign and intelligence services, but it didn’t. While at Cambridge he became a strong supporter of the communist party and joined a debating society that was strongly Marxist. With the rise of Hitler, Burgess renounces Communism and joins a Pro-Nazi group, apparently in an effort to hide his pro-Marxist and pro-Soviet views. He begins his career working for the BBC and with the opening of WW II he is transferred to MI 5 to work on war propaganda. His career progresses with assignments in the Foreign Office and for MI 5 in Washington DC.
Even though the events in the USSR compromised his hard left ideals regarding equality and wealth distribution he continued throughout his career to feed secret information to the KGB. His access to secret information was never questioned or compromised in spite of his obvious homosexuality, his past political record, and his raging alcoholism. He ticked all of the boxes normally used to prevent a person access to sensitive information, which brings us to Bradley Manning – a highly unstable young man.
Manning’s father had been in the Navy and Bradley had wanted to join the Army from the time he was a little boy. However, early on he refused to say the pledge of allegiance and rejected all references to God. He was outspoken in class and would frequently have altercations with his teachers. He was small and tormented at school for being “queer”. He threatened his father with a knife and as a result he left the family home living in his truck and holding several low paying jobs. Finally he joined the Army in 2007 and after basic training he was sent to Fort Huachuca where he was trained as an Intelligence Analyst. While there he was reprimanded for posting sensitive information to friends on YouTube. He was then posted to Fort Drum where he began his first homosexual relationship and was introduced to a group of hackers. During this period he had a falling out with his military roommates and screamed at his superior officers and was referred for medical counseling.
In spite of this track record and questions regarding his fitness to be deployed he was posted to Iraq. By the end of 2009 he was clearly showing signs of his instability and was once again referred to a Chaplin for counseling. He started counseling for his “gender” confusion and complaints about being harassed for being gay. He also announced he was opposed to the war and punched a female soldier in the face. He was told he could be discharged from the Army. Before this happened he had already had begun his contacts with Assange and was fully engaged in betraying his country, endangering the lives of fellow soldiers, and under cover agents. Unlike Burgess who at least had solid and long standing beliefs in communism, Manning had no such justification other than spite and a long standing resistance to authority – any authority. What he was doing in the Army and in such a sensitive position is a failure by virtually everyone who came into contact with him. Today he is viewed by the extreme left as a hero when he has no claim to any sort of moral courage and is in fact a traitor.
Julian Assange is a person who does not believe in secrets and professes that no government has the right to any secret. He started hacking into other people’s computers at age 16 apparently with no moral regret because he believed all information should be public. He was caught and convicted although only lightly punished. His hacking had cost the firms he hacked and various governments thousands of dollars in damages. He does not appear to have seen anything wrong with his activities because much like Robespierre, he is so convinced he is right and that everyone else is wrong that he feels guiltless.
He progressed to programming and a member of the open source software movement, and joined a group of hackers who believe all software should be free and there should not be any private ownership. He had a very unstable childhood and never really stabilized as an adult. Like so many in the Open Source movement he is essentially anti-authority and anti-government and does not see that any government has authority to have secrets or any control over him. Consequently he refuses to accept that his actions have any consequences or could cost lives, but if they do then that is simply collateral damage and the responsibility is the government’s and not his.
Robespierre and Assange have similarities. Robespierre believed in equality and democracy and was a disciple of Rousseau. He was passionate in his beliefs to the point where he abandoned his resistance to the death penalty and enforced his ideals by executing those who he felt were resisting his views on the ideal society. Much like Assange is doing today except Robespierre signed the orders of execution while Assange lets other’s do it. Robespierre was viewed as a patriot just as Assange is viewed as a patriot by some, but the reality is that both betrayed their societies. Robespierre was executed for his actions and both Assange and Manning should be seen as traitors and punished accordingly. They are not heroes.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Relationship of Hatshepsut with Thutmosis III
In reading a history of Egypt I once again find some "learned" professor calling Hatshepsut a "usurper" and Thutmosis as being "marginalized" and kept out of power until her death. Of course the real truth will never be known but a little logic is sorely needed on this subject. First of all Hatshepsut took Thutmosis as a little boy and raised him as her son. Queen or peasant the relationship between mother and child is a strong one and not easily broken. When Thutmosis II died his son was very young -- generally believed to be about nine -- a boy. It was his step-mother Hatshepsut who adopted him as her son and had him crowned as Pharoah while she assumed the role of regent. Even though women did not figure in the succession a woman like Hatshepsut, who had been raised to rule could easily have eliminated Thutmosis III had she desired the crown, instead she crowned her step-son as Pharoah.
Thutmosis III ruled with his mother as regent for about two years but it was clear that he didn't like the routine of governing. Like most small boys he clearly wanted to be more active and like many small boys today, he was probably interested in the Army. Consequently Hatshepsut recognized the futility of trying to rule through a small boy and sent him off to the Army while she assumed the crown as Pharaoh but without usurping Thutmosis’s position as Pharoah, so she became the co-ruler. For some this idea of sharing may seem like wishful thinking or stretching the truth, but Hatshepsut ruled for 20 years and Thutmosis III was near thirty when she died and was commander of the most powerful army of the time.
Hatshepsut was Queen with a palace guard and she could have been overturned any time her step-son chose to exercise his rights as Pharoah. Instead he remained in the army and commanded several campaigns in the south. Clearly he loved the army and enjoyed the military life, leaving the governance of the country to his step-mother. Had he thought otherwise he could have claimed his right of governance at any point once he was mature. If further evidence is needed the situation with Senmut the Vizier should be considered. Senmut functioned as the Vizier with almost total power almost from the beginning and certainly had been tutor to Thutmosis while he was prince and even as Pharoah.
Historians have long speculated that Senumt was the lover of Hatshepsut, while this may be true any close examination of Hatshepsut’s actions indicate that she truly believed that she was descended from the Gods and it is unlikely she would have taken on any commoner as a lover. But even if she had it also seems equally clear that he would never have been a candidate to marry her or her daughter or to share power with Hatshepsut. Yet the history of the time shows Senmut’s climb to power from nothing to Vizier and it seems equally clear that he was motivated by power. But Senmut suddenly disappears from sight after a visit with Thutmosis III at his headquarters in the south. Senmut visits Thutmosis then vanishes after this meeting and he is never again mentioned. What happened is not recorded but this meeting and his disappearance seem to be related.
What actually happened at this meeting is lost in history but it doesn’t require a vast leap in logic to assume that Senmut urged Thutmosis to overthrow his step-mother and to assume full power. To anyone kept in the background this might have been a golden opportunity to reclaim what was rightfully his, but for a loving and dutiful son this was an act of treason. However, Thutmosis did not take action against Senmut but undoubtedly he notified his step-mother of what had been proposed by Senmut. Given the disappearance of Senmut immediately after this visit it seems logical that Thutmosis was happy with things just as they were and viewed Senmut as disloyal to his step-mother and a traitor, but it was Hatshepsut who took action not Thutmosis.
This then opens the question that if Thutmosis loved his step-mother then why did he obliterate her statutes and images? For some this is viewed as an angry response and an illustration of how much he hated her. This is the lazy man’s view of events and really doesn’t seem logical when everything is considered. First she was buried in one of the most spectacular tombs in the valley of the Kings. Also not all of her images were destroyed and those that were destroyed were not destroyed until some time after Thutmosis took power. Thutmosis III claimed to reign from the time he was crowned meaning that he viewed the entire period during Hatshepsut’s reign as his, which of course was true. During this period it was common to mark milestones, battles, and accomplishments with statues and writings in temples and on walls. It was these where Thutmosis obliterated Hatshepsut’s name and images claiming these as part of his reign and accomplishments. Other images and references remained intact so these actions were probably not done in anger or retaliation but were politically motivated.
It seems clear when all of the evidence is considered that Thutmosis III loved his step-mother and that they had a sound and loving relationship throughout her life. Thutmosis III was a warrior and is viewed in History as the Napoleon of Egypt. Any General that powerful would not have been marginalized or kept out of power if he chose to take what was rightfully his. Instead he was satisfied leading the army while she took on the burden of daily governance. He clearly loved his step-mother just as she loved him. The idea that Hatshepsut usurped the throne and kept Thutmosis sidelined is an assumption that doesn’t seem to conform to the known facts.
Thutmosis III ruled with his mother as regent for about two years but it was clear that he didn't like the routine of governing. Like most small boys he clearly wanted to be more active and like many small boys today, he was probably interested in the Army. Consequently Hatshepsut recognized the futility of trying to rule through a small boy and sent him off to the Army while she assumed the crown as Pharaoh but without usurping Thutmosis’s position as Pharoah, so she became the co-ruler. For some this idea of sharing may seem like wishful thinking or stretching the truth, but Hatshepsut ruled for 20 years and Thutmosis III was near thirty when she died and was commander of the most powerful army of the time.
Hatshepsut was Queen with a palace guard and she could have been overturned any time her step-son chose to exercise his rights as Pharoah. Instead he remained in the army and commanded several campaigns in the south. Clearly he loved the army and enjoyed the military life, leaving the governance of the country to his step-mother. Had he thought otherwise he could have claimed his right of governance at any point once he was mature. If further evidence is needed the situation with Senmut the Vizier should be considered. Senmut functioned as the Vizier with almost total power almost from the beginning and certainly had been tutor to Thutmosis while he was prince and even as Pharoah.
Historians have long speculated that Senumt was the lover of Hatshepsut, while this may be true any close examination of Hatshepsut’s actions indicate that she truly believed that she was descended from the Gods and it is unlikely she would have taken on any commoner as a lover. But even if she had it also seems equally clear that he would never have been a candidate to marry her or her daughter or to share power with Hatshepsut. Yet the history of the time shows Senmut’s climb to power from nothing to Vizier and it seems equally clear that he was motivated by power. But Senmut suddenly disappears from sight after a visit with Thutmosis III at his headquarters in the south. Senmut visits Thutmosis then vanishes after this meeting and he is never again mentioned. What happened is not recorded but this meeting and his disappearance seem to be related.
What actually happened at this meeting is lost in history but it doesn’t require a vast leap in logic to assume that Senmut urged Thutmosis to overthrow his step-mother and to assume full power. To anyone kept in the background this might have been a golden opportunity to reclaim what was rightfully his, but for a loving and dutiful son this was an act of treason. However, Thutmosis did not take action against Senmut but undoubtedly he notified his step-mother of what had been proposed by Senmut. Given the disappearance of Senmut immediately after this visit it seems logical that Thutmosis was happy with things just as they were and viewed Senmut as disloyal to his step-mother and a traitor, but it was Hatshepsut who took action not Thutmosis.
This then opens the question that if Thutmosis loved his step-mother then why did he obliterate her statutes and images? For some this is viewed as an angry response and an illustration of how much he hated her. This is the lazy man’s view of events and really doesn’t seem logical when everything is considered. First she was buried in one of the most spectacular tombs in the valley of the Kings. Also not all of her images were destroyed and those that were destroyed were not destroyed until some time after Thutmosis took power. Thutmosis III claimed to reign from the time he was crowned meaning that he viewed the entire period during Hatshepsut’s reign as his, which of course was true. During this period it was common to mark milestones, battles, and accomplishments with statues and writings in temples and on walls. It was these where Thutmosis obliterated Hatshepsut’s name and images claiming these as part of his reign and accomplishments. Other images and references remained intact so these actions were probably not done in anger or retaliation but were politically motivated.
It seems clear when all of the evidence is considered that Thutmosis III loved his step-mother and that they had a sound and loving relationship throughout her life. Thutmosis III was a warrior and is viewed in History as the Napoleon of Egypt. Any General that powerful would not have been marginalized or kept out of power if he chose to take what was rightfully his. Instead he was satisfied leading the army while she took on the burden of daily governance. He clearly loved his step-mother just as she loved him. The idea that Hatshepsut usurped the throne and kept Thutmosis sidelined is an assumption that doesn’t seem to conform to the known facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)