Harry's War is a small independent film produced in 1981 by Kieth Merril. The movie suffered limited distribution and play time, allegedly due to fear by theater owners incurring unwanted attention by the IRS. It quickly faded into obscurity into local video stores. It was re-released for a short run in DVD in 2005, and currently is out of print.

The plot centers on the IRS applying aggressive auditing methods against Harry Johnson (Edward Herrmann) and his Aunt Beverly Payne's (Geraldine Page) to extract back taxes for spurious reasons. At the beginning, Harry is portrayed as a nice guy with naïve faith in the American justice system. When the IRS freezes his bank account and confiscates his aunt's large, ramshackle mansion, his aunt Beverly succumbs to a heart attack in court and dies. Enraged, Harry transforms from a nebbish sheeple to an avenging agitator. He declares a one-man war on the IRS. His nemesis is the local IRS director, Ernie Scelera (David Ogden Stiers).

Here's some choice dialogue I transcribed from the movie, regarding property rights, due process, and unbridled power welded by governmental agencies.

After three hours of getting the run-around with indifferent IRS flunkies, a frustrated Harry Johnson forces his way into the IRS Director Scelera's office.

Harry: "Sir, I sorry to barge in on you like this, but something is happening…"

Scelera to his secretary: "Call security."

Harry: "Please! I've been waiting three hours…"

Scelera waves his hand for him to be quiet: "I know who you are Johnson. You where here before."

Harry begins to speak, but is cut off.

Scelera: "Taxes, Mr. Johnson, are what we pay for a civilized society. It is the duty of every citizen to properly report and fully pay his fair share of that responsibility. Now the measures this office takes are legal, fair and necessary."

Guards grab Harry and start to usher him out. "There's some mistake here!"

Scelera: "If there is a mistake, Mr. Johnson, your cooperation in the Beverly Payne matter will be very beneficial. Your problems are still little ones."

After Aunt Beverly's death, Harry goes to her house. He discovers it padlocked with an official notice declaring its confiscation by the US government. Harry finds IRS director Scelera on the front porch.

Scelera: "I'm very sorry about Beverly Payne. I really am."

Harry: "Isn't killing her enough for you people? "

Scelera: "Look, you blame us, I know. But it's not our fault, Johnson. Beverly Payne frustrated the system. So the system fought back with every" – pauses – Look Johnson, people who ram their heads against a wall eventually die. Privilege of freedom, I guess."

Harry grabs the padlock and chains securing his aunts house confiscated by the IRS; "This is the privilege of freedom, huh?!" Harry rips the confiscation notice off the house door.

Scelera: "Don't be stupid! People like Beverly Payne destroy themselves! I came to offer you a compromise."

Harry: "Compromise?! This is my property!"

Scelera: "This property was illegally transferred in anticipation of debt! Look, either way it belongs to us."

Harry: "You are wrong! You are wrong!"

Scelera: "What do you think this county is about Johnson? It's about housing, it's about Education, Defense, Welfare, Medicare, Highways, Social Security – it's about taxes Johnson! She – she was a fool!"

Harry demands Scelera to leave.

Scelera: "You're the fool, Johnson; I'm the United States Treasury. What are you?"

Harry: "I'm — ". Harry becomes speechless. His face turns red with anger. He grabs a pipe and chases IRS Director Scelera of the porch.

Scelera parting words as he walks away:"You can't beat the United States government, Johnson. Not in a million years. The taxes will be paid. We get it one-way. We get it another. But we will get it. Pauses. Oh by the way, Johnson. You're trespassing here. "

Several scenes later, IRS Director Scelera gives a news conference at a local studio:

"The internal revenue service is the most single import part of the united States government. There are two million people who file no income tax returns. So far they have gone unprosecuted, but weu2018re going to change that. The Constitution simply didn't contemplate the requirements of our contemporary society. Taxes are a part of life and they will be collected.

The so-called power of the IRS is necessary to insure collections. Some people insist on fighting against the system. But they only destroy themselves. Never have we been in complete control of tax affairs than we are now. We intend to keep moving in that direction. We still have a few small problems."

Harry's eccentric aunt owned a large collection of surplus military items. Among them is a fully functional WW2 US half track. Harry drives it to the newscast, and crashes the armored half track into studio. Exiting the vehicle, Harry places himself in front of the on-air news camera and speaks to the viewing audience;

Harry: "I have something to say! I declare war on the Internal Revenue Service of the United States! I'm challenging the right of the IRS to assess, harass, intimidate, and seize the properties of citizens without due process! I'm challenging the right of the IRS to destroy people. People like Beverly Payne. God gave us life, gave us liberty. At the same time, I say……to those of you people trying to keep those same liberties alive, I declare war on the IRS and all the little men because they're tyrants! We Americans have risen up before tyranny before. And we will rise up again. In the words of another patriot, u2018we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God! u2018It's time somebody did something."

Harry jumps in half track and makes his escape back to his Aunt's house. Following a prolonged siege by local and federal authorities, Harry holds Director Scelera hostage and announces his demands:

Scelera: "Get back, back! He's a madman!

Harry:"I'm no madman. I admit I'm a little angry. I've never been more sane, or seen things more clearly, or understood things so well."

Scelera: "I thought you wanted to make a deal?"

Harry:"I want an honest hearing"

Scelera: "You got it. I give you my word. I promise."

Harry: "You promise? What are you talking about? Who are you to promise me anything? Are you a judge? You tried to prosecute me. Are you going to judge me now too? I want them – points to the TV cameras — to judge."

Scelera: "That's ridiculous, that's impossible! That's illegal!….."

Harry:"Illegal is it!?! A trial by my peers is guaranteed to me by the Constitution! Is the IRS more important than that?

Scelera: "Look, Johnson….."

Harry: "Is the IRS above the Constitution of the United States, Mr. Scelera?

Long silent pause as the nearby media, National Guard troops, and law enforcement ponder Harry's statement.

Harry: "The case of Harry Johnson versus the Internal Revenue Service. You can all see the government's case — I'm looking right down the barrel of it. My case is so simple it frightens people like them. With all their might and all their machinery, rules and confusion, they never bother with the one fact that's so simple. Who told them they could tax us? Who gave them the power to tax us? Did you? I didn't.

I'm not at war with this country. I'm not particularly against taxes. But when Mr. Scelera, and his people, thinks they have the right to come in here and seize my property without due process of law, well something, something's the matter….If I was accused of murder, I'd have more legal rights than I would know what to do with. But when the IRS audits you, they make you think you don't have any rights at all. They make their own laws. They administer them, they enforce them, and they prosecute them, and they judge them…..All that power in one place, boy. Hitler would've loved the IRS. So would Napoleon and Caesar. They would understand it — I don't! Government doesn't have any right to do anything we don't give it. And they are supposed to protect us from what the IRS is doing — in the name of government! That's what this is all about. That's all."

I won't spoil the ending with more details, except to say the final showdown results in a conflagration eerily foreshadowing the Waco disaster that would occur 12 years later.

With the growing national debt and the expanding Federal government, the message in Harry's War is still relevant today. Kieth Merril should take comfort that his little known independent gem was just too far ahead of its time.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

The Best of Ron Shirtz

I first tried painting dots on my gun’s sights. I found myself less than satisfied with the results. My clumsy artistry spoiled the aesthetics of my guns. After mulling about it, I came up with a better method.

You’ll need the following materials:

A 1/16″ hole punch. These can be purchased in craft stores.

• Bright colored florescent labels with a coated finish.
• Round toothpicks
• Superglue
• Acrylic floor polish.
• Cheap hobby brush (Not pictured, but you know what they look like)

Punch out a lot of holes from the desired colored label. I like bright green myself. Open the bottom jaw of the punch and pull out the round punched dots. Between static electricity and residue glue from the label, these can be a bit tricky to extract. Lay them on a white piece of paper to make them be easy to see.

Separate the white backing from the punched-out dot by sliding it off using a toothpick. Pick up a colored dot with the tip of the toothpick. If you have trouble picking up it up, roll the tip of the toothpick on your tongue. Spit makes a great temporary bond to hold the tiny dot on the toothpick.

With another toothpick, apply a tiny spot of superglue on the iron sight where the dot will be placed. Don’t rush — It will take a good 2—3 minutes for the glue to dry, plenty enough time to apply the dot. If you have too much glue on the sight, use the corner of an index card to soak up the excess. Careful not to glue the card to the sight! Put the dot on the glue spot. Until the glue dries, you’ll have enough time to slide the dot into position. The goal is to align the dots on either side of the "V" slot evenly.

Wait until the dots on the glue completely dry. Get the hobby brush and paint floor polish over the dots with a thin coat. Don’t gloop it on. Repeat with several more thin coats, letting each application dry in between. Acrylic polish is pretty tough stuff — it will help preserve the dots from wear and tear.

Here’s the end result for my Ruger MK II:

Neat, no? I first experimented with dots on my .22 H&R Sportsman’s 999 break-top revolver. They held up fine after thousands of rounds. The same went for my Ruger. I recently put dots on my Star PD, SKS, and several others with positive results. For my S&W Model 10, instead of a dot, I cut a thin strip and applied it to the ramp of the front sight. Works great. Looks good too.

Forget about using fluorescent paint. I never found the results worth the effort. This inexpensive trick will never replace the quality of Tritium or fiber optic sights, but for casual shooting I find it a great improvement over hand-painted efforts.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

The Best of Ron Shirtz

The insurgents know we are coming. The Kandahar operation has been broadcasted for months in advance by our own military and media. The insurgents have had ample time to set up IED traps, snipers, underground tunnels, recruit volunteers to fight to the death, and insure their top leaders get the heck outta’ Dodge. It’s a no-brainer for these militant Afghanis, who been fighting wars since Alexander the Great. The US and NATO forces will pay a high price in casualties for little gain against a forewarned and prepared enemy.

The recent battle for Marjah serves as a harbinger to what to expect in the upcoming Kandahar offensive. Marjah should have been a minor engagement. Instead, it turned into a three-month slugfest that General Stanley McChrystal referred to as a "bleeding ulcer." Marines in Marjah claimed the fighting was as intense as Fallujah. An excerpt at FrontpageMag.com details what the US/NATO troops went up against:

"…the Taliban having planted booby traps throughout the city as well as to their snipers. According to one report, the enemy is concentrating in a central bazaar and in a densely populated residential neighborhood, which they are defending fiercely. u2018The Taliban have booby-trapped everywhere. We can’t even come out of our homes,’ one Marjah resident told Reuters."

Marjah has a conservative population of 80,000 people, which the military and the media euphemistically labeled a town, to downplay the possibility of serious collateral damage occurring in such a highly populated area. In any case, NATO blandly admitted that civilian casualties in that battle would be "inevitable." In comparison, Kandahar is the second largest city in Afghanistan, home to half a million people, roughly equivalent to Atlanta. So it stands to reason that if a "little town" such as Marjah proved to be a tough battle, Kandahar can only be more so by several orders of magnitude. Which begs the question — where will US/NATO get enough boots on the ground to both flush out the insurgents in street-to-street fighting and secure a perimeter to prevent escaping defenders to live and fight again? And do so with minimum loss to civilians in a major metropolis?

Even should the Kandahar operation proves military successful, what would it accomplish in securing the peace in Afghanistan? A recent commissioned report written by Major General Michael Flynn, General McCrystal’s top intelligence officer, makes a startling admission: "Eight years into the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. intelligence community is only marginally relevant to the overall strategy," the report states. "Having focused the overwhelming majority of its collection efforts and analytical brainpower on insurgent groups, the vast intelligence apparatus is unable to answer fundamental questions about the environment in which U.S. and allied forces operate and the people they seek to persuade."

In short, the US and NATO don’t have a clue. Attempting to win over the hearts and minds of the Afghanis by attacking the Taliban in a congested city of half a million civilians is akin to killing the patient in order to cure the disease. This planned offensive has the potential of turning into an atrocity like Israel’s recent invasion of the Gaza strip, as well as a major recruitment tool for the Taliban. Along with the doubts expressed by many officials in Pentagon, do we really want to gamble the lives and limbs of our soldiers, as well as the Afghani civilians, for such a dubious operation?

So please contact your representatives, and demand they stop this potential military disaster. Yes, I know they rarely pay attention to us proles. But the upcoming November elections offer a rare opportunity to leverage the incumbents in office on this issue. More important, our message will demonstrate to them that we are smarter than the average sheep, and are able to connect the dots to what is really going on over there in Afghanistan. At the very least, our message will stand as a condemnation against them for not questioning the necessity of the Kandahar offensive, an offensive I predict that will fail to produce any tangible results, except for providing more soldiers’ graves to plant flags on for next year’s Memorial Day.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

The Best of Ron Shirtz

Ender is both ostracized by his peers and admired as a brilliant strategist, a situation fostered by his teachers to develop his creativity and his leadership abilities. His war training becomes all-inclusive — Daily he must defend himself from jealous, bullying classmates and outwit manipulative teachers. Dink, one of his few friends tells him; "It’s the teachers, they’re the enemy. They get us to fight each other, to hate each other. The game is everything. Win win win. It amounts to nothing." (p. 108)

Ender is constantly engaged in an ongoing series of war games to exploit his intelligence towards military tactics. Each one becomes more challenging than the next, pushing the young Ender to his limits.

At one point, Ender questions the reason of the conflict with Colonel Graff:

“So the whole war is because we can’t talk to each other.”

“If the other fellow can’t tell you his story, you can never be sure he isn’t trying to kill you.”

“What if we just left them alone?”

“Ender, we didn’t go to them first, they came to us. If they were going to leave us alone, they could have done it a hundred years ago, before the First Invasion.”

“Maybe they didn’t know we were intelligent life. Maybe — ” (p.178)

Colonel Graff convinces Ender that there can be no negotiating with the inscrutable Buggers, that the war is a Darwinian battle for survival of one competing species against another.

In a final test, he is given a computer simulation to fight through the Bugger’s defenses and destroy their home world planet with a devastating bomb. Against tremendous odds, he succeeds — Only to discover afterwards from his adult mentors that it was not a simulation.

At age 12, Ender discovers he has single-handedly committed genocide of an entire planet.

"Real. Not a game. Ender’s mind was too tired to cope with it all. They weren’t just points of light in the air, they were real ships that he had fought with and real ships he had destroyed. And a real world that he had blasted into oblivion. He walked through the crowd, dodging their congratulations, ignoring their hands, their words, their rejoicing.."

"….. I killed them all, didn’t I? Ender asked.

"All who?" asked Graff. "The buggers? That was the idea."

Mazer leaned in close. "That’s what the war was for."

"All their Queens. So I killed all their children, all of everything."

"They decided that when they attacked us. It wasn’t your fault. It’s had to happen."

Ender grabbed Mazer’s uniform and hung unto it, pulling him down so they were face to face. "I didn’t want to kill them all. I didn’t want to kill anybody! I’m not a killer!…You but you made me do it, you tricked me into it!" He was crying. He was out of control.

"Of course we tricked you. That’s the whole point," said Graff. (p.208)

Predator drones are a progressive example of current military technology blurring the distinction between real and the digitally contrived. These technological terrors desensitize the inherent human aversion to violence by reverting harsh reality into an entertaining simulation. Such technology encourages a delusional mindset that killing in war can be sanitized, without the unpleasant experience of suffering the emotions of remorse or revulsion. Someone once said, "The first casualty of war is truth." The Government knows this, and seeks to hide this unpleasant truth from public. Examples include the previously suppressed 2007 Apache attack video of the killing of two Reuter journalists, the Pentagon’s censorship of pictures of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq, and Defense secretary Robert Gates criticism of the published photo of the Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard dying in combat. "Why your organization would purposely defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me." demands Mr. Gates of the AP Press. Perhaps if Mr. Gates and the rest of the Government had read Joseph’s Heller’s novel, Catch 22, he would understand war’s terrible secret, as Heller’s protagonist Captain Yossarian grimly discovers:

Snowden was wounded inside his flak suit. Yossarian ripped open the snaps of Snowden’s flak suit and heard himself scream wildly as Snowden’s insides slithered down to the floor in a soggy pile and just kept dripping out. A chunk of flak more than three inches big had shot into his other side just underneath the arm and blasted all the way through, drawing whole mottled quarts of Snowden along with it through the gigantic hole in his ribs it made as it blasted out. Yossarian screamed a second time and squeezed both hands over his eyes. His teeth were chattering in horror. He forced himself to look again. Here was God’s plenty, all right, he thought bitterly as he stared — liver, lungs, kidneys, ribs, stomach and bits of the stewed tomatoes Snowden had eaten that day for lunch. Yossarian hated stewed tomatoes and turned away dizzily and began to vomit, clutching his burning throat. The tail gunner woke up while Yossarian was vomiting, saw him, and fainted again.

Yossarian was limp with exhaustion, pain and despair when he finished. He turned back weakly to Snowden, whose breath had grown softer and more rapid, and whose face had grown paler. He wondered how in the world to begin to save him.

“I’m cold.” Snowden whimpered, “I’m cold.”

“There, there. Yossarian mumbled mechanically in a voice too low to be heard. “There, there.”

Yossarian was cold, too, and shivering uncontrollable. He felt goose pimples clacking all over him as he gazed down despondently at the grim secret Snowden had spilled all over the messy floor. It was easy to read the message in his entrails. Man was matter, that was Snowden’s secret. Drop him out a window and he’ll fall. Set fire to him and he’ll burn. Bury him and he’ll rot, like other kinds of garbage. The spirit gone, man is garbage. That was Snowden’s secret. Ripeness was all.

(Catch 22, Joseph Heller, chapter 41)

It is not my intent to write a screed on the moral evils of video games, or advocate we devolve into to Luddites. I only desire for the clueless to experience a second-hand Yossarian-epiphany by reading history and literature, like the books referenced here. To disabuse the notion that State-sponsored violence is necessary to safeguard ideals such as country and honor. To rediscover the lost truth that war is truly terrible, lest we, as Robert E. Lee warned, "should grow too fond of it."

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

The Best of Ron Shirtz

Photo #1

Army Specialist Cade Kitchens searched a farmer in Kandahar Province, whose residents feel under threat from both sides.

Photo #2

A TSA worker pats down a traveler at O’Hare International Airport in Chicago on Sept. 22, the day the government introduced stricter security measures.

Choose one of the following answers to describe the above photos:

A.) An Afghani farmer showing his buff looking six-pack abs to the astonished US soldier, while the elderly lady is being taught how to fly with her arms in case of an airplane emergency by a loving and concerned TSA employee.

B.) Examples of people’s welfare being protected by warfare.

C.) Examples of warfare protecting the people’s welfare.

D.) Two examples of inalienable rights and personal privacy being violated by warrantless searches without probable cause during an illegal war.

Score:

If you answered A, you might be a graduate of the US educational system who never read the Constitution.

If you answered B, you might be a socialist democrat who circumvents the Constitution.

If you answered C, you might be a fascist neo-conservative who tramples upon the Constitution.

If you answered D, you might be a libertarian who has actually has studied the Constitution.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

The Best of Ron Shirtz

~ Proverbs 6:6

I want people to store food not only for their sake, but for mine as well. I don’t want to decide which of my kids have to go hungry when you and your unprepared kin come knocking on my door. Contrary to progressive-collectivist thinking, every individual who takes care of themselves and their families benefits society by not becoming a burden. So take responsibility now and start today. Don’t expect the Feds to come by to hand you your ration of government-issued cheese. You could be in for a long wait. Wait too long, and you may end up with a green-stained mouth from eating grass, like the poor Irish during the potato famine in the mid 1800′s. Or seriously reevaluate your aversion to cannibalism. Compared to those desperate methods, dumpster diving comes off as luxury cuisine.

An adult needs a minimum 2500 calories a day. More if you are physically active. This translates to about two pounds of food, plus a gallon of potable ("drinkable") water. To get started, follow this cardinal rule; Store what you eat, and eat what you store. Do not expect to suddenly acquire a taste for powered eggs or a jalapeno-spiced chili MRE in a long-term disaster. If you have children, they will be even more reluctant to eat such stuff. The next rule is not go into debt by spending thousands of dollars for pre-packaged foodstuffs. It kinda defeats the purpose if you have to eat your food supply because you have no money left after buying it.

Begin building your food storage by buying 2—3 extra items every time you shop at the grocery store. A few cans here, some bags and boxes there, and it will begin to add up. Look for sales, two-for-one specials, and coupon items. Set aside some space, and put the oldest stuff in front, and the newest in back. Rotate from back to front as you use it. If you have food items that are going to expire soon that you don’t have time to eat, donate them to a local food pantry for Karma points. There. You now have established a simple but effective short-term food storage system. Everything from here on will expand upon it.

The next step is to create a larger, stable environment to preserve your food supply over the long haul. Regardless if you live in a country mansion or a studio apartment, you need the following conditions to preserve food:

• Keep it airtight
• Keep it cool
• Keep it dark
• Keep it dry
• Keep it protected

Exposure to oxygen degrades food. I’ll cover one method to deal with that later. Temperature is the next concern. The goal is to keep food at 70° or below. For every 10 degrees cooler, food life doubles. Every 10 degrees warmer, it halves it. But at the same time, you want to keep it from freezing. Maintaining a stable and consistent temperature environment is the key. Avoid temperature extremes, like storing food in an unheated, un-insulated garage in a four-season environment. Basements make good root cellars. Real root cellars are even better. For those in suburban homes and apartments, a closet designated as a food pantry will serve. Metal trash cans, plastic tub containers, or buckets all lined with a 4-mil black trash liners will help insulate food from temperature extremes. They will also protect food from sunlight, which destroys nutrients, from moisture, which creates mold, and rodents, who will grow in swarming numbers as modern society falls apart. Buckets can be obtained at bakeries and food delis for free or at little cost. Hard pressed for space in you domicile? Put a trash can full of food in your living room, throw a nice cloth over it, add a lamp, and it doubles as an end table. Make a media center of boards supported by food buckets. Who said food storage isn’t fashionable?

Now back to the oxygen problem. As long as the can does not have a tell-tale bulge, signaling spoiled contents, canned goods are viable for many years past their expiration dates, notwithstanding a loss in nutritional value. Dry food packed in paper, cardboard boxes, or plastic are subject to oxygen spoilage over time. One solution is to repackage dry food items using food grade Mylar bags. These bags are an inexpensive method for those on a budget to customize their food storage to their personal needs and taste. Mylar is an excellent air and moisture barrier. It is said one can jump on a filled sealed bag and it won’t pop. But they need protection against punctures and gnawing verminu2014hence they need to be stored in a protective container, like those mentioned above. The recommended base foods for long-term storage are wheat, oats, legumes, pasta, honey/sugar, and salt. These will easily last 20—30 years if packed and stored properly. Flour and dry milk are more finicky, and have a shelf life of only 5—10 years. If you or members of your family suffer from Celiac disease, and cannot consume gluten type foods such as wheat, substitute white rice instead. I do not recommend brown rice for long-term storage, as it contains oils that break down over time that causes it to spoil. Supplement your long term food with canned goods, MRE’s and others sundries. The eventual goal is to build a diverse storage of food for health, variety, and if necessary, portability.

Items needed for packaging food:

Food grade Mylar bags. I recommend minimum 4.5mil thick bags in one-gallon size. These will hold about 4—6 lbs, depending on the bulk of the food products. Besides commercial vendors, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also sells them online, along with other preparedness supplies. Their bags are 7mil thick. However, they only sell them in bulk, so 250 bags for $94 is probably more bags than you need. The Church also has food canneries throughout the US that sells these in smaller quality. One can purchase pre-packaged food or bring their own food to seal at cost at these centers.

500cc Oxygen absorber packets. It takes two of these for each one gallon, 11" x 13" or similar sized Mylar bags full of food. These packets come in a sealed bag with all the oxygen sucked out. If the bag is not flat, but puffy with air, the oxygen packets have been compromised. You will need a glass jar with a metal (not plastic) lid to store them after you open the bag. Or you can seal them in a Mylar bag. Ordinary plastic bags are no good for storing oxygen packets — they provide a poor air barrier. Oxygen packets will start to feel warm when activated by exposure to air. Take them out only when you have everything else all set to bag and seal. Make sure to close the lid to preserve the others.

5-gram silica gel desiccant. These absorb any residue moisture that may reside in your food, to prevent mold. I’ve talked to the people at our local LDS cannery, and they and others who have stored food for years have experienced no problems not using desiccant packets. Everything I’ve read online suggest you should put them in. Your call. I purchase mine on eBay for around 25 cents each.

Sealer. This is a very expensive piece of equipment. I like to use the one at our local church. Contact the local Bishop or a Mormon friend to arrange a time to use one. It comes with a foot pedal, making it easier to seal bags. An alternative is using a hot iron set on wool or cotton (Not the wife’s!) with a 2 x 4 piece of wood. Some find they can use conventional food sealers. But do your homework well, as it is for good reason that Mylar bags require industrial strength sealers compared to off-the-shelf food sealers.

Directions for sealing bags:

1. If using the LDS Church sealer, check that the settings are at Sealing: 3, Congealing: 6, Recycle: 2. Turn on the sealer and let it warm up for two minutes.

2. (Optional) Place two 5-gram silica gel packets at the bottom of the Mylar bag.

3. Pour flour, rice, grain, etc. in bag. This can be done single-handedly, but from experience, it is so much easier to have someone help holding the Mylar bag, as it is very slick and does not have a flat bottom to keep it upright. Flour and dry milk can be a pain because it "poofs" everywhere when pored in the bag. When it does, use a damp paper towel to clean up the inside of the top of the bags where it will be sealed together. Then apply a dry towel to remove any moisture. At this point, firmly bang the bag several times against the table to help settle the contents and reduce airspace between the food elements.

4. Place two 500cc oxygen packets on top of food. Be sure to keep the unused oxy packets sealed in an airtight container, so they will stay fresh.

5. Hold and pull tight both ends of the open bag, place in the sealer. Let the filled part of the bag drop down, to prevent food from coming up to opening and preventing a perfect seal. Hit the foot pedal. The seal bar will come down for 2—3 seconds to set the seal. I like to add a second seal to each bag for good measure. Check the seal by attempting to peel the opening apart. If the seal is secure, you won’t be able too. Also push on the bag and watch if any air leaks out. None should. For using an iron, place the Mylar bag opening on the 2 x 4, and press down. Some prefer to put a towel between the iron and the Mylar, but I’ve never scorched a bag yet.

6. Use a permanent marker to write the on bag the date, the weight, and the description on the bagged food. I like to include the brand name of the food, in case I have any problems with it, or is recalled by the FDA. For some things like powdered milk, I tape the mixing instructions on the bag.

Mylar bags may be cut in half or smaller to store smaller portions. Filled Mylar bags are very stiff and rigid. The bagged food will be a bit awkward to store in round containers like buckets and trashcans. Stack fragile food like pasta on top of the heavier, bulkier bagged foods. Large Mylar bags from vendors are available to store quantities up to 30 lbs in 5-gallon plastic buckets. Put one in, and fill up with the dry food product of your choice. Some recommend using dry ice on top of the food before sealing to displace oxygen in the bucket. I could not find any dry ice in my area, so put ten oxygen packets on top instead. Seal with a hot iron by pressing the Mylar against a 2 x 4 piece. Trim any excess from the sealed top edge of the bag with scissors to secure the Mylar bag into the bucket. This YouTube video gives excellent demonstration. Cover with a lid. I prefer Gamma screw-top lids on my buckets. They cost from $7—10 each, but are so much easier than popping and hammering lids off and on every time.

Other food storage methods include canning, both traditional glass jars and #10 metal cans. The latter can be done at a local LDS cannery center. Dehydrating food is another valuable storage method.

A few more suggestions with building your food storage. Include fun foods to help break the monotony and uplift morale, such as hard candy, chocolate, powdered drinks, and dried fruit. Pick up some recipes on cooking the food you store, to add variety to your diet. When possible, supplement your food storage meals with garden vegetables, home grown sprouts, or ordinary dandelion leaves. Be careful of depending on a diet of MRE’s. While they are portable and convenient for traveling, they are short on fiber, and can be hard on the digestive system, especially with children and the elderly. They also negatively affect those who are gluten intolerant. On storing water, bottled water is okay if you are going to bug out, but for hunkering down, you need to think much bigger. For the cost of two cartons of bottled water, you can purchase a five-gallon water container. These are more practical if you need to go out and get your water replenished. Add half teaspoon of bleach per five gallons to keep it safe. Be sure to use only regular bleach, and not those with special or extra additives. If in doubt, boil it.

Whether a global disaster strikes or one becomes unemployed, food storage is the best insurance one can have in uncertain times. You will garner a better dividend on your food storage than any other investment. There’s more to improve upon than mentioned here, such as progressing to the next level from food storage to food production. But you have enough info to get started. So no more excuses. Get working on your food storage today. And don’t forget the can opener.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

The Best of Ron Shirtz

Some mods cost more than the gun itself. Often they do little to improve one’s shooting. Worse, they can harm the historical and collectors value of certain guns. Expensive mods seldom increase the base value of firearms for resale. Modifying a new gun right out of the box could void the manufacturer’s warranty, leaving you high and dry should your new gun have a factory defect. Be wary of spending time and money to fix something that ain’t broke. You may discover that "less is more" works better than a bunch of doo-dads tacked on your firearm. For a gun owner on a budget, it’s becomes a question of which you want to do, spend your money on ammo to shoot more, or have a safe queen to admire?

Before the new gun owner delves into the many options to gild the lily, they should become proficient shooting their gun as is, so not to be psychologically dependent on gee-whiz technology. One of the greatest snipers in history, Finnish Simo Häyhä, KIA’d over 500 Russian soldiers during the 1939 Winter War armed with a humble Mosin Nagant bolt-action rifle with iron sights. Anne Oakley in a single day shot 4472 out of 5000 targets tossed in the air with an unadorned .22. So remember, it’s the shooter, not the gun, who counts.

So are any mods are useful to for the novice gun owner? A lot depends on what you want out of your gun. The ones mentioned here have little to do with hunting or competition shooting — just small improvements to make shooting more pleasurable and reliable. The usual caveat applies that I bear no responsibility for any damage or harm done for the any of the following suggestions. In case of doubt, consult a competent gunsmith first.

The new gun owner should ignore the temptation to convert a firearm to full auto (FA), and/or building a homemade suppressor, a.k.a., "silencer." These are federal offenses that will land you in the slammer, cost lots of money in fines and legal fees, and prohibit you from ever owning a gun again. So let’s not tempt the powers that be, okay? If you desire to own a FA weapon or a suppressor, go through the trouble to legally apply for a Class III license. Fiddling to make a firearm FA can be extremely unsafe. The resulting inaccuracy, coupled with the horrendous expenditure of ammunition shooting full-auto does not lend itself to developing good shooting skills for the beginner.

Handguns: The first mod to consider with a new handgun purchase is changing the grips. This is one of the most inexpensive and easiest mod to do. I prefer synthetic rubber molded grips by Hogue or Pachmayr. They absorb some of the recoil, and give an improved positive grip, especially when hands get slippery with sweat.

Rubber grips do not work satisfactorily for everyone. Some find they make the pistol grip too fat. Others complain that they become sticky when worn next to the body. I found synthetic grips on my Ruger Mark II pistol not as comfortable for me as the original factory checker grips. But many prefer them, for very good reasons. As with all mods, your mileage may vary.

If your handgun is new out of the box, and shoots with no jams or stovepipes after shooting a few hundred rounds, then leave well enough alone. However, some used semi-autos may be in need a tune up. Replacing the recoil and magazine springs for semi-auto pistols can often fix these issues. A stiffer-rated (in lbs.) recoil spring handles hotter loads better. A strong magazine spring helps feed the rounds more reliably. Wolff Springs are an excellent choice for replacing these springs. Any online gun forum or gunsmith can explain how to perform this easy and safe mod.

Before putting new springs in a used gun, particularly military surplus (milsurps) as in Tokarevs, Makarovs, and the like, give them a thorough cleaning. Milsurps are usually packed with a thick gummy preservative called cosmoline, besides collecting all sorts of gunk over their lifetime. Learn how to field strip them, and soak in a good solvent, like PB blaster or brake cleaner overnight. Illustrated handgun reference books like The Gun Digest Book of Firearms Assembly/Disassembly Part I — Automatic Pistols offer excellent step-by-step instructions.

Important note here — Field stripping a firearm is considerably different than performing a complete disassembly. Field stripping is a limited disassembly procedure for the sole purpose of cleaning and simple maintenance. As a gun greenhorn, never attempt a complete disassembly. It involves special tools and a diagram of the specific firearm. Lots of tiny springs may pop out and be easily lost. The risk of marring the finish or action tapping out small pins is great. One may be able to take a firearm completely apart, but few are those who can put it together again. Gunsmiths make lots of money with embarrassed gun owners bringing boxes of loose gun parts for them to reassemble.

Some handguns do not come with dots on the front or rear sights. You can paint dots on the back and front sights. Lay down a white base color, and then carefully paint the color dot on top. After it dries, apply an acrylic protective finish. A superior but more expensive alternative is to install Tritium sights. These use a radioactive gas that makes them glow in the dark. They are the bee’s knees to have, but only if you plan to shoot thousands of rounds a year to justify the investment.

A multitude of custom gunsmith jobs are available to turn your handgun into a competition "race gun." Above all else, you want your gun to go bang every time. Anything else is superfluous if it fails to do so. The most practical handgun mods are reliable feeding of ammunition and improving the trigger pull. The former involves polishing the chamber throat. This helps assures the feeding of hollow point ammunition, which can be problematical with new handguns, as well as old. Before you decide to go to a gunsmith for a modification, shoot several hundreds of rounds through your pistol. It is not unusual for one gun to have no problems digesting any ammo it eats, and then another gun of the same make choke on certain ammunition brands and types. This will also bring out any feeding or extraction issues. Ammunition is a big variable with consistent gun performance, so it’s crucial to find which ammunition shoots reliably.

On the latter, a heavy or gritty trigger pull affects accuracy. A firearm’s trigger can improve over time by breaking the gun in shooting live ammo, or dry fire with snap caps. Online DIY instructions are available to improve the trigger action on revolvers using simple tools and a polishing stone. But I don’t recommend this unless you really do your homework, and are competent with tools. The guideline for grinding, polishing, and otherwise removing metal from gun parts is this — Never use power tools. Easy does it. Do a light stroke or two, assemble, and test it. Removing too much metal during a DIY project makes one really appreciate the gunsmith’s deft touch. When in doubt, remember the mantra — "See a professional gunsmith."

Extra magazines for semi-auto pistols are essential. You should have a minimum of three, preferably a half of dozen. Always assume you’ll lose some, or they will break. Without them, your semi-auto pistol is at best an awkward single shot, or at worst, an interesting paper weight. I strongly suggest buying factory brand magazines only. Third-party magazines can be a crapshoot. Ask any serious 1911 gun owner who made the mistake thinking all 1911 third-party magazines are created equal. Most feeding problems with semi-autos can be tied to magazine issues, particularly with the springs or feed lips. Manufacturers like Mec-Gar have a pretty good reputation. ProMag and TriStar — ah, not so much. Like the Good Book says, prove all things, hold fast that which is good. Practice shooting your pistol with all your magazines to test for reliability. Your life may depend on them.

Shotguns. For home defense purposes, noting beats the ubiquitous shotgun. Pistol grip shotguns sans the butt stock, like the Mossberg Persuader, are not a good idea, unless you have Herculean wrists. For ease of navigating around the corners of the house at night, a shotgun with a legal 18.5" barrel length is best. If your present barrel is longer than this, and you wish to make it this size, you can chop it yourself, pay a gunsmith, or buy a replacement barrel. Just make sure before you cut the barrel that the shotgun is not a collectable, such as a Winchester 97. The best case is to buy a home defense shotgun from the gitgo with an 18.5" barrel. I learned this the hard way when I took a $140 used Mossberg 500 pump with a 24" barrel and invested another $145 in a 18.5 barrel and accessories. For the all money I spent, I could have bought a new or used one all made to order.

If shotgun recoil is bothersome, get a slip on pad for the buttstock. The Limbsaver brand butt pad is a proven design for reducing shoulder slam. Other than that, slap on a cheap five-round shell holder on the buttstock, or if you prefer, mount one on the receiver to hold extra rounds. There, you’re all done. Extras like synthetic pistol buttstock combos, extended shell tubes, tactical rails, pump slides with hand straps, flashlights, barrel shrouds, and slings with shell holder loops put you in the zone of diminishing returns for the money invested. They also add weight. Using sling indoors is an invitation to snag your shotgun on something as you walk around in the dark. Many will argue the merits of those items, but for the purposes of home defense, a basic pump shotgun with an 18.5 inch barrel is more than enough to do the job. If you get in a situation in the middle of the night where five plus one in the chamber rounds of 12 gauge buckshot goodness are insufficient to meet the threat at hand, then you are over your head anyway. Nothing short of artillery, air support, and a nuclear option is going to save you.

Rifles. Handguns are portable. Shotguns have massive stopping power, but the rifle makes all arguments final at any range. The SKS, AK, AR, and the Ruger 10/22 are the most common rifles used for "Bubba" projects. Be aware that major changes to SKS, AK’s, Saiga’s, and similar imports can open up a can of legal worms. With minor exceptions, once you start modifying these firearms, you have changed their legal status. They must then be made 922r compliant with certain US-made parts to satisfy Federal law.

One mod that can be done without playing the 922r game is trigger jobs. AK’s triggers in their original configuration have a wicked trigger slap, which cause inadvertent flinching and discomfort to the shooter. Installing a Tapco trigger makes a positive difference in shooting this bad boy. Some SKS’s are subject to "slam" fires. This can be due to the firing pin sticking in the bolt from cosmoline or debris in the firing pin channel. Dissembling the bolt and cleaning the firing pin channel can resolve this.

Synthetic stocks for rifles, as with handguns, offer many advantages. They are lighter, unaffected by wet weather, and dent resistant unlike traditional wooden stocks. They often offer better ergonomics for handing and shooting. For AK owners, I highly recommend at least replacing the original AK pistol grip with any number of synthetic third-party pistol grips available.

On the con side, synthetic stocks can be expensive. The cheaper ones look, well — cheap. Some, like the $139.00 MG42 replica stock for the Ruger 10/22, are all show and no go. If you have money to burn for such vanity stocks, be my guest. Synthetic stocks often require fiddling around trimming and cutting to get them to fit. Be aware that folding or telescoping synthetic butt stocks is illegal in some states, such as New York. As far as aesthetics go, wooden stocks have a warmer, classic old-school charm compared to sci-fi looking synthetic ones. Wood stocks also increase the resale value of certain uncommon firearms — so keep them just in case.

Scopes are expensive additions. Buying quality glass for a rifle that won’t fog, break, lose zero easily, have proper eye relief, or suffer from parallax issues requires serious research coupled with a very positive cash flow. The rule of thumb is "you get what you pay for." Adding a scope usually requires the cost of installing a mount on the rifle. This can require drilling and tapping holes in your rifle by a gunsmith. Adding scopes to milsurps can result in new problems. On Mosin Nagants, the straight out bolt handle has to be bent down to clear the scope. For SKS’s, any scope mounted directly on top of the rear receiver cover is doomed to lose zero from recoil. A shell deflector may be necessary to prevent empty shells hitting the scope. Red dot scopes are in the same boat. Inexpensive ones can be bought for $50 or less. Those are fine for messing about at the gun range. But for surviving serious wear and tear in the bush, you need quality brands that have been proven in combat overseas. Trijicon, Aimpoints, and Eotech brands are the gold standards for red dots. With prices starting at $500, they don’t come cheap.

The military and law enforcement use Picatinny/Weaver rails to attach scopes, lights, forward pistol grips, bipods, and bayonets. Unless one is willing to commit to serious practice to gain the benefits of these accessories, they are an exercise in Mall Ninja-ism, and so much dead weight. Rifle slings are a necessity. Single and multiple point tactical slings offer practical methods of firearm carry. Buy one which you need, not how it looks.

There is a whole world of gun accessories out there to tempt the new gun owner to part with their hard earned money — money that can be spent better elsewhere for ammo, food storage, and other preparedness gear. Before you invest in gun accessories and mods, do your homework first. There are many good firearm forums online where you can benefit from others’ experiences on what works and what doesn’t. Don’t ever feel inferior to those at the range with the tricked-out firearms. Guns are tools, and for the most part, they are designed to do their specific job right out the box. To get the most bang for your buck, spend your time and money practicing good shooting habits, not on expensive gear. It will pay off in the long run.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

The Best of Ron Shirtz

But what happens if the life of democracy is paralyzed by fear, or greed, or simple laziness? And the country is yielded up or coerced or persuaded into accepting a dictatorship? A leader whose word alone is all of law.

The skeleton of democracy is destroyed. Its blood stream, dissent, is bound in the barbed wire of concentration camps. And the leader’s special police, the internal security forces, terrorize the bulk of the people into acceptance. And the flag of the Internal Security Forces, symbol of fear and darkness, will fly over our land.

All across the land, are those who fight this symbol of darkness. They are the underground. They call themselves, the Society of Man. The sound of that siren reminds them the leader continues to destroy democracy and the society of man.

Yet there are not many in the underground. And often, each must fight in their own way.

— Narrator’s Prologue to Shadow on the Land

It’s been 41 years since Shadow on the Land premiered in December of 1968. Inspired by Sinclair Lewis’s 1936 novel and stage play, — It Can’t Happen Here, — and directed by Richard C. Sarafian, it depicts America under a dictatorship after US citizens elect a political strongman following a national emergency. Nedrick Young, a former actor and McCarthy-era blacklisted writer deftly converts Lewis’ 1930′s stinging satire into a modern movie screenplay for this classic ABC’s "Movie of the Week" feature.

It’s Christmas in Los Angeles. No snow, and all the Christmas trees are fake. Carols blare metallically over store speakers. More incongruous than the balmy weather, artificial decorations, or tinny songs during a winter holiday, is the presence of armed uniformed security agents, wearing the arm insignia of an imperial double-eagle — an eagle that holds no peace offering in either claw, only lighting bolts. These are not men of goodwill, nor do they promote peace on earth. An oppressive tyranny rules America. The President’s office, Congress, and the Supreme Court have been dissolved. A single leader now rules over the US. His name is never mentioned. He is simply referred to as "The Leader." A Homeland Security—styled agency, the Internal Security Forces (ISF), suppresses political dissent to keep him in power. A resistance group, called The Society of Man, has infiltrated the ISF with one of their agents, Major Shepard McCloud, who serves under the ISF commander, General Wendell Bruce.

An army officer and resistance agent, Lt. Colonel Davis, goes AWOL from his post in Washington DC. He has top-secret information about a government program named "Operation Hammer." Davis is arrested by the ISF at LA airport before he can get the information to the underground. The resistance decides he must be rescued quickly, at whatever cost, to obtain the information before he breaks under ISF interrogation.

The resistance members conduct a surprise raid at an ISF concentration camp where Davis is held. Crashing though the main gate with a large truck, the raiders attack the camp guards with assorted small arms and Molotov cocktails. One guard tower takes a terrible toll on the attacking resistance fighters. Several more are killed attempting to take it out. Finally a determined throw with a firebomb destroys the deadly tower.

Meanwhile, other resistance fighters search through the prisoner barracks looking for Davis. Finding him, they unceremoniously throw Davis in the back of a waiting van, and escape under a hail of gunfire. All resistance fighters unable to escape are quickly dispatched by ISF reinforcements. In a final act of defiance, two stranded resistance members pull down the camp’s ISF flag and hoist the stars and stripes before dying.

At Western Division ISF HQ, General Wendell Bruce is browbeating an Army general. The Army general had angrily demanded to know why Lt. Colonel Davis was arrested. ISF General Bruce sternly reminds him that the ISF authority supersedes the US military. When General Bruce threatens to sack him, he meekly exits the ISF office without further protest.

General Bruce looks out his office window at the city landscape. A police siren wails in the background. "Those people down there, I don’t know what they are doing… and the next day there will be more, and the next day…."

Major McCloud; "You sound like Jason searching for the Golden Fleece. One of the things he had to do was plant some dragon’s teeth. For every one he planted sprung a fully armed soldier he had to kill. And the next day there were more, and the next day, more…"

General Bruce: "That my friend, is mythology. Our job is not to plant dragon teeth. Our job is to plant an idea. An idea that America has to be strong, and united."

Major McCloud; "I’m afraid it’s used to being strong and free."

General Bruce: "The difference between freedom and license is you can’t have strength without discipline."

Major McCloud; "Well, let’s call it by its right name. Our job is discipline."

General Bruce: "That’s my job. Your job is to find Davis."

Major McCloud receives several cryptic messages from the underground at his office. He leaves ISF HQ with his personal ISF driver (and fellow resistance member), Corporal Willing. General Bruce, suspicious of McCloud after information gleaned by wiretaps on McCloud’s telephone, sends two ISF agents to tail him. McCloud and his driver shake the two agents, and arrive at a safe house where Davis is hiding with resistance members and a sympathetic doctor.

McCloud finds Lt. Colonel Davis sedated and in bad shape from the effects of his initial interrogation. The doctor tells McCloud he must wait several hours before he can question Davis about Operation Hammer. Fearful the safe house may be compromised, McCloud takes Davis to a church mission home in a poor section of the city. The mission home minister, Reverend Thomas Davis, is Lt. Col Davis’s brother. The Reverend at first refuses to hide him, not wanting to compromise the missions home’s neutrality by getting involved. When McCloud threatens to use his authority to close down the mission, Reverend Davis relents, and takes his brother in.

After McCloud leaves Davis at the mission, he goes to his girlfriend Abby’s apartment to create an alibi. When the ISF agents show up at the apartment to question him, Abby uses a cover story provided by McCloud to convince the ISF agents that McCloud was with her for the evening. Afterward McCloud and Abby speculate on the purpose of the Operation Hammer.

McCloud: "It’s called more power to the leader, and it begins with leader re-depositing the blank check the people gave him four years ago."

Abby: "You can’t blame the people — I mean they didn’t know — There was a national emergency. Remember?"

McCloud: "Oh I remember. Riots in the ghetto. Panic in the press… Every unthinking fool who had as much as a used car wanted to vote in a strong man for a protector…That’s what the national emergency is about. That’s what Operation Hammer is about. More power to the leader."

Abby: "He has all he needs. He has all he wants, and it’s growing."

McCloud: "But the resistance to him is growing. Don’t you see? — He’s got to smash the Society of Man."

Abby: "He’s been trying that for a long time now."

McCloud: "He has 300,00 men. Suppose, suppose he had two hundred million?"

Abby: "How?"

McCloud: "Create another national emergency, another Reichstag fire. Do something terrible that will affect millions of people emotionally, as well as physically, and blame it on the society. Make every man, woman and child in the country hate the Society, not the leader. Cut us off from the people. Take away our support, smash it."

The ISF learns of Reverend Davis mission home and raid it. Aided by a sympathetic mission worker, Colonel Davis escapes at the last moment. Weak and disorientated, Colonel Davis wanders through the city as if in a nightmare. He desperately calls for assistance from citizens, but they recoil from him. He is spotted by two ISF agents and pursued. At one point Davis stumbles into a crowded coffeehouse and tries to warn them of the danger to come.

Davis; "Listen to me, please! Please listen to me! My name is Davis and I am an Army officer. Please help me! Help me! Please listen! Please listen to me! You all are on the gallows, right now! It’s the Leader!"

The two ISF agents recapture Davis and bring him to ISF HQ. To test McCloud’s loyalty to the ISF, General Bruce orders him to personally interrogate Davis. McCloud desperately tries to persuade Davis to give him information quickly before he is tortured further, but Davis dies from biting a poisoned pill he had kept in his mouth.

McCloud chastises a newly hired ISF woman psychiatrist, Captain Everett, for her part in analyzing Davis’ responses from the interrogation. Shocked out of her navet, Captain Everett decides to resign from the ISF and join the resistance. She provides McCloud a taped confession given earlier by Davis on the details of Operation Hammer.

The operation is a covert false-flag plot (a fictional cousin to the real 1962 CIA proposed Operation Northwood) to disable a California power station to black out the west coast on Christmas Eve, and blame it as an act of terrorism by the Society of Man. Its goal is to turn the public from supporting the resistance, and garner support to increase the size and authority of the ISF. General Bruce puts McCloud in charge of the operation, and briefs him and the agents on the details of the attack. When one of the ISF agents ask about how to deal with the loyal ISF guards protecting the power station, General Bruce coldly instructs them to do whatever is necessary, even killing the ISF guards, to complete the mission.

McCloud tries to send a warning to the underground via his driver, Willing, but is prevented by an order restricting all personnel to ISF HQ pending the operation. However, Reverend Thomas Davis happens to be in ISF HQ visiting the body of his deceased brother. McCloud goes to see Reverend Davis in the ISF morgue to convince him to contact the resistance to prevent the destruction of the power plant. After much futile argument, McCloud places the burden on Reverend Davis conscience to prevent the loss innocent lives from the ISF contrived blackout. Before leaving he drops a written message made out to the resistance on the floor while the Reverend kneels to pray over the body of his brother.

As zero hour approaches, McCloud and Willing saddle up with the ISF strike team to attack the power plant. As they drive towards to their objective, McCloud strikes up a conversation with Willing.

McCloud: "What made you join the underground?"

Willing: "How do you know when an idea begins? I was born, I grew up, I had things happen to me. I had experiences, and I thought about them. It’s the only way I can say it."

McCloud: "What sort of experiences?"

Willing: "Once when I was maybe 9 or 10, I was playing in a vacant lot, and I saw this little frog, and I wanted that frog more than anything else in the world because if I had that frog, I’d be rich and important to the other kids. I chased the frog, but it kept getting away from me. So I got mad. I picked up a rock and threw it at him and I killed him. All he wanted was to be free. I got sick and vomited all over the lot. I went home and cried all day and night. I never did anything like that again. I guess I been fighting the rock throwers ever since."

Reverend Davis does the right thing and warns the underground. The resistance members, dressed in ISF uniforms, ambush the ISF agents disguised in civilian clothes. A big gun battle ensues and the underground succeeds in killing all the ISF agents. McCloud is almost killed by the last ISF agent while disarming the explosives in the control room, but is saved at the last moment by Reverend Davis who shoots the ISF agent.

McCloud: "Thanks. The next one is on me."

Reverend Davis: "Next one? Always another battle to fight, isn’t there?"

McCloud: "Always another battle to win. Get positive."

A wounded McCloud goes back to ISF HQ to bluff it out with General Bruce.

General Bruce: "Whom do you suspect? It couldn’t have been Clark, or Franklin or Anderson. They never left the building. What of Felting?"

McCloud: "He’s dead."

General Bruce: "He’s the only one I can trust…."

McCloud: "Meaning what!!?"

General Bruce: "Meaning you and Felting were the only ones who knew outside this building. How do you explain that?"

McCloud: "How would you like to forget you a general for just a minute?"

General Bruce: "Go ahead! Take your chances!"

McCloud:" I did! So did 23 other men, who took the chances on the mission that should have never taken place when it did. And wouldn’t have, if you weren’t so hungry for a pat on the head from the Leader! You knew Davis was at liberty for 16 hours before you picked him up! Now he had time to tell everyone in the underground if he went from one end of the city to another on roller skates! You knew that! Why couldn’t you have given us an edge? Move the mission ahead? Four hours, four minutes, anything! Now how are you going to explain that!!?"

General Bruce: "You’re bleeding on my desk."

McCloud: "Are there any other questions — SIR?"

General Bruce: (Whispering to himself) "Nobody, nobody I can trust…"

McCloud: "Well like you said sir, in this business that’s an occupational hazard."

The movie ends with McCloud leaving General Bruce’s office. Passing by Willing, he pauses before exiting ISF HQ. Turning around, he says to Willing, "Why don’t you go home? It’s Christmas Eve."

Filmed in an era before personal computers, Internet, cell phones, and miniature video devices, the movie lacks the oppressive atmosphere of invasive surveillance and loss of privacy as depicted in Orwell’s futuristic 1984. Shadow on the Land is more a rough sketch of an alternative fascist America than a detailed blueprint. But what it lacks in special effects is made up by Nedrick Young’s smartly written dialogue and excellent characterization by the actors. John Forsyth gives an outstanding performance as the intelligent and ruthless ISF General Wendell Bruce. Forsyth’s piercing glare and stern voice give him an imposing persona that intimidates lesser men in his presence. The ISF logo effectively gives the movie the necessary visual gravis to compensate with the lack of dystopian stage props. The uncanny resemblance of the ISF insignia with the recent American Police Force (APF) trademark is too creepy to be funny.

Lesser-known actor Marc Strange coolly plays the character of Major Shepard McCloud. His role of a double agent creates dramatic suspense as he plays a dangerous game of cat and mouse with Forsyth’s character. The rest of the actors give a good ensemble performance. Only Gene Hackman’s stint as the Reverend Thomas Davis is disappointing. His portrayal as a minister torn between his conscience and the cause of the resistance sounds more forced than sincere.

Sadly for movie buffs, Shadow on the Land has not been re-released. The video quality of the old VHS recording I viewed can only be generously described as fair. Despite its age, Shadow on the Land successfully portrays the grim consequences when citizens fail to heed Benjamin Franklin’s warning, and trade essential liberty for temporary safety.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

The Best of Ron Shirtz

The desired purpose of the additional troops is twofold: To train pro-US Afghan troops, and help secure territory taken from Taliban forces. Concerning the former, recent events have demonstrated that our Afghan allies have as much enthusiasm to fight as the ARVN did in the Vietnam War. On the latter objective, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has hedged his bets by telling General Stanley McChrystal to be "forthright" in requesting the necessary forces to get the job done, while adding this disclaimer:

“I have expressed some concerns in the past about the size of the American footprint, the size of the foreign military footprint, in Afghanistan, and clearly I want to address those issues,” Gates said during a visit to Fort Worth, Texas.

“And we will have to look at the availability of forces, we’ll have to look at cost. There are a lot of different things that we’ll have to look at once we get his recommendations, before we make any recommendations to the president."

This is a nothing more than a veiled confession that the US military is stretched to the breaking point. Somehow, General Stanley McChrystal must find a way to secure a country twice the size of Vietnam, with only a third of the troops that were employed in that disastrous Southeast Asian war. As a previous secretary of defense once said, “you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." So much for a change from the previous administration, eh?

This token reinforcement of troops tragically demonstrates the cliché of hope triumphing over experience. It reeks of the same desperation that existed during the Battle of Stalingrad. General Paulus 6th Army, consisting over a quarter of a million men, was bogged down in the rubble and ruins of the city. On November 7, 1942, in a bid to break through the stubborn Russian resistance at the factories, Hitler personally authorized the deployment of five combat pioneer battalions. In a brutal war involving millions under arms, much was riding on these three thousand elite soldiers to break the stalemate. After five days of intensive fighting, these specialized combat engineers suffered one thousand casualties. Though they made considerable gains in pushing back the Russian defense line, in the end they ran out of steam, and could go no further. Twelve days later, on November 19, the Soviets launched a massive counteroffensive, Operation Uranus, that doomed the entire 6th Army.

While US forces cannot be defeated in a climactic conventional battle in Afghanistan, they will lose trying to secure the geography and defeat a people that offer them nothing substantial to grasp as leverage for victory. I sense that our government knows very well this token force is nothing more than a political sop to give the impression that something is being done to gain victory in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, President Obama must being be feeling more akin to LBJ than FDR in attempting to pass a national health care bill while maintaining an expensive military occupation overseas. Attempting to build the Great Society while making the World Safe For Democracy at the same time has as much chance as Hitler’s Germany winning a two-front war. None at all.

Meanwhile, the constant trickle of US soldier’s deaths continues — One here, a few there, day after day, persisting like a constant bloody drip from a leaky faucet. Instead of stopping the leak, our country chooses to be distracted by louder issues such as who will win the next American Idol competition, or the ongoing news marathon on the life and death of Michael Jackson. Every couple of days, somewhere in the US, flags in various parts of the country are set at half-mast to honor those local men and women sacrificed in this winless war. If our government’s goal for an ongoing commitment in Afghanistan (and Iraq) comes to pass, then I humbly suggest leaving all US flags permanently at half-mast, to save time and effort. Better yet, upside down as well.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

The Best of Ron Shirtz

However, when the triage method is used on a national scale to determine allocation of limited health care availability for its citizens, it changes from a doctor making a first-hand professional decision in the best interests of the patients in his personal care, to an impersonal government making legal guidelines to patients unseen. It becomes Abandon Ship! writ large, where the executive officer on an overcrowded lifeboat must decide who stays and who goes, else they all perish en masse.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is brother of Rahm Emanuel, the White House Chief of Staff. He was called to be President Obama adviser on the health care bill. Dr. Emanuel recently authored Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions in the 2009 issue of the Lancet, a magazine concerned with bioethics issues. In the article, Dr. Emanuel offers guidelines on how (and most importantly, "to whom") limited health resources should be allocated on a national scale. His solution is to redefine medical ethics to justify serving only some of the nations sick at the expense of others.

A sample of Dr. Emanuel’s political triage philosophy:

"Although not always recognized as such, youngest-first allocation directs resources to those who have had less of something supremely valuable — life-years….

….Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old young woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects. Youngest-first allocation also ignores prognosis, and categorically excludes older people. Thus, youngest-first allocation seems insufficient on its own, but it could be combined with prognosis and lottery principles in a multiprinciple allocation system.

Save the most lives

One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccine and responses to bioterrorism. Since each life is valuable, this principle seems to need no special justification. It also avoids comparing individual lives. Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.

However, other things are rarely equal. Some lives have been shorter than others; 20-year-olds have lived less than 70-year-olds. Similarly, some lives can be extended longer than others. How to weigh these other relevant considerations against saving more lives — whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years if saved, or three 70-year-olds who could only live for 10 years each — is unclear. Although insufficient on its own, saving more lives should be part of a multiprinciple allocation system."

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Lancet 2009; Pages 373: 423—31. Department of Bioethics, The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA

This is only a small sample of the good doctor’s rubric to determine who receives what quality of health-rationed care. He claims to do so from a dispassionate objectivity, i.e., without a suffering patient in front of him to bias his decision. Please take the time to read his article in its entirely — it is the makings of a progressive-era eugenics manifesto.

To justify such Darwin-inspired selection of the fittest for national health care; Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote an earlier treatise in the 1996 Hastings Center report to redefine what constitutes "good" in terms of State-issued health care:

“Thus, it seems there is a growing agreement between liberals, communitarians, and others that many political matters, including matters of justice and specifically, the just allocation of health care resources — can be addressed only by invoking a particular conception of the good. We may go even further. Without overstating it (and without fully defending it) not only is there a consensus about the need for a conception of the good, there may even be a consensus about the particular conception of the good that should inform policies on these nonconstitutional political issues.”

Advocating a consensus to declare what is "Good" in terms of health care is nothing more than moral relativism to cloak the harshness of the selection process with a velvet curtain. For those who do not have health coverage, any health coverage will seem "good" by his definition, even if only free band-aids and aspirin are handed out. Dr. Emanuel’s audacity to state that such redefinition of "good" health care on a national level need not be considered a constitutional or political issue shows his contempt for the representative system of our government and its citizens — obviously, we are not smart enough like him and his colleagues to be allowed to take part in the discussion, even though its our tax dollars and lives are at stake! It is nothing more than the elitist wordplay that Orwell predicted would used to redefine the meanings of words for political consumption for the proles. I can hardly wait to hear what level of medical care Dr. Emanuel defines as "double-plus good"!

Dr. Emanuel’s proposal for national heath care distribution is nothing more than a kinder and gentler process of Josef Mengeles’ method motioning his hand either to the right to direct Jews into work camp, or left to the gas chambers. If David Duke had been selected to advise president LBJ on civil rights legislation in 1965, one would rightfully question the objectively of such an advisor to such a issue. But in the rush to the government trough for heath care coverage, many citizens have taken no thought of what they are being served, until too late they find that the only health care treatment they are being administered is the "final solution."

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

The Best of Ron Shirtz

~ John M. Browning

Profile of a legend

In France, his last name is considered a proper noun for the word pistol. He held 128 gun patents and designed and built 80 separate firearms — 44 of them manufactured by Winchester. It can be said without exaggeration that Browning’s guns made Winchester. And Colt. And Remington, Savage, and Fabrique Nationale (FN). Not to mention his namesake company, Browning. Few are the gun manufacturers that have not bought a license to use one of many Browning’s patents. His work includes the full spectrum of single shot, lever action, pump action, semi-automatic, and full-automatic firearms, with calibers ranging from .22 rimfires to 37mm cannon shells. His 1911 .45 pistol, Browning Automatic Rifle, 1917 .30 and .50 caliber machine guns are just some of his guns that became part and parcel in the US arsenal during several conflicts. His final design at the time of his death — the Browning Hi-Power pistol — would become a precedent for today’s high-cap 9mm pistols.

These innovative guns sprang from the mind and hands of a man who was born in an era of black powder and percussion caps. During his era, the average gun design was expected to take 2 years from drawing board to prototype. For John Moses Browning, it was not unusual for him to turn out many finished firearms in a single year — and all of them become instant best sellers. Once he made a daring deal with Winchester Arms to design a new rifle to replace the aging Model 73 within 30 days. If he succeeded, he would earn $20,000, but if he failed, he would surrender his design for free. Browning easily made the deadline, and the Model 92 became part of the great line of Winchester rifles.

A talented linage

His father, Jonathan Browning, was a natural born mechanic and an accomplished gunsmith in his own right. His philosophy was to always strive for functional simplicity in design. In 1832, he designed and manufactured a multi-shot percussion cap rifle. The rifle had a sideways magazine that came in a 5-, 10-, or 25-shot capacity. Using a thumb lever, the shooter could advance the magazine to the next chamber, with the magazine pressed tightly against the bore to ensure a secured gas check. To appreciate this achievement wrought by simple blacksmith tools and Jonathans’ superlative talent, one can compare his rifle with the failure of the Colt Revolving Rifle produced in 1855 by a fully equipped industrial factory. The Colt rifle, while innovative, could not maintain a gas check, leading to poor performance and misfires.

Jonathan brought his family from Brushy Fork, Tennessee, to Quincy, Illinois, in 1833. In 1840 he was introduced to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter days Saints. Following his conversion to the "Mormon" church, he settled in Nauvoo in 1842. His blacksmithing skills would be later be put to good use by Church President Brigham Young, repairing and providing tools and firearms for the Saints exodus from Nauvoo, Illinois, to Salt Lake Valley, Utah. Several of his repeating rifles provided game and protection during the long journey west.

In 1852 Jonathan made the trek west and settled in Ogden, Utah. Shortly after his arrival, he entered the practice of polygamy and took two additional wives. His second wife, Elisabeth Clark, gave birth to John Moses Browning on January 23, 1855.

Child prodigy

John started working in his father’s shop at age six. By age seven, he could identify every part on a firearm by name and function. After his mother taught him how to read and write, he began to take repair orders from customers. At age ten he made his first crude gun from scrap laying about the shop. He and his brother Matt tested it by successfully bringing down several grouse for his father’s breakfast. Six years later, a passing freight driver gave him a high-quality shotgun that had been severely damaged during his journey. With great care and determination, Browning disassembled the wrecked firearm, and through reverse engineering, replaced, repaired, or rebuilt from scratch all the damaged parts. In his words he related:

"Finally the idea came. A good idea starts a celebration in the mind, and every nerve in the body seems to crowd up to see the fireworks. It was a good idea, one of the best I ever had, and so simple it made me ashamed of myself. Boylike, I had been trying to do the job all at once with some kind of magic. And magic never made a gun that would work. I decided to take the gun apart, piece by piece, down to the last small screw, even though [the] parts that were mashed and twisted together. And when I did, finally finishing long after supper that night, the pieces all spread out before me on the bench, I examined each piece and discovered that there wasn’t one that I couldn’t make myself, if I had too. If I had been in school that day, I would have missed a valuable lesson"

In 1883, a traveling salesman from the Winchester Repeating Arms Company bought a used single shot rifle made by Browning from a gun owner. He showed it to Mr. T.G. Bennett, the Vice President and general manager of Winchester. Bennett was so impressed by the quality and the smooth action of the gun, that he traveled all the way from New Haven, Connecticut, to Ogden, Utah, to meet John Browning personally. Arriving at the roughhewn, primitive Browning workshop, he entered into an agreement to purchase the rights to the rifle for $8,000, a princely sum in those days. Thus began a 19-year relationship with John M. Browning and the Winchester Repeating Arms Company. In a four-year period from 1884 to 1887, he sold 20 newly designed guns to Winchester. A two-year break occurred when John Moses Browning accepted a call from the Church to serve a two-year proselyting mission in Georgia. Notwithstanding almost being tarred and feathered along with his missionary companion on one occasion, he fulfilled his duty faithfully and returned to his vocation in March 1889. Many of the guns Winchester bought from him were never manufactured. The company simply could not produce that many models. Instead, Bennett bought all of Browning designs for the express purpose of keeping them out of the hands of Winchester’s competitors. As a result, Winchester had all but a monopoly on some of the finest American-made rifles on the market.

While Browning’s lever-action designs look little different externally from previous Winchester firearms, internally there was no comparison. Browning’s creations for Winchester permitted, among many things, larger and more powerful caliber firearms to be offered to the public. John Browning was great believer in Murphy’s Law: "If anything can happen in a gun it probably will sooner or later," he once said. His firearms were deliberately built with twice the required safety margins then necessary. As a result, when the transition from black powder to smokeless occurred at the turn of the century, none of his black powder rifles designed for Winchester required any design modification to shoot smokeless ammunition other than a stronger grade metal barrel.

Among his many firsts, Browning pioneered the first practical and successful pump action shotgun, the Winchester Model 97. These were used as so-called "trench guns" by U.S. troops in WWI. Many of these shotguns where issued to soldiers skilled in trap shooting and were employed to shoot and deflect enemy hand grenades in mid air. One account tells of two hundred entrenched U.S. troops armed with Model 97′s using devastating 12-gauge shotgun fire at close range to stop a massive German infantry attack.

Pushing the envelope

Browning broke with Winchester in 1902 over Bennett’s reluctance to produce Browning’s remarkable recoil operated semi-automatic shotgun. This revolutionary shotgun scared the conservative thinking Bennett, who still thought in terms of lever and pump action firearms. After a heated argument with Bennett, Browning took his prototype back and attempted to sell it to Remington. But the president of Remington Arms, Mr. Hartley, died of a sudden heat attack just minutes before Browning was to meet with him. As a result, Browning sold the shotgun to Fabrique Nationale (FN) in Belgium, where it was known as the Browning Automatic—5. FN expected the radical new shotgun would take several years to catch on with the public. To their pleasant surprise, they sold out the first batch of 10,000 in the first year they were introduced. Remington would later purchase a license to make the shotgun under its own name called the Remington Model 11.

The idea to create a machine gun came to Browning in 1889 during a shooting meet at the Ogden Rifle Club. He observed how the blast from a friend’s rifle parted the tall weeds in passing. Piqued about the waste of excess energy, he instantly was struck with inspiration. Browning immediately abandoned the shoot, and hailed his brothers to take him home. Ed Browning, responding to the puzzled looks of the other shooters seeing John leave suddenly, simply said, "We’ve got to go back to the shop. Looks like John just thought of something." Heading to the horse rig, Ed asked his brother Matt; "What the hell’s struck him, Matt?" Matt in turn asked John, "Yes John, what the hell’s struck you now?" John replied: "An idea hit me, Yes sir! An idee, as pappy was used to say — biggest one I ever had. Get the damn horse going, Matt."

As they rode, John explained how the blast from the shooter’s gun gave him an idea to harness the wasted gas energy to make a fully automatic firearm. Within two days after arriving back at the shop, John mounted an old, worse-for-wear Model 73 .44 caliber Winchester rifle on a wooden platform, added some components, and made it fire continuously at 16 shots per second. The sheer audacity to make an old black powder cartridge lever action rifle fire in full automatic is nothing short of miraculous — for anyone other than John Browning, of course.

By 1890, Browning had a practical working prototype, along with canvas ammunition belts made by a professional tent maker. The prototype had no water-cooled jacket, nor a ventilated barrel. It had no tripod, or anything approaching a firing grip. Its finish was very rough, with blacked heat welds and hammer strikes embarrassingly visible. It would be easy to mistake the weapon as some kind of a piston and tube component of a larger machine. But it worked, and it worked extremely well. In 1891, Browning demonstrated the machine gun to the Colt Manufacturing Company, personally firing 200 rounds of 45/70′s without a hitch. In a second demonstration before an audience of several military representatives, the test required that he fire 1800 rounds in three minutes. The barrel turned red hot, a lead mist enveloped John Browning, and his body cramped terribly securing the gun during firing. But when it was over, every round had been expended, and none of the weapons’ components failed during the stress of the demonstration. To say those who witnessed the event were impressed is an understatement. They were awestruck and wild with enthusiasm at the gun’s performance. They saw his machine gun vastly superior to the current Gatling guns in service. But without military contracts, Browning’s wonder gun would lie fallow until 1895, and even then only the U.S. Navy contracted with Colt for a small number of the Browning-designed machine guns. His Colt Model 95 "Peace Maker" machine gun received its first baptism by fire in China, where the U.S. Marines used them to great effect defending the foreign legations during the Boxer Rebellion.

America’s armorer

When the US declared war on Germany in 1917, its military arsenal was sadly wanting. Until arms production could be put into full gear, the U.S. army had to buy machine guns from its allies. Ironically, the Lewis gun was invented in the U.S., but was not adopted by the military. It now was being purchased from the British government. But at least the Lewis had a good reputation for reliability. The French 8mm Chauchat, however, was totally unsuited for rigors of combat in the mud of the trenches of the Western Front. Its 250-rpm rate of fire was dismal for a machine gun. The Chauchat was so poorly designed that it had to be fired in short bursts or in semi-automatic to prevent it from jamming due to overheating. US soldiers at the Western front were in desperate need for something better.

When approached by the government for help, Browning selflessly sold the rights on his 1911, Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), and other machine gun designs for only a fraction of their commercial value: He earned just three-quarters of a million dollars compared to an estimated $12 million in royalties he could have otherwise received. When his brother Matt complained about accepting the government’s first offer and not haggling over the price, John replied: "Yes, and if we were fifteen or twenty years younger, we’d be over there in the mud."

The BAR served the U.S. Army’s request for a one-man automatic weapon to enable troops to advance with "walking fire." The first BAR used in combat was carried by Browning’s son, First Lieutenant Val A. Browning, who served with the 79th Division in July 1918. Reports from the field to General Pershing extolled the BAR’s sterling performance. With minor changes, the BAR would serve again in WWII and Korea.

With the introduction of tanks in WWI, the call went out for an anti-tank weapon to counter them. Browning took his 1917 .30 caliber machine gun design and up-scaled it to .50 caliber. It was designated as the M2, but most soldiers affectionately called it "Ma Deuce." Still going strong after 92 years of service, the M2 is one of the oldest firearms still in use in the US arsenal. Though evolving tank armor soon changed the M2 role as an anti-tank weapon, it became standard equipment for US military vehicles, aircraft, ships, and infantry. It established a proven track record as an effective anti-aircraft, anti-light vehicle, and most definitively, as an anti-personal weapon. When the German General Erwin Rommel, "The Desert Fox" of North Africa, captured Tobruk from the British, he discovered a quantity of .50 Browning M2s. After Field Marshal Herman Göring congratulated Rommel on his victory, he added; "If the German Air Force had had the Browning .50-caliber, the Battle of Britain would have turned out differently." The Japanese used M2′s obtained from their early Pacific conquests as a template to make an effective 20mm auto-cannon for their aircraft. Quad-mounted M2′s on halftracks became the great equalizer for outnumbered U.S. troops facing massive Red Chinese human wave attacks during the Korean War.

One of the M2′s finest moments was in January 26, 1945. During an attack by six German tanks and a superior force of infantry at Holtzwihr, France, Lieutenant Audie Murphy ordered his troops to withdraw while he stayed behind to call in artillery strikes. As the Germans closed in, Murphy leaped on top of an abandoned burning US tank destroyer and employed the mounted M2 like a scythe against the enemy soldiers. Scores of the enemy were killed, some as close to ten yards of his position. The German tanks, without infantry support, withdrew. Lt. Murphy was wounded during the action, and for his courageous effort, received the Medal of Honor.

Copied and often imitated, the efforts to replace the M2 with lighter weapon platforms like XM312 have meet with disappointment; modern technology has yet to surpass the bedrock reliability and performance of Browning’s century-old design.

Creating a legend

Of all of Browning’s outstanding firearms, the one recognized as his signature work is the .45 ACP Colt 1911 automatic pistol. Prior to the 1911, automatic pistols as a whole were fragile, unduly complicated, and prone to jamming under harsh environmental conditions. The majority of the calibers available were marginal at best in performance. Browning’s 1911, initially produced by Colt, has since been reproduced in some shape or form by almost every gun manufacturer up to the present day. To explain it’s popularly as one of the best selling pistols for almost 100 years, it is necessary to revisit its origins.

The .38 caliber revolver in service with the U.S. military during the Philippine insurrection 1899—1913 was found to be ineffective against charging Moro natives. (Note: This pistol was chambered for the .38 Long Colt cartridge, not the .38 Special.) The call was made for a more powerful handgun for the US military personnel. Competitive trials for a new pistol were held on March 3,1911. Each gun had to successfully fire 6,000 rounds, followed by another trial shooting with deformed ammunition to further test its reliability. The trial lasted two days. When the 1911 fired its last round, a nearby soldier who assisted in loading the magazines exclaimed, "She made it, by God!" At his acceptance speech following the pistol trial, Browning concurred that he had little to add to the young soldier’s statement.

Until it was replaced (and not without some heated controversy) in 1985 by the 9mm Beretta 92, the 1911 served faithfully in every following U.S. conflict. It received its baptism of fire in General "Black Jack" Pershing’s pursuit of Pancho Villa during the Border war with Mexico. Sergeant York utilized a 1911 during his Medal of Honor feat in capturing 132 German soldiers in WWI. A backhanded testament of the pistol’s reputation came from those who practiced an extremely dangerous endeavor of illegal employment. Notorious criminals Pretty Boy Floyd, Machine Gun Kelly, John Dillinger, and Bonnie Parker were killed or captured with 1911′s in their possession. During WWII, among the many exploits involving the 1911, one account even credits a pilot shooting down a Japanese Zero that was strafing him after parachuting from his crippled B-24 bomber. All those who used the 1911 praised it stopping power and ability to function under wartime conditions.

You can take the boy from the country…

From his humble roots as country boy raised in the Utah desert, Browning’s ongoing dealings with Fabrique Nationale would find him a second home in Belgium. In his typical do-it-yourself philosophy, Browning taught himself French so he would not be limited to using a translator to converse with the FN craftsmen. Among the local citizens of Liege, the six-foot tall Browning became a familiar sight as he took frequent walks wearing his broad-brimmed hat and cape. Such was his reputation at FN, he was respectfully referred to as "Le Maitre," or "The Master." In 1914, in appreciation for help making FN a world-class arms manufacturer, he was knighted to the order of Leopold by King Albert of Belgium. Browning found such awards embarrassing; in no small part for the expected ribbing he would receive from his country-bred brothers on the royal title "Sir" now prefacing his name. Few men live to enjoy such acclaim and recognition while alive. Fewer still are those that do not let fame change them. Notwithstanding all the wealth and recognition he received during his lifetime, Browning was never happier than being at his workbench working on a new gun. His brothers told how he would seldom bother to change from his dress clothes after entering the shop, but would just jump right in to work. His work ethic was best summed up by his mother, Elisabeth, who reminiscing on John as a young child using tools, would close with the oft-repeated statement; "And there’s been grease on John’s face to this blessed day!"

While celebrating Thanksgiving in Liege in 1926 with his family, John M. Browning succumbed to a sudden heart attack and passed away. He was 71 years old. In honor for his selfless contributions to the U.S. military, a military escort was provided for his final trip home. Secretary of War Dwight F. Davis gave the eulogy at his funeral.

John Moses Browning contributions to the advancement of firearm technology continue to live on long after his death. His work helped transition gun technology from the age of black powder and percussion caps to modern day smokeless ammunition and full automatic fire. As summed up by gun historian, Philip Sharpe: "Browning developments all had one peculiar and very necessary feature. They worked, and kept on working. There are few modern guns today that have not been influenced one way or another by Browning’s hand."

Browning’s secret to his success is best explained by an incident involving his brothers Ed and George. One day, his brother George noticed his brother Ed had abandoned the workshop where John was working furiously on a gun project.

"Why aren’t you working upstairs?" George asked.

Ed replied: "Oh, John’s stuck. He’s swearing every little while. He doesn’t know whether I’m there or not."

"That’s too bad. I thought it was coming along fine."

"Don’t worry, it won’t be long now. John so hot that something has to give pretty soon — and it won’t be John."

Reference: John M. Browning, American Gunmaker. John Browning and Curt Gentry, 1964, Doubleday & Company.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

Ron Shirtz Archives

Green automotive legislation:

Government legislation (and the almost completed nationalization of GM) is leaning heavily on car manufacturers to produce electric-powered cars, hybrids, or otherwise fuel-efficient vehicles. While the ideal itself has merit, green cars pushed by the government instead of the free market can only result in excessive "sticker shock" prices beyond the means of most car buyers — especially in a failing economy where money and credit is tight. I mean seriously, have you ever known the government to do anything that was cost-efficient, and produced a profit? I didn’t think so.

Mileage Taxation:

Oregon’s proposal to tax drivers via GPS technology that would record their monthly mileage, and charge them accordingly may find favor with other states desperate for cash. Such mileage taxation will negatively affect tourism industry within and without the state, as people with ever-decreasing income will decide to just stay home, just as many did in the summer of 2008, when gasoline prices spiked over $4.30 a gallon.

Increased car inspection standards

According to insurance companies, mechanical failures account for just 5% to 12% to the total number of traffic accidents every year. Some of these statistical failures, such as seat beats or air bags, have nothing to do with causing accidents, only failure to provide safety during the accident. Some mechanical failures are due to manufacturing defects beyond the control or knowledge of the driver. When you take your car for the mandated yearly car inspection, a small crack on an otherwise functioning taillight, a hairline fracture on the windshield, or a bad wiper blade, is enough to disqualify your vehicle from passing inspection. Expensive labor and overpriced parts will be required to make it compliant. Your car, in effect, has been impounded by the state, and you must pay a ransom to get it back on the road.

What makes safety enforcement even more infuriating and unjust is the opportunity to be pulled over and ticketed for a mechanical defect. A broken taillight in New York can warrant a maximum fine of $150, or 15 days in jail. Add the cost of fixing the light, and you have a perfect example of the State punishing misfortune and profiting by it at the same time.

Meeting New York emission requirements can be expensive too. Last year I had to shell out over $300 to fix a minor valve on my Toyota’s catalytic converter and replace a gas cap to satisfy a computer’s readout. I seriously doubt that my little fuel efficient Toyota Echo, even when out of spec, puts out anywhere the same carbon monoxide as a US government M1 Abrahams battle tank that gets 1—2 miles per gallon. With all the empire building our nation is currently involved in, you’d think our government would be concerned with carbon footprint our mechanized armed forces emit on a daily basis. After all, we don’t want to be guilty of environmental collateral damage, do we?

Does this mean I advocate irresponsibility and recklessness regarding automotive safety? No, I do not. I merely resent the State forcing me to do that which I am able to do for myself, by paying them to remind me to get my car inspected. The state shouldn’t profit by getting a "piece of the action" when it comes to maintaining my car.

Traffic ticket quotas

If war is the health of the state, so are car accidents and traffic violations. Last summer while backing out of a driveway, I hit another car, totaling it. Fortunately, the other driver was unhurt. I was clearly responsible, since I failed to double-check before backing up. Seeing the young lady car crying over her wrecked car made me feel terrible. My insurance made good on her loss. I accepted the possibility that my insurance company could decide to increase my policy rates, or even drop me, as a result of the accident. It would be a natural consequence for my negligent actions.

So as I made good the loss to the other party, what was the purpose of paying for a $75 traffic violation, with an additional $50 administrative fee, to cover the cost of processing my traffic ticket and providing a police report? Did paying the fine to the State teach me to be more responsible? Make me feel any more remorse for my carelessness? No, it did not. Virtue cannot be instilled by the State to the citizen via fines or punishment. I could have borne the fine without complaint, if the money went to reimburse the injured party. But it did not. The money instead went into the State’s coffers. It profited from our mishap, adding insult to injury.

But wait, you say! Fines and tickets keep the dangerously irresponsible drivers off the road, don’t they? I beg to differ. Two months ago while driving on a miserable winter’s night, I was almost sideswiped by a car coming from the opposite direction in my lane. By chance, a police car saw him and pulled him over. "That will teach him," I thought with satisfaction. But when I read the police blotter in the news the next morning, I discovered otherwise. When the driver was pulled over, it was discovered he was DWI, had a suspended license, and was driving an unregistered, uninsured car. All the State’s laws and previous fines had failed to produce in him the desired effect to be a responsible driver. In this case, as well as others, the traffic tickets and fines prove to be about as effective in reforming bad drivers as much as gun control laws kept guns out of the hands of criminals. But the system did succeed at one thing — producing a "catch and release" scenario that provided ongoing revenue to the State by fining repeat offenders.

Expect to see older cars banned.

California consideration to outlaw black cars as being detrimental for the environment is a harbinger of things to come. If the next (ill)logical step is taken, those struggling in today’s crashing economy will be unable to keep their otherwise functional older cars legally compliant. Such cars could end up being banned, and be sent to the junkyard for failure to meet ever-increasing restrictive environmental and nanny safety requirements. Imagine cars abandoned en masse on driveways, streets and roads. Imagine a new social class, where the rich and well-connected drive by the pedestrian masses like medieval princes and kings. They will honk their horns to warn the new-age peasants to get out of the way, and splash them with mud, or choke them with dust in passing. To maintain the roads, civilian GIVE "volunteers" or chain gang convicts will be utilized as part of their payback to society. This new social divide could bring back the archaic term "Cavalier" into common use again, to denote those privileged enough to possess private transport and who look down their nose at those who cannot.

I believe the desired outcome of government-centralized transportation planning has more to do with making the government’s coffers greener instead of the environment.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

Ron Shirtz Archives

~ All Along the Watchtower

In August 2008, while supporting a special operations mission against a Taliban camp in Azizabad, a US air strike resulted in the deaths of an estimated 30 to 90 civilians — the actual number depending whether you accept the former US estimate or the latter claim by the Afghanistan government. In December of that same year, a botched special ops mission resulted in the deaths of six Afghan police officers and a civilian — "a tragic case of mistaken identity" as one US military spokesman put it. The objective of these raids is to conduct surgical assassinations against high-ranking Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. However, the mounting civilian casualties from US special ops raids and air strikes are straining US relations with President Karzi and his Afghan military officers. Some expressed the concern that the raids are counterproductive, and assist in recruiting more fighters for the militants from the angry survivors of the attacks. As a result of increasing "collateral damage" to Afghanistan civilians, a partial halt has been called on special ops raids conducted by the Army Delta Force and Navy Seals.

There is now evidence that the jurisdiction of these special operations were created to come under the direct authority of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. American Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh, speaking recently at University of Minnesota, mentioned the creation of a special operations branch within the special operations program answerable only to the executive office.

“It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently,” he explained. “They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. … Congress has no oversight of it.”

“It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on,” Hersh stated. “Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.”

Considering Dick Cheney always treated his position as VP as a fourth branch of the government, this personal hit squad is not surprising. Nor the fact that innocent bystanders are indiscriminately killed or maimed by Special Ops missions under the leadership of a man who himself shot one of his friends on a hunting trip.

Rewind to 1967, Vietnam. The CIA in conjunction with South Vietnam organizes the Phoenix program. The objective is to locate, capture, convert, or eliminate the leadership hierarchy of Communist National Liberation Front (NLF) running the insurgency among the villages in South Vietnam. From 1967 to 1972 the Phoenix operation neutralized, captured or "turned," 81,740 NLF members, with another alleged 26,369 NLF members killed. (I’m still trying to figure out what "neutralized" means if they were not killed, captured, or "turned"?) South Vietnamese military and security forces often used the Phoenix operation as a cover to settle personal scores with non-communist Vietnamese by labeling them as VC sympathizers. Since Vietnam was an unconventional war where military success was not measured in geographical gains, body count quotas became the order of the day. The pressure to fill quotas led to fabrication of body counts, or worse, indiscriminate killing by Special Forces’ units. Former intelligence-liaison officer for the Phoenix Program, Lt. Vincent Okamoto, remarked:

"The problem was, how do you find the people on the blacklist? It’s not like you had their address and telephone number. The normal procedure would be to go into a village and just grab someone and say, ‘Where’s Nguyen so-and-so?’ Half the time the people were so afraid they would say anything. Then a Phoenix team would take the informant, put a sandbag over his head, poke out two holes so he could see, put commo wire around his neck like a long leash, and walk him through the village and say, ‘When we go by Nguyen’s house scratch your head.’ Then that night Phoenix would come back, knock on the door, and say, u2018April Fool, motherf**ker.’ Whoever answered the door would get wasted. As far as they were concerned whoever answered was a Communist, including family members. Sometimes they’d come back to camp with ears to prove that they killed people."

One definition of insanity is doing something over and over again, and expecting different results. Afghanistan is too vast to deploy enough boots on the ground to secure real estate. The advances in military technology in the past 40 years still cannot achieve the desired surgical kills without collateral damage. The Phoenix program has been resurrected from the ashes of a failed war, and body counts again become the measure of success. Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of the US/NATO forces in Afghanistan, confirms that nothing has changed in the status quo in the war.

"But there are other areas — large areas in the southern part of Afghanistan especially, but in parts of the east — where we are not winning," he said in an interview with the BBC. "More has to happen along multiple lines of operation in order for anybody by any metric to say that the Afghans are winning or the efforts of the coalition are winning," he said.

The question of how much "more" it will take to win in Afghanistan, and the decision whether to do so is in the balance. Body counts at the expense of innocent bystanders do not win conflicts nor hearts and minds. Unbridled executive power in the name of national security has resulted in a Presidential Praetorian hit squad without congressional oversight. This ongoing war on terrorism is costing too much in innocent lives and loss of constitutional checks and balances. The phrase "graveyard of empires" no longer refers to a geographical location such as Afghanistan, but a political mindset and policy that is self-destructive. In the words of Walt Kelly’s cartoon character, Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

Ron Shirtz Archives

I hope I’m wrong. I would take no pleasure being right, at the expense of US casualties. But historical precedents all point to it, like blazing neon lights at midnight in Vegas. Every military operation, no matter how carefully planned, risks failure by the unknown — referred in military parlance as the "fog of war." No plan ever survives contact with the enemy. Certain actions taken by imperialistic nations, that appear original and innovative at the moment, turn out to be merely a variation of the same formula that creates military disaster.

Facing modern rifles, artillery, and rockets of the invading imperialistic British army, the Zulus annihilated the 24th Foot at Isandlwana, armed only with rustic assegai spears and cattle hide shields. An arrogant Custer, seeking to subdue the rebellious Sioux for the sake of Manifest Destiny, led elements of the Seventh Cavalry into a massacre at Greasy Grass Creek. General MacArthur’s hubris pushed the Eight Army aggressively to the Yalu, despite intelligence reports of Chinese troops massing at the border and oncoming winter. The resulting counteroffensive by footslogging Communist troops, whose main artillery support consisted of mortars, completely routed a modern western mechanized army that enjoyed complete air superiority. Other failed military adventures in the name of nation building include the Romans at Teutoburg Forest, The French at Dien Bien Phu, and the US at Mogadishu. The law of averages cannot be ignored in a combat zone. Sooner or later, some commander’s conceited strategy, mixed in equal parts with Murphy’s Law, is going to collide with some insurgent’s cunning ambush. The only way not to tempt fate is to get out of the casino, and stop playing the odds. For as any rich casino owner will tell you, the house always wins.

The US/NATO forces in Afghanistan are woefully undermanned for their assigned mission. Too much territory, and not enough boots. Even with the slated increase of 30,000 troops, this reinforcement is a mere drop in the ocean. The US/NATO units depend on sophisticated military technology, requiring a complex logistics and specialized maintenance to keep them battle ready. Any disruption with the supply chain can throw the airborne and road-bound mechanized forces into disarray.

More serious is the reckless deployment of troops in a combat situation by an administration who overrate their military capabilities, while continually underrating the enemy’s. Just because the President demonstrates the iron resolve to win while in the safety of his executive office, does not magically mean our soldiers will fight more skillfully and earnestly at a distant battlefield. Patriotic posturing cannot compensate for a flawed strategy with insufficient military forces. The Afghanistan theater is taking on a Fhrer bunker mentality, with leaders moving unit counters on a map that have no reflection of the reality going outside their walls. Sooner or later, some infantry company will be obliged to play its part in someone’s grand but delusional offensive operation. It will unknowingly fall into a trap in some forsaken valley that both time and cartographers forgot. It will be cut off, and all the King’s artillery and all the King’s air support will not prevent it from being broken before a belated relief column comes to its rescue.

I really hope I’m wrong.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

Ron Shirtz Archives

DIGG THIS

The number of gears in the government machine greased by taxpayer money is staggering. Currently, the US government has 15 major departments, with over 450 supporting and independent agencies. The breadth and depth of these alphabet soup bureaucracies is astounding. Did you know there is a government agency called the Office of Minority Health (OMH)? Are minorities’ physiologies different than the rest of the US population? I mean, don’t ALL Americans have the same concerns with health issues? Who knew? This illustrates the ongoing specialization and redundant creation of myriad organizations spawned by a nanny government. Pick an issue, any issue, no matter how small or insignificant, and — poof! — our progressive government creates ex nihilo another government ancillary to appease the sheeple’s concern that something is being done to address it.

Merely wasting taxpayer money, and ensnaring citizens with new regulations — regulations put in effect without congressional review by said agencies — would be bad enough. But a more sinister trend is occurring among these multitudes of government organizations — the accumulation of personal power. Newly appointed Secretary of the State, Hillary Clinton, is currently pursuing to widen the power to the State department before taking office. Ms. Clinton proposes a bigger budget, additional envoys, and a greater role in economic affairs. Her justification?

Mrs. Clinton’s push for a more vigorous economic team, one of her advisers said, stems from her conviction that the State Department needs to play a part in the recovery from the global financial crisis. Economic issues also underpin some of the most important diplomatic relationships, notably with China.

So our government, which has ripped off trillions in US citizens’ tax dollars via bailouts and the Federal Reserve, without accountability, now wants to assist in repairing the international financial crisis through the State Department? Under "Whitewater" Hillary Clinton? Ok, now if that isn’t the official starting gun for the worldwide apocalypse, nothing is.

This latest development, along with the recent clash between Biden and Cheney on the role of the Vice Presidency, confirms my growing suspicion that the departments in the US government are shifting from a vertical hierarchy to a horizontal network of competing agencies: a system otherwise known as a polycracy. A unique mutation of this polycracy includes the appointment of "Czars" — Drug Czar, Car Czar, Health Czar, Cyber Czar, et al. — all of whom become the proverbial too many cooks that spoil the broth. The habit of government to throw more money at a problem is nothing compared to its obsession to spawn whole litters of power-wielding appointees and boards to advise the advisors of the advisory committees. More ominous is that many agencies are given carte blanche for the unrestricted carry of firearms listed on John Lott’s blog. They include Internal Revenue Service agents, Health and Human Services Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency. What, the EPA, armed? Why, so they can shoot litterbugs and non-recyclers? I do agree the Health and Human Services Department should carry guns — so they can mercifully give the coup de grace to those citizens who have suffered under their mediocre, "good enough for government work" care.

At the risk of abusing Goodwin’s Law, this expansion of US departmental power is reminiscent of the polycratic system in the Nazi government. According to "The Hitler State" by Martin Broszat, the Third Reich government resembled an "Organizational Jungle" of competing agencies. Historian Ian Kershaw makes the case that Hitler either sought or unconsciously allowed this "Political Darwinism" to take place to kill off the weak factions and to keep the stronger ones at each other’s throats — to occupy them from making a power grab for Hitler’s position. Only in such an environment could a virtually unknown, weak-chinned, bespectacled chicken hawk with metagaming Machiavellian skills rise to power and control both the internal security police and the State Praetorian Guard. And no, I am not referring to Dick Cheney, but Heinrich Himmler. But I can forgive the reader for mistaking one for the other.

In the Third Reich’s polycracy, Field Marshal Hermann Goering’s decision to field 30 infantry divisions with Luftwaffe personnel was not a desperate effort to provide more ground troops to fight the invading allied armies, but provide him with the muscle to hold his claim as designated heir to the Reich if and when Herr Adolph kicked the bucket. Employing scarce technically trained air personnel as infantry cannon fodder was a "Grosse" waste of Germany’s decreasing military resources. Yet Goering knew that in the resulting power vacuum following Hitler’s death, he would have to compete with Himmlers’s SS, as well as other Nazi polycracies, to secure his position as the new Führer. The current Tom Cruise flick, Valkyrie, is based on the attempted coup by German Colonel Stauffenberg to assassinate Hitler to save Germany from fiery Gottdamerung. Had the Stauffenberg plan succeeded, there was a possibility that a civil war would have erupted in Germany, with Wermarcht under Erwin Rommel fighting for governmental control. With the ongoing accumulation of power in individual US agencies, it is not difficult to imagine a similar political struggle occurring within our own government departments. While it is far-fetched to think a firefight would develop between competing US agencies, say for example between the IRS and the ATF, there would be few of us that would not pay good money to watch it. I know I would.

The evolution
of our government organizations into a polycratic system is another
warning sign that the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution
by the Founding Fathers are being discarded. The increase of power
and resources given to appointees and departments, instead of addressing
the nation’s various ills, produces counter-productivity and jealous
infighting among them. It leads to individuals carving out niches
of personal power for their own agendas and benefit. One need to only
study the history of the first Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover,
and see how he used that agency as his own personal intelligence gathering
and blackmail cartel. Should this growing polycracy within the US
government continue unchecked, citizens will be subject to an increasing
schizophrenic government having turf wars with itself — all in the
name of supposedly promoting the general welfare of its citizens.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

Ron Shirtz Archives

DIGG THIS

“Throughout history, the role of the infantry has been to occupy terrain. Whether an army is attacking or defending, the infantryman is the key figure. All other combat arms and service support elements exist basically to assist him in accomplishing his mission. His demise has been predicted many times by so-called ‘experts’ whose knowledge of military affairs has been somewhat lacking. Modern warfare has shown that even in an age of electronic technology, the infantryman remains the central figure on the battlefield. He cannot be supplanted by armor, artillery or battlefield electronics. Indeed, when carried to the final analysis, all modern military technology exists so that the infantryman can take and/or hold ground.”

~ Jane’s Infantry Weapons 1998—99

“The army’s infantry is its most essential component. Even today, no army can take and hold any ground without the use of infantry.”

~ George Nafzger

Air, artillery, armor, and electronics can multiply and extend the projection of force on behalf of the modern-day infantryman. They assist in killing enemy troops and interdicting his movement and supply lines. But they have one serious limitation: They cannot take and hold ground. Only the common foot soldier can "winkle out," as the British would say, the enemy from their foxholes and strongholds, and hold it. Examples abound in the island-hopping campaign in Pacific theater during WW2. My father, a Marine veteran of Peleliu, personally witnessed the pre-invasion naval bombardment by five battleships and aerial bombing were "519 rounds of 16-inch shells, 1,845 rounds of 14-inch shells, 1,793 500-pound bombs, and 73,412 .50 caliber bullets onto the tiny island, only six square miles in size."

Impressive as it was, the bombardment had little effect on the defenders who were dug-in deep in coral caves. The Marines were obliged to root out each Japanese soldier the hard way, one at time, using small arms, grenades, flamethrowers and satchel charges. It took 30 days of bloody fighting and 10,000 US casualties to finally secure Peleliu island. An island, remember, that only measured six square miles.

Fast forward to Vietnam. During the course of the conflict, over 2.5 million US servicemen and women served and fought in a country that occupied 127,000 square miles. US aircraft dropped over seven million tons of bombs — three and a half times more than dropped by the US in WWII. The CIA employed some of the first electronic warfare sensors to detect the movement of VC troops and supplies. Agent Orange and similar chemicals were used to defoliate the thick jungle canopy that hid enemy movement. Clandestine US patrols were sent into neutral Laos and Cambodia to interdict VC movement. The US Army, via helicopters, took the role of a fire brigade responding to enemy incursions. Yet for all the effort, blood and treasure spent, the movement and supply of VC guerillas in South Vietnam was never successfully stopped. There was simply too much real estate, and not enough boots on the ground to secure it. As a result, the battle for the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese was lost. They knew that when nightfall came, the American soldiers went back to their bases, and then the VC would come. The Marines took a different approach; implementing the Combined Action Program (CAPS) with a squad of 11 Marines and a corpsman taking up residence in a village to provide local security. This method showed promise, as it gained the confidence of the local villagers. But due of the lack of troops available — notwithstanding over a quarter of a million US servicemen stationed in Vietnam, and the draft being in force — it was found to be too little and too late. As Marine CAP veteran Jack Cunningham stated:

"Although CAP was nicknamed “A Peace Corps with Rifles”…CAP was considered a suicide squad! The reason Marines were being assigned to CAP units was there weren’t enough volunteers. Too many CAP units were getting wiped out. Eleven Marines and one Navy Corpsman living in a village of thousands can get a little hairy at times."

With these historical precedents in mind, the recent announcement by Defense Secretary Gates to send 20,000 more troops to Afghanistan sounds, well, rather lame. These troops will increase the current US forces strength to a total of 58,000. In military terms, this represents numerically a single Army Corps. These troops, combined with a smattering of NATO/ISAF allies of around 30,000, bring a combined total of 88,000 soldiers that are responsible for securing a quarter of a million square miles (about the size of Texas, and twice the size of Vietnam) of mountainous terrain in the north and desert in the south. Doing the math, I come up with about 2.84 square miles per soldier. Since standard military doctrine requires a least a battalion of 600 solders to cover a one-mile wide front, this is a tall order indeed. And that is assuming that every soldier in Afghanistan is a front-line combat infantryman, and not assigned to a staff, medical, or supporting role.

To make things worse, landlocked Afghanistan is surrounded by no less than six countries. From left to right, we have Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan Tajikistan, China, and Pakistan. If the state of Texas struggles with stemming the flow of illegal immigrants just south of it’s border with Mexico, how well do you think this small US/NATO force can guard the borders of Afghanistan from incoming recruits and supplies from all points on the compass? I didn’t think so, either.

Sending 20,000 troops is akin to trying to pay off a loan shark with pocket change found in the family couch. It’s nothing more that a token force that will change little in the security in Afghanistan. General Kiernan, the US commander in Afghanistan, and Secretary Gates both admit as much:

"Let’s put it in historical perspective — this country has been at war for the last 30 years,” McKiernan said at the town hall-style meeting, referring to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 as the starting point. “Thirty years. That’s not going to stop overnight. So if your question is might it get worse before it gets better, the answer is yes, it might.”

When Gates was asked if the conflict would last 10 or 15 years, he made a comparison with the decades-long Cold War.

“I think that we are in many respects in an ideological conflict with violent extremists,” he said. “The last ideological conflict we were in lasted about 45 years.”

Sounds like they are channeling McCain’s "100 years in Iraq" slogan, doesn’t it?

This troop reinforcement reminds me of the disastrous decision by the Great Britain in September of 1941 to defend her crown colony of Hong Kong. They knew the island was well-nigh indefensible, yet to save face with Chinese leader Kai-Shek, they sent two Canadian regiments, the Winnipeg Grenadiers, and The Royal Rifles of Canada, as sacrificial lambs to maintain Britain’s honor. Following the Japanese invasion, the combined British, Indian, and Canadian forces were overwhelmed by superior numbers and defeated in two weeks. The surviving troops spent the war as POWs — And some of those failed to survive by the war’s end. But hey! they fought for King and Country, and for the Honor of the Regiment, didn’t they? So it was a small price to pay to fight in a battle that your government knew ahead of time you couldn’t win, eh? Even now, Canada has 1000 troops serving in Afghanistan as a symbol of their support for the "war on terrorism." Notwithstanding the sterling qualities of the Canadian soldiers, this tiny force merely represents a political sop by Canada, as well as from the other contributing NATO countries. So why are the US and NATO pussy-footin’ around with such small quantities of troops? Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, gives an insightful answer during an interview with Bill Moyers concerning the then proposed 2007 "Troop Surge" for Iraq.

JON STEWART: You know, one of the things that I do think government counts on is that people are busy. And it’s very difficult to mobilize a busy and relatively affluent country, unless it’s over really crucial — you know, foundational issues. That come sort of sort of a tipping point.

BILL MOYERS: War? War?

JON STEWART: But war that hasn’t affected us here, in the way that you would imagine a five-year war would affect a country. I think that’s why they’re so really — here’s the disconnect. It’s sort of this odd and I’ve always had this problem with the rationality of it. That the President says, “We are in the fight for a way of life. This is the greatest battle of our generation, and of the generations to come. “And, so what I’m going to do is you know, Iraq has to be won, or our way of life ends, and our children and our children’s children all suffer. So, what I’m gonna do is send 10,000 more troops to Baghdad.”

So, there’s a disconnect there between — you’re telling me this is fight of our generation, and you’re going to increase troops by 10 percent. And that’s gonna do it. I’m sure what he would like to do is send 400,000 more troops there, but he can’t, because he doesn’t have them. And the way to get that would be to institute a draft. And the minute you do that, suddenly the country’s not so damn busy anymore. And then they really fight back, and then the whole thing falls apart. So, they have a really delicate balance to walk between keeping us relatively fearful, but not so fearful that we stop what we’re doing and really examine how it is that they’ve been waging this.

Short of putting the entire US on a wartime footing with massive conscription, economic rationing, and increased taxation, there is no way to win either militarily or politically in Afghanistan. Warfare has an enormous appetite, and cannot be sated by mere brigades and battalions sent as political hors d’u0153uvres. The other alternative, the only viable and sane alternative, is to withdraw. The British and the Soviet Union during the course of their expansionist periods, wisely cut their losses, and pulled out of Afghanistan. To think we can succeed in Afghanistan, where they failed, is nothing more than practicing that kind of historical (or hysterical, take your pick) insanity where you keep doing the same thing over and over, and expect different results.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

Ron Shirtz Archives

DIGG THIS

For the third time in a month, military supplies for US and Allied forces headed for Afghanistan have been ambushed by militants in Pakistan. In the latest attack, over 100 trucks were destroyed, including Humvees that were being transported. Reportedly over 200 militants attacked, overwhelming the small Pakistani security forces guarding them.

Presently 80 percent of the war supplies go through Pakistan to the final staging point to Peshawar before crossing into the Afghanistan border. From there the trucks enter the Khyber area, where many Taliban factions reside. It is important to note that these trucks are not driven by US or allied forces, but contracted out to Pakistan drivers, with security provided by the Pakistan military. It brings to mind the Eastern Front in WW2, when the Soviets launched their offensive to encircle the Germans Sixth army at Stalingrad. They struck at the Axis’s weakest flank that was guarded by the Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian armies. I say this not to demean Pakistanis — nor any Romanians, Hungarians, or Italians, who are reading this. But let’s face it, it’s really our war, good or bad, not theirs. Our government is pursuing this war of terrorists with a vengeance, not Pakistan. Considering the recent US attacks on Pakistan soil in pursuit of terrorists, while infringing upon their sovereignty, one can only imagine how reluctant the contracted Pakistani drivers and military escorts are to fight and die to get supplies through to the US/Allied forces at the front — for a mere paycheck.

In a previous article I wrote for LRC, Technology vs. Ideology in Warfare, I addressed the issue of the limitations of high-tech weapons in a low-tech, ideological war. Modern armies, regardless of how sophisticated their weapons may be, still require traditional heavy transport to haul beans, bullets, and casualties en masse. Air transport can compensate, but at great expense in the construction of airfields, fuel, and maintenance. The hazards of air transport are even greater that road-bound convoys. Aircraft are at great risk during landings and takeoffs. The desperate re-supply attempts of the Luftwaffe at Stalingrad, the Allies DC-3 Dakotas at Arnhem, and the French Armée de l’Air at Dien Bien Phu, show the vulnerability of aircraft in a combat zone. Ironically, it was us that provided the Afghanistan resistance groups the Stinger missiles to shoot down the Soviet Hind attack copter’s. Militants attacking lumbering air transports on a landing approach would be akin to shooting fish in a barrel.

Col. Greg Julian, designated spokesman for US forces in Afghanistan’s, claims that "It’s a very insignificant loss in terms of everything transported into Afghanistan," Perhaps at the present moment, these losses by themselves are nothing. But over time, they can accumulate into a death of a thousand cuts. You can bet that Col. Greg Julian, stationed in Kabul, miles away form the front, is not personally put out from the loss of those supplies and Humvees. After all, his job is to put a positive PR spin on setbacks to allay the folks here in the US. For the troops at the front counting on re-supply from the convoys, it’s another matter. As far as the US taxpayer is concerned, since a single Humvee can cost from $77,000 to $150,000 apiece, the cost of war material is not "insignificant" during this present economic crisis. Remember this when someone says we must continue to "Support the troops." Ask them if they are ready to transition into a wartime economy, requiring the rationing of gasoline, food, metals, and other essentials, as required during WW2. Ask them if they are willing to pay higher taxes, and go without their everyday little luxuries, to replace the expensive war material being destroyed and captured by the ambushing militants. This of course, would play into the hands of our government, as it would impoverish us while enriching them, all for the sake of “supporting the troops.” Orwell’s 1984 predicted this deliberate waste of military material to keep the citizens enslaved by constantly sacrificing their labors to support an endless war. I think you will find that when the majority of Americans really, truly have to materially sacrifice to support this ongoing expenditure to maintain this ongoing war on terrorism, they will question the necessity of it. Goodness knows, the human cost has yet to move the majority to protest in earnest. Perhaps hitting Americans were it hurts most, the wallet, will make the difference.

Ron Shirtz [send him mail] is a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

Ron Shirtz Archives

DIGG THIS

Recently NBC
covered the story of Bravo Company, 1-26th INF 3-1 IBCT Infantry,
known by its troops as “Viper Company," stationed in the Korengal
valley in Afghanistan. The Korengal valley also has its own ominous
nickname; “Death Valley.” The area is surrounded with many hills
and thick foliage, ideal terrain for insurgents to move undetected
around Viper Company's perimeter.

Viewing the
NBC's video
footage, it requires no military expertise to see there too
much real estate for the 150 soldiers of Viper's company to cover.
Per standard military doctrine, Viper Company dutifully sends out
patrols in the surrounding area to maintain an aggressive posture
and interdict enemy movement. But the territory, as mentioned before,
is too large to patrol and secure with the troops available. To
make matters worse, the ground around the hills is made up of loose
shale and rocks, making it difficult for Viper Company's patrols
to navigate and move about without alerting the enemy of their presence.
The enemy, being native to the area, and unburdened with body armor
and excessive gear, can move about in relative stealth. This gives
the enemy forces freedom of maneuver, and hence, the initiative.

As a result,
the soldiers of Viper Company are obliged make themselves bait to
draw enemy fire, and use air strikes and artillery fire in compensation
for their lack of numbers. They tempt the insurgents to attack them
by manning remote outposts and running convoys. One video segment
covered the drama of 24 soldiers stationed on an exposed hilltop
outpost overlooking the valley. This Viper Company outpost is known
to receive enemy fire daily, sometimes even twice, on any a given
day. The soldiers bravely return fire against suspected targets
in the thick undergrowth, and called in mortar fire to retaliate.
During one intense firefight action, suddenly all the platoon light
machine guns jammed, gravely reducing the platoons suppressing fire
against their opponents. Fortunately the enemy did not press their
advantage, and the soldiers survived the action unscathed.

When I first
saw the camera establishing shot of the Korengal Valley, and Viper
Company's hilltop outpost, I was stunned by the resemblance it had
with photos of US outposts established near the DMZ during the Vietnam
war. Places with names like Khe Sanh, the Rockpile, and others can
to mind. More frightening was the realization that Viper Company,
despite being in the most modern military in the world, is using
tactics from a 1960's war — tactics that created large body counts,
but failed to hold ground and win the war. This is not meant to
demean the courage or professionalism of the soldiers of Viper Company,
but because of a flawed strategy at higher levels, they are forced
to fight their father's war all over again. If the insurgents
someday infiltrate close enough to Viper Company's remote outpost,
the troops will risk being hit by their own air and artillery support.
If that happens it will be Dien Bien Phu all over again. Ironically,
it is possible over time that Viper Company will be ordered withdrawn
from the area, as the Marines were at Khe Sanh after the siege was
raised. So, in the end, what honor will found in the lives and limbs
lost holding such an untenable position?

In the first
episode I watched, Viper Company had already suffered almost a score
of casualties. In a subsequent episode, one soldier was killed,
and six others wounded in a mortar attack in a building they occupied
down in the valley. Replacements filled the missing ranks, but if
Viper Company's losses continue, its combat effectiveness will be
in danger of being degraded, as it takes time for green replacements
to seamlessly integrate with the surviving seasoned veterans. Not
to mention the loss of morale, as the company is slowly whittled
away by an unseen enemy, who keeps coming back the next day to try
again. This also happened in Vietnam, which resulted in decline
of combat efficacy of frontline units — resulting in even more casualties
until the new troops gained the automatic combat reflexes needed
to survive.

Some would
suggest assigning more troops to Korengal Valley, or institute 24/7
carpet-bombing. Those options would only serve to reinforce failure.
If the cliché holds true about those who do not learn from
history, then the final outcome can only be the same for Afghanistan
as it was for Vietnam – defeat. The answer is to recognize the historical
parallels, and withdraw our conventional forces from Afghanistan.
Unless we do so, we are merely playing the role of Redcoats marching
in the open as we fight the Colonials hiding behind the trees.

A final observation.
One night, after presenting a segment on Viper Company, NBC followed
up with an equally long piece on Sarah Palin's appearance on Saturday
Night Live. This sudden shift from war reporting to comedy relief
by NBC was an overt act to distract an ADD public from lingering
too long over the harsh realities of an unnecessary war. So while
the news media focuses on how much money the RNC spent on Sara Palin's
wardrobe, or Obama's recent marginal gain or loss in the polls,
the soldiers of Viper Company will continue to fight and die in
a lonely place in Afghanistan — as did their military forefathers
in Vietnam.

October
27, 2008

Ron
Shirtz [send him mail] is
a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern
(Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs
on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

DIGG THIS

America is the home for the mother of invention. We are a nation
of inventors, tinkerers, and mechanics. From the humble locales
of basements, garages, kitchens, and living rooms have sprung cars,
airplanes, computers, and other innovative technology. Mark Twain's
character Hank Morgan from "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's
Court" captures the essence of the "can do" spirit
of America by attempting to literally drag the dark ages of Camelot
into an enlightened Yankee industrial one.

This is one of the many dividends of a free society, where the
market encourages new products, profits the inventor, and benefits
the consumer with choices and comforts.

We are, as Sting once sang, spirits in a material world. Therein
lies the rub. As the Apostle Paul once wrote:

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness
of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high."

~ Eph 6:12.

Some enemies cannot be defeated by physical means. Subjugating
a nation or people by destroying their infrastructure and killing
large numbers of them does not always defeat their spirit, or ensure
the peace will be permanently won. That World War II resulted from
the victory of World War I, "The War to end all Wars,"
bears this out.

The US Armed Forces enjoys the most modern and cutting-edge military
equipment in the world. We have an American tradition to trade treasure
for blood, relying on hardware in warfare to spare the lives of
our troops. There is nothing inherently wrong with this — it shows
the value we put on human life to spare and save as many of our
troops from the death and hazards of combat as possible.

But the danger begins when we equate the effectiveness of advanced
weapon systems dominating the enemy in the battlefield with obtaining
the objectives of victory. Lasting victory and peace cannot be attained
by high kill-ratio body counts alone — Unless the goal is outright
genocide instead of subduing a nation. In his book "Street
without Joy," an account of the French war in Vietnam, Bernard
Fall makes the argument that the biggest strategic error in the
war against the Communist North Vietnamese was the concept that
technology could defeat ideology. By 1952, 80% of
the French military effort in Vietnam was subsidized by the US under
Eisenhower. The French enjoyed complete air superiority and air
transport for the quick deployment of their elite paratroop battalions.
They had tanks, half-tracks, armored cars, and transport vehicles,
while the Viet Minh had virtually nothing except bicycles and the
occasional truck. The French even had an armed navy to patrol the
rivers. Yet the French lost. Following another eight years of military
intervention in Vietnam, with a ten-fold increase in the amount
of troops, equipment, and cutting edge hardware, the US lost too.
The same result occurred in the Korea War, with the French colony
in Algiers, and the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Apologists for these defeats will usually cite the lack of willingness
of the losing side to exercise total warfare by using all military
means necessary to defeat the opposition, including the deployment
of nuclear weapons. This is often referred to as the euphemism "All
options are on the table."

The point they miss in recommending escalation of force is that
it leads to a Pandora's box of unforeseeable consequences and outcomes.
In the case of the Korean and Vietnam wars, escalation would have
led to a disastrous war with China. In Afghanistan and Algiers,
it led to political outcry of protest at home and worldwide, because
while the people in both of those countries the Soviets and the
French sought to subdue could be killed, they could not be defeated.
And if you have to kill your enemy to the last man, woman,
and child to win, it no longer becomes a war of conquest, but of
annihilation. Total war cuts both ways, especially when the defenders
are willing to sacrifice as much as the invaders are willing
to do whatever it takes. It becomes a case of game one-upmanship,
and history has long proven that the invaded country has the home
field advantage. Advanced military technology is superb for winning
conventional tactical battles in the short term. But were the defender
engages in total warfare with the entire citizenry of its country,
willing to trade bodies and blood to blunt expensive hardware over
an indefinite time, technology becomes the loser of the exchange.

Occupying armies never rest. They expend tremendous amount of
effort maintaining supply lines, projecting force through patrols
and convoys, and keeping up the faade of control over the inhabitants.
Over time, their morale degrades from fighting and dying in a strange
land, against a people that are often consider sub-human to the
occupying soldier, who refer to them in slang terms such as Ragheads,
Hajjis, Gooks, Slopes, Krauts, or Nips. These troops look forward
to the day when they will be rotated back home, and leave the forsaken
warzone behind.

To make up the numerical disadvantage of fighting the enemy on
his home ground, the occupiers rely on technological superiority.
Maintaining these sophisticated tools require modern mechanized
armies to become road bound for their supply lines — lines that
can stretch for hundreds to thousand of miles over land and sea.
As a visual metaphor, think of the length of the shaft on a spear
compared to that of the spear tip. The shaft represents the proportion
in size of supply needed for the spear tip to be effective. The
expense and the effort of maintaining these supply lines is enormous.
It takes more gas to transport the gas that is actually required
in the field. Supply lines can tie up as many troops to guard the
supply bases and patrolling the supply lanes as the troops that
actually do the fighting.

A familiar military cliché goes; "Amateurs talk
tactics, professionals talk logistics." A perfect example
of the importance of logistics and supply occurred recently to the
NATO forces in Afghanistan. In response to an infringement of its
sovereignty, Pakistan
threatened to close the supply lines to NATO forces in Afghanistan.

BARA: In a major development, the federal government on Friday
announced disconnection of supply lines to the allied forces stationed
in Afghanistan through Pakistan in an apparent reaction to a ground
attack on a border village in South Waziristan agency by the Nato
forces.

Political authorities of the Khyber Agency claimed to have received
verbal directives to immediately halt transportation of all kinds
of goods meant for the US-led Nato forces in Afghanistan for an
indefinite period.

Notwithstanding being equipped with Predator drones, night optics,
body armor, computer communication systems, sophisticated air, armor,
and artillery support, nothing sends more fear up the spine of a
military force than to be cut off from its umbilical supply cord
in hostile country. In this same manner the German Sixth Army at
Stalingrad, the Russians in the Finnish mottis, and the French
at Dien Bien Phu all met their end. State-of-the-art military hardware
becomes so much useless junk without fuel, ammunition, and spare
parts to maintain them in the harsh environment of war. Not to mention
that an Army marches on its stomach, and needs food and medical
supplies besides.

This is nothing new under the sun. The ancient Israelites were
once intimidated by their enemies, the Canaanites and Philistines,
who rode iron chariots. Notwithstanding the advanced military technology
their enemies possessed, the Lord said to Israel:

"But the hill country shall be yours. For though it is
a forest, you shall clear it, and to its farthest borders it shall
be yours; for you shall drive out the Canaanites, even though
they have chariots of iron and though they are strong.”

~ Joshua 17:18

In one epic battle, 900 of the fearsome iron chariots were mired
in mud after a sudden storm via divine providence caused a nearby
river to overflow, flooding the plains. The Israelites, led by resistance
fighters Barak and Deborah, defeated their nemesis Sisera and his
immobilized chariot army. In another Biblical example of low tech
beating high tech, we have the young David, a mere boy with a shepherd's
sling, eschewing to wear Saul's armor, defeating an superior opponent
equipped with the finest military armor at the time.

Faith in military technology begets a dangerous shortsightedness
and trust in the arm of flesh. It replaces ethnics and sound strategy
with short-term convenience and tactical advantages that will win
battles, but not a war. A million dollar, sophisticated guided missile
may have "fire and forget" capability, but
the survivors of the innocents it kills will never forget who
fired it. So-called "Smart" weapon systems are
not yet intelligent enough to discern the difference between a terrorist
packing an AK and a woman carrying an infant before final impact.
Thus impersonal technology creates new enemies out of the deaths
of others — and a self-perpetuating cycle of war.

The growing cost of military technology will break our country's
financial ability to fight as much as troop casualties breaks our
hearts and morale. The USSR went broke trying to keep up with the
US during the Cold War Arms race. Thanks to the technological advantage
we hold, the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan suffer more combat
losses in proportion to our troops, but in return for high body
counts, they succeed in exhausting our economy in maintaining an
expensive, technological-gadget army. What the terrorists cannot
do by physically assaulting Americans and property on US soil, they
are accomplishing by bringing our financial ruin by baiting us to
empty our national treasure and to go into debt with foreign banks
to buy expensive "Wunder weapons" to defeat them.
This same false hope for salvation via technology led the Germans
believe they could still turn the tide late in War II against the
advancing Allies. Instead, it prolonged a losing war, leading to
a Gtterdmmerung that left their country in ashes. We need
to stop being enamored by our "technological terrors"
as our nation's savior. Military technology is a two-edge sword,
bleeding us of our livelihood, our freedom, and our souls, as much
as it cuts the enemies we employ it against.

September
27, 2008

Ron
Shirtz [send him mail] is
a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern
(Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs
on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

DIGG THIS

Following WWII,
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Treaty (NATO), was established
in 1949 for the collective defense — Wait, hold on a minute. Isn't
collective a term the Communists use? More on that later.
Anyway, NATO was established for the purpose, as NATO's first secretary
General Lord Ismay summed up, "to keep the Russians out, the
American's in, and the Germans down." That the USSR posed a
serious threat to the security of Western Europe, there was no question
— That Europe wanted America to become point man for their defense
against the USSR was merely a continuation of Churchill's political
machinations to draw an isolationist US into WWII and European politics.
Add two world wars with Germany, and Europe gets an additional bonus
by having the US stationed in bases in Germany to disabuse them
of any ideas of having another go at conquering the continent.

Through the
1950's up to the late 1980's, NATO and the USSR stood glaring at
each other across the Iron Curtain. Dreams of an epic armor battle
at the Fulda Gap between the Warsaw Pact and NATO forces that would
make the tank battle at Kursk look like a piker filled the heads
of armchair wargamers and inspired books like Red Storm Rising.
Then, gosh darn it, Gorbachev's Glasnost herald a new era of open
politics in Soviet Union. Some electrician named Lech Walesa
was giving the Communist party in Poland fits with organized strikes.
Suddenly in 1989, East Germany takes down the Iron Curtain. The
cold war thaws into a hopeful spring. What was NATO going to do
with all those tanks, planes, and troops? Worse, what were the generals
going to do to keep their jobs? No enemies to fight, and the politicians
were promising a peace dividend to citizens by closing military
bases. The common quip of the Berliners in the last days of WWII
of “Enjoy the war. The peace will be terrible” now seemed a reality
for poor NATO. Without a combat command, military career advancement
would come to a standstill. Without the need to maintain ongoing
weapon superiority, the military industry would lay off employees.
There goes the economy. Desperate, NATO takes a cue from the movie
of Canadian Bacon, and becomes involved in the ethnic strife
in Yugoslavia between the Croats and the Serbs to look useful and
from being disbanded. It becomes the strong arm of the UN, enforcing
that august body's no-fly zone mandate, as well as the UN's arms
and economic sanctions. NATO continued by initiating air strikes
in Bosnia, and deploying a peacekeeping force on the ground. NATO
finds a use for its leftover cold war ordinance collecting dust
by mounting an 11-week bombing campaign. NATO cleverly names the
bombing sorties with various titles such as Operation Deliberate
Force, so as to assure people that the bombs were not
dropped by accident, or Operation Allied Force, in case someone
doesn't already know that NATO is a collective (there's that
Communist word again!) of various nations working together to enforce
the peace by killing people. What is strange about the working relationship
of NATO and UN is that the former resists attempts to by the latter
to have the final word regarding its military actions. The UN would
say, "Don't bomb, we have things under control," and NATO
would reply. "Yes we will bomb, just to make sure." I
guess when you have one organization whose mission is to preserve
peace, and another whose job is to break things to protect democracy,
you are bound to have some philosophical differences. As the Good
Book says, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
How any nation can belong to both organizations, and yet come to
cross-proposes deciding if and who should be bombed, is beyond me.
Sounds like one of them is unnecessary and is getting in the way
of the other. Better yet, to be on the safe side, it might be best
to get rid of both. But that's just my opinion.

But local European
ethnic conflicts were not enough to justify the overhead cost of
a coalition as large as NATO. Fortunately, 9/11 happened just in
the nick of time. In 2003 NATO was reorganized so as to take over
the duties International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
This would set the precedent for NATO to entertain missions outside
its North Atlantic backyard. Plenty of opportunities to keep business
as usual for NATO. But while NATO enjoys a good brush war like anyone
else to keep the military industrial complex economy running, the
real action is found in the defensive missiles gig. Never mind there
is yet a practical missile made that can hit the broadside of the
proverbial barn, much less a ICBM coming in from the stratosphere,
this is were the big money is. Plus, it has the biggest boogieman
fear component to inspire the civilians to work harder to pay taxes.
Scaring citizens with images of mechanized armies invading your
neighborhood is so passé — To really play on the sheeple's
paranoia, talk about the possibility of rogue missile attacks launched
from middle-eastern countries such as Iran. Even hint darkly about
a resurgent Russia, with Putin desiring to push the big red button.
Never mind that Putin enjoys Russia's prosperity with capitalism
with Europe as customer. He wouldn't dream of killing the goose
that lays the golden eggs by nuking western Europe into glass parking
lot. Bad for business, you know.

NATO's reinventing
itself is so successful that many of the former Soviet Bloc countries
are applying for membership. Little Georgia has little to offer
to NATO, other than to instigate hostilities with neighboring Ossetia.
No doubt NATO was upset that Georgia did not wait after it was initiated
into its club, so NATO could get into the act and justify its military
budget by using mean old Russia as an excuse. Besides, how dare
the Russians come to the aid of Ossetia when it was attacked by
Georgia! That's NATO job! If its one thing an organization hates,
it's someone else cutting in on the action.

In a
recent interview by ABC's Charles Gibson, Sarah Palin
condemned Russia's invasion of Georgia as quote-unquote, "unprovoked."
Which of course, is a lie. Palin favors the inclusion of both Georgia
and the Ukraine into NATO because they had demonstrated actions
as being "democratic" When Gibson asked: "and under
the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went
into Georgia?" She replied "Perhaps." Which is
another way of saying all options are on the table. Her fervor
revealed later in the interview to come to the aid of "smaller
democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power" would
have sounded noble if we were not already a larger power
that had invaded a smaller country that had done nothing against
us. But the difference of course, is Iraq is not a "democratic"
one, so the US is excused where Russia is not. Palin stresses the
importance of not reverting back to a cold war status, yet advocates
economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure against Russia that are
the equivalent of creating one. NATO could not have asked for a
better lobbyist that Palin to cheerlead for its continued existence

Palin and others
ongoing support to a collectivist (there its that word again!) defense
organization as NATO reminds me of new inmates who are obliged to
join a gang in order to survive in prison — Doesn't matter what
crimes you or they have committed, the thing is the colors you wear
define who are your friends, and who are your enemies. So much for
the rugged individualism that once was the hallmark of America's
legacy.

I find it ironic
that the people who are opposed with our association in the UN are
just as tenacious in insisting that we must stay in NATO. That we
must honor our commitments and treaties by continuing to belong
to a collective defense organization. All for the sake of
defending democracy, which is a method of government, not
a moral definition of who is the good guy, and who is the villian.
Many still think that poor Europe is too weak to defend itself should
Russia aspire to conquer Western Europe. Never mind that with the
collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia does not have near the manpower
and hardware it formerly had with the Warsaw Pact.

Everyone is
still thinking with a 1980's cold war mindset. Worse, these people
cannot see that NATO is little different than the UN — except it
does not use white-painted armored vehicles and blue helmets, and
is more likely to shoot first and then ask questions later. America
needs to get out of the NATO club and stop being a club for NATO.
NATO's original purpose has been made obsolete by the fall of the
USSR. It is a holdover of the same treaties, the "scrap of
paper" signed by old men in Europe who offered their young
people and treasure as collateral for the "honor" to defend
each other's decadent empires. By contractual reflex France, Britain,
and Russia were led into disastrous world war with Germany in 1914,
over the assassination of an Austrian archduke by a radical Serb.
After three years of callously spending the lives and limbs an entire
generation of their best young men by sending them in frontal attacks
against machine guns with bayonets, they looked to America for fresh
cannon fodder to rescue them for their folly — and Wilson provided
it in the name of "making democracy safe for the world."
That any reprobate country can gain political legitimacy by declaring
being a "democracy" and be admitted into the NATO club
is akin to putting lipstick on a pig, if I may use a cliché
that is presently in vogue. Spilling the blood of our soldiers and
depleting our treasure in the defense such countries that wear such
false garb is a sucker's game. America should follow the example
of Groucho Marx, treating any club that would invite them as a member
suspect, and not worth belonging to.

September
16, 2008

Ron
Shirtz [send him mail] is
a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern
(Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs
on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

DIGG THIS

Art Spiegelman's
Pulitzer Prize winning graphic novel Maus is a true account
of his father Vladek as a Polish Jew in Nazi Europe during WWII.
Simultaneously, it reveals the strained relationship of the author
with his difficult father as he prods him to relate his experiences
during the war. Spiegelman employs a visual metaphor by illustrating
his characters with animal faces. Jews are portrayed as mice, the
Germans cats, and other races given similar treatment. Rather than
a distraction, this approach helps the reader deal with the harsh
reality endured by Vladek and his fellow Jews against increasing
persecution and eventual imprisonment in concentration camps — in
Vladek's case, Auschwitz. Make no mistake; this is no mere comic
book glossing over the Holocaust in Cliff-Notes fashion. It's an
unblinking view of one man's journey through state-sponsored genocide,
and how he survived using his wits. The book is an intense, heart-rending,
and unsentimental memoir, equal on it's own merits compared to other
classic literature.

Reflecting
on the powerful drama of Vladek’s struggle, I gleaned from his account
many practical principles and techniques employed in his fight for
survival. These are not of the “living off the land" survivalist
genre, but proven to work in a methodical state-planned "death
by design" environment. I think they are relevant today as
valuable strategies to deal with the ongoing "progressive"
uncertain world we live in.

Tangible
goods. Vladek had married into a rich family. Since the currency
of his country was debased after occupation, he made good use of
his family's valuables to sell, barter, and bribe during the early
hard times. Even Nazi guards were not above taking a bribe to look
the other way, though this was fraught with peril, as they would
sometimes reneged, and merely shoot the other party. He took special
care to cache some of the valuables, which he would later reclaim
after the war to help rebuild his life.

Skills and
networking. The confiscation of Jewish businesses and
factories prior to the camps left Vladek without a job. He learned
how to make and repair shoes in a Jewish Ghetto workshop to provide
for his family. In the book, there is a page with detailed illustrated
instructions related by Vladek to his son on how he repaired a ripped
shoe separated from the sole. He also gleaned just enough knowledge
of tinsmithing to bluff his way into a workshop later at Auschwitz
— which saved him from an early death being chosen for hard physical
labor.

Vladek was
also fluent in German, and knew some English. These talents opened
doors to communicate to people of many backgrounds, giving him an
edge in setting up a network system for survival and bartering.
One time in a holding cell, Vladek met an illiterate man who asked
if he could write letters for him in German so he could request
food packages from his family. Vladek wrote the letters and the
man shared the food he received with him out of gratitude. Later
in Auschwitz, Vladek's life hung in the balance when a SS officer
demanded a badly ripped boot be repaired like new in the morning
— or else. No having sufficient skill to fix it, Vladek contacted
a highly skilled shoe repairman elsewhere in the camp. Spending
a day's ration of bread, he got the shoe repaired like new to the
SS officer's satisfaction, and received an unexpected sausage in
return in payment. More importantly, Vladek paid careful attention
to the expert shoe repairman as he fixed the boot, so he could learn
to perform the procedure himself. Doing so made him valuable to
the Nazi wardens as a skilled craftsman, saving him from wasting
his strength from heavy labor assignments.

Gamesmanship.
I once saw a documentary of a woman concentration camp survivor
who observed that those children found useful for labor and not
gassed survived better in the camps than adults. She stated that
a child's innate sense of play and imagination proved to be a crucial
survival trait, whereas their socially conditioned elders tend to
habitually follow the rules, even when they consciously know it
will lead to their eventual death. This woman related how as a child
in a concentration camp, she would make a game out of hiding from
work details, sneaking into other food lines in the camp, and so
on to survive — tactics outside the mindset of conventional adults
who are bound by the rules of propriety. As Vladek’s former profession
was that of a textile salesman, he was experienced in sizing up
situations and selecting the best angle to close a sale. This talent
made him more mentally flexible to think outside the box than most
of his rule-bound comrades. He avoided confrontation, and struck
the right note of deferment and self-confidence to pull little mercies
and favors even from his Nazi captors.

As time progressed,
the hazard of contracting typhus required inmates to show their
shirts for inspection prior to being served their daily soup ration.
Those inmates who shirts where infested by lice were denied. As
it was impossible to keep the only shirt one owned clean, death
by starvation would become imminent. By good fortune, Vladek became
friends with a French non-Jewish inmate who received Red Cross packages.
He was given a chocolate bar, and instead of eating it, he traded
it plus a day's worth of bread for a shirt from another inmate.
He laboriously cleaned and dried the extra shirt, and wrapped it
carefully in scrap paper. By presenting this clean, lice-free shirt
at the soup line, his investment guaranteed a constant meal every
day that enabled him to stay strong to survive.

Prior to being
interned in Auschwitz, Spiegelman's father explained how he and
his wife attempted to make it to a safe house by walking through
the town of Sosnowiec at night. To prevent being recognized as Jews,
Vladek took pains to wear a coat and high calf boots like those
worn by off-duty Gestapo officers. He also kept up a conversation
in German to his wife Anja to flesh out the deception. It worked,
and they found safety for a time. Sometimes the best camouflage
is mimicking your enemy.

Faith, Hope,
and Charity. One would think these attributes would be the anti-thesis
of personal survival in a concentration camp. Mastering the powerful
instinct of self-preservation, Vladek endured the wrath of his temperamental
barracks Kapo to successfully plead for a pair of wooden shoes,
a belt, and spoon — valuable items worth their weight in precious
food in the camp — for a friend who was without. Vladek risked losing
favor that could literally mean the difference of life or death
for him. Yet by helping a friend, he also saved something very valuable
within his soul.

In a more practical
way, Vladek's generosity with others helped open doors for better
jobs and bartering contacts. Sharing his carefully hoarded food
with his hardened workshop bosses gained him favors that saved him
time and time again from transfers to brutal work details. His survival
strategy can be summed up in this simple declaration to his son;
"If you want to live, it's good to be friendly."

In the end,
Vladek’s ultimate survival still depended as much on faith in providence
and the kindness of strangers. The nature of the holocaust and the
war itself made individual survival a cruel game of chance, with
no seemly consistent moral logic why one survived and another did
not. This fatalism resulted in many an inmate choosing to give up
and deliberately walk past the verboten fence line to be
shot. After being processed at Auschwitz, Vladek suffered an overwhelming
sense of despair and hopelessness. A priest who was an inmate noticed
him, and familiar with Hebrew numerology, divined from the etched
serial numbers on Vladek's wrist that he was blessed with much life
and good omens to survive his ordeal. At that moment Vladek said
he begin to believe he could survive, and that the compassionate
priest's words put "another life into him." This renewed
will to live would see Vladek through all his ensuing trials to
VE Day.

If you have
not yet read Maus, I strongly recommend doing so. On a personal
level, it serves as a stiff tonic when one is suffering from a bout
of self-pity. In a historical perspective, it testifies the terrible
results of denying the warning signs of an oppressive government
until it is too late. Should we fail to heed its message, we may
not end up as fortunate as Vladek to live to tell the tale to our
children.

August
25, 2008

Ron
Shirtz [send him mail] is
a transplanted Californian in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York.
His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting
at windmills, and being fashionably late.

DIGG THIS

My father served
in the 1st Marine division in WWII and Korea. He experienced
combat at Peleliu, Okinawa, and the Chosin Reservoir. He never said
much about his wartime experiences, except mention how terrible
the heat was at Peleliu. The coral sand acted like a reflector oven.
He remembered Marines requesting water to quench their thirst as
they hugged the sand to dodge enemy fire. The nature of the coral
sand made it impossible to dig a deep enough foxhole. His smoking
habit, which took his life years later with emphysema, began at
Peleliu. He said he started smoking cigarettes to dull his sense
of smell, so as not to endure the stench of dead bodies rotting
in the tropical heat. Ironic that he should survive the hazards
of WWII and the Korea war, only to die from a habit that helped
him cope with the everyday carnage of war.

I am proud
of my father's service, but angry that two of the three major campaigns
he participated in, Peleliu and the Chosin Reservoir, were unnecessary
battles planned by shortsighted and vain superior officers. Soldiers
are the currency generals spend to advance their personal military
careers and egos. They are the "lions led by donkeys"
— a phrased coined by WWI German General Max Hoffman on the idiotic
strategy of British generals sending troops with fixed bayonets
on senseless frontal attacks against machine guns and artillery.

Marshal Pierre
Bosquet, upon witnessing the heroic but futile charge of the British
Light Brigade at Balaclava, remarked: “C’est magnifique, mais
ce n’est pas la guerre, c’est de la folie” — “It is magnificent,
but it is not war, it is madness.” The following are a few (sadly,
there are more, too many more) examples of military madness orchestrated
by the shortsighted generals, paid by the common soldier, marine,
sailor, and airman.

1875. Battle
of Little Big Horn. Following the US reneging the treaty that
promised the Black Hills to the Sioux and Cheyenne tribes, General
George Armstrong Custer Seventh Calvary, is sent to pacify the Indians.
He disregards reports from his experienced scouts on the strength
of the Indian forces. Furthermore, Custer disobeys orders and outruns
his supporting army units. In a final act of arrogance, he divides
his command piecemeal. He leads 200 of his troops to attack the
main Indian camp, only to be massacred by superior forces. Ironically,
Custer would be hailed as a hero for many years for his valiant
"last stand."

The sinking
of the USS Reuben James. Even though the US was a neutral country,
in March of 1941 this obsolete four-stack destroyer was ordered
to escort ships bearing war material to the Britain as part of FDR's
"Neutrality Patrol." It was hit by a torpedo from
a U-boat, which broke her in two at the bow. In five minutes, 115
of her crew died. It is alleged that FDR was disappointed that the
sinking of the Reuben James did not bring the US into war on Germany
on behalf of Britain.

US Marines
abandoned on Wake Island: Cut off after the attack on Pearl
Harbor, the US Navy sends Task Force 11 Under Admiral Fletcher to
relieve the Marine garrison on Wake Island. Fletcher wastes valuable
time by the unnecessary frequent refueling of his destroyers. This
results in his fleet arriving one day after Japanese forces invade
Wake. Though his naval forces were equal to the reported Japanese
ships, his superior, Vice Admiral William Pyle, gets cold feet and
orders the relief force to withdraw. After a heroic 15-day battle
against superior forces, the Wake garrison surrenders. During the
battle of Midway in June, The same Admiral Pyle ordered battleships
to patrol the US coast instead of participating in the epic battle.
Afterward he was relieved of combat duty, and would never command
a fleet in battle again. This would be little comfort to the 400
Marines and 100 civilians who become POWs. Several years later,
98 of the civilians imprisoned on the island would be machined-gunned
to death by the occupying Japanese.

US
Marines abandoned on Guadalcanal: Within 48 hours after 1st
Marines Division landed on Guadalcanal on August 7, Admiral Fletcher
(From Wake Island Task Force 11 infamy) withdrew his carriers from
the area following several Japanese air attacks. He did this without
conferring with any of the other commanders, including his naval
superior, Vice Admiral Robert L. Ghormley. The transport ships,
without air cover, were forced to leave before unloading the majority
of the 11,000 Marines equipment and supplies. The Marines were essentially
abandoned on Guadalcanal. It would not be until August 20th
that 12 Marine SBD dive-bombers and 19 F4F Wildcats landed on Henderson's
airfield to provide air cover and ground support for the beleaguered
Marines. Fortunately, the heroic efforts of the Marines, Army, and
Navy eventually prevailed by February of 1943 to secure the island.

The Battle
of Kasserine Pass, or Dude, where is My General? The
US Army's initial baptism of fire against veteran German troops
proved to be a humbling experience. Rommel's Afrika Corps soundly
routed the green US troops in their first major engagement in 1943
at Kasserine Pass in Tunisia. The US suffered the loss of
over 2,500 men and almost 300 tanks and vehicles. The US troops
quickly learned from their mistakes, and in time earned the respect
by of their adversary Rommel. But the real mystery was, where was
their commanding officer, Major General Lloyd Fredendall, during
the battle? He was to be found 70 miles behind the front lines,
secure in an elaborately built underground bunker located in a ravine.
Omar Bradley would call it “an embarrassment to every American soldier”
Eisenhower would later write: “It was the only time during the war
that I ever saw a divisional or higher headquarters so concerned
over its own safety that it dug itself underground shelters.” Fredendall
seldom visited the frontlines, or conferred with his frontline commanders.
He divided his units piecemeal, scattering them so far apart that
they could not mutually support one another. He was notorious for
using his own personal slang instead of using accepted military
parlance in communicating orders. This lead to misunderstandings
and loss of valuable time as his subordinates tried to figure out
what he wanted. During the height of the battle of Kasserine, Fredendall
fled from his custom-made bunker and for a time became unavailable
for contact by his frontline officers. After the battle, Fredendall
was relieved of his command, and replaced by General George Patton.
He was sent back to the states, to finish out the war in training
assignments.

Coral Hell.
The Battle of Peleliu: By mid-1944, two paths were debated for
carrying the war to the Japan home islands. General Douglas MacArthur
wanted to recapture the Philippines. Admiral Nimitz sought to bypass
the Philippines and follow a direct island hopping campaign to Okinawa.
Both demanded the occupation of Peleliu to provide an airfield to
cover their respective advances. FDR choose MacArthur' plan over
Nimitz. On September 15th, following a heavy naval bombardment,
which included the firepower of five US battleships, units of the
US 1st Marines division proceeded to land on the coral
island. The pre-invasion shelling failed to have any significant
effect on the dug-in defenders. The Japanese defenses hammered the
incoming Marines, causing them 1,100 casualties on the first day.
When the island was finally secured a month later, the 1st
Marines suffered over 6500 casualties. The 81st Army
infantry (not airborne) division lost 3,000. So heavy were the 1st
Marines losses that the division would not participate in another
battle until the following year at Okinawa. In the end, the sacrifice
by the Marines and Army troops proved to be a tragic waste. The
US Navy's overwhelming successes in the battle of the Philippine
Sea and Leyte Gulf so severely crippled the Japanese fleet as to
insure complete air and naval superiority for the invasion of the
Philippines. This rendered the Peleliu airfield superfluous. Admiral
Halsey, to his credit, did attempt to have the invasion cancelled
prior to the invasion, but was overruled by Nimitz.

A Bridge
Too Far. The Bridge at Arnhem. In the late summer of 1944, British
General Bernard Montgomery proposed an end run via the Netherlands
to capture Germany's Ruhr valley, home of the Germans' military-industrial
base. His strategy: British and US airborne units would seize and
hold seven bridges over a 60-mile road, all the way to Arnhem. They
would be relieved in three days by the advancing British XXX Corps
— whose front would be restricted to one tank at the head of the
column due to the width of the road. The last bridge at Arnhem was
the key. Capturing that bridge would permit the allies make a "back
door' approach into Germany, bringing a quick end to the war by
Christmas. It was titled Operation Market Garden. Supreme commander
Eisenhower enthusiastically approved the operation. What is puzzling
is Eisenhower's earlier rejection of an earlier plan by Montgomery
for a major drive to Berlin. He objected to the Berlin offensive
because it would require extra divisions to protect Montgomery's
flanks, the securing a bridge over the Rhine, and the entire offensive
supply lines become dependent on a single bridge. Why Eisenhower
didn't have the same reservations of Market Garden's plan for an
entire corps traveling on a single lane road, with seven bridges
to cross, and with no protection on either of XXX corps flanks?
Operation Market Garden would become one of the most poorly planned,
costly military disasters by the Allies. Murphy's law ran riot throughout
the entire battle. The British radios were the wrong kind; hence,
they could not call in for air support or correct airdrops. The
British airborne troops, who mission was to capture the key objective,
the Arnhem bridge, were dropped seven miles from the objective.
Only Colonel Frost's battalion of 600 men made it past the German
perimeter to seize the bridge. Worse, upon his arrival, instead
of finding second-rate German troops that British intelligence reported,
he found two veteran SS Panzer divisions. Meanwhile, ever-increasing
German resistance delayed the advancing XXX Corps, whose vehicles
were silhouetted on the elevated road like targets in a shooting
gallery. Then, before US airborne unit could seize the Son bridge,
the Germans succeeded in blowing it up, causing another 24-hour
delay before a temporary bridge could be built. Back at Arnhem,
Frosts' Battalion, which was supposed to only hold out for three
days, managed by super-heroic efforts to last seven. Enduring constant
artillery barrages, lack of sleep, and mounting casualties, they
finally succumbed to superior German forces, which included heavy
panzer tanks. Afterward, General Montgomery tried to put a positive
spin on this poorly planned military disaster by claiming Market
Garden as “90% successful." Never mind that six of the seven
bridges held no strategic value if the last bridge at Arnhem was
not captured. The Dutch Prince Bernhard, grieving at the terrible
cost to his people's lives and property by the high-risk gamble,
thought otherwise: "My country can never again afford the luxury
of another Montgomery success."

Patton's
Personal War, The Hammelburg Raid: In March 1945, General
George Patton organized a small raiding unit, Task Force Baum,
to go 60 miles behind German lines. Its mission? To rescue his son-in-law,
Lt. Col. John Knight Waters from a POW camp. Baum's Task force succeeded
in reaching the camp, but Waters is seriously wounded during a battle.
On the return trip, superior German forces wipe out the task force.
The majority of the 300-man task force are either killed or captured.
Baum with two others managed to escape back to US lines. A week
later, advancing US forces liberated the POW camp. Both Gen. Dwight
D. Eisenhower and Gen. Omar N. Bradley reprimanded Patton for the
unauthorized raid that resulted in the loss of the task force. Patton
claimed at the time that he did not know his son-in-law was at the
camp, but a letter written to his wife belied his protested ignorance.

These Deadly
Woods. The Hürtgen Forest: A foretaste of what Vietnam
would be like 30 years later. The Hürtgen forest had no military
or strategic value — the battle took on a life of it's own, and
the Allied commanders continued to feed US troops into a meat-grinder.
The battle would become the longest engaged battle in the history
of the US Army, lasting from September 19, 1944 to February 10,
1945. In a wooded area of just 50 square miles, the US army committed
over 120,000 troops to fight in a densely wooded forest that negated
their superior numbers, airpower and artillery. The wooded terrain
favored the defender, allowing the numerically smaller German units
to inflict over 33,000 US casualties. The Germans never did understand
why the US put so much effort into the Hürtgen forest, but
they were pleased for the opportunity to economically tie up so
many US troops at a relatively small cost to themselves. US veterans
of the Hürtgen Forest said the battle was bloodier than their
combat experience at Omaha beach.

Chosin Reservoir,
Korea: On October 7th, despite strong evidence of large numbers
of Chinese troops present in North Korea, General MacArthur orders
the US Eight army to cross the 38th parallel and advance
to the Yalu river. General Almond X Corps, which includes the First
Marine Division and the 7th Army Infantry division, is
sent northeast to the Chosin Reservoir. These units advanced in
the teeth of terrible winter conditions of minus 30-degree temperatures
that froze the actions on firearms, deaden vehicle batteries, and
inflict thousands of frostbite casualties. Since Douglas MacArthur
never spent a single night in Korea, he had little appreciation
of the inclement weather conditions and terrain his troops would
face. On November 26, 1950, an estimated 300,000 Red Chinese troops
counterattacked. MacArthur forces suffer heavy casualties and hastily
withdraw en masse under circumstances reminiscent of Napoleons'
infamous retreat from Moscow. Since the US forces were mechanized,
they were dependent on traveling on the roads. The Red Chinese troops
took advantage of the surrounding heights, and pour machine gun
and small arms fire on the hapless retreating soldiers. The 1st
Marines, surrounded by no less than five Chinese armies, retreated
— Oops, I mean fought in another direction, from the Chosin Reservoir
in good order. My dad, who was there, recalled how the issued rubber
boots caused the Marines feet to sweat, enabling frostbite. The
7th Army Infantry division fared worse, suffering the
loss of one third of its troops.

MacArthur's
ill-timed winter offensive towards the China border turned a four-month
conflict into a three-year meat-grinder. In his hubris he discounted
the Chinese willingness and ability to fight. The Korea war would
continue to seesaw back and forth, recalling the stalemate and horrors
of trench warfare of WWI. Later, public comments made by MacArthur
to carry the war to China, and suggesting using nuclear weapons,
lead to his dismissal by President Truman in the following year.
While history would applaud Truman's courage to sack the popular
MacArthur, little mention is made that Truman involved the US into
Korea war without congressional constitutional approval. The Korea
conflict has never ended — an uneasy cease-fire exists today, with
a semi-hot DMZ separating the two Koreas.

"Good
enough to toss; food for powder, food for powder; they'll fill a
pit as well as better [men]…" remarked Shakespeare's Falstaff
on the value of the troops under his command. Or, as the soldiers
in the Third Army were wont to say of their glory seeking commander,
"Blood & Guts" Patton; "His guts, our blood."
One gets a memorial built to honor his death, the other a promotion
to enjoy his life.

August
5, 2008

Ron
Shirtz [send him mail] is
a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern
(Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs
on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

DIGG THIS

Recently, while
re-reading Bernard Fall's excellent chronicle of the French war
in Indochina, "Street without Joy," I stumbled across
a reference on the US secretary of state, Cordell Hull. My prior
knowledge of him was from the 1970's war movie, Tora,
Tora, Tora, where he is portrayed indignantly castigating
the Japanese diplomats following the attack on Pearl Harbor. The
details of Hull's involvement with Indochina will be explained later
— sufficient to say, my interest was piqued, and I did some online
research on him. And boy-oh-boy, talk about turning over
the proverbial rock and seeing what was underneath it! I discovered
a man who, nurtured by Wilsonian progressive philosophy and serving
under FDR, single-handedly authored some of the most oppressive
taxes and international consortiums ever inflicted on mankind. Quite
an accomplishment for a relatively shy political figure not noted
for his charisma or public speaking. But Cordell Hull possessed
a condescending moral certitude that fueled his endeavors to make
a progressive agenda a terrible reality. Reading Hull's quotes,
it is easy to discern a declarative and puritanical tone mimicking
a benevolent dictator patiently telling his subjects what is best
for them. Yet his philosophy would live on in the Cordell Hull Institute,
his name found on many memorials and buildings, and his cabin home
in Tennessee turned into a museum. There is even a Cordell Hull
Folk Festival held annually in his home state. If those who revered
his name really understood the ramifications of Mr. Cordell Hull's
37-year political career, the only memorial they would make for
him would be an effigy to hang from the highest tree.

Where's
your 1040, citizen? For every American who struggled, sweated
and cursed while filling out a tax return to make the April 15th
deadline, this is the guy to blame. Hull authored the US income
tax laws during 1913–1916. Cordell Hull sums up his philosophy on
taxing citizens:

“Every good
citizen should be willing to devote a brief time during some one
day in the year, when necessary, to the making up of a listing
of his income for taxes to contribute to his Government, not the
scriptural tithe, but a small percentage of his net profits.”

If you, "good
citizen," need to pause reading and run to the bathroom to
throw up, I will understand. Do you suppose there are portraits
of him hanging on the walls of every IRS building, after the cult
fashion of Stalin or Mao?

Grave robbing,
en masse. Not content with just taxing income, Hull also
sponsored the inheritance tax laws in 1916. Here's
a telling Q&A from the US treasury website that explains
the necessity of this tax.

Question:
I want to know about the origin of the Federal estate tax. Can
you tell me when it became part of the tax code and the rationale
behind it?

Answer:
In 1916 Congress for the first time levied a tax upon the transfer
of a decedent’s net estate. The Committee on Ways and Means of
the U.S. House of Representatives explained that a new type of
tax was needed, because the “consumption taxes” in effect at that
time bore most heavily upon those least able to pay them. The
Committee further explained that the revenue system should be
more evenly and equitably balanced and “a larger portion of
our necessary revenues collected from the incomes and inheritances
of those deriving the most benefit and protection from the Government.”

The Committee
recommended an estate tax rather than an inheritance tax because
many states already imposed inheritance taxes. It felt that the
estate tax helped to form a well-balanced system of inheritance
taxation between the Federal Government and the various states
and that an estate tax could be readily administered with less
conflict than a tax based upon inherited shares.

Various changes
in the estate tax provisions of law, as well as their repeal,
have been proposed over the years, but the principle has been
retained.

This Treasury
Department response can be traced to Hulls' original quote on the
inheritance tax issue:

“I have no
disposition to tax wealth unnecessarily or unjustly, but I do
believe that the wealth of the country should bear its just share
of the burden of taxation and that it should not be permitted
to shirk that duty.”

Does the puritanical
line, "not be permitted to shirk that duty" stimulate
your gag reflex like it does mine? What Hull really means is it
doesn't pay to prosper. So a working-stiff putting in overtime to
afford braces for his kid’s teeth gets soaked for his efforts. The
more you make, the more the government need to take, so why bother?

Say what
you mean, mean what you say. Many online references I researched
mention how Cordell Hull encouraged rearmament in the face of rising
tensions with Japan and Germany in the 1930's, and particularly
condemning the Japanese intention to invade French Indochina. But
in late June of 1940, when the French military governor of Indochina
requested the US to send 120 fighter planes and anti-aircraft guns
already paid for by the French prior to the Fall of France,
Hull agreed with Under-Secretary Welles refusal to do so. Hull in
his memoirs explains why: "…with Japan in control of key
points of Indochina, we were reluctant to sell any additional equipment
to Indochina." He expresses optimism that French Indochina
should be able to "delay and parlay and hold out against
Japanese demands…. since Japan would not dare make a military attack
at this time." This explanation contradicts itself on so
many levels. Hull first writes off Indochina because the Japanese
hold key positions for an invasion. He then lies that he does not
want to sell "additional" military material to Indochina,
when the truth was that the French were not asking to buy more,
but only delivery of goods already purchased! In the ensuing
sentence, Hull expresses the hope that the French, in their awkward
predicament, can hold against the Japanese pressure, notwithstanding
his refusal to give them the necessary bargaining chips, i.e., the
fighter planes and AA guns. Finally, his assessment that the Japanese
would not attack soon is ludicrous in view of the signs that an
invasion was imminent. As a result, French Indochina fell to Japan
in September of that year, leading to the ascent of the Ho Chi Minh
and his Communist guerrillas, who became deeply entrenched in Vietnam
society following the political vacuum that occurred after the end
of the war. It can be argued that the Japanese would have succeeded
regardless if the planes and guns were shipped, but it does not
excuse Hull's convoluted rationale trying to justify his dealings
with French Indochina.

No sanctuary
for you! In 1939, the ocean liner SS St. Louis carrying Jewish
refugees, sought asylum in the US to escape Nazi persecution. As
Secretary of the State, Cordell Hull refused them because they had
no "return addresses" to permit them visas. I think Hull
failed to understand the concept of being a refugee means you have
no return address to go back to. The ship, also refused by South
America, Cuba, and Canada, was obliged to return back to Europe.
250 of the original 650 Jewish passengers would eventually die in
the upcoming holocaust they sought to flee.

Whose side
is he on? In December 24, 1941, De Gaulle's Free French troops
captured two islands from the Vichy government near Newfoundland.
Cordell protested this action, and went on to insist the
pro-axis Vichy government to be reinstated! That those islands could
have proved an ongoing security threat to the Canadian and US convoys
crossing an ocean filled with prowling U-Boats never occurred to
him.

Entangling
fiscal alliances. Hull had initially sponsored a resolution
after WW I to hold an international convention to initiate a world
trade agreement. In 1934 he pushed Congress to pass the Reciprocal
Trade Agreements Act, forerunner to the 1948 General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which would later mutate into the World
Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. Thus the free market becomes bound
by artificial constraints under international political influences,
counterintuitive to the natural law of supply and demand.

Peace at
any price. Referred to the "Father of the United Nations"
in drafting, along with his staff, the UN Charter. Receiving the
Noble Peace prize for his efforts, Hull acceptance speech included
the following remarks. Keep track of the bolded lines on Hull's
use of aggressive verbs and technical terms — I will make comment
on them shortly.

"There
is no greater responsibility resting upon peoples and governments
everywhere than to make sure that enduring peace will this
time — at long last — be established and maintained. Fortunately,
the war has brought with it not alone a stark realization of what
another war would mean to the world, but as well the creation
of an international agency through which the nations of the world
can, if they so desire, make peace a living reality. Within
a few weeks the organization for the maintenance of international
peace and security, established by the San Francisco Charter,
will be formally launched through the convocation of the first
General Assembly of the United Nations. I fully realize that the
new organization is a human rather than a perfect instrumentality
for the attainment of its great objective. As time goes on it
will, I am sure, be improved. The Charter is sufficiently flexible
to provide for growth and development, in the light of experience
and performance, but I am firmly convinced that with all its imperfections
the United Nations Organization offers the peace-loving nations
of the world, how, a fully workable mechanism, which will give
them peace, if they want peace. To be sure, no piece of social
machinery, however well constructed, can be effective unless there
is back of it a will and a determination to make it work."

Notice the
stress on the bolded words in connection with Hull's vision of global
peace. I find it akin to the language on Communist propaganda encouraging
peasants to meet their quotas to achieve a state paradise. This
is contrary to the spiritual teachings of the Bible that peace must
first begin with the individual. Peace coerced by a political mechanism
like the UN can only resemble the peace that tyrants must feel after
their citizen's individual rights are permanently removed, and become
tractable as sheep.

I am also
puzzled by his statement "United Nations Organization offers
the peace-loving nations of the world, how, a fully workable mechanism
which will give them peace, if they want peace" If a nation
is "peace –loving" why would it need the UN to give it
something it already has? Why is there a redundant query "if
they want peace" at the end of the sentence? Obviously, the
peace-loving nation must not have the right kind of peace as defined
by the UN, and must be corrected! The following excerpt from Hull's
memoirs supports this supposition:

"I am
firmly convinced that in the world of today all nations will
be forced to the conclusion that cooperation for law, justice,
and peace is the only alternative to a constant race in armaments
— including atomic armaments — and to other disruptive practices
that will bring the nations participating in them on either side
to a common ruin, the equivalent of universal suicide.

Again and again,
his terrible moral certitude spills out in his words, letting one
know that this is not a sincere plea or a request to prevent nuclear
Armageddon, but a demand to conform to a single government construct
to conform for the sake of peace — or else. I do not believe that
Cordell Hull was an inherently evil man. In his own way, I’m sure
he thought he had the best interests of the public in mind. His
true sin is best defined by a quote by C.S. Lewis:

“Of all tyrannies
a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber
barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s
cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment
us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

August
1, 2008

Ron
Shirtz [send him mail] is
a transplanted Californian in Northern (Not “Upstate”) New York.
His hobbies include arranging deck chairs on sinking ships, tilting
at windmills, and being fashionably late.

DIGG THIS

With ongoing
rising fuel prices, many solutions are being sought to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil. While it is necessary, yea, even urgent,
in the long run all efforts will be negated by the one of most inefficient
and wasteful consumer of fossil fuels in the world.

No, I'm not
referring to China. I am talking about the US military.

In WWII, the
US daily military fuel consumption per service member was 1.67 gallons
each. Today, the consumption is slightly over 27 gallons per service
member per day. My rusty 1993 Chevy pickup truck could drive all
week on that, and still have gas left over to fill my lawn mower.
Now my truck is not fuel efficient by any means, but it has one
saving virtue — it is paid off. With my humble income I cannot afford
to buy a new, fuel-efficient car. The high monthly payments, along
with the extra car insurance coverage a car loan entails, would
negate any savings I'd realize in gas mileage. But as bad as the
mileage my old truck gets, it beats the US Army's mechanized vehicles
all hollow. The Army's Bradley fighting vehicle gets 1 mile
per gallon. The mighty Abrams tank gets a whopping 2 miles
per gallon. But it gets worse. It takes gasoline to fuel the transport
to get gasoline to the fighting vehicles. Napoleon once said
that an Army marches on its stomach. Little could he imagine that
in the future, modern mechanized armies would be so dependent on
oil.

In Iraq, alone,
the US military expends an estimated 1.7 million gallons a day.
Multiple that by whatever the current price of gasoline is as of
this moment, and you get a pretty good idea we are talking about
a lot of money, our money, is being spent. And that's
not counting the fuel the military uses on everyday operations and
military, air, and ship maneuvers worldwide outside of Iraq.
The US military in 2004 consumed 144 million barrels of oil. This
amount almost equals the consumption of the country of Greece! Then
add the loss of fuel through accidents and mishandling, such as
the 345,000 gallons of jet fuel negligently spilled this year at
Fort Drum located in upstate New York. I grimace remorsefully at
spilling drops of gas while refueling my lawn mower. The official
response to this multimillion-dollar fiasco was less than penitent:

"This
one just showed a big spotlight on where we were seriously lacking
in our capability to add precision to our analysis and precision
to our ability to track these types of losses," said Colonel
James Meyer, the Defense Energy Support Center's director of operations.

So it took
an ongoing leakage of 345,000 gallons over several years to spotlight
this problem before the DESC noticed it? Would the DESC have noticed
it any sooner if the spilled fuel had been ignited, and was observed
from orbit by the Space Shuttle? I have my doubts.

What is bitterly
ironic is our gas guzzling military is occupying one of the richest
oil producing countries in the world, yet it's presence in Iraq
has succeeded it quad-tripling the cost of the very fuel it needs.
Notwithstanding the many energy solutions being promoted, we will
unlikely to ever see military vehicles, aircraft, and ships go "green"
or become fuel-efficient hybrids. In terms of logistics and supply,
such options would become a quartermasters and maintenance nightmare.
For military operations, fuel efficiency is often necessary sacrificed
for the sake of armor, armament, and speed needed for survival in
combat — thus ensuring the US military will continue to be the largest,
least efficient consumer of oil.

As a result, our
military's ongoing need for oil to fulfill its ever-expanding mission
to police the world will continue to make us dependent on fossil
fuels and foreign oil for years to come.

References:

• The
  US military oil consumption, Sohbet Karbuz
• Insane
  Military Fuel Consumption, Luminara
• Fort
  Drum Spill

July
18, 2008

Ron
Shirtz [send him mail] is
a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern
(Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs
on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.

DIGG THIS

Mark Twain is one of my all-time favorite authors. His biting wit
entertains and illuminates the human condition at the same time.
His journalistic honesty spares no one, including himself, from
critical scrutiny.

Twains' book, Roughing
It is an entertaining account of his journey out west with
his brother, who was appointed secretary of the Nevada Territory
in 1861. Twain describes his many adventures as a greenhorn in the
wild frontier with his usual self-depreciating humor and keen eye
for irony.

In Chapter 25, Mark Twain castigates the Federal government’s meddling
with the Nevada territory economics regarding currency and market
value. Reading his remarks, one cannot help but think he and Ron
Paul are cut from the same Libertarian cloth. Below is an edited
excerpt from the chapter.

Chapter
25

At this time the population of the Territory was about twelve or
fifteen thousand, and rapidly increasing. Silver mines were being
vigorously developed and silver mills erected. Business of all kinds
was active and prosperous and growing more so day by day.

The people were glad to have a legitimately constituted government,
but did not particularly enjoy having strangers from distant States
put in authority over them – a sentiment that was natural enough.
They thought the officials should have been chosen from among themselves
from among prominent citizens who had earned a right to such promotion,
and who would be in sympathy with the populace and likewise thoroughly
acquainted with the needs of the Territory. They were right in viewing
the matter thus, without doubt. The new officers were “emigrants,”
and that was no title to anybody’s affection or admiration either.

The new government was received with considerable coolness. It
was not only a foreign intruder, but a poor one. It was not even
worth plucking – except by the smallest of small fry office-seekers
and such. Everybody knew that Congress had appropriated only twenty
thousand dollars a year in greenbacks for its support – about
money enough to run a quartz mill a month. And everybody knew, also,
that the first year’s money was still in Washington, and that the
getting hold of it would be a tedious and difficult process. Carson
City was too wary and too wise to open up a credit account with
the imported bantling with anything like indecent haste.

There is something solemnly funny about the struggles of a new-born
Territorial government to get a start in this world. Ours had a
trying time of it. The Organic Act and the “instructions” from the
State Department commanded that a legislature should be elected
at such-and-such a time, and its sittings inaugurated at such-and-such
a date. It was easy to get legislators, even at three dollars a
day, although board was four dollars and fifty cents, for distinction
has its charm in Nevada as well as elsewhere, and there were plenty
of patriotic souls out of employment; but to get a legislative hall
for them to meet in was another matter altogether. Carson blandly
declined to give a room rent-free, or let one to the government
on credit.

But when Curry heard of the difficulty, he came forward, solitary
and alone, and shouldered the Ship of State over the bar and got
her afloat again. I refer to “Curry – Old Curry –
Old Abe Curry.” But for him the legislature would have been
obliged to sit in the desert. He offered his large stone building
just outside the capital limits, rent-free, and it was gladly accepted.
Then he built a horse-railroad from town to the capitol, and carried
the legislators gratis.

He also furnished pine benches and chairs for the legislature,
and covered the floors with clean saw-dust by way of carpet and
spittoon combined. But for Curry the government would have died
in its tender infancy. A canvas partition to separate the Senate
from the House of Representatives was put up by the Secretary, at
a cost of three dollars and forty cents, but the United States declined
to pay for it. Upon being reminded that the “instructions”
permitted the payment of a liberal rent for a legislative hall,
and that that money was saved to the country by Mr. Curry’s generosity,
the United States said that did not alter the matter, and the three
dollars and forty cents would be subtracted from the Secretary’s
eighteen hundred dollar salary – and it was!

The matter of printing was from the beginning an interesting feature
of the new government’s difficulties. The Secretary was sworn to
obey his volume of written “instructions,” and these commanded him
to do two certain things without fail, viz.:

1. Get the House and Senate journals printed; and,
2. For this work, pay one dollar and fifty cents per “thousand”
   for composition, and one dollar and fifty cents per “token” for
   press-work, in greenbacks.

It was easy to swear to do these two things, but it was entirely
impossible to do more than one of them. When greenbacks
had gone down to forty cents on the dollar, the prices regularly
charged everybody by printing establishments were one dollar and
fifty cents per “thousand” and one dollar and fifty
cents per “token,” in gold.
The “instructions” commanded that the Secretary regard a paper dollar
issued by the government as equal to any other dollar issued by
the government. Hence the printing of the journals was discontinued.
Then the United States sternly rebuked the Secretary for disregarding
the “instructions,” and warned him to correct his ways. Wherefore
he got some printing done, forwarded the bill to Washington with
full exhibits of the high prices of things in the Territory, and
called attention to a printed market report wherein it would be
observed that even hay was two hundred and fifty dollars a ton.
The United States responded by subtracting the printing-bill from
the Secretary’s suffering salary – and moreover remarked with
dense gravity that he would find nothing in his “instructions” requiring
him to purchase hay!

Nothing in this world is palled in such impenetrable obscurity
as a U.S. Treasury Comptroller’s understanding. The very fires of
the hereafter could get up nothing more than a fitful glimmer in
it. In the days I speak of he never could be made to comprehend
why it was that twenty thousand dollars would not go as far in Nevada,
where all commodities ranged at an enormous figure, as it would
in the other Territories, where exceeding cheapness was the rule.
He was an officer who looked out for the little expenses all the
time. The Secretary of the Territory kept his office in his bedroom,
as I before remarked; and he charged the United States no rent,
although his “instructions” provided for that item and he could
have justly taken advantage of it (a thing which I would have done
with more than lightning promptness if I had been Secretary myself).
But the United States never applauded this devotion. Indeed, I think
my country was ashamed to have so improvident a person in its employ.

Those “instructions” (we used to read a chapter from them every
morning, as intellectual gymnastics, and a couple of chapters in
Sunday school every Sabbath, for they treated of all subjects under
the sun and had much valuable religious matter in them along with
the other statistics) those “instructions” commanded that pen-knives,
envelopes, pens and writing-paper be furnished the members of the
legislature. So the Secretary made the purchase and the distribution.
The knives cost three dollars apiece. There was one too many, and
the Secretary gave it to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
The United States said the Clerk of the House was not a “member”
of the legislature, and took that three dollars out of the Secretary’s
salary, as usual.

White men charged three or four dollars a “load” for sawing up
stove-wood. The Secretary was sagacious enough to know that the
United States would never pay any such price as that; so he got
an Indian to saw up a load of office wood at one dollar and a half.
He made out the usual voucher, but signed no name to it – simply
appended a note explaining that an Indian had done the work, and
had done it in a very capable and satisfactory way, but could not
sign the voucher owing to lack of ability in the necessary direction.
The Secretary had to pay that dollar and a half. He thought the
United States would admire both his economy and his honesty in getting
the work done at half price and not putting a pretended Indian’s
signature to the voucher, but the United States did not see it in
that light.

The United States was too much accustomed to employing dollar-and-a-half
thieves in all manner of official capacities to regard his explanation
of the voucher as having any foundation in fact.

…

The government of my country snubs honest simplicity but fondles
artistic villainy, and I think I might have developed into a very
capable pickpocket if I had remained in the public service a year
or two.

April
28, 2008

DIGG THIS

Mark Twain is one of my all-time favorite authors. His biting wit
entertains and illuminates the human condition at the same time.
His journalistic honesty spares no one, including himself, from
critical scrutiny.

Twains' book, Roughing
It is an entertaining account of his journey out west with
his brother, who was appointed secretary of the Nevada Territory
in 1861. Twain describes his many adventures as a greenhorn in the
wild frontier with his usual self-depreciating humor and keen eye
for irony.

In Chapter 25, Mark Twain castigates the Federal government’s meddling
with the Nevada territory economics regarding currency and market
value. Reading his remarks, one cannot help but think he and Ron
Paul are cut from the same Libertarian cloth. Below is an edited
excerpt from the chapter.

Chapter
25

At this time the population of the Territory was about twelve or
fifteen thousand, and rapidly increasing. Silver mines were being
vigorously developed and silver mills erected. Business of all kinds
was active and prosperous and growing more so day by day.

The people were glad to have a legitimately constituted government,
but did not particularly enjoy having strangers from distant States
put in authority over them – a sentiment that was natural enough.
They thought the officials should have been chosen from among themselves
from among prominent citizens who had earned a right to such promotion,
and who would be in sympathy with the populace and likewise thoroughly
acquainted with the needs of the Territory. They were right in viewing
the matter thus, without doubt. The new officers were “emigrants,”
and that was no title to anybody’s affection or admiration either.

The new government was received with considerable coolness. It
was not only a foreign intruder, but a poor one. It was not even
worth plucking – except by the smallest of small fry office-seekers
and such. Everybody knew that Congress had appropriated only twenty
thousand dollars a year in greenbacks for its support – about
money enough to run a quartz mill a month. And everybody knew, also,
that the first year’s money was still in Washington, and that the
getting hold of it would be a tedious and difficult process. Carson
City was too wary and too wise to open up a credit account with
the imported bantling with anything like indecent haste.

There is something solemnly funny about the struggles of a new-born
Territorial government to get a start in this world. Ours had a
trying time of it. The Organic Act and the “instructions” from the
State Department commanded that a legislature should be elected
at such-and-such a time, and its sittings inaugurated at such-and-such
a date. It was easy to get legislators, even at three dollars a
day, although board was four dollars and fifty cents, for distinction
has its charm in Nevada as well as elsewhere, and there were plenty
of patriotic souls out of employment; but to get a legislative hall
for them to meet in was another matter altogether. Carson blandly
declined to give a room rent-free, or let one to the government
on credit.

But when Curry heard of the difficulty, he came forward, solitary
and alone, and shouldered the Ship of State over the bar and got
her afloat again. I refer to “Curry – Old Curry –
Old Abe Curry.” But for him the legislature would have been
obliged to sit in the desert. He offered his large stone building
just outside the capital limits, rent-free, and it was gladly accepted.
Then he built a horse-railroad from town to the capitol, and carried
the legislators gratis.

He also furnished pine benches and chairs for the legislature,
and covered the floors with clean saw-dust by way of carpet and
spittoon combined. But for Curry the government would have died
in its tender infancy. A canvas partition to separate the Senate
from the House of Representatives was put up by the Secretary, at
a cost of three dollars and forty cents, but the United States declined
to pay for it. Upon being reminded that the “instructions”
permitted the payment of a liberal rent for a legislative hall,
and that that money was saved to the country by Mr. Curry’s generosity,
the United States said that did not alter the matter, and the three
dollars and forty cents would be subtracted from the Secretary’s
eighteen hundred dollar salary – and it was!

The matter of printing was from the beginning an interesting feature
of the new government’s difficulties. The Secretary was sworn to
obey his volume of written “instructions,” and these commanded him
to do two certain things without fail, viz.:

1. Get the House and Senate journals printed; and,
2. For this work, pay one dollar and fifty cents per “thousand”
   for composition, and one dollar and fifty cents per “token” for
   press-work, in greenbacks.

It was easy to swear to do these two things, but it was entirely
impossible to do more than one of them. When greenbacks
had gone down to forty cents on the dollar, the prices regularly
charged everybody by printing establishments were one dollar and
fifty cents per “thousand” and one dollar and fifty
cents per “token,” in gold.
The “instructions” commanded that the Secretary regard a paper dollar
issued by the government as equal to any other dollar issued by
the government. Hence the printing of the journals was discontinued.
Then the United States sternly rebuked the Secretary for disregarding
the “instructions,” and warned him to correct his ways. Wherefore
he got some printing done, forwarded the bill to Washington with
full exhibits of the high prices of things in the Territory, and
called attention to a printed market report wherein it would be
observed that even hay was two hundred and fifty dollars a ton.
The United States responded by subtracting the printing-bill from
the Secretary’s suffering salary – and moreover remarked with
dense gravity that he would find nothing in his “instructions” requiring
him to purchase hay!

Nothing in this world is palled in such impenetrable obscurity
as a U.S. Treasury Comptroller’s understanding. The very fires of
the hereafter could get up nothing more than a fitful glimmer in
it. In the days I speak of he never could be made to comprehend
why it was that twenty thousand dollars would not go as far in Nevada,
where all commodities ranged at an enormous figure, as it would
in the other Territories, where exceeding cheapness was the rule.
He was an officer who looked out for the little expenses all the
time. The Secretary of the Territory kept his office in his bedroom,
as I before remarked; and he charged the United States no rent,
although his “instructions” provided for that item and he could
have justly taken advantage of it (a thing which I would have done
with more than lightning promptness if I had been Secretary myself).
But the United States never applauded this devotion. Indeed, I think
my country was ashamed to have so improvident a person in its employ.

Those “instructions” (we used to read a chapter from them every
morning, as intellectual gymnastics, and a couple of chapters in
Sunday school every Sabbath, for they treated of all subjects under
the sun and had much valuable religious matter in them along with
the other statistics) those “instructions” commanded that pen-knives,
envelopes, pens and writing-paper be furnished the members of the
legislature. So the Secretary made the purchase and the distribution.
The knives cost three dollars apiece. There was one too many, and
the Secretary gave it to the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
The United States said the Clerk of the House was not a “member”
of the legislature, and took that three dollars out of the Secretary’s
salary, as usual.

White men charged three or four dollars a “load” for sawing up
stove-wood. The Secretary was sagacious enough to know that the
United States would never pay any such price as that; so he got
an Indian to saw up a load of office wood at one dollar and a half.
He made out the usual voucher, but signed no name to it – simply
appended a note explaining that an Indian had done the work, and
had done it in a very capable and satisfactory way, but could not
sign the voucher owing to lack of ability in the necessary direction.
The Secretary had to pay that dollar and a half. He thought the
United States would admire both his economy and his honesty in getting
the work done at half price and not putting a pretended Indian’s
signature to the voucher, but the United States did not see it in
that light.

The United States was too much accustomed to employing dollar-and-a-half
thieves in all manner of official capacities to regard his explanation
of the voucher as having any foundation in fact.

…

The government of my country snubs honest simplicity but fondles
artistic villainy, and I think I might have developed into a very
capable pickpocket if I had remained in the public service a year
or two.

April
28, 2008

Ron
Shirtz [send him mail] is
a transplanted Californian teaching Graphic Communications in Northern
(Not “Upstate”) New York. His hobbies include arranging deck chairs
on sinking ships, tilting at windmills, and being fashionably late.