Suicide Is Not A Military Innovation

I have been amused, if not amazed, by the attitudes of people concerning suicide bombings and the like as practiced by our most current enemy. In the north of Iraq in 2004 I tried to instill in my colleagues the necessity of vigilance and care in the defense of our compound perimeter due to the possibility of an assault. Most answered with comments along the lines of, "That'd be crazy. We'd kill em all."

Well of course.

This isn't the first time that we, as Americans have encountered an enemy so filled with hatred and a desire for glory in their Heaven that they would willingly die to kill us. World War II in the Pacific, especially in the Phillipines and Okinawa, showed a Japanese ability to die for their cause through suicide. Kamikaze (suicide attacks by aircraft), Banzai (suicide charges by infantry) and harikiri (self-disimbowelment), and similar naval tactics, were standard in the Imperial Japanese military. Thousands of American, British, Australian and other allied soldiers, sailors and Marines were killed by these tactics.

The Korean War saw United Nations Forces, led by the US, fight against human wave attacks by Communist Chinese forces. These were clearly suicidal, though probably not what one would consider suicide attacks.

But, just a few years later in Vietnam, US soldiers encountered suicide assaults in conjunction with Viet Cong and later North Vietnamese attacks. These troops would throw themselves across barbed and concertina wire barriers, risking sure death, to ease the way for their comrades to charge through the defensive perimeters. Other communist soldiers would strap satchel charges to their bodies and rush into command bunkers and ammunition stores, triggering their explosives once inside. Ask any old American infantry Vietnam veteran about these tactics. They were real and they were tactically effective.

This is an old tactic used in the modern day today by Muslim terrorist suicide bombers. Why should anyone be surprised?

Michelle's Love & Pride

Back in April of this year Michelle Obama told a highly partisan crown that, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country..." That comment brought a huge ovation from the crowd and an even larger cry from Republicans, conservatives and patriots denouncing her comment.

The Barack Obama presidential campaign went into high gear claiming the mantra of “out of context,” “misunderstood,” and the usual panoply of whitewash, excuses and spin. I’ve read this statement over and over. It was NOT taken out of context. She said it, she meant it, and her audience loved it.

Fast forward to the 2008 Democratic National Convention a mere four months later. Again Michelle Obama is speaking to a highly partisan crown and states "I love this country." I’ve read this statement over and over, too. It was NOT taken out of context either. She said it, she meant it, and her audience loved it.

And I’m sure that BOTH statements are true.

We all love where we’re from. No doubt about. Our homes emote a certain passion from us no matter where we are from. Germans who were born and raised in Nazi Germany, even victims of the government then in power, love their country. It’s only natural. They are certainly not PROUD of Nazi Germany, though. Make no mistake.

And I’m positive that Michelle Obama loves America. It’s her home. America, Illinois, Chicago’s South Side. She loves them all, as I’m pretty sure she loves Princeton and Harvard. But, I’m also sure that out of all those, she isn’t proud of America until April. There is a difference between love and pride.

It’s just a shame to me that a woman, ANY woman, from a working-class family can excel, graduate high school, and graduate from two of America’s elite universities, and not be proud of the nation that allowed her to do that. There are many nations where a Christian, a minority, or a woman would never be allowed the chance to even go to school, no less practice as a lawyer.

I’ve not accomplished any of those things. I’m white and male. And I’m still proud of this nation.

I wonder if she’d be proud to be First Lady?

WAS MARILYN MONROE FAT?

Marilyn Monroe has been invariably lauded as the world’s greatest sex symbol, American model, Hollywood icon, cultural icon, and fashion icon – you name it. And she certainly was an incredible woman. Norma Jean Mortensen, as she was christened at birth, came from simple origins – she worked in an aircraft factory during World War II – to become the dream of nearly every American male. She was truly incredible.

And yet today, most would call her fat.

Marilyn Monroe was a size 13. That’s before the sizes were surreptitiously bumped upward by the fashion and apparel industry to fool Americans into believing they weren’t REALLY becoming fat. (When I was in college and much thinner I wore XL. Today I wear Large – but that’s another story.) Think about that. The world’s most amazing sex symbol WAS A SIZE 13.

I prefer the Marilyns of this world. You know the ones. Those awesome, busty, curvy, women with beautiful legs and the occasional blemish. Those that really need a bra to support their cleavage, not just cover it up. This is perfection in my world. It boggles my mind that a woman as beautiful as Alyssa Milano can be skewered by the paparazzi for being ‘fat,’ which incredibly has happened recently. Are these people insane? If she’s fat, I’m the Michelin Man. Okay, I may be a bit overweight, but I’m NOT the Michelin Man. And Alyssa Milano is NOT fat.

We constantly see this tilted view of women today, and thankfully there has been a backlash both socially and even medically. We’ve all seen the horror stories of bulimia and anorexia. These are recent sociological and psychological ailments, brought to us since the 1960’s by a warped view of feminine beauty. But, truly for many women it is too little, too late. And we have yet to address one of the roots of the problem:

Why do we, as a society, allow homosexual men to set the standard for female beauty?

Watch a fashion show. Any fashion show presenting women’s fashions. Every model is overly tall, incredibly thin and has no curves. Black, white, oriental, blonde, brunette, no matter. No cleavage, no hips, no bottom. Nothing. Even when I grew up, in my high school of 750 students, there might have been two or three girls built like that. And I assure you that of those, only one was in any way attractive. So, where do they find all these undernourished models?

Then the men who are hiring these women to act as moving manequins almost invariably are homosexual. Now, their selection probably makes perfect sense to them. What would a homosexual man find attractive? Probably a tall thin man with few features. Or the opposite – a man who’s really incredibly built, with large pecs and muscular, who ripples when he moves. If you’re dealing with a woman though, you’re likely going to have to go with the former rather than the latter when you are dealing with women’s fashions. And that is their idea of feminine beauty. A woman with absolutely none of the physical feature that truly make them a woman. A woman who looks more like a … well … a boy.

So, why do we, as heterosexual men and women, allow this to occur? What is the logic here? I see these rail-thin women on TV, in commercials, on movie screens, and notice the occasional ‘normal’ woman. They, of course, are invariably shown as ugly, or bossy, or bitchy, or ditzy. I revel, though in Alyssa, and even in Nia Vardalos (My Big Fat Greek Wedding), Tisha Campbell (My Wife & Kids), Delta Burke (Designing Women) and Kirstie Alley (Cheers). Hey, these women are beautiful even if they are large and occasionally fat. They’ve got cleavage. They’ve got legs. They’ve got a butt, and they generally carry it all well. They DO NOT look like boys. They are real women, just as God intended.

A lot like Marilyn Monroe.