"Baby inspects roses from Goomp that arrived this morning," we captioned this image six years ago today in our March 25, 2005 post "64 years ago today."
"70 years ago today we drove through snow and sleet to get married. Love, Dad," says the card accompanying a lovely "presentation bouquet" of pink roses — garnished with eucalyptus sprigs, asparagus fern and baby's breath — from Goomp. The occasion? The anniversary of his romantic elopement with our mother when they were just a couple of college kids in love. They drove from Medford, MA to Manchester, NH and returned to their Tufts dormitory rooms the same evening. Their first night together as Mr. and Mrs. had to wait until the following weekend. The rest is history. Thanks, Goomp, for blessing us with your sentimental and enduring love for Mummy.
"I wish she were here," he just i-mailed us a moment ago. As we wrote in our December 7, 2004 post "A most incandescent light":
In her family's heart Mary lives on, beckoning us all to be the best that we can be.
Chelsea, March 23, 2011. In recognition of the splendiferous, eminently quotable — "I have a woman's body and a child's emotions" — Elizabeth Taylor's passing from this vale of tears this day, a republication of our January 2007 post confirming her sensible decision to divorce Husband #6 John Warner when she realized it was all about him:
He's got no way to grab on to the culture of work. Nowhere to go, except Iraq maybe. They keep raising the bonus for enlistment; they keep tempting him to put himself in the mix. I always think he's a bag of flesh to them, a bullet stopper.
Reading that military-culture-challenged bit of drivel, we gagged and nearly clicked away in disgust, but remembering that Lt. General Petraeus had brought us to the site, we read on and were duly rewarded with Chiarella's reportage of the General's take:
I tell him about the boys I know, about how I'm concerned that the Army may be the only option for a kid like Gerald. "That's the problem," he says. "It may not be an option for him. We have a profile we're looking for; we need high school graduates who are physically fit and driven by the desire for self-improvement. We need men who are prepared to be better soldiers.
"I see the same things you do. The numbers are declining among boys," he says, clearing his throat. "I always call them men.
"What boys need," says Petraeus, "are role models, parental supervision, encouragement to pursue excellence in all that they do, especially in education, where we must do whatever is necessary to keep them in school." Old stuff, but tried and true and often lost amidst today's multiculti pc cacaphony:
They need direction to stay on the straight and narrow, a push to participate in athletics and extracurricular activities, help to pursue a healthy lifestyle, recognition that they must be accountable for their actions, and reinforcement of good performance.
We couldn't help but think of those aging Peter-Pan boys -- and girls -- in the Senate who made such fools of themselves yesterday when they bypassed the opportunity to ask General Petraeus to educate them -- and us -- with his vast store of knowledge about the subject at hand, the "way forward" in Iraq. Instead they used the opportunity of Petraeus's confirmation hearing to -- what else? -- grandstand at will. Our favorite exchange came after Sen. Lieberman asked Petraeus whether Senate resolutions condemning White House Iraq policy "would give the enemy some comfort":
Petraeus agreed they would, saying, "That's correct, sir."
We're not a division here today of patriots who support the troops and those who are making statements and working on resolutions that could be translated as aiding and abetting the enemy. We're trying to exercise the fundamental responsibilities of our democracy and how this nation has two co-equal branches of the government, each bearing its own responsibilities.
I hope that this colloquy has not entrapped you into some responses that you might later regret. I wonder if you would just give me the assurance that you'll go back and examine the transcript as to what you replied with respect to certain of these questions and review it, because we want you to succeed.
We expect intimidation from the left and from campaign finance "reform" types like John McCain. How disappointing to see John Warner going wobbly when the going gets tough. As Gen. Petraeus told Esquire author Tom Chiarella, "We have a profile we're looking for." Would that our fellow citizens who vote these people into office had such standards.
While Palin was quick to get into some of her favorite talking points, her appearance at the conference got off to a rough start.
India Today Editor-in-Chief Aroon Purie, who introduced her to the gathering, poked fun at Palin's "creative vocabulary" and her polarizing place in American politics in his introduction of the former governor.
Purie identified Palin as the "the sexiest brand in Republican politics" and frequently made clear that not everyone in the United States has a positive view of the former Alaska governor.
"Either you love her or hate her," he said …
"Governor Palin, I hope you don't refudiate me," he said, smirking to an amused crowd.
"Smirking to an amused crowd"? Not. Had you been there, as we were, virtually, with an open mind and a willing heart, you would have read Aroon Purie's twinkling smile and playful banter as anything but a smirk. A consummate master of ceremonies, he melted the hearts and minds of his honored guest and the distinguished audience with not a smirk but a witty acknowledgement of a tired CW narrative that no one but the MSM was buying any more. The last word goes to another Conservatives4Palin commenter, who won our own heart and mind with his reportage of the American Dream, alive and well:
I just watched this with my Parents, who immigrated from India. They LOVE Sarah now. Once someone hears Sarah unfiltered, they know how Brilliant She is. She did hit it out of the park.
It’s truly astonishing the lengths that some will go to in order to try to discredit Sarah Palin. Sure, the left-wing media loons are a given, but what about the folks on the Right who relentlessly brand her as unelectable, unintelligent, unpresidential, and/or unqualified? What is their basis for those assessments? And if she is so darn unelectable — why the need to consistently, near-obsessively attempt to tear her down?
"There'll always be an England, And England shall be free If England means as much to you As England means to me," Canadian actress Deanna Durbin (above) melted hearts with her girl-next-door rendition of the British WWII classic in the 1941 American movie "Nice Girl."
I have an inbuilt suspicion of anyone who claims he or she knows what is good for me. I usually distrust people with plans and schemes because, like Robbie Burns I tend to believe “that the best laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley.” But I do have heroes, especially people like Oliver Cromwell, Michael Faraday and Margaret Thatcher because they came from obscurity and achieved greatness through their own effort and talent. They are members of what Thomas Jefferson called the “aristocracy of nature,” and their authority comes not from their social status but from who they were and what they achieved as individuals.
I'll trade you a Jonathan Martin and John F. Harris for Jedediah Bila and Dan Riehl. I'll even throw in a couple of draft picks or players to be named later. Earlier in the week, Martin and Harris (sounds like a comedy team, doesn't it?) produced a really sophomoric piece for the Alaska Dispatch that failed miserably at painting Sarah Palin as the Right's Al Sharpton. It was the flagship piece of a number of what appear to be coordinated attacks on Sarah Palin which came out earlier this week. Like the man who takes a whack and says, "thank you sir, may I have another," the media tried for the umpteenth time and failed. The response from the Palin army was swift, precise and dead on target.
As we wrote in Patrick's comments:
Great post, you rabble, rouser, you!
As Sarah herself said in her keynote at Young America's Foundation's "Reagan 100 celebration" last month:
Be real. Left-wing elitists revere pomposity, arrogance, and highbrow rhetoric. However, they fear humility, authenticity, and practical smarts. Those things disarm them and leave them reaching for baseless attacks. Don’t forget to keep smiling.
The truly interesting debate relates to whether or not Palin is experiencing (as they put it) a “backlash, not from liberals but from some of the country’s most influential conservative commentators and intellectuals.”
Among the most prominent names cited by Politico (to reinforce this narrative) were conservative columnists George F. Will and Charles Krauthammer.
These are big names and smart people, but it’s also worth noting that their disapproval of Palin is certainly not a new phenomenon.