
Click on the title for a great youtube video that compares John McCain to Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt. Very well done. By the way this blog is in no way connected with the McCain campaign and my views are my own and not of John McCain.
The views expressed on this personal blog are my own personal views and are not made in any professional capacity and do not reflect that of any organization I am associated with nor other members of my family. (There is a link to my professional blog below) If you believe you have the sole right to any picture or writings posted here please advise and I will remove it.


In the historical legends of ancient Rome, Horatius Cocles, was a hero who, on his own, defended the the bridge that led across the Tiber to Rome, against the Etruscans. It is said that there were other men with Horatius at the time, but they fled in panic at the sight of the enemy As he defended the bridge, the Romans destroyed it behind him. When they were done, he swam to safety on the Roman side

The foundation of Jimmy's sanity...lay in his abject refusal to ever let go of his unwavering faith in the curative, redemptive liberation of love as the reflection of the moral righteousness of Western Christian ideology. These beliefs, in turn, helped him realize the power of his continual on-screen persona, that of a spiritually based romantic all-American beacon of enlightenment to millions of Americans for more than half a century of turmoil and upheaval, from the depths of the Great Depression, through World War Two, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam and up to and including America's early involvement in the ongoing conflicts of the Middle East.... Fortunately, today, because of modern technology, we have the legend of James Stewart at our fingertips, easily accessible via DVD....



An Elegant Farce
Obama’s ‘conversation’ about moral equivalence.
By Victor Davis Hanson
Barack Obama’s Tuesday sermon was a well-crafted, well-delivered postmodern review of race that had little to do with the poor judgment revealed in Obama’s relationship with the hateful Rev. Wright, much less the damage that he does both to African Americans and to the country in general.
Obama chose not to review what Wright, now deemed the “occasionally fierce critic.” said in detail, condemn it unequivocally, apologize, and then resign from such a Sunday venue of intolerance — the now accustomed American remedy to racism in the public realm that we saw in the Imus and other recent controversies.
Instead, to Obama, the postmodernist, context is everything. We all have eccentric and flamboyant pastors like Wright with whom we disagree. And words, in his case, don’t quite mean what we think; unspoken intent and angst, not voiced hatred, are what matters more.
Rather than account for his relationship with a hate-monger, Obama will enlighten you, as your teacher, why you are either confused or too ill-intended to ask him to disassociate himself from Wright.
The Obama apologia was a “conversation” about moral equivalence. So the Wright hatred must be contextualized and understand in several ways that only the unusually gifted Obama can instruct us about:
*********************
The message? Some of us are never quite responsible for what we say. And Obama has no responsibility to explain the inexplicable of how he closely tied himself to someone of such repugnant and racist views. We will never hear “It’s time for Rev. Wright and me to part our separate ways, and here’s why.”
Instead, the entire Wright controversy evolved due to America’s failure to understand the Wright’s past and the present status of race. No doubt, the next time some public figure utters a racist comment — and it will happen — we will then expect to hear about context that explains and excuses such an apparent hurtful outburst.
Obama is right about one thing: We are losing yet another opportunity to talk honestly about race, to hold all Americans to the same standards of public ethics and morality, and to emphasize that no one gets a pass peddling vulgar racism, or enabling it by failing to disassociate himself from its source — not Rev. Wright, not even the eloquent but now vapid Barack Obama.

"John Ford, the legendary filmmaker whose classic westerns forever defined our cowboy heritage, proudly claimed that he began life as Sean Aloysius O'Feeny, the son of immigrants from County Galway. In addition to all the soul-stirring John Wayne horse-operas, Ford also made magnificent films (The Quiet Man, The Last Hurrah) celebrating Ireland and Irish-Americans."


Mr. Spitzer's dramatic fall yesterday began in the early afternoon with a posting on the Web site of the New York Times about the alleged link to prostitutes. The details in the criminal complaint about "Client-9," who is reported to be Mr. Spitzer, will now be played for titters by the press corps. But one may ask: Where were the media before this? With a few exceptions, the media were happy to prosper from his leaks and even applaud, rather than temper, the manifestly abusive instincts of a public official.
There really is nothing very satisfying about the rough justice being meted out to Eliot Spitzer. He came to embody a system that revels in the entertainment value of roguish figures who rise to power by destroying the careers of others, many of them innocent. Better still, when the targets are as presumably unsympathetic as Wall Street bankers and brokers.
Acts of crime deserve prosecution by the state. The people, in turn, deserve prosecutors and officials who understand the difference between the needs of the public good and the needs of unrestrained personalities who are given the honor of high office



In January 2005, when she found herself pondering how best to come to terms with the job of political spouse, Silda Wall Spitzer sought the advice of a woman who was once best known for not fitting so comfortably into that role herself, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Silda Wall Spitzer married Eliot Spitzer in 1987.
The two of them convened in Senator Clinton’s Manhattan office and spoke, according to Ms. Wall Spitzer, “about how to maintain a private sphere for our family and how to be helpful in my husband’s campaign.”
“I figured, here’s a woman who also met her husband at law school, who had been a lawyer with a firm, whose husband was a state attorney general before he ran for governor,” she said of Senator Clinton. “There really aren’t that many role models for this.”


This week I was able to watch courtesy of Netflix two DVD's on the Life of author Ayn Rand. The first, "Rand A Sense of Life"***** is a two hour plus documentary on her life from the time she was born in Russia through her death. It was made by admirer's of her and is very detailed and well crafted. Certainly as good as anything Kenn Burns has done. The other was a Showtime Channel, made for TV Docudrama, called "The Passion of Ayn Rand." ****Helem Mireen of "The Queen" plays Rand and as usual for Mirren does an excellent job. Her long suffering husband is played by Peter Fonda and according to those who knew him has him "nailed". The movie is primarily about the romantic affair between Ayn Rand and her younger protege Nathanial Brandon. The movie is based upon a book written by Brandon's wife and so it's not too sympathetic to Brandon or Rand. One scene is where Brandon and Rand set up a joint meeting for their spouses and ask for permission to have the affair and schedule it for one afternoon and evening per week. At least they weren't going to sneak around behind their backs. 

"I am besieged, by a thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Anna -- I have sustained a continual Bombardment & cannoned for 24 hours & have not lost a man -- The enemy has demanded a surrender at discretion, otherwise, the garrison are to be put to the sword, if the fort is taken -- I have answered the demand with a cannon shot, & our flag still waves proudly from the walls -- I shall never surrender or retreat. Then, I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, & every thing dear to the American character, to come to our aid, with all dispatch -- The enemy is receiving reinforcements daily & will no doubt increase to three or four thousand in four or five days. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as possible & die like a soldier who never forgets what is due to his own honor & that of his country
-- VICTORY OR DEATH --

Steinem raised McCain’s Vietnam imprisonment as she sought to highlight an alleged gender-based media bias against Clinton.
“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’” Steinem said, to laughter from the audience.
McCain was, in fact, a prisoner of war for around five and a half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so.”Steinem’s broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises.
“I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn’t even play war games as a kid. It’s a great relief from Bush in his jump suit and from Kerry saluting.”
To The Observer, Steinem insisted that “from George Washington to Jack Kennedy and PT-109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people.”

