"In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should 'have his head examined,' as General MacArthur so delicately put it.
“The odds of repeating another Afghanistan or Iraq — invading, pacifying, and administering a large third-world country — may be low,” Mr. Gates said, but the Army and the rest of the government must focus on capabilities that can “prevent festering problems from growing into full-blown crises which require costly — and controversial — large-scale American military intervention.”
ROBERT M. GATES, the secretary of defense.
addressing West Point Cadets, Friday February 25, 2011
New York Times, February 28, 2011
"U.S. Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman said they support creating a no-fly zone over Libya and that more should be done to oust Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.
“Now is the time for action, not just for statements,” Lieberman said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. Both McCain, the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Lieberman, an independent panel member, said they support sending arms and humanitarian aid to the anti-Qaddafi government and recognizing that government. "
John McCain, February 27, 2011
Meet the Press, and Bloomberg.com
Apparently failed presidential candidate Senator John McCain is not aware that using our air support and presumably our navy, by way of air force carriers from which to fly them, IS a military involvement. Moreover, an involvement which has not been requested by a Libyan opposition government, which has yet to form.
To rush in without invitation, most especially in the areas where there is no active ongoing conflict and where oil production and oil shipping has resumed as of Sunday 2/27/'11, is folly. And that is why McCain and his fellow too eager militant fellow Republicans and Tea Partiers have disastrous notions about U.S. foreign policy generally, and military intervention decisions specifically.
Showing posts with label military policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military policy. Show all posts
Monday, February 28, 2011
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Shower Power: the Threatened Attempts to Undo the Repeal of DADT
This repeal of DADT should not be overturned in the next Congress, or in any future session of Congress. It is time to remove the other legal impediments to LGBT citizens leading the same normal lives as the rest of us do, without regard to their innate and natural sexual orientation as a basis for discrimination. These right-wing nuts embrace the same unscientific, impotent, badly prejudiced, inaccurate and untrue beliefs that were characteristic of the bigotry of racism in the past that postulated racial inferiority, the belief that some races were inherently 'degenerate' promoted by conservatives in other eras. (Or perhaps currently circulating, with the attempts to promote revisionist history by conservatives like Gov. Haley Barbour, touted as a possible 2012 GOP conservative candidate for President.)
John McCain stormed out of the Senate when DADT was repealed. John McCain will continue to be part of the ultraconservative movement to oppose the civil rights of anyone who does not conform to their narrow and exclusively heterosexual, bigoted and misinformed politics and/or religion. Some incoming candidates-elect in January want to stop LGBT equality of any kind. Like the right in Virginia when Governor Bob McDonnell back in February 2010 removed sexual orientation from discrimination protection. rescinded an earlier executive order from 2006, the new Tea Partiers and Republicans, and their supporters, are already talking about undoing critical protections for LGBT people. This includes a bigoted desire to reinstate DADT. I think we can look forward to John McCain leading this effort, in his dire necessity to appeal to the extreme right for his political survival.
Here are a few of the statements which illustrate that intention:
John McCain stormed out of the Senate when DADT was repealed. John McCain will continue to be part of the ultraconservative movement to oppose the civil rights of anyone who does not conform to their narrow and exclusively heterosexual, bigoted and misinformed politics and/or religion. Some incoming candidates-elect in January want to stop LGBT equality of any kind. Like the right in Virginia when Governor Bob McDonnell back in February 2010 removed sexual orientation from discrimination protection. rescinded an earlier executive order from 2006, the new Tea Partiers and Republicans, and their supporters, are already talking about undoing critical protections for LGBT people. This includes a bigoted desire to reinstate DADT. I think we can look forward to John McCain leading this effort, in his dire necessity to appeal to the extreme right for his political survival.
Here are a few of the statements which illustrate that intention:
"We are now stuck with sexual deviants serving openly in the U.S. military... If historians want a fixed marker pointing to the instant the United States sealed its own demise, they just found it." – Bryan Fischer, American Family Association"
"The American military... has now been hijacked and turned into a tool for imposing on the country a radical social agenda." – Tony Perkins, Family Research Council.
"This action will be overturned in the next Congress." – Matthew Staver, Freedom Federation
"The repeal of the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' law is a disaster of historic proportions and it must be reinstated. My organization and others will to fight to make sure that happens." – E. W. Jackson, Stand America PAC
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Bush Tax Cuts, or...What the Hell is Wrong with Republicans' Math?
The Right is pushing the retention of the Bush Tax Cuts like an evangelical preacher pushes the Gospel, at an old fashioned Bible-thumping tent revival meetin'.
Except that the Bush Tax Cuts, for the wealthy, are anything but an economic gospel. They are ruinous. While an amazing number of middle and working class seem to have missed the tax cuts they already have received under the Obama administration.
George W. Bush is trying to rewrite the history of his two administrations to make it look like he was not an enormous aching, throbbing, hemorrhaging disaster. He was.
He WAS a walking, talking disaster, one of the all-time worst presidents in history. The Bush policies left us with disastrous financial collapse, AND some of the worst unemployment in the history of this country. An approximate total population of more than 300 million, we have in the vicinity of 25 to 27 million unemployed, which doesn't count the underemployed who are qualified for better jobs, but who instead find themselves among the working poor below the poverty line. These figures represent FAILED REPUBLICAN POLICIES - FAILED TAX POLICIES, FAILED JOB CREATION POLICIES.
The ONLY people who benefit, and then only short term not long term, are a few of the wealthiest 1% to 2% of the population. THEY have gotten richer while everyone else suffered and struggled and the economy collapsed under these policies. THEY pay the Republicans (and occasionally a few conservative democrats too) to parrott these lies, and they pay well. They STEAL elections by funding of these lies. (more on that in a future post)
These numbers have slowly but steadily improved under Democrats and the Obama Administration. Too change horses in mid stream NOW is folly, it is self-defeating impatience. The third quarter results for corporate profits are the highest since records were kept; this administration is not, by any meaningful metric, anti-business, (despite the litany of misinformation and disinformation you hear from the right - especially Faked cable News.
Georgie Porgie is making the rounds of the talking heads circuit, bragging about how his tax cuts created 1.1 million jobs. Hello? That is NOT a good result in job production over EIGHT years in a nation the size of the USA!
What he leaves out are two important things - the good jobs, the factory and other production jobs, the IT jobs, those were being outsourced at unprecedented rates. The piddling few jobs that were created were almost entirely low paying jobs.
But worse than that - if you look at the numbers, while Georgie Duh-b'ya may have created those 1.1 million jobs in the private sector.........he lost many millions more of those jobs in the final years of his presidency, resulting in an overall LOSS of jobs to our economy that was devastating; it was outrageously, avoidably catastophic.
AND 'W' and the Republicans saddled us all with monumental national debt.
Want to SEE how badly those losses hit this country? Click on this:
http://computationallegalstudies.com/2009/05/29/visualizing-job-losses-from-2007-2009/
Except that the Bush Tax Cuts, for the wealthy, are anything but an economic gospel. They are ruinous. While an amazing number of middle and working class seem to have missed the tax cuts they already have received under the Obama administration.
George W. Bush is trying to rewrite the history of his two administrations to make it look like he was not an enormous aching, throbbing, hemorrhaging disaster. He was.
He WAS a walking, talking disaster, one of the all-time worst presidents in history. The Bush policies left us with disastrous financial collapse, AND some of the worst unemployment in the history of this country. An approximate total population of more than 300 million, we have in the vicinity of 25 to 27 million unemployed, which doesn't count the underemployed who are qualified for better jobs, but who instead find themselves among the working poor below the poverty line. These figures represent FAILED REPUBLICAN POLICIES - FAILED TAX POLICIES, FAILED JOB CREATION POLICIES.
The ONLY people who benefit, and then only short term not long term, are a few of the wealthiest 1% to 2% of the population. THEY have gotten richer while everyone else suffered and struggled and the economy collapsed under these policies. THEY pay the Republicans (and occasionally a few conservative democrats too) to parrott these lies, and they pay well. They STEAL elections by funding of these lies. (more on that in a future post)
These numbers have slowly but steadily improved under Democrats and the Obama Administration. Too change horses in mid stream NOW is folly, it is self-defeating impatience. The third quarter results for corporate profits are the highest since records were kept; this administration is not, by any meaningful metric, anti-business, (despite the litany of misinformation and disinformation you hear from the right - especially Faked cable News.
Georgie Porgie is making the rounds of the talking heads circuit, bragging about how his tax cuts created 1.1 million jobs. Hello? That is NOT a good result in job production over EIGHT years in a nation the size of the USA!
What he leaves out are two important things - the good jobs, the factory and other production jobs, the IT jobs, those were being outsourced at unprecedented rates. The piddling few jobs that were created were almost entirely low paying jobs.
But worse than that - if you look at the numbers, while Georgie Duh-b'ya may have created those 1.1 million jobs in the private sector.........he lost many millions more of those jobs in the final years of his presidency, resulting in an overall LOSS of jobs to our economy that was devastating; it was outrageously, avoidably catastophic.
AND 'W' and the Republicans saddled us all with monumental national debt.
Want to SEE how badly those losses hit this country? Click on this:
http://computationallegalstudies.com/2009/05/29/visualizing-job-losses-from-2007-2009/
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Everything Old Is New Again
"January 13, 1949: Fahy Committee holds its first hearings. Representatives of the Army defend segregation of African-Americans. The Marine Corps also defends its segregation policy and admits that only one of its 8,200 officers is African-American. The Navy and Air Force both indicate they will integrate their units. The Navy admits that only five of its 45,000 officers are African-American."
"March 28, 1949: The three service secretaries testify before the Fahy Committee. Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington and Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan both testify that they are opposed to segregation and are pursuing policies to integrate their services. Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argues in favor of maintaining segregation, saying that the Army "was not an instrument for social evolution."
- The Truman Library Timeline of Military Desegregation
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology
"We're saying, 'We're shoving this down your throat,'" said Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican. "The military is not a social experiment. We are sending them out there with a mission to protect this country."
- Anne Flaherty, Associated Press "Congress to Vote on Military Gay Ban" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/congress-vote-military-gay-ban/
My father served in the armed forces in World War II as a naval aviator in the Pacific. One of the places I remember quite vividly that I was taken as a child, decades later during a family vacation was the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, one of the Presidential Libraries. My father spoke admiringly of Truman, "even if he was a Democrat". The parental admiration was earned for his conduct as Commander in Chief during the war, not for his desegregation of the armed forces.
I happen to believe Truman was a remarkable president for both reasons.
But when I read some of the statements, such as that of Congressman Gohmert quoted above, something about the phrase "social experiment" in his comment rang a bell. The place I went to look for the earlier similar wording was the Truman Library (online this time) that I remembered from my childhood.
In hindsight, from the vantage of the early days of the 21st century, it would be a rare person who sees the desegregation of our military as a radical exercise in "social evolution". Now we would simply see it as fair, as reasonable, so logical that the earlier status quo seems a bit ridiculous, foolish.
Word for word, argument for argument, I am struck by the similarity of the objections against allowing people to serve, to risk their lives and limbs, to protect this country and its citizens, without regard to their sexuality.
It is not new, gays serving in armed forces. This is not really an 'experiment'; it has been done successfully elsewhere, repeatedly. It is the norm in the armed forces of our allies.
When I was a small child, travelling on winter vacations with my parents, I saw the last holdouts of the "whites only" and "coloreds only" water fountains in small southern towns - mostly poor rural places. On one occasion, the "whites only" fountain was out of order, so as a stubbornly independent kid, I simply drank out of the other water fountain, to my parents' dismay. They didn't actually care which fountain I drank out of, they were simply concerned that I would offend the local populace.
Instead of being meekly rebuked, I crossed my arms (always a harbinger of my stubbornness rising) and declared the segregated system "just dumb". I further quite adamantly expressed my opinion that the local population would be better served by getting one good working drinking fountain, instead of having one crummy one and one that didn't work at all.
My parents tried to hush me, but I was not a hushable child, any more than I tend to be a 'hushable' adult. ( I fear my co-admins may have just choked on their beverage of choice at their respective computers.)
I proceeded to pose what seemed to me to be a logical question, didn't we all drink out of just one fountain without any problems? My mother agreed that was probably true. I pointed out that unless we actually saw who drank out of a fountain before we did, we wouldn't even know if it was another white person or not. My mother agreed this was true. So, I pointed out that it didn't really matter who drank out of a fountain, because it didn't make any practical difference, so it was just DUMB. "Just dumb" was my chronic and persistent protest of all adult illogic.
My parents gave up the hushing battle and simply picked me up bodily, threw me into the back of the family car, and hurriedly drove away to avoid an incident. My parents tried to explain how people felt, that it wasn't about logic.
I held to my conclusion that segregation was just dumb; not, I regret to say, for the inequality of it - I didn't really understand that part of it until later. I objected to the redundancy, the impracticality of it, in the face of poverty.
I find that as an adult looking at the current policy of our government towards gays in the military, I feel similarly that the policy of prohibiting people from serving because of their sexuality is "just dumb". We have always had men - and women - serving in our armed forces who were not heterosexual. Eisenhower had a notable experience in World War II in the European theater with having to relent to allow lesbians in the military, for example.
We have veterans of our current wars who have served with distinction, including people who have been honored for their courage in combat. We have graduated officers from the various service academies who have gone on to lead our armed forces in combat, without any more consequence resulting than that from shared desegregated drinking fountains.
Which does not alter the feelings of those who object. Minnesota has experienced the homophobic murder and beatings of gays in our history. We have right now so-called ministries and politicians, and their respective supporters, who contribute to that homophobia by claiming that muslims have the right idea in executing gays, who claim that the muslim and 'judeo-christian' faiths correctly label homosexuality an abomination. Perhaps the most egregious claim is that all homosexuals are child molesters, that homosexuals "molest 117 individuals" before being "found out". This is a factually inaccurate claim that is calculated to create fear and hatred. You can see a video of it here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOYF2Og1nMI
I have read comments from a devout catholic commenter who sincerely believes that the crisis in the Roman Catholic church is clear evidence that homosexuals are child molesters, because the priests who abused children "buggered little boys" more often than they abused girls, according to the statistics of the church.
Never mind the illogic of the reasoning, it is not about reason.
They claim to be upholding moral values; it is not about moral values. Values are the excuse, the justification, the attempt to defend the indefensible.
They don't want to hear facts or reason any more than those southern whites who believed in the necessity, the importance, the sacred tradition of segregation.
In every case fear will be the weapon of bigotry, whether it be the fear that blacks are criminals and that black men are just dying to rape white women, or the fear that homosexuals are all sexual predators and child molesters who want "to bugger little boys".
Predictably, religion will be dragged out to justify the bigotry that is too weak to prevail, to persuade, by fear alone. Dire predictions of divine retribution are the hallmarks of the worst of the religious zealots who try to preserve and extend the bigotry.
Predictably patriotism and fears for our security will be dragged out, claims that our military will fall apart if we do this. Similar arguments were made against desegregating the armed forces. It is an old, tattered, predictable fear tactic, not a valid argument.
In every case where fear fails to stop, the bigots will resist by trying to slow the progress, wailing that those who would act justly are forcing this evil thing on them. Just as predictably, those who come later will look back with the 20/20 vision of history and with clear hindsight, view the discrimination against gays as equally incomprehensible.
I have learned the adult lessons of diplomacy, that it is not useful to one's position to insult those who think differently by helpfully pointing out their position is 'just DUMB" even if the intent is only to be logical, to reason, not to be demeaning.
There is no more point in expecting logic to prevail in this instance. Some change will come through persuasion, but the majority of real change will come because, like Truman, those who can make the change find the strength to act. It is unrealistic to expect that we will have complete consensus so long as we have elected officials like the gormless Republican Rep. Gohmert of Texas, or Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a supporter of the man who is in the video ranting against gays and who shares his view.
It is unrealistic to expect that logic or persuasion will prevail over bigotry. The opposition of those who are so very wrong hurts our fellow citizens through this kind of discrimination, denies them dignity and honor, denies them careers, and denies us the valuable service of their courage, and skills. It is foolish for us to indulge the bigots any longer or to let this decision be dictated by the lowest denominator instead of the highest.
History shows us there will always be opposition. There are and will continue to be segments of the armed forces that are virulently homophobic. That opposition will exist between now and the conclusion date for the study; it will exist during the 60 days after the study is completed (presuming the study affirms the position of the majority of the military leadership as currently expressed).
History teaches us that like the changing attitudes towards desegregation and race, the only thing which will succeed is to steel ourselves to take the plunge. George Santayana said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Peter Allen came up with the song and lyrics "everything old is new again". An anonymous author perhaps was the wisest when he - or she - came up with the saying "''Each time history repeats itself, the price goes up."
It is time to learn the lessons of history. Again. And to pay that price, whatever it will be.
"March 28, 1949: The three service secretaries testify before the Fahy Committee. Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington and Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan both testify that they are opposed to segregation and are pursuing policies to integrate their services. Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argues in favor of maintaining segregation, saying that the Army "was not an instrument for social evolution."
- The Truman Library Timeline of Military Desegregation
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology
"We're saying, 'We're shoving this down your throat,'" said Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican. "The military is not a social experiment. We are sending them out there with a mission to protect this country."
- Anne Flaherty, Associated Press "Congress to Vote on Military Gay Ban" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/congress-vote-military-gay-ban/
My father served in the armed forces in World War II as a naval aviator in the Pacific. One of the places I remember quite vividly that I was taken as a child, decades later during a family vacation was the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, one of the Presidential Libraries. My father spoke admiringly of Truman, "even if he was a Democrat". The parental admiration was earned for his conduct as Commander in Chief during the war, not for his desegregation of the armed forces.
I happen to believe Truman was a remarkable president for both reasons.
But when I read some of the statements, such as that of Congressman Gohmert quoted above, something about the phrase "social experiment" in his comment rang a bell. The place I went to look for the earlier similar wording was the Truman Library (online this time) that I remembered from my childhood.
In hindsight, from the vantage of the early days of the 21st century, it would be a rare person who sees the desegregation of our military as a radical exercise in "social evolution". Now we would simply see it as fair, as reasonable, so logical that the earlier status quo seems a bit ridiculous, foolish.
Word for word, argument for argument, I am struck by the similarity of the objections against allowing people to serve, to risk their lives and limbs, to protect this country and its citizens, without regard to their sexuality.
It is not new, gays serving in armed forces. This is not really an 'experiment'; it has been done successfully elsewhere, repeatedly. It is the norm in the armed forces of our allies.
When I was a small child, travelling on winter vacations with my parents, I saw the last holdouts of the "whites only" and "coloreds only" water fountains in small southern towns - mostly poor rural places. On one occasion, the "whites only" fountain was out of order, so as a stubbornly independent kid, I simply drank out of the other water fountain, to my parents' dismay. They didn't actually care which fountain I drank out of, they were simply concerned that I would offend the local populace.
Instead of being meekly rebuked, I crossed my arms (always a harbinger of my stubbornness rising) and declared the segregated system "just dumb". I further quite adamantly expressed my opinion that the local population would be better served by getting one good working drinking fountain, instead of having one crummy one and one that didn't work at all.
My parents tried to hush me, but I was not a hushable child, any more than I tend to be a 'hushable' adult. ( I fear my co-admins may have just choked on their beverage of choice at their respective computers.)
I proceeded to pose what seemed to me to be a logical question, didn't we all drink out of just one fountain without any problems? My mother agreed that was probably true. I pointed out that unless we actually saw who drank out of a fountain before we did, we wouldn't even know if it was another white person or not. My mother agreed this was true. So, I pointed out that it didn't really matter who drank out of a fountain, because it didn't make any practical difference, so it was just DUMB. "Just dumb" was my chronic and persistent protest of all adult illogic.
My parents gave up the hushing battle and simply picked me up bodily, threw me into the back of the family car, and hurriedly drove away to avoid an incident. My parents tried to explain how people felt, that it wasn't about logic.
I held to my conclusion that segregation was just dumb; not, I regret to say, for the inequality of it - I didn't really understand that part of it until later. I objected to the redundancy, the impracticality of it, in the face of poverty.
I find that as an adult looking at the current policy of our government towards gays in the military, I feel similarly that the policy of prohibiting people from serving because of their sexuality is "just dumb". We have always had men - and women - serving in our armed forces who were not heterosexual. Eisenhower had a notable experience in World War II in the European theater with having to relent to allow lesbians in the military, for example.
We have veterans of our current wars who have served with distinction, including people who have been honored for their courage in combat. We have graduated officers from the various service academies who have gone on to lead our armed forces in combat, without any more consequence resulting than that from shared desegregated drinking fountains.
Which does not alter the feelings of those who object. Minnesota has experienced the homophobic murder and beatings of gays in our history. We have right now so-called ministries and politicians, and their respective supporters, who contribute to that homophobia by claiming that muslims have the right idea in executing gays, who claim that the muslim and 'judeo-christian' faiths correctly label homosexuality an abomination. Perhaps the most egregious claim is that all homosexuals are child molesters, that homosexuals "molest 117 individuals" before being "found out". This is a factually inaccurate claim that is calculated to create fear and hatred. You can see a video of it here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOYF2Og1nMI
I have read comments from a devout catholic commenter who sincerely believes that the crisis in the Roman Catholic church is clear evidence that homosexuals are child molesters, because the priests who abused children "buggered little boys" more often than they abused girls, according to the statistics of the church.
Never mind the illogic of the reasoning, it is not about reason.
They claim to be upholding moral values; it is not about moral values. Values are the excuse, the justification, the attempt to defend the indefensible.
They don't want to hear facts or reason any more than those southern whites who believed in the necessity, the importance, the sacred tradition of segregation.
In every case fear will be the weapon of bigotry, whether it be the fear that blacks are criminals and that black men are just dying to rape white women, or the fear that homosexuals are all sexual predators and child molesters who want "to bugger little boys".
Predictably, religion will be dragged out to justify the bigotry that is too weak to prevail, to persuade, by fear alone. Dire predictions of divine retribution are the hallmarks of the worst of the religious zealots who try to preserve and extend the bigotry.
Predictably patriotism and fears for our security will be dragged out, claims that our military will fall apart if we do this. Similar arguments were made against desegregating the armed forces. It is an old, tattered, predictable fear tactic, not a valid argument.
In every case where fear fails to stop, the bigots will resist by trying to slow the progress, wailing that those who would act justly are forcing this evil thing on them. Just as predictably, those who come later will look back with the 20/20 vision of history and with clear hindsight, view the discrimination against gays as equally incomprehensible.
I have learned the adult lessons of diplomacy, that it is not useful to one's position to insult those who think differently by helpfully pointing out their position is 'just DUMB" even if the intent is only to be logical, to reason, not to be demeaning.
There is no more point in expecting logic to prevail in this instance. Some change will come through persuasion, but the majority of real change will come because, like Truman, those who can make the change find the strength to act. It is unrealistic to expect that we will have complete consensus so long as we have elected officials like the gormless Republican Rep. Gohmert of Texas, or Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a supporter of the man who is in the video ranting against gays and who shares his view.
It is unrealistic to expect that logic or persuasion will prevail over bigotry. The opposition of those who are so very wrong hurts our fellow citizens through this kind of discrimination, denies them dignity and honor, denies them careers, and denies us the valuable service of their courage, and skills. It is foolish for us to indulge the bigots any longer or to let this decision be dictated by the lowest denominator instead of the highest.
History shows us there will always be opposition. There are and will continue to be segments of the armed forces that are virulently homophobic. That opposition will exist between now and the conclusion date for the study; it will exist during the 60 days after the study is completed (presuming the study affirms the position of the majority of the military leadership as currently expressed).
History teaches us that like the changing attitudes towards desegregation and race, the only thing which will succeed is to steel ourselves to take the plunge. George Santayana said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Peter Allen came up with the song and lyrics "everything old is new again". An anonymous author perhaps was the wisest when he - or she - came up with the saying "''Each time history repeats itself, the price goes up."
It is time to learn the lessons of history. Again. And to pay that price, whatever it will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)