Video | Info

For those of you who think that Stephen Sackur is a really bad interviewer, see BBCs ‘Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution’ and compare the portrayal of Žižek there to this video..

See also:
First as Tragedy, Then as Farce
Alain Badiou – BBC HARDtalk

La adresa URL http://www.romanialibera.ro/a170474/madona-din-stalingrad.html , citesc articolul “Madona din Stalingrad”. Cum să nu rîzi la afirmaţia prosovietică a domnului Alexandru Mihalcea (pe care altminteri îl respect mult) despre “componente pretioase ale acestei adevarate Academii de lupta de strada” ! În realitate, victoria sovieticilor la Stalingrad s-a datorat faptului că Japonia nu a atacat URSS, şi atunci întreaga armată sovietică din Extremul Orient, proaspătă, bine hrănită şi bine dotată cu tehnică militară a fost retrasă şi adusă la Stalingrad. Sovieticii au făcut şi un film despre acele evenimente, un film care a rulat şi pe ecranele de la noi în perioada comunistă. Şi au fost filmate realist trenurile acelea încărcate cu soldaţi rumeni, voioşi, şi cu tehnică militară, care mergeau pe calea ferată transsiberiană. Ironia este că proiectul pentru calea ferată transsiberiană şi pentru amplasarea unei mari armate a Rusiei în Extremul Orient fusese antamat de ţarul Nicolae al II-lea, ucis de bolşevici, în mod sigur şi cu o încuviinţare de la Stalin !

Este interesant că mareşalul von Manstein, vezi http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Manstein , i-a propus lui Hitler un plan de salvare a trupelor  germane, române şi italiene, dar acesta a refuzat ! Predarea lui von Paulus la Stalingrad a fost hotărâtă împreună cu generalii săi. După predare, sovieticii au făcut o fotografie de grup generalilor. Când am văzut fotografia de grup (este pe Internet), m-am înspăimântat ! Erau tineri, surâzători, masivi, prosperi, dacă vreţi arătau toţi ca nişte Brad Pitt dar aflaţi într-o condiţie fizică mult mai bună!, şi alături de fiecare dintre ei erau mari sacoşe de piele în care puteai bănui că poartă bunuri şi bunătăţi. Sovieticii s-au purtat extrem de generos cu von Paulus şi generalii săi. Care, foarte probabil, au trădat prin acel act decizional. Dar majoritatea trupei a fost exploatată fizic, înfometată şi ucisă ! Atunci când armata sovietică venită din Extremul Orient a încercat să atace şi trupele lui von Manstein, acesta i-a bătut pe sovietici de i-a zvântat ! Tot anul 1943 a fost un an de victorii von Manstein. Atunci când Hitler a hotărât marea bătălie de tancuri de la Kursk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk , von Manstein a construit un plan de luptă pornind din Harkov, dar Hitler l-a refuzat din nou ! Cine studiază planul de luptă al lui von Manstein găseşte că era genial ! Von Manstein vroia să atragă trupele sovietice la luptă în Rusia Sudică, teritoriu primit de Rusia cadou prin pacea de la Kuciuc Kainargi din 1774, un tratat de pace pentru care făcuse lobby Voltaire, plătit de ţarina Caterina cea Mare. Trebuie să amintesc aici interesele româneşti, tratatul de la Kuciuc Kainargi din 1774 anula Capitulaţiunea din 1740, garantată de Franţa, cea mai mare putere a lumii pe atunci, prin care era stipulată şi recunoscută ca fiind totalmente legitimă frontiera principatului moldovenesc pe rîul Bug. În cel de al doilea război mondial, armata română a contat la un moment dat strategic atât de mult, încât Anglia şi America i-au trimis un mesaj lui Ion Antonescu prin care admiteau validitatea încă a Capitulaţiunii de la 1740, deci Anglia şi America garantau pentru România frontiera răsăriteană pe rîul Bug. Winston Churchill scrie în mod expres despre aceasta în Memoriile sale pentru care a primit premiul Nobel. Von Manstein era convins că atrăgându-i pe sovietici să lupte pe acel teritoriu, sprijinul acordat lor de Anglia şi America s-ar mai fi moderat. În mod cert, Von Manstein avea intuiţiile lui, şi multe din ele s-au dovedit corecte. Întrebarea este de ce se opunea aşa de înverşunat Adolf Hitler intuiţiilor  lui Von Manstein ? A apărut recent la lumină un document foarte autentic realizat în 1920 de serviciile de spionaj franceze despre un anume Adolf Jacob Hitler, personaj aflat într-o ascensiune în Germania. Lupta intraspecifică este nemiloasă… Poate că acest Adolf Jacob Hitler a vrut intenţionat să distrugă Germania. A, şi faimosul “craniu al lui Hitler” păstrat la Moscova s-a dovedit că este al unei femei …

Titus Filipas

Mikhail Bulgakov, The Master and Margarita, 1967
A great example of how an allegory changes and loses its power when divested of its original meaning through time and cultural distance. Apparently, this story of the Devil arriving in Russia with a band of merry demons and causing havoc is some kind of commentary on Stalin’s U.S.S.R. Nowadays it just reads like a slightly chaotic magic realist piece where part of the pleasure lies in the quaint descriptions of Russian life in the early part of the 20th Century and the phantasmagorical tableaux the characters are thrust into. What’s clear is that Bulgakov had no love for the bureaucratic, atheistic society that existed in Russia – especially the one cherished by fellow artists. The initial sadistic pranks played on humans get softened towards the second half of the story when the Devil meets Margarita, a compassionate girl with the makings of a witch who has never forgotten her love for the “master”, a failed writer stuck in a psychiatric hospital (the calmest, most relaxing place in the novel.) Watch out too for the creepy, fat black cat that creeps out most of the people who cross his path (including the reader).

Bulgakov’s novel is a pleasure to read and a pleasure to discuss with others that know the story. Now I’m off to figure out what the hell he was going on about!

Od tego się “filmiku” się wszystko zaczeło:

siedziałem w nocy i zobaczyłem nowy film Rogvista – postanowiłem zebrać wszystkie ciekawe  filmy z YT

i innych zasobów w jedno miejsce gdzie ludzie czujący i myslący podobnie mogli by je łatwo znaleźć

Wiecej informacji na temat Żołnierzy Wyklętych

http://podziemiezbrojne.blox.pl/html

Polish Underground Soldiers 1944-1963 – The Untold Story

http://www.doomedsoldiers.com

quick story below:

What is it about the historical strength of fashion that makes the novice  mass murdering despot adhere so completely to the historical wardrobe preferences of past aspirants to tyranny on the world stage? Forget about quitting smoking, losing weight, and eating healthy, this is the real thing. Green military fatigues and poorly made suits have given way to green military fatigues, poorly made suits and red sweat suits. Some attempts at individuality have been driven by the gray Primark jacket found in the bazaars of Istanbul, they remain isolated in their efforts.
Let’s begin with the poor relations over there across the Volga…old Yosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili…or Joseph Stalin or Joe Steel to you…looking
good in this black and white version of  his blood spatter resistant over shirt, old Joe established a style that would prove hard to resist for  future despots with an eye for tradition.

The idea of culture was certainly not lost on the murdering chairman mao…he even incorporated it into his “revolution,” while continuing the tradition of  Joe’s blood spatter resistant tunic….

Suddenly, there emerged a “rebel” on the political front….Sadly, his sense of rebellion was as dated as his choice of wardrobe…

Same old military-inspired styling…same old blood spatter resistant fabric…YET NO FASHION FORWARD THOUGHT……

Before we go on, let’s remember there was a time,  prior to these three, when tyranny embraced fashion…..

Here we can see the source of their jealous deconstructions…the original mass murderer looks smart in his coat and tie, accessorized with a clever hat and important papers carried in the left hand…..a fashion statement not lost on forward thinking despots of the future….

Limits on time require we skip over some minor (less than 6 million) murdering despots at this point….

Fashion suddenly takes a turn with the arrival of the north korean “chairman of the hidden gulag,” ….in more ways than one…

Here we see the traditional blood spatter resistant fatigue fabric over-shirt boldly replaced by the blood spatter resistant gray jacket….a bold combination acknowledging both traditional and future concepts in despotic fashion…..a combination which will not be lost on the upcoming despot with an eye for style….

And here we have it….the evolution of  despotic fashion culminates in an ensemble which suddenly places the contemporary classic open neck shirt underneath  a bright new interpretation of the  old green  blood spatter resistant military-like over-shirt…the  “gray jacket!”

We here at despotfashion.com realize  that beyond the general UN rant,  the occasion for more formal dress may arise.  In such cases we could do worse than recommend the “old blue suit:”

or the oversized blue suit…..

or the classic “birthday suit…..”

We wanted to include running suits in this review but suffice to say, they’re red and habitually worn by despots…..

click on any picture….

(fronda.pl)

The monster two-thousand pages health reform bill is going to pass, I think. There are two silver linings to this disaster, First, I have never in my life seen Americans pay such attention to the mechanics of how legislation is made. (The 300 million bribe to Sen Landrieux of Louisiana is common currency.) Second, as I said, the Obama administration is making so many mistakes we may well have a one-term President and a groundswell of conservatism in three years.

Except, paradoxically, if there is a terrorist attack, it will save Obama. Americans rally around their leadership in times of calamity.

Don’t get discouraged. We can roll back everything, except massive debt, of course. We are stuck with it, especially you, starry-eyed, good-feeling young people who voted massively for Peter Pan.

The next disaster is going to be cap-and-trade legislation. There could be national security justifications for a tax on carbons, which include petroleum. We are getting too muchof it from bad neighborhood, Iran, for example and unstable Saudi Arabia. The fact is that Iran could shut down the Straight of Hormuz for a long time by sinking two dozen old ships in the right places. (Look up the Straight in an atlas; it’s good for you.)

Not the justification chosen by the administration, and with good reason. Instead, they insist on taxing carbon emissions because of our carbon footprint, because of climate change. Climate change was formerly called global warming. It was re-named because the climate stopped warming about ten years ago. Time to review systematically the absurdity of this set of beliefs. A systematic review is needed because, I noticed around me and among my radio listeners a tendency to lose the forest for the trees. Below are seven points worth keeping in mind that organize the issue somewhat. (My radio program, “Facts Matter” is available on ksco Santa Cruz 1080 AM, every Sunday, 11 am to 1 pm. You can also catch live on-line.)

1 There is no global warming trend, except over a very small number of years. Does not matter. Advocates have been caught repeatedly manipulating data to show a suddenly, abrupt climb in global temperature in the 19^th and 20^th century. (The “hockey stick.”) In fact, it was warmer in 1100 than it is now. The medieval viking settlers in Greenland ate beef. That means they grew grass in significant quantity, which you could not do now reliably in Greenland because it’s too cold. I got the information on the settlements and on their beef diet from Jared Diamond’ good book, Collapse. Diamond is a serious environmentalist and a climate change advocate but an honest man.

There is no scientific consensus on climate change, as the Obama Administration would have you believe. There is a a shared religious conviction among establishment scientists who depend on government funding. Advocates publicize every anecdotal item that could conceivably support the thesis and nothing that invalidates it: It’s unseasonably warm in NY in November, they say but early winter in Colorado does not get a notice.

For a small sample of the intellectual dishonesty among climate change advocates, follow the Times of London link below.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6926325.ece

The main part of the story is not how vile many advocates are. It’s simply the observation that if you need to lie on behalf of your cause, it’s a bad cause. Period.

2 If there were a significant warming trend, it would not be reasonable simply to attribute it to the burning of petroleum, natural gas, and coal. Water vapor and bovine burps play a similar role. (I am not making this up!) Climate change advocates should tell us clearly what part each type of gas plays in alleged global warming. Or they should tell us that they don’t know. Clarity and thoroughness matter when you wish to impoverish billions, as carbon emissions reduction would do without a question.

3 If there were increased emission of carbon and if we cared about it, advocates would have to show that the normal natural means of absorption of carbon emission are not working, or not working well enough. The National Geographic, a strong advocate, just showed (December 2009 issue) a graph indicating that 56% of carbon emissions are absorbed by earth and ocean. The National Geographic is a consistent advocate of climate change, of course. This unaided rate of natural absorption suggests solutions to alleged global warming other than the reduction of carbon emission and the consequent crippling of the world economies. I don’t know if it’s feasible but I want climate change advocates to tell me: How about planting more forests instead? I mention this because hardly anyone is against planting trees, not even mean-hearted conservatives like me. By the way, enlarging forests could create jobs where they are most needed, in the poor countries. I, for one, go on the record to say that I would not mind being taxed to pay poor Indians and South Americans to plant trees that would benefit me as well as them

4 Advocates have to show strongly that increased carbon emissions stay trapped in the atmosphere. There are big doubts expressed in some scientific milieus about this assumption. It’s too technical for this blog. See the Watts reference below. Of course, if CO2 escapes into the ether as we create it, there cannot be global warming according to the advocates’ own religious dogma.

5 It’s the advocates’ burden of proof to perform a serious and evolving cost/benefit analysis of the drawbacks and advantages of global warming if it exists. Carbon is plant food. Warmer weather means bigger crops of the most important plant foods, especially wheat. Think Canada and Siberia. If the northern limit of wheat maturation moved as little as one hundred miles north in each region, the harvest gains would be enormous. Same thing for the southern limit of wheat maturation in Argentina. Climate advocates are, by and large, the same people who tell us that much of the world population is going hungry. You can’t have it both ways. You want to feed the hungry first or second, or third, or not at all. Just make yourselves clear!

6 If there were global warming and it were sure to be deleterious on balance, we would need to establish how urgent the problem is. Let’s take an easy measure proposed for years by climate change advocates: the supposedly rising sea level. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, winner of the 2007 (laughable ) Nobel Peace Prize, the maximum rise in sea level is less than three feet in one hundred years. That’s disturbing for many coastal areas but not an emergency. Gives us time to think better solutions. Again, that’s the maximum estimate.

7 Those who buy the whole climate change religion should be strongly in favor of nuclear energy. It’s the surest and quickest way to slow down petroleum and coal consumption. It’s not experimental, it’s well proven. The Japanese and the French have been relying on this form of energy for thirty years. Nevertheless, climate change advocates are not in favor of expanding nuclear energy production. This alone puts their good faith in doubt.

Overall, most of us don’t have time to consider everything in detail. Movements followers are trying to swamp with impossible quantities of info and pseudo-info regular people who need to make a living and to raise their children, I think. There are shortcuts, however. You don’t have to become an expert to form a valid opinion on this attempt to curtail your standard of living. Here is one: Judge a movement by the quality of its leaders.

The undisputed public leader of climate change-based policies is Al Gore. Al Gore is an ignorant moron. He proves it every time he goes on television. He said recently that the center of the earth is several million degrees hot. (It’s 5000 degrees F.) That was in defense of geothermal energy. I heard him with my own ears. This is not an Internet rumor. It’s also not a small mistake on an arcane point. A reasonably good high-school junior would know better.

Here are a couple of things you can do to make yourself informed without turning the endeavor into an unpaid second job. First, visit the eminently readable and scientifically respectful website :Watts Up With That

Second, if you take the trouble occasionally to read carefully reports put out by advocates of global warming themselves, you will often find statements that don’t conform with their views. That’s what I did above with Collapse and with the National Geographic.

Whats’ really going on? As is always the case with left-wing movements, you have a small elite of cynics, supported by religious frenzy, leading an army of dupes.

The cynics want three things:

1 A massive transfer of wealth from relatively civilized areas, like the US, to the poor countries that don’t know how to govern themselves;

2 The foundations of a future world government where we would have to end up having our lives determined in part by bloody and grotesques dictators. (Think of Libya and North Korea as the next Illinois and New Jersey.)

3 As always, more power for themselves. The fastest way to rise to the top is not hard work or initiative but the confiscation of public resources under the guise of government

The dupes are psychologically the same kind of people who believed in Stalin, and who were slaughtered by Stalin and whose lives were ruined by Stalin for several generations. They cried by the tens of thousands at the tyrant’s funeral. Some are genuinely ignorant. Many more are intellectually lazy. They also love to believe the world is going to pot in general. Good people will assent to anything if they are scared enough.

Man up, America! (That goes for you to, Miss.)

Were those emails from CRU in the UK “hacked” from the system?  People I talk to who know a thing or two about network security say it’s a given that nearly all hacked material is actually taken by insiders who have access to passwords and network storage locations.  So, most likely, a disgruntled person at CRU spilt the beans.

As a result, we have the spectacle of true believers foaming at the mouth, always edifying, as it shows more reasonable people how they most certainly do NOT want to behave.  Consider this comment on Andrew Revkin’s blog:

Uprising-the hungarian revolution 1956

Terror by Quota–State Security from Lenin to Stalin

STALIN THE CZAR OF ALL RUSSIA

Mosley – The Druid (nazi spy who was never caught)(1982)

Agencias/Cubanitoweb

Así, sin anestesia, este analfabeto funcional que es Hugo Chávez, sin ningún pudor dice que el ex-dictador de Uganda,Idi Amin, era un tipo nacionalista y chévere. Estos son los señores que él adora y admira, los tiranos, los asesinos, los corruptos, los ladrones, los violadores de los derechos humanos, es algo impresionante como día a día, Chávez se convierte más en un ser adorador de lo peor de la especie humana, aquel muchachón hablador se ha convertido en uno de los peores gorilas latinoamericanos.

Aquí la reseña de Idi Amin en wikipedia, juzgue usted mismo……

Dos dictadores en actitudes similares. Idi Amin y Josef Stalin

Un grupo de funcionarios, incluido Tamale Mirundi, secretario del presidente Yoweri Museveni, dijeron que Amin dirigió de forma brutal el país en los años 70. Chávez dijo el viernes que el dictador africano era un nacionalista y un patriota.

Mirundi respondió el domingo a los comentarios mencionando el historial de Amin de torturas y asesinatos a oponentes, incluida una de sus esposas. James Kizza Baliruno dijo que quedó ofendido por los elogios, ya que los soldados de Amin mataron a sus padres frente a élcuando éste tenía cuatro años.

Los funcionarios no dijeron si tomarán alguna acción concreta. Venezuela no tiene embajada en Uganda.

LO QUE DIJO CHAVEZ DE IDI AMIN

El viernes en la noche, Chávez defendió a una serie de líderes que dijo son injustamente etiquetados como “los chicos malos del mundo”, incluidos Robert Mugabe, de Zimbabue, y Mahmud Ahmadinejad, de Irán. Chávez calificó a ambos de hermanos y dijo que se pregunta si el dictador de Uganda, Idi Amin, fue realmente tan brutal como se dice fue, ya que incluso fue catalogado como “caníbal”.

“A estas alturas yo digo, oye, no sé, a lo mejor era un gran nacionalista, un patriota”, dijo Chávez refiriéndose a Amin, cuyo régimen fue conocido por las torturas y asesinatos de oponentes sospechosos durante los años 70.

“Bueno vean como tratan a nuestro hermano y amigo el presidente de Zimbabue, como lo tratan, igual, casi igual que Idi Amin. Casi que un caníbal pues. Además utilizando el arma bastarda y sucia del racismo. Aquí mismo, la burguesía se ríe y han hecho una pantomima tragicómica del presidente de Zimbabue, que es un luchador por los intereses de su pueblo”, dijo Chávez.

Con información de AP

Enemies Within the Gates–The Comintern and the Stalinist Repression, 1934–1939

Dilling – The Red Betrayal of the Churches (communist infiltration of churches)(1938)

I can’t seem to get going this morning. I have so much work to catch up on (university work) but my head isn’t with it. Last night I had trouble sleeping. I felt as if a migraine was about to come on. My face started going numb and my ears & nose felt “full”. I only have about 10 days left to finish this stupid essay. I have fallen behind this past week mainly because my husband was on vacation. We didn’t go out really or do anything, but this week seems to be a blur. It is raining AGAIN. I think that it has rained everyday for a month. I will be so glad when Christmas and New Year has come and gone and the sun reappears. I don’t normally like hot weather. Bright sunlight sets off my migraines, but all this rain and grey is depressing. I prefer spring or fall. If I could get on top of the migraines & dizziness I think that I would generally fell better about everything. It has been @ 18 months, and there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. I am the kind of person that needs to know why, and there is no reason (that I know of) why all of this started. Blah! Anyway, I need to get started….. back to the books. I swear if I don’t get past this chapter on Stalin I am going to go mad! The child is at school and the husband is still sleeping, so it’s quiet at the moment, apart from the “clingy” cat & the morning news in the background. Anyhooo I must crack on.

It is commonly assumed by the public that Communism (also called “Marxism”) was created by the German philosopher Karl Marx. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a young Marx joined the already existing Communist movement and, after publishing several works on the subject of Communism and Capitalism (a term he coined), he became such a central figure that the term “Marxist” became synonymous with the term “Communist”. In much the same way Adam Smith did not create Capitalism but rather created the authoritative work on Capitalism (The Wealth of Nations) and yet is still considered the “founder” of Capitalism.

So who did create Communism?

Like most things in life, there is no short and simple answer. Communism, or at least the primitive ancestor of Communism has existed for thousands of years. At the dawn of man, humans lived in tribes, working together for survival. What one man killed was food for everyone, the spear or hammer made by one person could be used by another. The concept of private-property did not evolve until much later in human history- the reason being that selfishness and individualism simply could not mesh with the harsh realities of the time. One human could not survive on his own, the tribe as a whole could not waste time and energy on creating twenty individual hammers for the twenty men of the tribe when one could be shared just as easily. At the same time, the shared property (combined with the need for everyone to pull their own weight) eliminated any chance of a class system evolving. Without any difference in wealth or workload, society was more or less egalitarian.

So what happened?

As humans became more settled and as the barter system emerged (to be discussed in a later post), shared-property died slowly out and the class system arose. While today the vast majority of hunter-gatherer, pastoral, horticulturalist, and nomadic people groups still live in classless, shared-property systems, the majority of the world’s population began moving away from this system after the establishment of permanent agricultural communities. By the fall of the Roman Empire, most of the world’s people groups practiced Capitalism in some form. It was not until 1516 when Thomas Moore, one of Henry VIII’s closest advisers, published his work Utopia that the concepts of shared-property and classlessness were reintroduced into society (albeit merely as subjects of intellectual discussion). Only in the early 1800s were the concepts developed into actual political/economic theories. Henri de Saint-Simon, a member of the French aristocracy, created several works on the subject and while never implementing them in any major way, laid the foundations for what would become known as the Communist movement. It was not until 1848 when two young Prussian authors named Marx and Engels published their collaborated work The Communist Manifesto that Communism (or “Socialism”- at the time the two words were more or less interchangeable) became a concrete theory. Between the two men’s works, the entire Communist philosophy was created, though it was not implemented until 1871, when Parisian Socialists revolted against the imperial French government and established a short-lived attempt at a Communist government until the Commune (revolutionary government) was wiped out by the French military. While Communist philosophy spread across much of the Western world, there were no major attempts at Communism (baring the establishment of Amish, and later, Hutterite, communities- which are closer to the primitive classless/shared-property practices of various tribal societies). There was a brief attempt at Fabianism (a British Socialist movement), however it quickly devolved into a philosophy, rather than a physical attempt at the implementation of Communism. It was in Russia in 1917 that the first major attempt at a Communist revolution (since the 1871 revolution) took place. The Bolsheviks (the Russian Communist party and revolutionary movement), led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the Russian monarchy and the feudal system. After Lenin’s death in 1923, a split ensued that left the USSR divided between the followers of Leon Trotsky (creator and commander of the Red Army and Lenin’s second-in-command) and the followers of Joseph Stalin (the General Secretary of the Communist party). Stalin, despite the efforts of Trotsky and his followers, assumed control and eventually exiled Trotsky in 1929. Under the despotism of Stalin, the USSR, while maintaining the facade of Communism, devolved into a semi-Socialist dictatorship (Trotsky referred to it as a “deformed workers’ state). While Trotskyism grew in popularity in the West, the general Communist movement was marred by the atrocities committed by Stalin and the imperialists policies pursued in Eastern Europe after his death. In China, Mao Zedong led what is generally considered to have been a Communist revolution, but the later policies of Mao have caused many other Communists to doubt whether China could be counted as true Communist country since the mid 1950s. While the revolution itself is considered to be beneficial, the vast majority of modern Communists hold that contemporary China is no more a true Marxist country than Stalin’s USSR (this opinion is viciously opposed by Maoist factions of the Communist movement). While Communism was quickly becoming popular in the third-world (due largely to Western neo-colonialism) the next major advancement of Communism occurred in Cuba after Fidel Castro and Che Guevara defeated the dictator Batista. Once again Communists are split on the subject of whether Cuba may be considered a true Marxist government- much like China, there is popular that the revolution was a positive event but the movement is split on whether Cuba did or did not devolve into another deformed workers’ state. Indeed, the same could be said for almost every country where a Communist revolution has taken place (though almost all Communists are united in believed that North Korea is not a true Communist country). While the collapse of the USSR in 1990 has led many to believe that Communism has been defeated, the Communist movement is technically as active as it ever was.

In short, the history of Communism is far from simple. Much of its history can be interpreted depending on your sympathies and opinions.

Then again, the same could be said for any aspect of history.

Author’s Note: Since Communism isn’t merely an economic or political or social theory but rather a combination of all three, you can see how describing the theory itself- let alone its history- is a massive undertaking that could easily fill a book. Considering my space and the attention span of the reader is sorely limited, I have been forced so skim over the major events of Communist history. Don’t be ticked off at me if I missed some (though if I have something that might be wrong, please correct me).

Thursday, November 19, 2009
FDR’s Martini

This seemed like an appropriate cocktail after my Martin Sheen/West Wing analogy of the other day, except with a real President this time. I confess, prior to looking up how FDR and Teddy were related, I had no idea that Eleanor and Franklin were already both Roosevelts prior to marrying (they were, apparently, fifth cousins).  Teddy was actually Eleanor’s uncle.  I have absolutely no idea what that makes him to FDR.  Makes me think of the dialogue between Dark Helmet and Lone Starr in “Spaceballs”:

FDR and Teddy Roosevelt meet in another dimension

Dark Helmet:  I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.
Lone Starr:  What does that make us?
Dark Helmet:  Absolutely nothing!  Which is what you are about to become.

In The Martini Book, there is a quote above this recipe, which reads:  “FDR was a serious martini drinker [I like the guy already] and carried a martini ‘kit’ with him whever he traveled.  During the Teheran conference, he insisted on mixing one of his specialties for Joseph Stalin.  Stalin found it ‘cold on the stomach,’ but liked it.  FDR’s martini was most likely the first ‘Dirty Martini’.”

Definitely like the guy.  Although his Dirty Martini is kind of wussy as far as dirty martinis go.  2 parts gin, 1 part vermouth, 1 teaspoon olive brine, lemon twist, and a cocktail olive.  But as I’ve noted earlier, more vermouth to gin is okay with me when it’s gin.  When it’s vodka, not so much.  Me, I prefer a vodka dirty martini and I like it very dirty, as you’ve probably figured out by now, and very dry.  But I’m not FDR, and we’re talking a good … yikes, what, 70-80 years ago?  Oh dear.  Anyway, this was educational for me, reading up on FDR and his infidelities (ditto with Eleanor and hers, some of them with the same gender, but not until after he committed his).  I had no idea.  Alas, my high school history education ended somewhere between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.  Why?  Because I was taking Chemistry II, which met at the same time that the “gifted” history class met, so I ended up in the so-called bonehead history class for my senior year.  After the first quarter/semester (whichever it was – we’re going back waaaaay too far for me to remember which), my history teacher realized that everyone in the class was going out of their way to copy off my paper/tests and that I was throwing the curve way off.  So he gave me a “research” assignment to find all of the CIF championship victories for my high school dating back to something like 1898 when the school was established, which I did, to the best of my ability, given the fact that there was no internet in that day and age (1980).  That encompassed the 2nd half of my senior year and thus took the place of learning about anything beyond the early 1800’s.  I’m not sure why I know about WWI and WWII and various other things, I must have learned that in junior high on a more peripheral level and remembered it.  But I never got to learn about Teddy or FDR or Eleanor.  Or martinis.  Not that martinis would have been appropriate subject matter back in my high school day.  Now?  No idea.  But you gotta like FDR for the fact that he carried around the fixings with him.

As for the namesake drink itself – I give it a “DNS” rating.  Which stands for “Does Not Suck”.  Not quite a 4 stars but definitely a 3.75 stars.  As I mentioned before, I think I like the higher proportions of vermouth when gin is invovled but not vodka.  The lemon twist (rubbed around the rim of a chilled cocktail glass before serving, then discarded) and the olive are a nice touch.  I liked this one more than I expected I would and give FDR credit, assuming credit is due, for coming up with a good one.

Cheers,
Cathy