Teddy

Teddy

In 1880, Theodore Roosevelt was only 21 years old and still a student at Harvard University when he wrote something that challenged one of America’s most deeply rooted traditions.

At a time when many married women had limited legal control over their own property and finances, Roosevelt argued that the law should treat women and men equally.

His thesis, The Practicability of Equalizing Men and Women Before the Law, rejected the idea that marriage should automatically place a woman’s property under her husband’s control. He also argued that women should be able to keep their birth names after marriage, a position that challenged social expectations in the late nineteenth century.

These weren’t popular opinions.

Many Americans believed a wife’s legal identity should be tied to her husband’s, and calls for equal rights were often dismissed or resisted. Roosevelt saw it differently. Having grown up around capable women who managed family responsibilities and finances, he believed inequality was created by society rather than nature.

As his political career grew, his public positions became more cautious. Political realities often limited how strongly he pushed for women’s rights while serving in office. Years later, during his 1912 Progressive Party campaign, he openly supported women’s suffrage on a national stage.

His youthful Harvard thesis remains one of the clearest windows into what he believed before politics demanded compromise.

Long before Theodore Roosevelt became president, he was already questioning traditions that many people accepted without challenge.

Story based on historical records. This post is for educational purposes.

Friends and Enemies

Friends and Enemies

In our (the USA’s) role as the World’s Cop, we have often changed sides. In Iraq, we supported Saddam Hussein in his fight against Iran. He was our friend. In a relatively short time, he was our enemy and one where we have spent: “According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 including interest. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per US citizen. For details, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

A total of 4,488 U.S. service members died during the Iraq War, which includes both hostile and non-hostile causes across Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn.

We supported the Taliban in their war against Russia and provided them with many of the weapons that they turned against us when they were no longer our friend.

“The Afghanistan War (2001–2021) — also known as Operation Enduring Freedom — cost the United States an estimated $2.3 trillion in today’s dollars over its 20-year duration. This figure represents direct spending on military operations, personnel, contractors, reconstruction, and intelligence, but does not include future costs for veteran care or interest in the debt incurred.”

We spent 20 years on this conflict, and the Taliban retook the country in 11 days. 2,461 US service members were killed. 20,752 wounded. An estimated 176,000 total deaths, including Afghan civilians and security forces.

After our debacle in Vietnam, what did we learn? My take is that doing the same thing over and over again with the same negative result is just plain………..

This was a case of our enemy at the time, who is now our friend after we lost the war. That war cost us 58,200 lives at a cost to the taxpayer of $1.3 trillion (in today’s $).

And we wonder why the defender of democracy is not so popular even among our allies. Are these the times when we were great MAGA? 

General Manner

Retired Maj. Gen. Randy Manner isn’t some random talking head — he’s a two‑star Army general who spent over 35 years in uniform, served as Acting Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau at the Pentagon, helped command U.S. forces in Kuwait during the Iraq drawdown, and led the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s efforts against nuclear and chemical weapons. When that guy hears Pete Hegseth talk about “no quarter, no mercy” and calls it “the words of a potential war criminal,” we should listen.