I set off the fire alarm for the entire campus.

It was mortifying. And weird.

I was starving and broke in college, and after I once walked 45 minutes to meet my brother so I could save on bus fare, and greeted him with a rumbling stomach, he was appalled. I was peeling potatoes for a caterer at $7 an hour every spare moment I had between classes, but it barely covered my textbooks, let alone transportation and food.

My mom kept sending him food packages and money, so he asked her if she could send some food to me next time instead.

She sent me a bag full of steaks, and I was very grateful. I had a tiny burner in my dorm and I used it to sear them, then cook in cheap wine.

Those steaks were delicious. It was the first time I’d had normal food all year.

My dorm counselor was sure I was an alcoholic because every time she walked into my dorm room, there was another half empty bottle of wine there.

One day, I was running low on wine and didn’t have enough money to buy more. I decided to reuse the wine I had and cook a second steak in it the next day.

Big, big mistake.

I put it in my pan, and started writing a report while waiting for it to get ready. All of a sudden, I smelled something smoking. I ran to the burner – the wine was burning. I frantically turned the knob off and raced to open the window-

but it was too late.

The loudest fire alarm I ever heard went off.

Girls started racing out of their dorm rooms. Students were screaming, crying, “Fire!”

I didn’t know what to do. There was one other girl in the dorm with me. We gave each other a significant look, she nodded to confirm she wouldn’t tell everyone it was me who caused this wreckage, and I dumped the wrecked pan into an empty cabinet.

We went out into the crowded hallway and my dormmate started yelling into the cacophony “It’s a drill! It’s just a drill!”

Then we heard other alarms pealing. I finally got out of my dorm building and watched in horror as the alarms went off in the other dorm buildings, one by one. They were all interconnected.

Each building evacuated. One of my classmates was panicking because her pet goldfish named Denis was stuck in her dorm room, and she thought Denis was going to burn to death.

My friend was down the hill a few blocks away, and heard the fire alarms. In fact, most of the neighborhood heard the alarms. It took hours to still the pandemonium.

That was definitely my weirdest dorm room experience. And my most embarrassing one too.

"If you really want to scratch Washington's neoconservatives hard and get the scabs off the wounds—they hate Tehran more than they hate Beijing.

Beijing is a big economic challenge, a big specter out there, and it threatens that tiny little island of 23 million democratic people called Taiwanese.

That's sort of pro forma for China.

With Iran, it's visceral hatred. John Bolton would like to go to Iran and dance on the Ayatollah's grave—that's how serious it is with some of these people.

So, don't ever think that we hate China like we hate Tehran.

That's just the reality of the situation.

It's not every American, and it's not every member of the Biden Administration—or it wouldn't be every member of a Trump Administration—but it's enough people to make the policy demented.

And that's what our policy towards Tehran is.

That's why we—you know, 'Oh no, nobody talks to Tehran unless we give them permission to.'

China's interest in the region is economic; it's Belt and Road Initiative development.

It's, 'I got lots of money. I want to turn that money into more money. I want to do this; I want to do that. But I also have this interest in, and Washington has given me an unprecedented opening to show that we're better than Washington; that when you sign up with us, they may tell you that we're predatory. They may say we're going to steal your farms, we're going to do this; we're going to do that with your labor force—but we're better than Washington. And let us demonstrate—just give us an opportunity to show our diplomatic prowess, our economic prowess, our financial prowess, our agricultural prowess—whatever it might be. Give us a chance to demonstrate, and if you don't like this aspect of it, we'll back up a little, and you tell us what you want.'

That's kind of China's approach now, and it's working.

It's working as much as anything because of Washington's errors—mistakes, drastic mistakes—like this unbridled, unquestioned support for Israel.

While Tony Blinken cries in his milk, and others do, and Biden sometimes cries in his milk over the horrors that are taking place.

They haven't turned off a single bomb, a single bullet—they haven't turned off anything.

So, China's got a wonderful opportunity here to show us up as the biggest hypocrites on the face of the Earth.

And that's what they're about.

Their diplomatic prowess is going to aim at showing the rest of the world what insane people live in Washington.

And they've got a marvelous opportunity to do that with regard to Gaza, and to a lesser extent but growing every day with regard to Ukraine, because that is a lost situation too.

And yet, we're hanging on to it.

The greatest strategic failures in history have usually happened around countries, armies that don't realize, or don't want to realize, that they're being defeated.

And so, what they do is they double down, or triple down. They reinforce strategic failure, and then the failure becomes catastrophic.

In this case, the failure becomes NATO collapses, falls apart. Washington has no more hegemony over Europe.

Europe stands up its own security identity in desperation, and it's a very fractured security identity because it isn't an alliance; it's France, it's Germany, it's Norway, it's Sweden, and they're all going off on their own separate ways.

And that's not probably very good for Europe, but that's what we're headed for if we don't stop this insanity in Ukraine.

And China's just watching and saying, 'Okay, we'll backfill there too. You want us to negotiate the peace treaty in Ukraine? We'll backfill there because look, we're telling you the 'rules-based order' that Washington keeps claiming is the way the world ought to run is a disaster. How can you not see that it's a disaster? Look at Gaza, look at Ukraine, look at Libya before, look at Afghanistan, look at Iraq—it's a disaster. We're taking over.'"

Excerpt from remarks by retired American colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview with Nima R. Alkhorshid, May 8, 2024.

This is a tough one for me. I can’t exactly think of any particular one, so I am going to write about a few animals, and the truths behind their popular misconceptions.

1- People understand that Ants are cooperative animals, but I don’t think they understand just what kind of beings these insects really are.

You can not think of Ants as individuals. That’s the first mistake people tend to make.
An Ant Colony is a single being, acting cohesively in perfect synchrony through a nervous system of pheromones. A being with its own digestive system, excretory system, and a million mouth parts sweeping the jungle floor for prey ranging from Goliath Spiders to small Mammals. They operate under one mind, an enormous being with the reach and impact of a million small components.

Ants are the only animals in the world with a 110% successful predation rate. I added an additional 10% because of their surprisingly successful ability to farm fungi (Leaf-Cutter ants in particular), thereby assuring that they have a constant supply of food available for the colony.

In short, don’t think of Ants as hundreds of separate little robots, because they’re not. Think of them as one giant, populous being with an expansive nervous system and an incredibly underrated intelligence. These guys give ‘hive mind’ a new meaning.

2- Granted, some people are aware of these animals’ carnivorous nature, but not everyone.

Everybody realizes Hippos are absolute demons, and that they will not hesitate to maul down anyone dumb enough to wander into their rivers. But their evil nature extends further than that. That image above is assuredly real, a Hippopotamus will tear open and devour a floating Zebra if given half the chance. In fact, live prey isn’t off the menu either. Calling a Hippo herbivorous is straight-up denial, and even ‘Omnivorous’ is stretching it a bit.

These animals don’t depend on lettuce as an appetizer. They will eat you. It might make them sick, but they will still eat you.

This next one is just for fun:

3- Meet Portia, the Jumping Spider that hunts other Spiders, twice its size.

Okay, arachnids that prey on other arachnids isn’t exactly a new phenomenon (even though I consider it to be impressive). But trust me when I say this, Portia is a revolutionary Spider.

Why, you ask?

She’s a genius … genus.

“Portia is a genus of jumping spider that feeds on other spiders. They are remarkable for their intelligent hunting behaviour, which suggests that they are capable of learning and problem solving, traits normally attributed to much larger animals.” (Wikipedia)

Portia is the first spider that has been observed forming advanced strategies to approach her prey. She plots a tactical path in her head, and executes it near perfectly. Jumping Spiders are active hunters, but this 8-Legged-Spy really takes it to a new level. Portia is incredibly intelligent for a spider, hence why she seems to be able to make a living on far larger prey than herself.

You can thank David Attenborough’s “The Hunt” for that one.

Shorpy 2

I just love this picture of the small town on the river. It is so nice and rural.

August 1941. “The Connecticut River at Bellows Falls, Vermont, and on the far side of the river, North Walpole, New Hampshire.” Car Heaven. Medium-format negative by Jack Delano for the Office of War Information.

The underrated General Dwight D. Eisenhower— affectionately referred to as “Ike” by American people — was a great judge of character.

Before being designated as MacArthur’s primary staff officer, Eisenhower was renowned in the US Army as a supremely hard-working and capable officer who willingly went to extraordinary lengths to produce superb and meticulous staff works. Even the always-arrogant MacArthur would appreciate (initially willingly and then grudgingly as their relationship deteriorated) the enormous energy, work ethic, and ability of Eisenhower.

Eisenhower’s service under MacArthur began in the early 1930s. Thereafter, he would toil for MacArthur for nearly one decade first in Washington and then in Manila. That period would prove to be highly influential to his military career because during it he would learn a great deal about the challenge of navigating the murky world of politics and dealing with difficult personalities. All of those would subsequently serve him very well in his role as Supreme Commander of the Western Allies in Europe. Most importantly, he would learn what NOT to do and be from MacArthur.

His experience serving MacArthur gave him unique knowledge to make a balanced and accurate assessment of MacArthur’s character.

In short, Eisenhower regarded MacArthur as (in my own words): an arrogant, pompous fellow whose massive ego was unmatched; a great melodramatic actor; a stingy, dishonest, and lazy person.

Arrogance, Pompousness, and Ego

Shortly after assuming his role as MacArthur’s chief of staff, Eisenhower quickly perceived his boss’s massive ego and pompous behaviour that surpassed those of MacArthur’s own revered father Arthur MacArthur. His ego was likely engendered by his perceived brilliance by virtue of a number of his achievements impressive by American standards. He had an inviolate conviction of his own infallibility which Eisenhower pointedly encapsulated in his famous remark:

MacArthur could never see another sun, or even a moon, for that matter, in the heavens as long as he was the sun.

In MacArthur’s universe, there was room for only one star.

Indeed, MacArthur would display an unwavering conviction of his infallibility throughout the Pacific War. In spite of the many wartime military failures for which he bore heavy responsibility (most notable was his spectacularly incompetent defense of the Philippines), the man never once admitted responsibility for his failures. Instead, he habitually blamed his subordinates for any setback. He even once blamed President Roosevelt for the defeat in the Philippines.

MacArthur treated Eisenhower (and virtually anyone who was not a yes-man) with disdain. Eisenhower recalled that MacArthur’s typical manner of summoning him was by “raising his voice”. The meeting between the 2 men that followed was almost invariably a monologue where Eisenhower simply listened to MacArthur’s pontification in which he referred to himself in the third person — much to Eisenhower’s amusement.

As time progressed, Eisenhower would become increasingly appalled and frustrated by MacArthur’s massive ego, unwillingness to accept dissent and subordinates’ suggestions. Those behaviours would manifest themselves conspicuously during the period of time MacArthur, Eisenhower, and James Ord (one of Eisenhower’s best friends from West Point) served as chief military advisers for Manuel L. Quezon — the President of the Philippines.

In 1935, while en route by train to the West coast to embark on the ship bound for the Philippines, MacArthur received the news that Malin Craig

had been chosen to replace him as the Chief of Staff of the Army. Shortly after being informed of this development, MacArthur descended to:

an explosive denunciation of politics, bad manners, bad judgment, broken promises, arrogance, unconstitutionality, insensitivity, and the way the world had gone to hell.

Eisenhower and Ord just witnessed MacArthur’s ego injured by what he perceived to be intrigues against him.

Once in the Philippines, MacArthur was entrusted with the establishment of a Filipino national army. In this capacity, he was expected to oversee the training and equipping of that army. It was a lost cause to anyone with prudent foresight. The Philippines was dirt poor. There was neither money or resource to be mobilized for the production of modern weapons plus other equipment. The task MacArthur and his staffs faced was close to being unattainable. But they had no choice and had to make do with whatever resources at their disposal.

During their time in the Philippines, an event happened which illustrated MacArthur’s enormous ego was his demand to be appointed Field Marshall of the Filipino Army – one of the conditions MacArthur imposed on Quezon in exchange for his acceptance of the post of military adviser. He felt that the rank was essential to enhance his own prestige. Eisenhower regarded this demand with contempt and disgust. At the ceremony that confirmed MacArthur’s Field Marshalship, Eisenhower laughed, deriding that it was plainly

pompous and ridiculous for MacArthur to be the field marshal of a virtually non-existing army.

Contrary to what MacArthur’s supporters claimed, the idea was originated by MacArthur, as Quezon confided to Eisenhower in his visit to the US in 1942. It should also be noted that Eisenhower and Ord were offered the rank of Brigadier General by Quezon himself. But Eisenhower had the integrity to reject flatly the offer.

Even after 3 decades after that event, Eisenhower’s disdain for MacArthur’s self-appointed field-marshalship remained unabated. He thought that MacArthur was disloyal to the US Army:

You have been a 4-star general. This is a proud thing. There’s only been a few who had it. Why in the hell do you want a banana country giving you a field-marshalship?

Despite receiving splendid compensation from Quezon, MacArthur treated the Philippine President with contempt – referring to him derisively as “a conceited little monkey”. The two rarely spoke or met. When they did meet, MacArthur treated Quezon as his inferior, giving him demands instead of advice. This engendered a great deal of resentment in Quezon who found MacArthur’s arrogant behavior insufferable. His trust in MacArthur diminished over the years. Increasingly, the president placed his trust in Eisenhower, Ord and privately sought their advice instead of MacAthur’s.

The relationship between Eisenhower and MacArthur went downhill during their service in the Philippines. The frustration Eisenhower had to endure due to MacArthur’s egotistical behaviour was compounded by his growing awareness of the way business was conducted in the Philippines. The country’s political and military establishment was rife with inefficiency and corruption. Many Filipino officials expected customary bribes as prerequisites for carrying out any kind of project. This had the effect of hindering the attempts of the American advisers to establish a national Filipino army.

Eisenhower would come to clash with MacArthur with increasing regularity. Eisenhower would frequently challenge or try to convince MacArthur to change or abandon plans and objectives judged to be unattainable due to inadequate resources. MacArthur’s refusal was met by heated opposition instead of compliance. Often a compromise was reached only after a frustrated Eisenhower asked Mac to fire him. For all his arrogance, MacArthur did not lose sight of the fact he could not afford to lose one of the best staff officers in the army.

The year 1938 proved to be the lowest point in Eisenhower’s service in the Philippines. He just lost his best friend Ord in an aircraft accident. Ord’s replacement was Richard K. Sutherland — a character who was widely despised (One of MacArthur’s biographers refers to Sutherland as “an unpleasant son of a bitch”; and US Army General Walter Krueger remarked that Sutherland’s death was “a good thing for humanity”). Whereas Eisenhower had the audacity to challenge MacArthur, Sutherland would stroke his ego and become his principal sycophantic yes-man. Furthermore, Sutherland sought to get rid of Eisenhower — a blessing in disguise as Eisenhower had become weary of all the shouting matches and disputes with MacArthur.

Eisenhower eventually was recalled to the States. He had no regret. The experience irreversibly damaged the relationship between them:

Never again were we on the same warm and cordial terms

When Eisenhower became President, a jealous MacArthur mockingly said that Eisenhower was the “best clerk who ever served under me”. For his part, Eisenhower derided that MacArthur “is as big a baby as ever who still likes his bootlickers”.

A great melodramatic actor

In addition to his shameless and amusing references to himself in the 3rd person, MacArthur proved to be a highly talented melodramatic actor:

When it came to melodrama, complete with exhortations to duty and invocations to the Almighty, punctuated by exaggerated body language, MacArthur had no equal. Eisenhower was exposed to his full array of ploys and thought MacArthur would have been “a great actor.” MacArthur’s most polished performance was to parade back and forth in front of a large mirror across from his desk, dressed in a Japanese silk dressing gown, an ivory cigarette holder clamped in his mouth, admiring his profile while orating. MacArthur’s mastery of theatrics was world-class opera bouffe and the “best free show in town”. – Eisenhower: Portrait of the Hero

As an aside, MacArthur was a theatrical popinjay who loved flags, uniforms and all aspects of military regalia. Air Force General Lewis H. Brereton remarked that MacArthur was one of the best-dressed soldiers in the world.

Not bad huh!?

With his iconic corn-cob pipe and the Field-Marshal cap

Stingy, Lazy and Dishonest

Eisenhower’s experience with MacArthur was a painful reminder between the haves and the have-nots. When he started working for MacArthur in the 1930s, the Great Depression was overtaking the US and affecting millions of Americans. Unemployment was widespread. There was a marked sense of desperation and hopelessness prevailing in the country.

Eisenhower was poor. He worked in a small room no larger than a closet behind a slatted door adjacent to MacArthur’s larger office. His duty involved regular visits which he had to take the taxis or street cars. His monthly pay during the 1930s was dismal: $391 (roughly $5,711 in 2019 Inflation Calculator). His standard of living qualified as genteel poverty. His family could not afford much luxury.

By contrast, MacArthur enjoyed a very comfortable standards of living in the midst of the Depression. He had a big officer in Washington. He was given a fancy limousine and a chauffeur to drive around Capitol Hill; and he never once lent the vehicle to nor covered travel expenses for Eisenhower. Eisenhower never forgot this, as he would confide in a reporter shortly before his death:

No matter what happens later you never forget something like that.

When they were sent to the Philippines, the disparity in material wealth became even more conspicuous. Eisenhower was given an apartment in the Manila Hotel which was slightly better than his accommodation in the States. But it was unbearably hot during summer. By comparison, MacArthur lived in a sumptuous air-conditioned penthouse in Manila and was given a big office in the Presidential Palace.

Working for MacArthur entailed long hours and chronic stress. At one point, Eisenhower worked too hard that he fell ill from stress and had to check himself in a hospital, paying for all expenses out of his own pockets. Although Eisenhower kept working hard, he resented having to work long hours for a mediocre salary of $833.33 per month whereas MacArthur’s rank of Field Marshal entitled him to a princely monthly pay of $3,980 ($74,619.95 in 2019), and he earned that much money despite doing little work. He rarely came to his office before 11 AM and left early after having the regular late lunch with his son. Indeed, MacArthur’s life in the Philippines was characterised as:

more befitting a noble gentleman of leisure than a military adviser

Quezon was angry and upset not only by MacArthur’s arrogant and contemptuous attitude but also by his lack of commitment to the task of building a national army for the Philippines despite being handsomely rewarded by Quezon. (and let’s not forget that MacArthur later accepted an illegal payment of $500,000 from Quezon.).

Here is an interesting fact: Eisenhower’s staunch anti-Nazi stance attracted the attention of the Jewish community in Manila. Jewish representatives approached him in order to solicit his help to build sanctuaries for Jewish refugees escaping from Nazi-dominated Europe in exchange for the assurance that he would receive $60,000 per year ($1,046,804.17 in 2019) for a minimum of 5 years. Eisenhower declined the offer. This fact is a testament to Eisenhower’s integrity.

Lastly, Eisenhower was particularly upset by MacArthur’s dishonesty.

At one point MacArthur insisted on conducting a grand military parade in order to bolster Filipino public morale — an idea that he neither notified nor consulted with Quezon. Eisenhower and Ord contested hotly the proposal, arguing that it would squander a huge amount of the already limited funding that was available to them for the primary purpose of raising a Filipino national army. But MacArthur was insistent. His two reluctant staff officers had to proceed with planning for the event. When Quezon caught wind of the plan, he inquired Eisenhower as to why MacArthur never discussed the plan with him. When Quezon expressed his displeasure to MacArthur, he simply said he did not order his staff officers to do it. As a result, Eisenhower and Ord had to bear the blame for MacArthur’s lie.

In 1935, during his visit to the States, Quezon asked MacArthur if the Philippines could be defended solely by a Philippine Army, MacArthur lured Quezon into a false sense of security by saying “I know they can”. It was obviously a lie because Eisenhower noted later that

At no time has General MacArthur intended that the Filipinos could defend their country against a large-scale invasion by a major power.

Indeed, MacArthur had misled Quezon, as indicated by general Robert L. Eichelberger ’s note:

From late 1935 to 1938, we had heard many times the MacArthur’s expression “The Japanese would not invade the Philippines, but if they do, in case of war, we shall meet them at the beaches and destroy them. (seems like Mac was contradicting himself)

You Can’t Opt-Out of Society

This is a super important video! Holy Cow!

Jamaican Style Jerk Steak Bowl

Yield: 4 servings

Ingredients

Marinade

• 2 tablespoons Pickapeppa™ Sauce
• 2 tablespoons pineapple juice

Bowl

• 1 beef skirt steak (about 1 to 1 1/2 pounds)
• 1/2 cup nonfat Greek-style yogurt
• 2 tablespoons + 2 teaspoons Caribbean Jerk Seasoning Blend
• 6 cups packaged coleslaw mix
• 2 cups diced fresh mangoes
• 2 cups cooked quinoa

Garnish

• Diced fresh mangoes

Instructions

Marinade

1. Combine Marinade ingredients in small bowl. Place beef steak and marinade in food-safe plastic bag; turn to coat. Close bag securely and marinate in refrigerator for 6 hours or as long as overnight.

Bowl

1. Combine yogurt and jerk seasoning in large bowl. Add coleslaw mix, mangoes and quinoa; mix well. Cover and refrigerate.
2. Remove steak from marinade; discard marinade. Pat steaks dry with paper towel.
3. Place steak on grid over medium, ash-covered coals. Grill, covered, 7 to 12 minutes (over medium heat on preheated gas grill, covered, 8 to 12 minutes) for medium rare (145 degrees F) to medium (160 degrees F) doneness. Remove; keep warm.
4. Divide cole slaw mixture among 4 bowls.
5. Carve steak against the grain into thin slices. Season with salt, as desired. Place steak slices on top of coleslaw mixture.

Garnish

1. Garnish with diced mango, as desired.

Nutrition

Per serving: 401 Calories; 14g Total Fat; 5g Saturated Fat; 7g Monounsaturated Fat; 79mg Cholesterol; 715mg Sodium; 47g Total carbohydrate; 29 g Protein; 4.2mg Iron; 4.7mg Niacin; 0.7mg Vitamin B6; 110.1mg Choline; 3.9mcg Vitamin B12; 6.1mg Zinc; 21.7mcg Selenium; 5.9g Fiber