Maine Writer

Its about people and issues I care about.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Topsham, MAINE, United States

My blogs are dedicated to the issues I care about. Thank you to all who take the time to read something I've written.

Sunday, June 01, 2025

Kudos to the The Economist for scooping this amazing reporting! Ukraine "handed Putin his ass" to coin Navy slang

Echo reporting June 1, 2025! In The Economist 

SHORTLY AFTER noon on June 1st, Russian social media began flashing, alerting the world to Ukraine’s most audacious operation on Russian territory to date. In Irkutsk province in eastern Siberia, some 4,000km from Ukraine, locals posted footage of small quadcopter drones emerging from lorries and flying toward a nearby airfield, home to some of Russia’s most important strategic bombers. 

“I work at a tire shop,” one wrote. “A truck pulled in, and drones flew out of it.” 


From an airbase near Murmansk, in Russia’s far north, came similar stories: “The driver’s running around...drones are flying from his truck toward the base.” Other alarmed posts soon followed from airbases in Ryazan and Ivanovo provinces, deep in central Russia.

Ukraine’s main security agency, the SBU, has since claimed responsibility for the operation, which it has codenamed “Spider Web”. It said at least 41 Russian aircraft were destroyed or damaged across four airfields, including rare and extremely expensive A-50 early-warning planes (Russia’s equivalent of the AWACS) and Tu-22M3 and Tu-95 strategic bombers. The agency also released footage in which its pugnacious chief, Vasily Maliuk, is heard commenting on the operation. “Russian strategic bombers,” he says in his recognisable growl, “all burning delightfully”.

The strike is one of the heaviest blows that Ukraine has landed on Russia in a war now well into its fourth year. Russia has relatively small numbers of strategic bombers—probably fewer than 90 operational Tu-22, Tu-95 and newer Tu-160s in total. The planes can carry nuclear weapons, but have been used to fire conventional cruise missiles against Ukrainian targets, as recently as last week. That has made them high-priority targets for Ukrainian military planners. Many of the aircraft are old and no longer produced—the last Tu-22M3s and Tu-95s were made more than 30 years ago—and their replacements, the Tu-160, are being manufactured at a glacial pace.

The fact that Ukraine was able to damage or destroy such a large number of Russia’s most advanced aircraft deep inside the country reflects the development of its deep-strike programme, as well as the remarkable extent to which Ukraine’s undercover operatives are now able to work inside Russia. Since the start of the Kremlin’s all-out invasion, Ukraine’s operations have expanded in range, ambition and sophistication. Western countries have provided some assistance to Ukraine’s deep-strike programme—on May 28th Germany promised to finance Ukrainian long-range drones—but much of the technology and mission planning is indigenous.

Today’s operation is likely to be ranked among the most important raiding actions in modern warfare. According to sources, the mission was 18 months in the making. Russia had been expecting attacks by larger fixed-wing drones at night and closer to the border with Ukraine. The Ukrainians reversed all three variables, launching small drones during the day, and doing so far from the front lines. Ukraine had launched drones from within Russia previously; the difference was the scale and combined nature of the operations.

Commentators close to the Ukrainian security services suggest that as many as 150 drones and 300 bombs had been smuggled into Russia for the operations. The quadcopters were apparently built into wooden cabins, loaded onto lorries and then released after the roofs of the cabins were remotely retracted. The drones used Russian mobile-telephone networks to relay their footage back to Ukraine, much of which was released by the gleeful Ukrainians. They also used elements of automated targeting, the accounts claim.

A Ukrainian intelligence source said it was unlikely that the drivers of the trucks knew what they were carrying. He compared this aspect of the operation to the 2022, attack on Kerch bridge, where a bomb concealed in a lorry destroyed part of the bridge linking Crimea with the mainland. “These kinds of operations are very complex, with key players necessarily kept in the dark,” he said. The source described the operation as a multi-stage chess move, with the Russians first encouraged to move more of their planes to particular bases by Ukrainian strikes on other ones. Three days before the attack, dozens of planes had moved to the Olenya airfield in Murmansk province, according to reports published at the time. It was precisely here that the most damage was done.

The operation casts a shadow over a new round of peace talks that is scheduled to start in Istanbul on June 2nd. Ukraine has been terrorised in recent months by Russia’s own massive strikes, sometimes involving hundreds of drones: one that took place overnight beginning on May 31st apparently involved a record 472 drones, the Ukrainian authorities say. Kyiv had been looking for ways to demonstrate to Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, that there is a cost to continuing the war. But the question is whether this operation has moved the dial, or simply raised the stakes. Chatter on Russian patriotic social-media networks has called for a severe response, likening the moment to Pearl Harbour, Japan’s attack on America’s Pacific Fleet in 1941. A senior Ukrainian official acknowledged that the operation carried risks of turning Western partners away from Ukraine. “The worry is that this is Sinop,” he said, referring to Russia’s strike on an Ottoman port in 1853 that ended up isolating the attacker on the world stage.

Western armed forces are watching closely. For many years they have concentrated their own aircraft at an ever smaller number of air bases, to save money, and have failed to invest in hardened hangars or shelters that could protect against drones and missiles. America’s own strategic bombers are visible in public satellite imagery, sitting in the open. “Imagine, on game-day,” writes Tom Shugart of CNAS, a think-tank in Washington, “containers at railyards, on Chinese-owned container ships in port or offshore, on trucks parked at random properties…spewing forth thousands of drones that sally forth and at least mission-kill the crown jewels of the [US Air Force].” That, he warns, would be “entirely feasible”. ■

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, April 25, 2022

Ukrainian resistance needs guns: Give them more!

Ukraine is fighting for all of Europe. Some are reluctant to call this  "World War III", but I cannot imagine calling the invasion of Ukraine anything else. Remember, the Russians invaded Crimea - a Ukrainian region, in 2014, and nothing was done to stop Putin's aggression.

Dear brothers and sisters in Mariupol,

I spent three and a half years of my life where you are now – completely encircled by enemy troops bent on my people’s wholesale destruction. I am familiar with the anguish, frustration, fear, and desperation that you must be feeling. But let me give you the good news first: You will prevail. There is no doubt in my mind that Russian troops will never conquer Mariupol.

Pray for Ukraine Iron On Patch, Glory To Ukraine Patch, I stand with Ukraine patch.

For one thing, they do not have the manpower to do so. It takes a lot more troops to occupy and control a city of more than 400,000. The Serb forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina laid siege to our capital of Sarajevo and shelled it for three and a half years, without ever managing to enter. The Russian armed forces do not have the fighting spirit and are nowhere near the determination of the defenders of Mariupol.

I am no military professional or military historian, but I maintain that the Ukrainian military is the best fighting organization in the world at this time. The Russian military is simply not willing or capable of paying the price to occupy your city.

Let me also give you the bad news: Sadly, you will pay for your freedom with your lives and the lives of your loved ones – your brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. With every step, you will lose those you could not imagine your lives without. This is not just a war between Russian invaders and Ukrainian defenders. This is an attempt at politicide. The Russian goal is not just to conquer Ukraine, but to wipe Ukraine, as a state, off the map, relegating your history, culture, and people to a footnote in the history books to be written by the future likes of Ivan Ilyin and Aleksandr Dugin.

Now, let me tell you about what comes after. For you, it is never going to be over. This war has already hijacked your lives and the best you can do is embrace the fate that has been thrust upon you. History has been unusually cruel to you. In this war, you are fighting not only for yourselves but for future generations that are yet to be born. It is a crushing burden that you have not asked to bear. To make matters worse, you are also fighting this war on behalf of an ungrateful continent that cares more about warming up its homes with Russian gas than saving your children from bombs and starvation.

Whatever you do, there is one notion you should never entertain: laying down your arms. As we learned from the Serbs in Bosnia, the Russians can only exterminate you – and they certainly will – if you are unarmed. Allowing yourselves to be disarmed is the quickest way to a mass grave.

Indeed, historically, the Russian military is no stranger to this precept – recall for instance the Katyn forest massacre of 1940. Your own history is also full of examples of Russian brutality. The alternative to fighting off the present Russian invasion is something akin to Holodomor. You are paying with thousands of lives to avoid losing millions.

I know this is difficult to remember as Russian artillery is raining down upon you. I know it is of little to no consolation to the many thousands of children displaced in Ukraine or in refugee camps who will grow up without their parents. Having lost my own father to the ravages of war, I know exactly the gaping hole in the heart that this loss results in. However, I must say that I have only come to fully appreciate my own father’s sacrifice after witnessing the tremendous bravery of Ukraine’s people. I hope that this holds for you at least some meaning and tells you of the enormous inspiration that your courageous fight has been to the entire world.

There are many parallels to be drawn between our war for Bosnia and your war for Ukraine. In the 1990s, we too were fighting against a larger neighbor, ruled by a deranged autocrat who sought to rob us of our lives, freedom and identity as a distinct and sovereign people. However, the dissolution of Yugoslavia was of far less consequence beyond the region than the fight for Ukraine. The fate of the world is literally being decided on the Ukrainian chernozem (
A destroyed Russian military vehicle lies in front of an Orthodox church in the Ukrainian village of Lypivka on April 11. (Efrem Lukatsky/AP)

Ukrainian black soil: Chernozems form 67.7% of agricultural terrain in Ukraine – 67.7% and have almost completely been converted into arable lands. Ukraine has a leading place in the World in a land and soil resources availability per person.)

Unfortunately, the old adage that geography is destiny seems to be true. In that respect, the only thing worse than sharing a border with Serbia is sharing a border with Russia.

Finally, you need to know that we see you. You are not fighting in the dark. When this is over – and it will be over, when the Russians have withdrawn in shame and defeat, I hope to come to Mariupol to listen to your stories, because that is all that you will be left with. When this is over, I hope to come to a free Mariupol and a free Ukraine to pay homage to your sacrifice.

Emir Suljagic is ex-deputy defense minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Foundress of the profession of nursing - a life speaking truth to power: Florence Nightingale

Florence Nightingale exhibit at Maine Nursing Summit in Augusta Maine (L'Heureux photo)
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-worlds-most-famous-nurse-florence-nightingale-180974155/?utm_source=smithsoniandaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20200218-daily-responsive&spMailingID=41817105&spUserID=ODE4NjQ5MjIwMzc3S0&spJobID=1701566762&spReportId=MTcwMTU2Njc2MgS2

By the time she returned home from the Crimea, Florence Nightingale was the most famous woman in England, after Queen Victoria.
THE DEFIANCE OF FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE
Scholars are finding there’s much more to the “lady with the lamp” than her famous exploits as a nurse in the Crimean War
BY JOSHUA HAMMER; SMITHSONIAN March 2020


She’s the “avenging angel,” the “ministering angel,” the “lady with the lamp”—the brave woman whose name would become synonymous with selflessness and compassion. Yet as Britain prepares to celebrate Florence Nightingale’s 200th birthday on May 12—with a wreath-laying at Waterloo Place, a special version of the annual Procession of the Lamp at Westminster Abbey, a two-day conference on nursing and global health sponsored by the Florence Nightingale Foundation, and tours of her summer home in Derbyshire—scholars are debating her reputation and accomplishments.

Detractors recently have chipped away at Nightingale’s role as a caregiver, pointing out that she served as a nurse for only three years. Meanwhile, perhaps surprisingly, some British nurses themselves have suggested they are tired of working in her shadow.
(Maine Writer- I am a professional registered nurse.  I disagree with this perspecitve advanced by "detractors". I am proud to work in the shadow of Florence Nightingale. She was a nurse throughout her long life -1820-1910.)

But researchers are calling attention to her pioneering work as a statistician and as an early advocate for the modern idea that health care is a human right. Mark Bostridge, author of the biography Florence Nightingale, attributes much of the controversy to Nightingale’s defiance of Victorian conventions. “We are very uncomfortable still with an intellectually powerful woman whose primary aim has nothing to do with men or family,” Bostridge told me. “I think misogyny has a lot to do with it.”

To better understand this epic figure, I not only interviewed scholars and searched the archives but went to the place where the crucible of war transformed Nightingale into perhaps the most celebrated woman of her time: Balaklava, a port on the Crimean Peninsula, where a former Russian military officer named Aleksandr Kuts, who served as my guide, summed up Nightingale as we stood on the cliff near the site of the hospital where she toiled. “Florence was a big personality,” he said. “The British officers didn’t want her here, but she was a very insistent lady, and she established her authority. Nobody could stand in her way.”

She was named in honor of  "Florence", the Italian city where she was born, on May 12, 1820. Her parents had gone there after being married. Her father, William Nightingale, had inherited at age 21 a family fortune amassed from lead smelting and cotton spinning, and lived as a country squire in a manor house called Lea Hurst in Derbyshire, set on 1,300 acres about 140 miles north of London. Tutored by their father in mathematics and the classics, and surrounded by a circle of enlightened aristocrats who campaigned for outlawing the slave trade and other reforms, Florence and her older sister, Parthenope, grew up amid intellectual ferment. 

But while her sister followed their mother’s example, embracing Victorian convention and domestic life, Florence had greater ambitions.

She “craved for some regular occupation, for something worth doing instead of frittering away time on useless trifles,” she once recalled. At 16, she experienced a religious awakening while at the family’s second home, at Embley Park, in Hampshire, and, convinced that her destiny was to do God’s work, she decided to become a nurse. Her parents—especially her mother—opposed the choice, since nursing in those days was regarded as disreputable, suitable only for lower-class women. Nightingale overcame her parents’ objections. “Both sisters were trapped in a gilded cage growing up,” says Bostridge, “but only Florence broke out of it.”

For years, she divided her time between the comforts of rural England and rigorous training and caregiving. She traveled widely in continental Europe, mastering her profession at the highly regarded Kaiserswerth nursing school in Germany. She served as superintendent of the Institution for the Care of Sick Gentlewomen on Upper Harley Street in London, a hospital for governesses. And, she cared for prostitutes during a cholera epidemic in 1853.

In 1854, British troops invaded the Russian-held Crimean Peninsula in response to aggressive moves by Czar Nicholas I, to expand his territory. With the Ottoman and French armies, the British military laid siege to Sevastopol, headquarters of the Russian fleet. Sidney Herbert, the secretary of state for war and a friend of the Nightingales, dispatched Florence to the Barrack Hospital at Scutari, outside Constantinople, where thousands of wounded and sick British troops had ended up, after being transported across the Black Sea aboard filthy ships. Now with 38 nurses under her command, she ministered to troops packed in squalid wards, many of them wracked by frostbite, gangrene, dysentery and cholera. The work would be later romanticized in The Mission of Mercy: Florence Nightingale receiving the wounded at Scutari, a large canvas painted by Jerry Barrett in 1857 that today hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London. (Barrett found Nightingale to be an impatient subject. Their first encounter, reported one of Barrett’s traveling companions, “was a trying one and left a painful impression. She received us just as a merchant would have during business hours.”)

Nightingale rankled commanding officers by going around them. “Miss Nightingale shows an ambitious struggling after power inimical to the true interests of the medical department,” John Hall, the chief British Army medical officer in Crimea, wrote angrily to his superior in London in late 1854 after Nightingale went over his head to order supplies from his stores. 

Yet, she failed initially to stem the suffering. During her first winter at Scutari, 4,077 soldiers died—ten times more from typhus, cholera, typhoid fever and dysentery than from battle wounds. It wasn’t until a newly installed British government dispatched a sanitary commission to Scutari in March 1855 that deaths began to diminish. The commission cleaned out latrines and cesspits, flushed out sewers and removed a dead horse that was polluting the water supply. Within a few months, the mortality rate dropped from 42.7 percent to 2.2 percent.
Crimea, where Russia had established a naval base at Sevastopol, became a flash point in a geopolitical struggle. “The main and real object of the war,” asserted Britain’s Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, “is to curb the aggressive ambition of Russia.” (Guilbert Gates)
Today, historians and public health experts debate Nightingale’s role in the turnaround at Scutari. Avenging Angel, a controversial 1998 biography by Hugh Small, contends that Scutari had the highest death rates of any hospital in the Crimean theater, that Nightingale didn’t grasp the role of sanitation in disease prevention until many thousands had died—the author maintains that she focused instead on giving troops warm clothing and hearty food—and that “repressed guilt” over her failures caused her to have a nervous breakdown, which, he argues, turned her into an invalid for long stretches throughout the rest of her life. The British news media picked up Small’s claims—“Nightingale’s Nursing Helped ‘Kill’ Soldiers,” a Sunday Times headline declared in 2001.

But Lynn McDonald, a professor emerita at the University of Guelph near Toronto and a leading Nightingale scholar, disputes Small’s claims. All Crimean War hospitals were ghastly, she insists, and the statistics suggest that at least two had higher death rates than Scutari. McDonald also makes a persuasive case that Nightingale believed the blame for Scutari’s dreadful state lay elsewhere. In her letters, she pointed repeatedly at military doctors and administrators, chastising them for a host of “murderous” errors including sending cholera cases to overcrowded wards and delaying having the hospital “drained and ventilated.” The sanitary commission’s investigation confirmed Nightingale’s suspicions about the links between filth and disease, McDonald contends, and she became determined never to let those conditions occur again. “That is the foundation of all she does in public health for the rest of her life,” McDonald says.

The Crimean War is largely forgotten now, but its impact was momentous. It killed 900,000 combatants; introduced artillery and modern war correspondents to conflict zones; strengthened the British Empire; weakened Russia; and cast Crimea as a pawn among the great powers. To reach Crimea, I had driven two hours south from the Ukrainian city of Kherson to one of the world’s tensest borders, where I underwent a three-hour interrogation by the FSB, the successor to the KGB. Besides questioning me about my background and intentions, the agents wanted to know how I felt about Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and even about President Trump’s decision to pull U.S. forces out of Syria. Just as it was a century and a half ago, Crimea has become a geopolitical hotbed, pitting an expansionist Russia against much of the world.


In Balaklava, a fishing port, the rhythmic crash of waves against a sea wall resounded through the early morning air as I hiked up a goat trail. The ruins of two circular stone towers built by Genoese traders in the 14th century loomed on the hilltop a few hundred feet above me.

The rugged, boulder-strewn hills presented as treacherous an ascent as they did 165 years ago, when 34-year-old Nightingale would climb from the harbor to the Castle Hospital, a collection of huts and barracks on a flat patch of ground overlooking the Black Sea. She had sailed from Scutari across the Black Sea in May 1855 to inspect medical facilities near the front lines. “You are stepping on the same stones that Florence walked on,” says Aleksandr Kuts, my guide.

After an arduous half-hour, Kuts and I arrive at the plateau where the Castle Hospital once stood. There’s no physical trace of it now, but Nightingale’s letters and the accounts of colleagues who served beside her have kept the place alive in literature—and attest to her physical bravery.

At the Castle Hospital, Nightingale drilled borehole wells to improve the water supply and insulated huts with felt to protect wounded soldiers against the winter cold. Nightingale did indeed try to improve their food; she made sure that the soldiers regularly received meat, not just gristle and bone, along with fresh bread, which she had shipped in daily from Constantinople. 

She traveled constantly—by carriage, on horseback and on foot—with artillery fire echoing in the background, to inspect other hospitals in the hills that surrounded Balaklava. She even visited the trenches outside Sevastopol, where she was moved by the sight of the troops “mustering & forming at sundown,” she wrote, and plucked a Minié bullet from ground “ploughed with shot & shell” to send to her sister in England as a souvenir. Throughout her sojourn, she faced the resentment of officers and bureaucrats who regarded her as an interloper. “There is not an official who would not burn me like Joan of Arc if he could,” Nightingale wrote from Crimea, “but they know that the War Office cannot turn me out because the country is with me.”

Walking across the windswept plateau overlooking the Black Sea, I tried to imagine Nightingale waking in her cottage on these grounds to face another day caring for the sick and battling bureaucratic inertia in a war zone far from home. On her first interlude here, Nightingale fell ill with a malady that the British troops called “Crimean Fever,” later identified as almost certainly spondylitis, an inflammation of the vertebrae that would leave her in pain and bedridden for much of her life. Despite her illness, she was determined to work until the last British troops had gone home, and she returned twice during the war—once in October 1855, after the fall of Sevastopol, when she stayed for a little more than two months, and again amid the bitter winter of March 1856, and remained until July. “I have never been off my horse until 9 or 10 o’clock at night, except when it was too dark to walk home over these crags even with a lantern,” she wrote to Sidney Herbert in April 1856. “During the greater part of the day I have been without food, except a little brandy and water (you see I am taking to drinking like my comrades in the army).”


Nightingale sailed for England from Constantinople on July 28, 1856, four months after the signing of the Treaty of Paris that ended the Crimean War. She had spent nearly two years in the conflict zone, including seven months on the Crimean Peninsula. Vivid dispatches filed from Scutari by correspondent Sir William Howard Russell, as well as a front-page engraving in the Illustrated London News showing Nightingale making her rounds with her lamp, had established her in the public eye as a selfless and heroic figure. 

By the time she returned home, she was the most famous woman in England after Queen Victoria.

Still, Nightingale had little interest in her celebrity. With William Farr, a mentor and noted government statistician, she gathered data from military hospitals in Constantinople that verified what she had long suspected: Nearly seven times as many British soldiers had died of disease in the Crimean War than in combat, and the deaths dropped dramatically once hospitals at the front were cleaned up. She also collated data from military hospitals in Great Britain, which revealed that these facilities were so poorly ventilated, filthy and overcrowded that their mortality rates far exceeded those at Scutari following the changes implemented by the Sanitary Commission. “Our soldiers enlist to death in the barracks,” she wrote. In “Notes Affecting the Health, Efficiency, and Hospital Administration of the British Army,” published in 1858, she and Farr displayed their findings in graphic illustrations known as coxcombs—circular designs divided into 12 sectors, each one representing a month—that clearly laid out the direct relationship between improved sanitation and plummeting death rates. These innovative diagrams, she said, were “designed ‘to affect thro’ the Eyes what we may fail to convey to the brains of the public through their word-proof ears.”

Swayed by her presentations, the military improved hospitals throughout Great Britain, and Parliament voted to finance the first comprehensive sewage system for London. “She was a one-woman pressure group and think tank,” says David Spiegelhalter, a University of Cambridge statistician and author.

Though often bedridden in London hotels and rented flats over the years, Nightingale continued to gather data on every aspect of medical care. She sent questionnaires to hospital administrators, collected and analyzed results, wrote reports, established investigative commissions. She produced findings on the proportion of recoveries and deaths from various diseases, average disease recovery times according to patients’ age and gender, and high rates of communicable disease such as septicemia among hospital workers. Nightingale came to believe, says Spiegelhalter, that “using statistics to understand how the world worked was to understand the mind of God.” In 1858, she became the first woman to be made a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society.

Nightingale founded the country’s first nurses’ training school, at St. Thomas Hospital in London, across the Thames from the Houses of Parliament, in 1860. She viewed the project as a moral crusade intended “to promote the honest employment, the decent maintenance and provision, to protect and restrain, to elevate in purifying...a number...of poor and virtuous women,” she wrote at the time.


Concern for society’s disadvantaged shaped her initiatives for the rest of her life. She criticized the Poor Laws, prodding Parliament to improve the workhouses—shelters for the indigent—by establishing separate wards for the sick and the infirm, introducing trained nurses and forming oversight boards. “She had a nonjudgmental, nonmoralistic view of the poor, which was radical at the time,” says Spiegelhalter. She wrote prolifically about crime, labor and the social causes of madness, and originated the concept that soldiers injured in war should be considered “neutral” and that they and their caregivers should be accorded protection on the battlefield. That ethic would become central to the International Committee of the Red Cross, founded in Geneva in 1863.

Nightingale’s personal life was complicated, and fuels speculation to this day. As a young woman, she had considered several marriage proposals, including one from Richard Monckton Milnes, an aristocratic politician and poet who was a frequent visitor at Lea Hurst, the Nightingale family estate. Charmed by him but also ambivalent about the compromises she would have to make as a married woman, Nightingale hesitated until it was too late. “Her disappointment when she heard he was getting married to someone else because she had waited so long was considerable,” says Bostridge. “But you have a choice as a Victorian woman. If you want to go out in the world and do something, then marriage and children are not really an option.” She was, in any case, a driven figure. “She has little or none of what is called charity or philanthropy,” her sister, Parthenope, wrote. “She is ambitious—very, and would like...to regenerate the world.”

Elizabeth Gaskell, the novelist and family friend who visited Lea Hurst in 1854, observed that Nightingale appeared far more interested in humanity in general than individuals. Bostridge is sympathetic. “It’s understandable when you’re trying to reform the world in so many ways, to be centered on the universal idea of mankind rather than individuals,” he says.

Some of Nightingale’s public health campaigns went on for decades. In the 1860s, she joined the social reformer Harriet Martineau in an attempt to repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts, which authorized the arrest and compulsory inspection for venereal disease of prostitutes around naval bases and garrison towns. Nightingale believed that the women’s male clientele were as responsible as the women in spreading disease, and she compiled statistical charts that showed the forced inspections were having no effect at bringing down the infection rates. The law was at last overturned in 1886.

Yet, few members of the British public were aware of Nightingale’s role in the campaign, or in any of the other reforms that changed the face of British society. She had expressed her discomfort with fame as early as 1850, when she wrote in her diary that God had called upon her and asked, “Would I do good for Him, for Him alone, without the reputation?” After her Crimean War glory, “much of the British public thought she had died,” says Bostridge. But in 1907, Nightingale became the first woman to receive the Order of Merit, a highly prestigious award instituted by Edward VII. The ceremony resulted in a surge of renewed interest in the nearly forgotten nurse and social reformer. She died three years later, at the age of 90.

More than a century after her death, it may seem strange that out of all those who have stepped up to criticize Nightingale, perhaps the most vociferous have been some nurses in the British public services union UNISON. Some regard her as a privileged elitist who favored a strictly hierarchical approach to nursing, opposed higher education for nurses and wanted them to remain devout, chaste and obedient. UNISON declared in 1999 that Nightingale had “held the nursing profession back too long” and represented its most “negative and the backward elements.” The union demanded that International Nurses Day, celebrated on Nightingale’s birthday, be moved to a different date. Nightingale’s defenders fired back, insisting that the criticism was misplaced, and the attempt failed.

Meanwhile, a group in London recently campaigned to recognize the contributions of a different woman in the Crimean War: Mary Seacole, a black Jamaican entrepreneur who ran a restaurant for officers in Balaklava during the war and sometimes prepared medicines and conducted minor surgery on troops. 

Champions of Seacole insisted that she deserved the same kind of recognition that Nightingale has enjoyed, and, after years of lobbying, succeeded in erecting a statue of Seacole at St. Thomas Hospital. The monument contains the words of one of Seacole’s admirers, Times correspondent Sir William Howard Russell: “I trust that England will not forget one who nursed her sick, who sought out her wounded to aid and succour them, and who performed the last offices for some of her illustrious dead.”

The tribute outraged devotees of Nightingale, who insist that Seacole deserves no such recognition. “British nurses fell for the Seacole line,” says Lynn McDonald, who wrote a biography entitled Mary Seacole: The Making of the Myth that minimized her role as a nurse. McDonald claims that Seacole even harmed some troops by treating dysentery with lead and mercury. “She was feisty, independent and set up her own business,” McDonald says. “But what she mainly did was provide meals and wine to officers in her restaurant and takeaway. I’d be happy to have the statue disappear.”

The controversy would probably have vexed Nightingale, who had a pleasant encounter with Seacole in 1856, when the Jamaican stopped in Scutari on the way to Balaklava. Though Nightingale would later express misgivings about reports of hard drinking at Seacole’s restaurant, she would mostly have warm words for her. “I hear she has done a great deal of good for the poor soldiers,” she would say, even contributing to a fund for Seacole after she was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1857. Seacole returned the compliment, praising Nightingale in her autobiography with words that would make a fitting epitaph: “That Englishwoman whose name shall never die but sound like music on the lips of men until the end of doom.”


Lea Hurst is perched on a hill overlooking rolling lawns, groves of birch trees and the Derwent River. The 17th-century estate retains a pastoral, cloistered feeling, with gabled windows, stone chimneys jutting from the roof and deep red Virginia creeper climbing the handsome gray stone facade. Many years ago the Nightingale family property was eventually converted into a nursing home, but Peter Kay, a former banker who had worked in Singapore and Manila, purchased it four years ago. He lives here with his wife and four children and has been turning the house into a kind of Florence Nightingale museum.


Kay and his wife renovated the once-crumbling mansion and, with the help of an antiquarian friend in London, are filling it with period pieces and Nightingale memorabilia. A pocket-size prayer book signed by Nightingale sits on a sideboard, near a wooden sedan chair that a British officer seized from a Russian fort in Sevastopol.

Kay leads me through the green-painted library, where William Nightingale tutored his daughters. A nook with bay windows designed and built by Florence, an amateur architect, looks out over handsome fall foliage. Kay is now seeking to acquire the carriage that Nightingale rode in during her inspection tours through the hills of Crimea. It’s currently on display at the former home of Parthenope and her husband, Harry Verney, administered by the National Trust.

Kay and I walk upstairs to the bedroom wing, which he has recently made available to guests. I put down my suitcase in Nightingale’s bedchamber, with a balustraded balcony looking out on the Derwent River. “She had the option of having a society life in a nice big house, with a staff of servants. It was all mapped out for her,” says Kay, a self-taught Nightingale authority. “But she pushed against it and devoted herself to a higher calling. 
And, she would single-mindedly break down barriers.”

Boston University - Florence Gotlieb exhibit at the Nightingale archives


Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Donald Trump must explain his kinky obsession with Vladimir Putin

It's really kinky but Donald Trump "can't quit Putin".
From The Boston Globe by Michael Cohen

"... the idea that somehow Putin is preferable to Obama is unpatriotic, un-democratic, and reflects an utter lack of appreciation for the basic ideas and principles that define American democracy." wrote Michael Cohen.
Image result for USS Intrepid
On the deck of the USS Intrepid CVS 11- a symbol of US Navy victory at sea: Donald Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin while criticizing American military leaders. 

Although Michael Cohen says he's been following American politics for a long time, he doesn't think he would ever be able to see the day when a presidential candidate — no less a Republican presidential candidate — would favorably compare a Russian leader to the president of the United States.

Well, believe it or not, here we are, wrote Cohen in The Boston Globe.

Since the beginning of this campaign, Donald Trump has had kind words for Russian President Vladimir Putin

None of it has made much sense, but earlier this week Trump went a step further and said of the Russian strongman that he had been a far better leader “than our president.” 

In fact, Trump even cited Putin’s 82 percent approval rating in a country that is not a democracy, as supporting evidence. When NBC’s Matt Lauer began to point out some of Putin’s many political and democratic transgressions, Trump said, “Do you want me to start naming some of the things that President Obama does at the same time?”

There are so many aspects of this line of argument from Trump that are difficult to fathom, but first and foremost is the fact that Putin has been a terrible leader for his country, particularly since his second run as Russian president.

Due in large measure to a drop in global oil prices and Putin’s ill-advised seizure of Crimea, the Russian economy has been in freefall. In 2015 it contracted by 3.7 percent, hundreds of billions in foreign capital has left the country because of international sanctions imposed because of Putin’s actions in Ukraine, and the value of the Russian ruble dropped 127 percent. The number of Russians living in poverty has sharply increased and real wages have fallen while inflation continues to rise. In short, Russia is an economic basket case and the country has become isolated on the international stage — and in large measure because of Putin’s disastrously bad foreign policy decision-making.

Moreover, there is the fact that Putin’s intelligence services are interfering directly in America’s presidential election — something that Trump encouraged back in July. Trump regularly says wouldn’t it be great if the United States and Russia got along, but is utterly oblivious to the fact that the main reason the US-Russian relationship is frayed is because of Putin and his provocative acts.
Candidate Donald Trump sat on the deck of the USS Intrepid, an aircraft carrier where Americans lost their lives defending our nation in World War II and served again in Vietnam, but disregarded this sacred place and, instead, praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, with interviewer Matt Lauer.

Four years ago, Republicans regularly and falsely attacked Obama for conducting an “apology tour” – in 2016 they’ve nominated a candidate who is an apologist for an un-democratic thug who regularly acts against U.S. interests and interferes with our presidential election.

But even if all of this wasn’t true – even if Putin wasn’t invading his neighbors, bombing hospitals in Syria and acting against basic global norms - there is nothing about Putin’s leadership that is worthy of praise from an American politician. Putin is an authoritarian leader with virtually no institutional checks on his power. He has rolled back democratic reforms and is strongly suspected of having had journalists and political enemies killed.

Incredulously, the idea that somehow Putin is preferable to Obama is unpatriotic, un-democratic, and reflects an utter lack of appreciation for the basic ideas and principles that define American democracy. In America, strength comes not in popularity (a concept that an individual as needy for veneration as Trump may find hard to understand), but in adherence to the rule of law in respect for the will of the people. Putin has none of those characteristics. His leadership represents the opposite of virtually every principle that this country was founded on.

In the end, I have no idea why Trump is so solicitous of Putin. Maybe he’s protecting his business interests in Russia. Maybe he prefers the authoritarian manner in which Putin wields power. Maybe he can’t say anything bad about someone who says “really nice things” about him.

Your guess is as good as mine. And to some extent we’ve all become so anesthetized to Trump’s habitual violation of basic democratic norms that many Americans aren’t even paying attention to what Trump says about Putin. But a presidential candidate who praises a leader like Putin as “effective” and “strong” and better than a democratically-elected American president not only understands nothing about America, but has made himself unworthy of the political office he is seeking.

Michael A. Cohen’s column appears regularly in the Globe. Follow him on Twitter @speechboy71.

Surely, the American people can't vote for a candidate who praises Vladimir Putin.  The two men have a politically "kinky" relationship.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, June 04, 2015

A World at Odds with Vladimir Putin

Russian President Putin is a self appointed czar without a crown. Nevertheless, even his bona fide royal predecessors couldn't imagine the ambitious agenda the Russian Czar-dictator has established. In spite of the civilized world's resistance to his power grabbing and serial killing of political opponents, Czar Putin is planning an invasion of the Ukraine while continuing to prop up the evil Assad regime in Syria. 

All the while, the Russian ruble is junk currency. Worse, Putin has prevented his citizens from learning about military deaths because, he says, the information is a matter of national security. In other words, when a Russian mother says farewell to a child who joins the country's military, she may never hear from her offspring again.

Internally, Russia has to be in a state of turmoil. Oligarths (people with tons of money) have left the country to find residence in other nations. Opposition leaders are being serially murdered, either by poison or outright violent assassinations. Military people who die while fighting (like in the Ukraine) are cremated at the scene of their demise in portable cremation machines. When military people die, their deaths  are kept secret. It's impossible to understand how Putin can even support a loyal military when morale must be at rock bottom low. Besides all of the above, Putin has created a mausoleum of  his own making in Sochi, a community he built to the cost of unbelievable amounts of money, with no return on investment, to pay for the 2014 Russian Olympics.

Although the world is well aware of Vladimir Putin's dangerous ambitions, it doesn't seem like anybody wants to do much about the problem. Of course, the world is at odds with Vladimir Putin. In fact, world leaders have kicked Putin out of the G7 leaders. Whoo-hooooo.....! So, Putin created his own pack of influence with President Assad in Syria, China's President Xi Jinping and the evil idiot North Korean President Kim Jong-un. It's difficult to understand how Putin gets along with the ego-maniacs in this cauldron, but the buzzards are birds of the same feather, so to speak. They instinctively know how their axis will be formidable opposition to world leaders who are unwilling to take military action to defend their high minded anti-Putin principles.

Now Russians are expected to invade the Ukraine. Of course, the Russian army has been fighting "incognito" in the Ukraine for a long time. Yet, it seems like Putin, now, has nothing to loose by just taking the charade off the invasion. If Russia doesn't report military deaths and everyone who has died fighting are cremated where they are killed in battle, then Putin can just run roughshod over the Ukrainians and destroy all evidence of the military campaign. Of course, when the Russian military is caught in the Ukrainian campaign, there will be fewer troops to prop up the Syrian Assad puppet government. It's probably a risk worth taking for Putin, because, if he's able to finally steam roll a Russian highway to a warm water port in Crimea, he can then reinforce his bases in Syria. Of course, that's assuming there's any viable money or military leadership remaining to succeed. 

Furthermore, Putin's ambitions are also predicated on his survival. Surely, Putin must be facing the risk of his own mortality! After all, given how many people Putin is responsible for murdering, surely there is "Kremilin intrigue" plotting some kind of revenge.  (In fact, the same thing is going on in North Korea. Perhaps, it's just a matter of time before Kim Jong-un is also dead. Unfortunately a lot of perpetrators against Kim Jong-un are, themselves, going die trying to do away with the dictator, before somebody finally succeeds.)

Although western world leaders are aware of Putin's dangerous ambitions, it seems as though they're just waiting until something more horrible happens, before reacting. As the world waits for another Russian driven crises, Putin's brinkmanship continues with no end in sight.....yet.

Although the world is at odds with Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader is clearly not impressed by their snubs. He's obviously not interested in being popular. Instead, Putin is crafting his own reign of terror for as long as he can get away with it.  

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

President Putin is a 21st Century Napoleon or worse

Russia's president Putin has now claimed the election in the Crimea validates a take over of this territory of the Ukraine. Crimea is occupied by Russian military and defense personnel who obviously want to be connected to their homeland, rather than be non-citizens in the Ukraine.  

An election where the Russian military votes Putin's way is hardly convincing. Also, we have not seen data about how many people didn't vote.

It's hardly a surprise to see the Russians, who are living in the Crimea, voting to return their property and homes to the motherland.

What's dangerous is how Russia is also expanding its influence into Syria by supporting the murderer President Assad and now claims Crimea, as well. These two ambitious moves are reminiscent of how Adolf Hitler claimed Austria and Poland, before World War II was declared. 

Vladimir Putin is even having some Russian military disguise themselves as Ukrainians, so they can infiltrate the Ukranian defenses. This is how Hitler invaded Poland.

What's even more ominous are the visuals. 

Video shows rapturous Russians who appear ecstatic when Putin speaks about re-claiming Crimea. People are being shown with glowing smiles, waving flags and appearing euphoric.
Sound familiar? 

It seems to  me, President Putin is a 21st century Napoleon or worse. Obviously, the ambitious Napoleon conquered a lot of real estate before he was finally defeated.  By the way, Napoleon Bonaparte was only 5 feet 6 inches tall. I suspect Vladimir Putin isn't much taller.  

Likewise, Adolf Hitler also claimed a lot of real estate before 1945, when Germany was defeated. 

Putin is obviously not to be trusted. Napoleon crowned himself king of France. Putin is following the egotistical legacy of Napoleon. He's also creating a Hitler persona by creating a weird euphoria among his fanatical followers.

Russia's economy is floundering, the ruble is useless and Putin needs a war to create confidence in his leadership.  

Tragically, the role models Putin appears to be emulating, to validate his authority, are two of history's most ambitious tyrants.  

Both Napoleon and Hitler were defeated, but not before millions of people were killed and enormous amounts of property was destroyed. 

Our world must stop Putin before he takes on any more ambitious power moves. Our world and the people in it can't survive a 21st century Napoleon or worse.

Labels: , , , , ,