clarity2010

Happy Groundhog Day

2012-02-02T00:10:00.000-07:00

May your shadow not be seen today. Or his. Or whatever.

Romney sings Kathy Bates

2012-01-31T16:26:00.002-07:00

At... an old folks home, I think.

I'm going to spare you the YouTube link on this one. He's no Barrack Obama in the singing department. Or the classy dresser department either.

Obama sings Al Green

2012-01-22T17:19:00.002-07:00

Live at the Apollo...

Making things right (2)

2012-01-19T00:11:00.000-07:00

Dr. King once famously said he dreamed of a day when a man was judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.

Speaking for myself, I can't remember a time when I "judged" a person by the color of his skin upon first meeting the person. Of course, sometimes the person's character becomes evident the minute they open their mouth and speak, or when you read the writing on his T-shirt, but I have never said to myself, "Here comes a black man. I know what he's going to be like."

Of course, I grew up in the north and MLK experienced what he experienced in the south and formed his opinions about white people and black oppression from his own experiences there. He was right. On the other hand, just because blacks living in the north in the late 1950s or early 1960s didn't have the police set dogs on them or get sprayed with high pressure fire hoses when they tried to eat at the Woolworth lunch counter didn't mean they didn't suffer humiliating treatment or otherwise experience racism. Surely, sometimes the "quiet racism" of smiling white liberal Christians must be nearly as exasperating as police dogs. That's just my personal observation; I don't have any way of knowing for sure.

So, I ask myself where "prejudice" started in the first place. Way back at the beginning of mankind, was there racial conflict back then? Because it sure doesn't seem like it started in recent history. If this weird desire to not be around each other (it probably works both ways) DOES go back for thousands or tens of thousands of years, then maybe it had its roots in some sort of instincts back then. Just speculating.

What if humans have ALWAYS had this uneasiness inside them that made them be wary of ANYTHING new, anything different than themselves. A survival mechanism. Whatever. At the very root of it all, isn't that what "discrimination" or (insert your own hate-word here) is defined as? "You are different than I am. Let me slowly and carefully check you out and see if you mean to hurt me or not."

It's a good instinct to have if you meet a bear or a lion. Perhaps it's good to be a bit wary when you meet a new person, too. Especially if that person in some way looks different than you. Maybe that's why little children when they are "shy" take a while to warm up to a stranger and make sure there is no danger before they get too friendly. In today's world, good for them.

But, after being around another group of people for hundreds and hundreds of years, it would seem only natural that you would not be wary anymore. Not at first, at least. There is obviously much more than initial instinct at work here. Modern racism is obviously (to me) learned behavior.

Article about prejudice

(continued)

Making things right (part one)

2012-01-15T08:40:00.010-07:00

Is racial discrimination wrong? Always wrong? Political discrimination? Religious discrimination? Nationalistic discrimination?

The dictionary I am reading says discriminate means to recognize distinctions; to differentiate; to perceive differences between.

Then it goes on to say in another meaning it means "to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex or age."

Obviously it is the last definition this post is talking about.

Thesaurus examples include: be biased against, be prejudiced against, treat differently, treat unfairly, put at a disadvantage, single out, victimize.

Is it possible for a government to discriminate in that sense? Is it possible for a government to correct or remedy discrimination in it's society? Is it possible to discriminate against a majority? -- or only against a minority? (Sometimes the minority has the power.)

In places like colonial India, or apartheid South Africa, where people treated unequally were in the vast majority, was that still considered discrimination?

What is "reverse" discrimination? That one seems a bit convoluted.

What should be done by a government to combat discrimination in the private day-to-day interactions of people? Or is that beyond the scope of government?

A government can't change minds but it can force people to do certain things. Apparently, when government is involved, the object is to create a level playing field rather than change people's minds? (That's a question.)

Today is MLK's birthday, and tomorrow will be the corresponding national holiday, so that's why I was contemplating this subject and wondering how far we've come and what we have really accomplished with regards to racial equality in this country. Have we simply driven racism underground for the most part? Not even that? We continue in our polarized parallel societies, it seems.

Thinking outside the box

2012-01-06T00:08:00.003-07:00

A person who believes in God, in the traditional way, has often been taught in his religion that God "always was and always will be." It is easy enough to accept that God always will be. Apparently the human mind can see that as reasonable. However, the other part, the part about always having existed, is something that we can't wrap our minds around, and must take it "on faith."

What is the universe? I don't know, but two of the properties the universe has, it seems to me, are all-encompassing and endlessness. I mean, everything that exists must be "inside" the universe, and (2) there is no such thing as the "far edge" of the universe. Again, we face the same paradox as we did with the nature of God: we can somehow believe (or accept) that every single particle that exists is somewhere in the universe, but that there is no "end" or "edge" to the universe takes a bit more work. It's not something our human minds can explain logically. Maybe we have to take that on faith too.

With God (or the universe, for that matter) we can accept that it has no end, but EVERYTHING has a beginning, right? Somehow, someplace, sometime. The logic problem with the universe is a bit opposite from the God paradox in that we have trouble believing it is endless. Our minds tell us that if we travel fast enough and far enough and long enough, we are going to reach the far "wall" of the universe. We seem to believe everything has boundaries. But if there is a wall, then there is something on the other side of that wall.

If it is not a wall, but some sort of Star Trek "barrier" or "force field" and we step outside the universe a couple of steps, then return... where were we?

Maybe nowhere. Maybe we were just at the library with our head resting on the table asleep until the bell rings.

Emergence

2012-01-04T11:26:00.004-07:00

"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing."

—Mark A. Bedau, 1997

"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe.The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts."

—P.W. Anderson, 1972

Greatest Generation

2012-01-01T00:04:00.000-07:00

I always wondered what happened to Moe. We had shared a piece of plastic in the rain at Woodstock. Moe seemed to have such big dreams. I knew he would go far. I sensed I was in the presence of greatness. I half-expected to see him become president one day. He had all the answers, or so I thought at the time.

He didn't become president though.

Moe was older than me by several years. He had already been in college for 5 years then in the dark, rain coming down. Or said he had. I don't remember where. Not New York. He spoke with a thick California accent and said words like "hassle" and "right on" a lot.

I saw Moe the other day. I'm sure it was him, even though I had only shared a sheet of plastic in the rain for a few hours. He didn't remember me, of course. I dropped a buck and he flashed me an ancient peace sign I had long forgotten.

It was raining this time, too.

Moe was part of the Greatest Generation. He survived the brown acid at Woodstock.

Or maybe he didn't.

A2C Oddbody, Clarence D.

2011-12-29T09:48:00.003-07:00

"It comes in mighty handy down here, bub."

When is the last time someone called you bub?

The D is for dumbass.

---------

I once wrote an alternative screenplay for this, seeing as how it is in the public domain and all, but it had no takers, producers-wise. In my version, Uncle Billy is beaten up severely by a street gang on the way home from the bank and Mr. Potter is ratted out by his wheelchair pusher and spends his last years in prison for grand larceny. In an optional plot twist, he becomes a prison bitch to an Italian immigrant guard.

Clarence ends up with Mary in my version.

Better than snowmen even

2011-12-15T00:05:00.000-07:00

More on propaganda

2011-12-13T00:19:00.000-07:00

Propaganda doesn't have to be as blatantly overt as a film by Josef Goebbels or Michael Moore.

The dictionary tells us that propaganda is information of a biased or one-sided nature, usually casting some subject in a negative light. It can be outright lies, or it can be lies by omission. But the thesaurus also lists "advertising" as a synonym.

Many advertisements flash by us each day, most having little effect on us. Here is one that flashed by me the other day, but I reached out and grabbed it, analyst that I am.

What is the purpose of the above ad? What is the bank trying to achieve? Is it propaganda? Do you think the bank is truly "committed" to our military and wants to give them a warm and personal banking experience? Do you think the fact that the family in the picture is black is coincidental? Does this ad persuade you that this big bank is really caring and gives individual attention to all their customers? Does it make you want to do business with them? Vomit at their insulting patronizing? What?

I think I'm starting to see a pattern here

2011-12-06T00:21:00.000-07:00

Long way home

2011-12-03T22:28:00.005-07:00

Many years ago, the Australian government had a policy of trying to "assimilate" - some say it was really persecution of - the native population. Much like the U.S. did to their Native American population. It was common to take young aboriginal children from their households and put them in boarding schools many miles away and make them live under the white culture. They must speak English and not their native tongue in public, dress like white people, learn white religions. I saw a movie about this practice in Australia which took place (the movie) in the 1930s.

The practice of forced reeducation of culture stopped in the U.S. in the early 1960s, I think. I don't know when it stopped in Australia. Anyway, the movie I saw was about three (I think) little girls, sisters, who had been taken from their aboriginal home and family and placed in a "mission" boarding school 1500 miles across the continent. The movie is mainly about how the girls escaped and made their way back home. If I remember right, it took years to get home, across the 1500 miles. Maybe not years, but a long time.

They remembered the rabbit-proof fence that had run by their home. They found it near the mission where they were being kept and just followed the fence home. A touching story.

"How Jack the Weakling Slaughtered the Dance-Floor Hog"

2011-11-24T08:27:00.002-07:00

From the back covers of comic books of yore.

"Hurrah for Thanksgiving Day!"

2011-11-24T07:58:00.003-07:00

Over the river and through the wood,

To Grandfather's house we go;

The horse knows the way to carry the sleigh

Through the white and drifted snow.

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

[Complete poem here. I worked hard on it.]

On the great value of Twitter

2011-11-12T00:42:00.001-07:00

(NEWSER) – A Texas teen tweeted 144 times in six hours about being molested by a family member and being forced into prostitution. Then 18-year-old Ashley Billasano killed herself—after announcing to some 500 Twitter followers she was going to do just that, reports theHouston Chronicle. No one sought help for her, reports Fox News Houston.

Sharing the tick

2011-11-05T00:10:00.005-06:00

If you learn what a thing consists of, what parts make it up, you will come to understand the more complex whole. If you can't explain something simply, you don't know it well enough; you haven't studied the parts closely enough. An investigator gathers and sorts parts until the big picture materializes. Some children like to take things apart. Why? To find out what makes the thing tick. Often they are not so keen on putting them back together. Why? Because they have already discovered what makes the thing tick and putting it back together is redundant; it doesn't further their inquiry.

To be helpful, though, the gathered and sorted parts must have conclusions drawn from them, and, to be worth anything, those conclusions must be shared with others, usually by publishing. Research shouldn't be simply about personal edification. What good is that to the world? Helpful research is done by people who not only discover what makes it tick, but who explain it and leave a record. If this note-taking and journal-keeping is done as you go, and restated and interpreted as you go, then there will not be a big book to write at the end; it is already complete. I think too many books go unpublished because writing them is redundant for the researcher who already knows the material. He is like the child who learns what makes a thing tick, but doesn't share that knowledge. Do it as you go. Write daily. Take notes as you take things apart, not down the road.

Some people go through life trying to find out what makes things tick.

Thoughts are things

2011-11-04T11:05:00.006-06:00

If there is a God (and there is), how it must laugh to watch mortals deep in heavy-duty thought debating its existence or it's form. I say "laugh" because any God that exists must surely have a sense of humor when it comes to humans.

Anselm: God exists because we can conceive of such a thing in our minds. The very conception of something means it exists. Thoughts are things. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist.

Aquinas: So you really think you can conceive of God and what God is? Only God knows what the nature of God is. God exists, but not because you can conceive such an entity exists. Only God can think those thoughts with true knowledge of his nature. Your vague conceptions suck.

Descartes: I think, therefore I am. You don't have to know the nature of God. You only have to conceive that God is perfection, whatever his "nature" is. Give me a break. God exists because I can conceive of a perfect entity. Je pense donc je suis. Cogito ergo sum. Or did I say that already?

Relax Max: Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum. Contemplatum hurtus cabeza. I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am. Thinking makes my head hurt.

Single action

2011-10-30T13:41:00.006-06:00

Single action refers to a firearm in which the trigger performs only a single action: to release the cocked hammer or striker. If it isn't cocked, nothing happens when the trigger is pulled. A single action revolver must be manually cocked between each firing.

In a double action revolver, the trigger performs both the act of cocking and of releasing the hammer or striker. This means that the piece will fire every time the trigger is pulled, although the trigger pull becomes longer.

Wrapping it up: A final Gettysburg overview

2011-10-24T00:08:00.004-06:00

A summary and comments on the three-day Battle of Gettysburg.
---------

The Battle of Gettysburg was a famous battle of the American Civil war. It took place over July 1-3, 1863 at a small town in southeastern Pennsylvania.

The American Civil War was fought between the northern "Union" states and the 11 secessionist southern states. The secession of those 11 states was not recognized by President Abraham Lincoln or the rest of the American government. The Confederate States of America was never recognized as an independent nation by any country.

Both sides had several armies. The Battle of Gettysburg was fought between the Army of the Potomac (north) and the Army of Northern Virginia.

Both armies were organized into several large groups called corps. In turn, corps were made up of divisions. Divisions were made up of brigades. Brigades consisted of regiments and regiments were made up of companies, the smallest unit of organization. Corps were usually simply assigned Roman numerals, and were also known by the name of their commander. Divisions and brigades were usually simply referred to (by Civil War historians) by the name of their commanding officer. Regiments were named after the states that raised them, preceded by a number; companies were almost always simply known by letters. Some had unofficial or official nicknames.

At Gettysburg, the Army of Northern Virginia was commanded by Robert E. Lee. The Army of the Potomac was commanded by George G. Meade.

The invasion of the North by the Army of Northern Virginia began in early June, 1863, when that army crossed the Rapidan river and began their march north toward Pennsylvania. Coincidentally, the new state of West Virginia was admitted to the Union effective June 20 while the Confederates were marching north across part of it.

The Army of the Potomac crossed the Rappahannock shortly thereafter and also began marching north, shadowing the Army of Northern Virginia, staying generally between Lee's army and Washington City. The armies continued north, paralleling each other. Lee's cavalry also proceeded northward, but (with Lee's permission) moved, on June 26, to the east of the Army of the Potomac, then resumed northward between the Union Army and Washington. Those three brigades of Lee's cavalry (Stuart) left the main army on June 26 and rejoined it on July 2.

The march northward took most of the month of June. There were some major encounters between the two armies as they proceeded northward.

With relation to the town of Gettysburg, Lee's army columns ended up marching to the west of the town, and the Union army to the east of the town. One corps of Lee's army was sent further north past Gettysburg. Lee's cavalry, still farther to the east, also proceeded farther north than Gettysburg. The original plan was for II Corps (Ewell) and Lee's Cavalry (Stuart) to link up and perhaps take Harrisburg, the Pennsylvania state capital, but both were recalled south to Gettysburg when it became obvious to Lee that a major battle would be fought at Gettysburg.

On the last day of June, elements of the two armies sighted each other when a forward unit of Lee's army, intending to enter the town of Gettysburg, encountered a group of Union recon cavalry. The Confederate party returned to their main body after this brief encounter.

The next morning, on July 1, a larger force of two confederate divisions (Heth, Pender) were sent into Gettysburg with the intent of driving out the Union cavalry. The Union cavalry resisted the Confederate advance into Gettysburg, and held the forward units of the Confederates long enough for the Union I Corps (Reynolds) to begin arriving from the south. Lee immediately ordered concentration of his entire army at Gettysburg. The morning battle at Gettysburg intensified as more and more units from both sides began to arrive and engage.

Meade did not receive word of the large engagement taking place at Gettysburg until later in the morning, at which time he, too, sent out orders to all his corps commanders to come to Gettysburg, and notified the War Department in Washington. He also dispatched General Hancock, the commander of the Union II Corps, ahead to organize and align the Union troops as they arrived at Gettysburg, until Mead himself could come up. The furthest distant, the Union VI Corps (Sedgewick) in Maryland, did not receive Meade's orders until near midnight, but the large 16,000-man corps was mobilized immediately and was force-marching to Gettysburg by 3 a.m.

After initial Union success in the morning of day one, more and more of the Confederate army began arriving and made fine progress before the bulk of the Union arrived on site and got in line. The Union I Corps (Reynolds/Doubleday) units were driven back and back until they were routed, pursued through the streets of Gettysburg, to Culp's hill, up Culp's hill and Cemetery Hill. Many Union prisoners were taken.

The above describes the state of the battlefield as of late afternoon on day one. There was plenty of light left, as it was July 1.

Confederate II Corps (Ewell) declined to pursue.

End of day one.

During the night, the Confederates could hear the sound of axes and picks and shovels as the Union troops labored through the night on fortifications, and, corps by corps, the rest of the Army of the Potomac, except the distant VI Corps, arrived on the field. General Meade arrived on the field at about 3 a.m., assumed personal command of the field (from Hancock), and set up headquarters. Come daylight of day two, it was a very different sight indeed which greeted Confederate eyes.

On the morning of day two, Lee ordered a simultaneous assault on both flanks of the Union line.

[Note: the Union right flank or northern end of the Union line, closest to the town of Gettysburg, would have been on a Confederate soldier's left. The Union left flank or south end of the Union line, would have been to a Confederate soldier's right.]

Lee's intent was (apparently) an enveloping action, but was not coordinated simultaneously. Because of this failure to attack both flanks simultaneously, Meade was able to use troops from the center of his line to reinforce first his left flank, then (to a lesser extent) his right simply by moving some troops back and forth. A coordinated attack by Ewell and Longstreet on both flanks at once (as Lee had apparently envisioned) would have (perhaps) denied Meade the ability to reinforce both of his flanks.

For his own reasons, Longstreet (Confederate I Corps) did not choose to begin his assault on the Union's left flank (south) until 4 p.m. or shortly thereafter (but, contrary to lore and even some history books, Lee had not ordered Longstreet to attack "at dawn" or at any other specific time; Longstreet was given the discretion to engage at will, when ready; and Ewell was to attack the other Union flank when Longstreet's artillery opened.) Nevertheless, the Federals used the extra time to continue digging in. Lee might have preferred earlier, but he was well aware of Longstreet's deliberateness. When Longstreet finally opened on the Union left flank, the attack was fierce, with some of the bloodiest fighting seen so far. American military lore is filled with odd names from that afternoon: Little Round Top. Devil's Den. The Wheatfield. The Peach Orchard. Longstreet saw some results and gained some ground, yet he was not successful in taking the high ground from the Federals, or in fully turning Mead's left flank.

Ewell did not attack exactly simultaneously (as previously pointed out) at the sound of Longstreet's guns, but did begin his own (poorly reconned) bombardment at about 5 p.m. - which the superior Union artillery answered, immediately and emphatically, pounding Ewell's guns until their position on bald and vulnerable Benner's Hill became untenable and the Confederate artillery commander requested permission to withdraw. Thus, at about 7 p.m., with only 4 guns remaining in support, Ewell attacked the Union right at Culp's Hill with Johnson and, later, near nightfall, Cemetery Hill with Early.

The Federals (though thinned by Meads taking much of his right to reinforce his south flank) held Culp's Hill, driving the Confederates back down the hill and into the trenches they themselves had recently occupied. As for Cemetery Hill, attacked even later, Early met with more success and made it to the top of the hill, where Howard's XI Corps panicky "Dutchmen" broke and ran again. However II Corps (Hancock) sent reinforcements and (along with the XI Corps "returnees") drove Early back down again and retained control of Cemetery Hill when the fighting ended at about 10:30 that night. The fighting was sure to resume at daybreak or before.

With the cessation of firing of both muskets and artillery, quiet descended over the field, the light of the full moon illuminating the corpses lying helter skelter on the hillsides and valley. Soon, the only sounds were the sobs and moaning of the wounded, begging for assistance and for water from their comrades, combined with the noises of the maimed and dying horses. Those still alive on both sides were becoming used to that sad sound, that continual wail. But attempts at aid would likely only lay them dead next to the already fallen.

At nightfall on day two, there weren't nearly as many participants of either side still standing, but the Union, thinner on the flanks, and reinforced as needed from the center, still held the high ground on the east.

And so ended day two at Gettysburg. Day two had been a blood bath, but nothing had been decided. Day three would be do or die for both sides. Day three would decide the Battle of Gettysburg, and, some say, it decided the future of the United States.

Day three saw the battle for Culp's Hill and the Federal right flank resume before daylight. General Lee had given Ewell instructions to resume the attack on the Union right in the morning. But while Ewell slept, the decision-making for the hour of resumption passed from Ewell to the Union Army. During the night, between the time of the cessation of fighting at 10:30 p.m. and the wee hours of the morning, while Ewell slept, Slocum (Union XII Corps) had been positioning big guns along Power's and McAlister's Hills, commanding the valley before Culp's Hill. Before Ewell stirred, at 3:45 a.m., with the Confederates still asleep in the trenches below, with the faintest hint of dawn in the sky, Union Brigadier General John W. Geary drew his service pistol and fired a single shot in the air. At the signal, the Federal guns began to belch fire and molten metal down on the Confederates still clinging to the hill and in the trenches.

Throughout the mind-numbing 7-hour battle for Culp's Hill, Ewell continued to order frontal assaults. The Union troops on the hill were veterans and poured down deadly concentrated musket shot into the attackers. Still they came. In the end, the Confederates would be calling it "Death Hill." It is hard to describe the terrible casualties inflicted on the Confederates during those unimaginable 7 hours. For example, the 3rd North Carolina started with 300 muskets and ended up with 77 men, or about a 75% loss. Finally, at about 11 a.m., both armies were utterly exhausted. The fighting died down, as if by mutual consent. What was left of the Confederates retired. The Union did not pursue. Both sides were in shock. In subsequent years of analysis, the battle of Culp's Hill would be acknowledged as the scene of some of the most determined fighting of the war.

As the Federals ventured out, Kane's brigade found 500 dead Confederates in its front. "Somewhere among them was a squat little man, Wesley Culp, a private in Company B, 2nd Virginia, of the Stonewall Brigade. He was twenty-four and because he was only five feet tall, Colonel Douglas had had a special gun made for him. Where he fell he could look at the house where he had been born. He had gone to Virginia to sell Gettysburg carriages and Southern eyes made him stay."

The carnage of day three wasn't over by far. Day three would also see a full frontal assault of the Union center by three divisions of the Confederate army. Across that open three-quarter mile area between Seminary Ridge and the long Union line, entrenched on the opposing heights, and fortified by scores, hundreds, of fire-breathing cannon, marched the men of Pickett, Pettigrew (replacing Heth) and Trimble (replacing Pender.) Truly it was the Valley of Death. The world now knows the result of that fateful charge, in which 12,500 Confederate soldiers were repulsed with over 50% casualties, but what must it have been like to be there, to feel and hear the booming and crashing and screaming, and breathe the acrid gunsmoke and be a part of that battle? I don't know. The following words come to mind:

"And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him."

After the repulse, General Lee told Pickett to regroup his division.

"General, I have no division."

---------

Gettysburg Maps

=========

Today:

News Corp. will save our schools

2011-10-23T00:05:00.004-06:00

Rupert Murdock shakes hands with former New York City schools chief (and now News Corp. Employee - by a remarkable coincidence) Joel Klein.

HALLELUJAH!

The future of education has arrived.

Rrrrrupert is Rrrrready. Ready to enter the U.S. education "market", that is. Americans can soon leave their damnable and degrading dismal dumbness behind if Rupert has his way. Virtual classrooms are the answer. No traditional classrooms, desks or chalkboards. Just computers. Computers running Rrrrrrupert's Rrrrremarkable Rrrrrevolutionary software, of course.

Rupert has been quietly developing virtual-learning and technology-driven products which are now apparently ready to unveil at a K-12 school near YOU!

Students rounded up into cubicle corrals like a Pakistani ShamWOW call-fulfillment center, staring intelligently at monitors and going at their own speed. It's learning in the fast lane, I tell ya, college by age 7 for some. Jebeezus but it is hard to sit still as I write this.

What do we want? "EDUCATION!"

When do we want it? "NOW!"

Who da man? "RRRRRRUPERT!"

Who gonna pay? "YOU ARE!"

Who gonna make money? (All together now) "RRRRRRRR---"

Banned, burned, bad books

2011-10-20T00:37:00.000-06:00

In 1931, China banned "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" because the story portrays animals and humans on the same level. It was believed that animals should not use human language.

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

- On Liberty, John Stuart Mill

Recommended previously banned reading list from Relax Max to you:

The Adventures of Huckelberry Finn Mark Twain
Of Mice and Men John Steinbeck
The Catcher in the Rye J.D. Salinger
The Color Purple Alice Walker
A Wrinkle in Time Madeleine L'Engle
To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee
Beloved: A Novel Toni Morrison
Slaughterhouse - five, or, The Children's Crusade Kurt Vonnegut
Lord of the Flies William Golding
Native Son Richard Wright
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer Mark Twain
Song of Solomon Toni Morrison
The Call of the Wild Jack London
Frankenstein Mary Shelley

---------

Ok, so you say you are open-minded and don't believe in banning and/or burning books. How about the following? It is the American Library Association Council's "Library Bill of Rights." Do you agree with it? All of it? For all books? Even the age part?

Library Bill of Rights

The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services.

Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.
Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.

Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.

Adopted June 18, 1948, by the ALA Council; amended February 2, 1961; January 23, 1980; inclusion of "age" reaffirmed January 23, 1996.

Models of clarity

2011-10-17T12:29:00.001-06:00

Favorite book title I've run across today:

The War on Terror Narrative: Discourse and Intertextuality in the Construction and Contestation of Sociopolitical Reality (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics) (Paperback)

Does that title not want to make you run out and buy this book?

Fellow writers take hope: Publishers don't have a clue as to how to present and sell books. At least this one doesn't. Of course, if you have a captive audience of enslaved readers, then I guess it doesn't matter.

I don't care if it IS companion reading to a university course. Think of a better title. Shall I write to this university press? Do you think they would understand my simple one-syllable words? Often of only 4 letters? What if I write in the voice of Donald Duck? Wak! Wak!

Would you like me to tell you the titles of some of the companion books that Tower Books suggests you should buy, if you like this one? Hmmmmm?

Gettysburg personalities: Richard Ewell

2011-10-07T00:03:00.004-06:00

After the death of Lt. General Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville in May of 1863, the Army of Northern Virginia was reorganized into three corps. Prior to Jackson's death, Lee's army had consisted of two large corps, commanded by Jackson (II Corps) and Lt. General James Longstreet (I Corps.)

After the reorganization, Longstreet retained command of the changed I Corps, and two of Jackson's division commanders were promoted from Major General to Lt. General and were given command of the other two corps. II Corps' new commander was Richard S. Ewell and A.P. Hill became the commander of the newly formed III Corps. Ewell was promoted Lt. General with a date of rank one day earlier than Hill, thus becoming the third-highest ranking officer in the Army of Northern Virginia, behind only Longstreet and Lee.

There were several differences between Stonewall Jackson and Richard Ewell. For one thing, Jackson was pious, took his religion seriously, started each battle by raising his left arm heavenward, as if blessing the battlefield or perhaps beseeching the Almighty for victory. He never explained, that I could find, and I suppose none had the courage to ask. He continued this odd practice until a Yankee bullet or piece of shrapnel violated his middle finger in mid-blessing one day. Jackson refused to have the finger amputated.

Ewell, on the other hand, was unabashedly profane; one can easily visualize clouds of blue smoke emanating from his mouth as he cursed that proverbial blue streak. Of course, even so, he couldn't hold a candle to his fellow division commander, Major General Jubal Early, who worked in profanity the way Michelangelo had worked in marble. Jube was the acknowledged master in that area. Early and Ewell had been division commanders under Jackson, and it might be possible (I only offer this as conjecture from my reading) that Ewell was a bit under the influence of the brash Early, even after he became Early's commanding officer. I ask you to keep this thought in mind as we later speak of the end of day one at Gettysburg.

Perhaps the most important difference, in my mind at least, between Ewell and Stonewall Jackson was this: Jackson was an intuitive commander of large numbers of men on the battlefield, used to making independent decisions and able to adapt to rapidly changing conditions with the ebb and flow of battle. Jackson was as close to Robert E. Lee as perhaps any other general when it came to being able to see the big picture and being able to form reactive strategies. Lee was a person who gave open-ended orders to his corps commanders, and gave them leeway to do what they did best. Lee did not micromanage his commanders. This worked well with Jackson and Longstreet (also a legendary self-starter.)

Ewell, in contrast, wouldn't do anything major without specific orders. Ewell was a fine soldier and tenacious in battle when given a task to accomplish on the battlefield. That shouldn't be doubted. But he was also a "consensus man" who sought advice from his division commanders, especially Jubal Early.

A third difference between Jackson and Ewell is probably not relevant to Gettysburg, but bears mentioning. Ewell, though profane, was compassionate with his soldiers, took care of them whenever he could. Jackson drove his men to the point of exhaustion, sometimes marching them barefoot in the snow and reprimanding brigade commanders for resting them. Jackson was much more like Grant was on the Northern side, I think, with regard to being willing to take casualties. Gettysburg, however, was not a place for compassion or for avoiding casualties.

But it was Jackson, on his deathbed, who recommended Ewell to General Lee, and it is probably unlikely that Ewell would have been given command of II Corps and promoted to Lt. General, had it not been for this recommendation; Lee hadn't known much about, or at least not thought about Ewell that much before Jackson's recommendation. Jackson's recommendation was, however, gold to Robert E. Lee, and so it came to pass.

Richard Stoddert Ewell was - bar none - the most bizarre senior officer in the Confederate Army; the word "eccentric" simply doesn't do him justice. Wounded countless times, given to chronic illness - both real and in his mind - profane almost beyond belief, a man who had convinced himself he was being eaten up inside by something and would eat little else but a gruel of grain and milk; a man so nervous and high strung that he couldn't bear sleeping in a bed lying flat and spent nights curled around a camp stool; a man with an annoying quavering shrill voice and pronounced lisp which grew greater the more excited he got, which was frequently; who was given to carrying on conversations with himself, often stopping in mid-sentence when speaking to others to observe such things as - "I wonder why Davis made me a general?" - before continuing as if nothing were unusual in talking like that; a man who walked with a wooden leg, having lost his leg to amputation after being severely wounded at Second Bull Run (Second Manassas); a former expert horseman and dashing calvary commander who now went to battle in a buggy.

After his amputation, Ewell had been nursed back to health for several months by his first cousin, a well-to-do widow from Tennessee by the name of Lizinka Brown. Ewell and Lizinka had flirted as teenagers but she had married Mr. Brown and nothing came of the flirtation. Circumstances were different now, however, and, during Ewell's months-long convalescence, love was rekindled in the crusty heart of the lifelong bachelor. Near-death, which often brings solemn (if sometimes short-lived) promises to God, coupled with new-found love and marriage, tempered General Ewell. At least it cleaned up his mouth and calmed him down to where he was only greatly abnormal. Even so, he would often still introduce his new wife, absentmindedly, as "Mrs. Brown," and still held forth with his internal conversations. But he was quieted, and "...no longer came crashing from the trees on horseback or jumping his horse into rivers without first seeing how deep the water was."

Thus, newly married and fitted with a wooden leg, just days after the death of the great Stonewall Jackson, did the new commander of II Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia, the new Lt. General Richard Ewell, report back for duty to General Lee. A month or so later he would be in Gettysburg.

---------

The above is my summary of Ewell, gleaned from reading several books, some written by his contemporaries. Below are a few descriptive excerpts from some far greater writers (actual historians!) than the equally quirky Relax Max.

---------

Larry Tagg:

Rather short at 5 feet 8 inches, he had just a fringe of brown hair on an otherwise bald, bomb-shaped head. Bright, bulging eyes protruded above a prominent nose, creating an effect which many likened to a bird—an eagle, some said, or a woodcock—especially when he let his head droop toward one shoulder, as he often did, and uttered strange speeches in his shrill, twittering lisp. He had a habit of muttering odd remarks in the middle of normal conversation, such as "Now why do you suppose President Davis made me a major general anyway?" He could be spectacularly, blisteringly profane. He was so nervous and fidgety he could not sleep in a normal position, and spent nights curled around a camp stool. He had convinced himself that he had some mysterious internal "disease," and so subsisted almost entirely on frumenty, a dish of hulled wheat boiled in milk and sweetened with sugar. A "compound of anomalies" was how one friend summed him up. He was the reigning eccentric of the Army of Northern Virginia, and his men, who knew at first hand his bravery and generosity of spirit, loved him all the more for it.

— Larry Tagg, The Generals of Gettysburg

Misc:

During the winter of 1861 - 1862, Lizinka Campbell Brown, one of the richest women in America, went to visit her son in the Confederate army in northern Virginia. He was the chief aide to Gen. Richard S. Ewell, a lisping, pop-eyed, beaked-nosed, baldheaded man who also happened to be Lizinka's cousin and love interest. Ewell courted and proposed to Lizinka during her stay, but she coyly refused to commit herself.

Misc:

Ewell was known for his odd sense of humor. He was worried that he might be killed in Pennsylvania, specifically at Cashtown, where he thought the great battle would be fought. "It isn't that I mind getting killed," he said. "It's the idea that my name will go down in history as being killed at a place called Cashtown."

Misc:

On June 6, 1862, after a violent skirmish with Union cavalry, Ewell revealed a previously unseen, tender side to his surly character - he personally loaded each of his wounded into ambulances. When he finished, he dug into his meager purse and gave most of his money to a local farmer, who had volunteered to house the injured. The funds were to be used for whatever his men might need.

Misc:

Had two horses shot out from under him in battle at Mexico City. Was wounded fighting Apaches under Cochise. When not fighting Indians, Ewell worked a small silver mine he had come into possession of, to no avail. Had nearly-spent bullets bounce off his chest two times during the Civil War.

Misc:

While riding down from Seminary Ridge in late afternoon of Gettysburg day one, with some of his officers, was shot in the leg by a Union sharpshooter. They were shocked. He laughed. It was in his wooden leg.

Misc:

Seriously considered that Stonewall Jackson was insane and never backed off that belief. "He (Jackson) is as crazy as a March Hare. But he has method in his madness." [ The reason Ewell pronounced Jackson insane was because Jackson refused to season his food with black pepper because he claimed it weakened his left leg. Ewell thought that was enough evidence that Jackson wasn't all there. Oddly, Ewell thought his own quirks were quite normal.]

Misc:

Born in Washington D.C. Graduated 13th in his class at West Point. Nicknamed "Baldy."

---------

Glenn Tucker (paraphrased and abridged by RM for this blog post):

By the morning of June 24th, the good citizens of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania had become somewhat used to the Confederate soldiers marching through their town. So far, some 10,300 soldiers had been counted, presumably for the purpose of reporting it to some Federal official, should any appear and ask the number. Soon, they lost count. To the tune of "The Bonnie Blue Flag," Rodes' entire division appeared, marching past the town square. Then, about a half hour later, the curious citizens watched as a carriage pulled by two horses pulled up in front of the Franklin Hotel, followed by a group of horsemen. A thin, sallow-faced man emerged slowly, assisted by some of his escort. The gathered crowd saw that he had a wooden leg and walked with a crutch. He entered the hotel, aided by the other officers, took over the large front parlor, ran up the Confederate flag, and established the headquarters of the Second Corps of Lee's army. General Richard S. Ewell's first order prohibited the sale of intoxicants in the town, and a guard was placed on all stores of liquor. One of the Confederate officers engaged in procuring supplies was one Major Todd, brother of the wife of President Lincoln.

---------

I'm going to leave out the anecdote of Ewell running off a group of Union cavalry in the middle of the night, cursing them insanely as he chased them down the street wearing only his underwear. Or perhaps I didn't leave it out after all.

Ewell lived on his wife's Tennessee estate after being released from prison after the war, and lasted to age 54, not that bad for all he went through. He is buried in Nashville.

Culling the vast wasteland, part 7

2011-10-05T00:50:00.008-06:00

Relax Max surfs the web. Max tries not to stop and read questions and answers on the web. Sometimes his attention is sucked in before he can move on. Oddly pathetic and compelling at times however Max senses he is becoming dumber by the hour. Please send suggestions for help. god bless and thx u.

Entered Max's brain today at 1:12 am:

Question:

rugged686: What exactly does annotation mean im stuck on us history please help writing a report not sure what annotation means

vicegrip88: I dont know what annotation mean

Best Answers:

trove882: Do you know what a dictionary is?

Google Adwords: Learn Spanish in 10 Days.

Question:

cabs32: PLEASE HELP. My daughter was stuck by a used needle! reply prompt please (March, 2007)

Best Answers:

(2009) mma_mom: Maybe she should see a doctor.

mr_no: A little bit more information is needed. Did patient jump?

funny_444: which you the best of luck. God bless u

Google Adwords: Become a Certified Phlebotomist! Day & Evening Classes. Accredited.

Question:

lentil267: Transmission Indicator Stuck. The orange indicator light on my 2007 Ford Focus is stuck in drive. It still goes into the gears properly.But just the little indicator on the floor doesn't move.So I have to count the gears.

Best Answers:

mactiti: The indicator is broke off. It must be taken apart and replaced.

lentil267: That's exactly what the man at the shop said. But $500.

mactiti: wow thats alot. i would just keep counting

Google Adwords: Free Quote on Extended Car Warranty

---------

Fade to black...

Gettysburg: What if?

2011-09-30T00:01:00.009-06:00

When students of the Civil War get together, the issue always arises as to when the South lost the war and whether the South could have won the war. Some say yes, and many of those who do say Gettysburg was when it was lost for good. Most say Gettysburg was the "High Tide" of the Confederacy, and that "Pickett's Charge" on the afternoon of the third day, when Armistead reached the Union cannon, was the precise apex. It was all downhill from there, these experts say.

As usual, I read and read and analyze and analyze, and, also as usual, I don't always come to the same conclusions as everyone else. What can I say - that's just who I am. An INTP is never impressed by "experts."

At Gettysburg, there were so many things coming together, then drifting away - so many opportunities taken or lost - that it is really hard to prove one's case, even with 20-20 hindsight.

1. Maybe Lee should have refused to engage at Gettysburg at all; should have just continued with his invasion plan - Ewell was already making for Harrisburg when Lee called him back.

2. Maybe Lee should have been more precise and forceful with Ewell in the late afternoon of day one at Gettysburg and given him a more direct and unambiguous order to take Culp's and Cemetery Hills while the Federals were in retreat.

Maybe.

3. Maybe Lee should have kept his cavalry right there with his army all along.

4. Maybe Lee shouldn't have ordered the suicidal frontal attack on the Union center on the afternoon of day three.

5. Maybe Lee should have listened to Longstreet and disengaged on the afternoon of day three; passed Meade's left flank to the south (he had his cavalry by then to screen him) and bolted for Washington.

6. Maybe Lee should have fought on the fourth day instead of returning to Virginia.

Maybe. So many chances. So easy to see them from the distance and clarity of time when we are sitting in our armchairs rather than standing in the Pennsylvania rain, dazed by artillery shells exploding around us, cowed by the screams of a thousand dying men. Maybe. So easy for us to be Lee today and make the right precise "better" choices.

As General Lee himself said so simply (though not truthfully) after the Battle of Gettysburg: "It is all my fault."

Despite the futility of second-guessing, I personally find it interesting to discuss and debate the above issues and more. I will do so in subsequent posts.

---------

Years after the war, when General Lee was President of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) he was having his "mistakes" at Gettysburg explained to him by a student. Lee listened politely, then replied, "Young man, why did you not tell me that before the battle? Even as stupid a man as I am can see it all now."

Live within your means. Pay yourself first.

2011-09-28T00:04:00.004-06:00

I remember once when I was considerably younger that I got myself and my young family really deeply in debt. I just didn't make enough money to pay the bills and still go out on the town and have a LITTLE taste of the good life. It only got worse and creditors were calling me and then the phone got disconnected, but they just knocked on the little apartment door at night and kept bugging us to pay them.

I want to tell you that today, and for a very long time now, that is no longer the case. It is a pretty radical idea, but I want to share with you what I did in order to get out of debt, stop paying interest to everyone and his dog, and actually have enough left to save up for a down payment on a house and a car that would start in the morning. Here goes.

What I did was, I stopped borrowing money and we tightened our belts. I contacted all my creditors and told them how much I made and how much I could truthfully pay them each month (some made me pay every week) and I kept my word. A lot of hamburger and beans and macaroni were consumed during that bad time in my life, but my little family stuck with me. Somehow I managed to keep the car running to drive to work.

But you know what? After what seemed to be a lifetime of doing without and not being able to get extra things for the kids (and that killed me, because I used to put stuff for them on the credit cards) the bills started to get paid off, one by one by one. There were a lot, too. Once the creditors were paid off, we continued to live on a percentage budget, and part of that budget was savings and a little each month for investment. Not much. One day, a few years later, actually, after rebuilding our credit and saving a little out of each paycheck, we found outselves with a new car and then a small two-bedroom house that we actually could say that we owned, along with the mortgage company.

Now, I am not trying to be smart, or trying to insult anyone. Honestly, I am not. But I am here to tell you, as living proof, that the way out of crushing debt and the way to take care of your family, and perhaps your whole country, is NOT to borrow more and more money.

Think Tank

2011-09-26T00:15:00.000-06:00

My research tells me a "Think Tank" is a group of people who are dedicated to researching a particular subject, and advocating for that subject.

Think Tanks are formal organizations, even non-profit, funded by various advocacy groups or even the government. (At least I think that is what I gleaned from my reading on the subject.)

I think I just found another area in which to cut the budget and tax the rich at the same time. Unfortunately it seems (from what I can see) that most of these so-called Think Tanks are self-described "Progressive" -cause advocates, so that isn't about to happen. The progressive thinkers won't even admit they are rich and that their causes and expensive soap boxes (and the advertising thereof) shouldn't be tax-exempt. There are a lot of bug-eyed far right tankers out there too, though.

On the other hand, I may have just stumbled across a second income on the side for us, should we decide to form an official one, pontificate, publish our pontifications, and pay ourselves a salary from our admirers' donations. Don't think I'm kidding. I never kid when it comes to money. :)

But I digress into a progressive-bashing rant. I'm truly sorry for that. What I really want is to explore Think Tanks here. Or do we already have one in operation here and I just don't realize it?

Let's talk about some. One. Does anyone know what The Fabian Society is? Supposedly started in the UK in 1884. Are they still going? What do they research and advocate? It's ok to Google if you want to, since I don't know the answer myself and it is not a trick question.

Gettysburg Overview

2011-09-24T00:18:00.000-06:00

Day One

Contact made on McPherson's Ridge early in the day. Union forces hold and even push the Confederates back early on, mostly due to Reynold's artillery placement. Ewell and Hill arrive from the north and the west, driving the Federals from McPherson's Ridge and back through the streets of Gettysburg in a rout. Many Union prisoners taken. U.S. Army driven out of the town and up Culp's Hill. Ewell does not pursue his advantage and finish the Federals off. Instead, the Federals spend the night fortifying the heights. Reinforcements for both sides continue to arrive through the evening and night.

Day Two

Lee mounts a major attack on the Union left flank at the Peach Orchard, Wheatfield, Roundtops and Devils Den with Longstreet's I Corp. After a very bloody battle, the Union still holds the high ground on their left. Lee then attacks Meade's right flank hard at Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill with Ewell. More desparate fighting. Union repulses and still holds defensive high ground at end of day two.

Day Three

Morning, Federals drive off remainder of Ewells forces at base of Culp's Hill. In early afternoon, Sedgewick's "Big Six" VI Corps arrives from Maryland after marching all night and day. Meade holds the corps in reserve. Later in the Afternoon, Lee orders a monumental frontal attack on the Union Center with artillery and three divisions of infantry. Suicide divisions are Trimble, Pettigrew, and Pickett. Union levels artillery and cuts the Confederate chargers with grape and case shot. Huge loss of life on both sides. Not enough Confederates survive to prevail, but the Union Line is pierced briefly. Stuart tries to get behind the Union center and attack from the rear, but is defeated by Union cavalry.

Day Four

Lee retires.

No Justice?

2011-09-23T00:10:00.004-06:00

Georgia FINALLY executed cop-killer Troy Davis late Wednesday night. It only took them 22 years. Davis' supporters protested outside the prison and in Washington and in Paris France and god knows where else for the poor misunderstood killer. Hollywood movie stars, "music" rappers, and your regular Al Sharpton black "leadership" showed up to protest and call people who disagreed with them nasty names, in another example of fair and balanced pure reason that is the hallmark of the compassionate far left.

Whenever the death penalty is carried out it always makes me ashamed. Ashamed that it happens so infrequently and takes so long to get justice done for the victims.

"Justice Matters" said some of the placards of the protestors. Well, justice matters for the family of the cop he killed, too. Thank you, Georgia. Thank you Supreme Court.

=========

In a rather bizarre coincidence, Georgia wasn't the only state who executed a barbaric loser Wednesday. In Texas, the wannabe white supremist creep Lawrence Russell Brewer finally bought the farm for dragging a black man to death behind his pickup truck. That one happened back in 1998, so Texas is getting more efficient than Georgia, at least. More practice, I suppose.

Neither Al Shrpton, the movie stars, nor the rappers turned up to protest Brewer's execution. The victim's family showed up to say they were glad it finally happened, but too late for their mother to see, since she passed away while the killer was still enjoying three squares a day and a free lawyer.

I suppose I should show pictures of the stars of the two executions, but the pictures below are of the innocent victims.

Officer Mark MacPhail was shot and killed while working an off duty security job at a bus station. He was shot when he responded to the cries of a homeless man who was being robbed and pistol-whipped.

The robber shot Officer MacPhail underneath his vest and then again in the head as he fell.

The subject was sentenced to death and executed on September 21, 2011, twenty-two years after his conviction.

Officer MacPhail was a U.S. Army veteran and had served with the Savannah Police Department for three years. He was survived by his wife, 1-year-old daughter, infant son, mother, and siblings.

Current crop of starry-eyed GOP hopefuls: My early picks for 2012

2011-09-21T00:12:00.015-06:00

Here are the current batch of Republican contenders for President Obama's job. Obama seems to be self-destructing as this is being written but I personally think he still has enough juice with the entitlement crowd/Republican haters to win a second term (my prediction. Write it down.) I will vote for him if he does two things (stop spending so much and bring all the troops home.) His competition is shown below in order of my estimation of their chance to get the Republican nomination. Says I.

Below is Texas governor Rick Perry, numbah one contendah. Teaparty likes him. Christians like him. Has no problem sleeping at night after executions, he says. Independents iffy, though, and they will decide this election.

Below is ex-governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney. Can win if Independents stay on his bandwagon and he stays uncontroversial. He's a Mormon though, and that matters to some. He's the other man who could definitely be the next U.S. President if Obama stumbles for some reason.
Below is Michele Bachmann, a U.S. Congresswoman from Minnesota. Mother of 5 and foster mother of 23. Dyed in the wool Teaparty Republican. Chronic migraine sufferer who gets medically out of commission for days at a time, say her detractors. Probably is more conservative than even Gov. Perry. Probably more conservative than Calvin Coolidge, come to think of it. Will fade fast though, as the election gets nearer. Says I. If she somehow DOES get the GOP nomination, Obama with crack her open like a nut; I don't think Michele can take the heat of a head on American Presidential campaign, especially the way Obama and company will play. She would need a LOT of aspirin to withstand an Obama team onslaught. But maybe she has a quiet inner toughness that I just don't know about. I don't underestimate women anymore.
The above 3 are contenders. The 4 below are long-shots. Loooooooooooong shots.

Below is pictured Newt Gingrich, historian, teacher, and former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Is knowledgeable and experienced and could do the job, but has an unfortunate history of deserting a wife on her cancer deathbed for mistress, now current wife. Some people don't like that in a President, although Clinton never gave a second thought to marital fidelity, so there's that precedent. My hunch is that Americans have probably had about enough of Newt, though.
Below is pictured Herman Cain, whom I would vote for but won't get the chance. He is a businessman and has never been a politician at any level. Worked for Pillsbury and was CEO of Godfather's Pizza, national chain. A history of reviving dead corporations. His ideas (such as doing away with the IRS and creating a simple flat tax) are too smart and workable for people to vote for him, though. That's just not the American way. Not afraid to attack Obama's policies, and does. Too bad, Mr. Cain. Teaparty seems to like him, though, and has lifted him to surprising contention from out of nowhere.
Below is pictured Rick Santorum. Conservative Teaparty kind of guy. A former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. "In your face" lawyer politician. Too many political liabilites (pro-Iraq war, homophobe) and spouts off with opinions too much to ever be President. Some think differently than I, but not enough to get the job done for him, I say.
Below is former Utah governor and Reagan clone Ron Huntsman. That pretty much sums it up.
And then you have the perennial looney tunes guy, below, who is a bit too naive to get more than 3 votes. That's sort of too bad, from an idealistic standpoint. I think I'll stick with real- world thinking though. My pick? Herman Cain. Wouldn't vote for any of the others. Will vote for Obama if he brings the troops home and stops borrowing money. I guess that means I will not be voting for either a Democrat or a Republican again this time.

14 months to go and still to get in is Sarah Palin, and her ego will make her get in. I will put her chances below Michele Bachmann but above Newt Gingrich. Possibly NJ governor Chris Christie will still get in. If so, he goes to the top of the list and I vote for him (unless Obama... well, you know.) Christie is too smart to get in until 2016, though.

Speaking of egos, there's still Donald Trump in the wings, threatening to run as a candidate for a party other than the Republicans or Democrats. Libertarian? Naw. Greens? Get real. Certainly not the Socialist Workers or Communist ticket. If he does go third-party, then Obama's a shoo-in because Trump would only take far-right Republican voters away from Republicans. My opinion.

Below is Republican Member of Congress Ron Paul, Medical Doctor and dreamer of dreams.

Gettysburg: Prelude

2011-09-20T00:06:00.004-06:00

The Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia had fought several battles against one another before Gettysburg. This post is to clarify the logistics of how the two armies met again, this time in Pennsylvania, and the locations of the various organizations of the two armies when the battle of Gettysburg began.

---------

1. At the time of Gettysburg, the Army of Northern Virginia, under the command of General Robert E. Lee consisted of three corps and one cavalry division. Confederate corps were larger than Union corps.

I Corps - Lt. General James Longstreet

II Corps - Lt. General Richard Ewell

III Corps - Lt. General A.P. Hill

Cavalry Division - Major General James Ewell Brown (Jeb) Stuart

Lee traveled and camped with Longstreet mostly.

2. At the time of Gettysburg, the Army of the Potomac, under the command of Major General George G. Meade consisted of 8 corps (7 infantry corps and 1 cavalry corps.)

I Corps - Major General John Reynolds

II Corps - Major General Winfield Scott Hancock

III Corps - Major General Daniel Sickles

V Corps - Major General George Sykes

VI Corps - Major General John Sedgewick

XI Corps - Major General Oliver Howard

XII Corps - Major General Henry Slocum

Cavalry Corps - Major General Alfred Pleasanton [the cavalry corps was a "combined force" of approx. 8,000 horse and 3,000 infantry.]

Links go to photographs of the generals. All pictures public domain. Thank you Wikipedia.

Confederate Corps were larger than Union Corps. At Gettysburg, the total confederate forces numbered about 75,000 and Union around 97,000; about 172,000 men engaged in the battle of Gettysburg. They were all there by day 2.

---------

The journey of the Armies: Fredericksburg to Gettysburg.

After the battle of Chancellorsville, the armies engaged again at Fredericksburg. Lee left cavalry at Fredericksburg, but slipped out with his three corps and went west from Fredericksburg, then crossed the Rappahannock and headed north. Stuart's Cavalry followed Lee. As Lee's three infantry corps continued north, there was a major cavalry engagement between Pleasanton (Union) and Stuart (Confederate) at a place called Brandy Station. Stuart then followed Lee north for a while, then (at Lee's orders) cut back south and east and around the (by then following) Union Army. The Union Army shadowed Lee as Lee continued north, staying between Lee and Washington/Baltimore. Stuart got around the Union army and headed north, but farther east than he had expected to be (because the Union army was spread further east than expected), Stuart coming only a few miles outside Washington, then continuing north through Maryland and eventually up to York and over to Carlisle in Pennsylvania. Always, the Union army was between Stuart and Lee.

Lee had crossed the Rappahannock with his main army on June 6, and on June 30, the day before the battle of Gettysburg began, Stuart was between York and Carlisle, to the north of Lee. After the first day's battle at Gettysburg, two men from Stuart's cavalry appeared at Gettysburg in the late evening and met with General Lee. They had been sent down from Carlisle by Stuart to find out what was happening, since he had word of fighting in Gettysburg. Lee sent them back to tell Stuart to come down to Gettysburg from Carlisle at once. That was the first Lee really knew that Stuart was even still alive. Stuart arrived in the afternoon of the second day's battle of Gettysburg with Lee's cavalry. [Other accounts say that it was Lee who sent out 10 couriers to spread out and find Stuart, in the evening following day one, each with sealed orders for Stuart to come to Gettysburg, and that it was one of these couriers who found Stuart. One way or the other, Stuart's cavalry arrived at Gettysburg from Carlisle on the afternoon of the second day.] Stuart had hoped to meet up with Ewell's Corps at Carlisle, but missed them as Ewell had already departed south to Gettysburg. Stuart bombarded the Carlisle barracks then headed south as well.

It is about 30 miles from Carlisle to Gettysburg. From Fredericksburg in Virginia to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (today on the highway) is 110 miles.

---------

Here is where the combatants were on June 30, the day before the battle of Gettysburg began:

1. Confederates:

Stuart and the confederate cavalry were between York and Carlisle in Pennsylvania.

Lee had continued to concentrate his forces, and the concentration was in full progress on June 30, Lee moving with Longstreet's I Corps from Chambersburg to Cashtown. Lee and Longstreet would have been at Cashtown (just west of Gettysburg) on June 30. A.P. Hill's III Corps would have also converged near Cashtown and would be moving parallel with Longstreet eastward to Gettysburg. Ewell would have been moving down from Carlisle to the north, and would be closing in on Gettysburg from that direction on June 30. (It would be one of Hill's advance divisions, General Heth, who would make first contact with the union cavalry in the early morning of July 1.)

Longstreet (and Lee) were by now at Cashtown, the corps still coming up. (It took a long time to march that many men over those roads, even at eight abreast, or so, it made for a column miles and miles long.) As the battle developed, more and more units began arriving.

Ewell was just north of Gettysburg. It would be the influx of the forward units of Ewell's II Corps from the northwest which would help further change the balance of power and push the Union forces back off McPherson's Ridge, past the town, and up Culp's Hill and Cemetery Ridge at the end of day one.

2. Union Forces:

The Army of the Potomac was scattered and individual corps commanders did not receive Meade's orders to concentrate on Gettysburg until late on day one or, in some cases, well after the first day's battle was over. Sedgewick's VI Corps, for example, had to force march - 16,000 men and supply trains - all night and most of day 2 from 30-some miles down in Maryland. The Army of the Potomac, however, got up more and more and was completely in place by late in the day of day 2. General Lee did not resume the battle until about 4 pm on day two, so that delay worked in favor of the Union army's hurried concentration.

General Meade had received word of a battle going on at Gettysburg from General Reynolds' courier. He sent the trusted and competent General Winfield Scott Hancock immediately to Gettysburg to decide where to deploy the Union Army, staying behind to prepare orders and send out couriers to the commanders of each Corps to come at once to Gettysburg. After sending orders to his commanders to concentrate the Army of the Potomac, General Mead and his staff finally left for Gettysburg. Meade arrived on the field much after day one's battle had concluded, at about 3 a.m. on day two, and set up his command headquarters. Lee had his headquarters across the field, on the backside of Seminary Ridge, near the Cashtown road.

---------

My next Gettysburg post will be a timeline or summary of the entire 3-days of Gettysburg. Then we can speak of individual events in the battle in subsequent separate posts. I do want to post on other topics in between these, though, to perhaps keep the attention of followers of this blog who are not as interested in Gettysburg as I am.

I encourage you to comment on things you believe are incorrect in my posts, and give any additional facts you want to give.

Opinions: Reasons for the Civil War

2011-09-17T17:27:00.003-06:00

Ask practically anyone at all - even people who don't live in the U.S. - what the American Civil War was fought over, and you will get a quick and simple answer: slavery.

Was it?

Certainly the issue of slavery was a big part of the Civil War equation, but it is a bit far-fetched to imagine tens and hundreds of thousands of northern white men leaving their homes and families to put their lives on the line for years on end, because they knew the cause was just, and they were willing to die for the freedom of their black brothers and sisters in the South.

Give me a break.

In the same vein, I can't really imagine tens and hundreds of thousands of Southern boys going off to fight and die for the right of some rich slave owners to own slaves, either. These people who went off to fight didn't own slaves. Or even a winter coat. Some of the generals and politicians did, but not the boys with no shoes, for whom it was probably rare to even interact with slaves. But these men went off willing to fight, just as the Northern men did. Why, then?

Other people say the Civil War was fought over the principle of what came to be known as "States Rights" - the contention that the Federal Government was usurping the constitutional sovereignty of individual states more and more with each passing year. Many people in the South felt the North was bullying them with unfair laws and taxes, and generally conspiring to screw them over, and that it was getting progressively worse with every passing year. These people say (with some truth, frankly) that the situation finally became intolerable. Just as certain British laws and taxes had become intolerable to their ancestors, four-score and seven years earlier, so, too, had the Federal Government - the NORTHERN government - become a hated symbol of oppression in the South.

The Civil War didn't resolve that way of thinking, of course; it is still very prevalent in our politics even today.

Were either of these things the reason the U.S. had a civil war?

If we take the word of the man who was the U.S. President during the Civil War, the reason the war was fought was "to preserve the Union" and nothing else. To quote him:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."

And then he added:

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

This was in August of 1862. A few weeks later he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Apparently he thought freeing the slaves would injure the South's war effort. So did many others. Of course the Proclamation meant nothing until the North won the war.

What do I think personally was the reason for fighting the Civil War? I've tried to read books on both sides and try to understand both sides over the years. My inclination is to take Lincoln's statement at face value and say the Civil War was fought to preserve the Union.

The only minor tidbit, though, is that the U.S. Constitution doesn't forbid states from leaving the Union. It only says Congress shall prescribe by law the manner in which new states are admitted. And all Congress required was a blood test and a 3-day waiting period. (Actually, it requires most of the other states to agree to let the new state join the club.) Neither says anything about having to stay 'til death do them part. I guess no one contemplated that, once admitted to Heavenly Union, no state would ever contemplate giving up such divine bliss.

Legally, then, the South was right.

Moral? I suppose it would be that "being legally right" doesn't always mean you get to do it unmolested. The North had more than a little invested in the South over the years - not just money but many other things - and felt the country - as a whole - now sort of "owned" the South, in a manner of speaking. In the larger scheme of things, everybody owned everybody else, and nobody was just going to be allowed to take their ball and go home. Sometimes, even though it is your ball, someone bigger and stronger sometimes comes along and forces you to stay in the game instead of going your own way with your ball. Or your slaves, either, as far as that goes.

What do YOU think the cause of the Civil War was?

Taxes, Tourists, Kias, Socialism and Stuff

2011-09-12T00:10:00.001-06:00

For a large society to function properly, long-term, people must be able to earn an income to live on which is independent of the government. Or, conversely, a government must be able to get an income from outside sources other than it's own people.

Government cannot really solve unemployment by simply hiring everyone to work for the government. To avoid stagnation and the eventual gridlock that is pure socialism, there must be an influx of actual "new" capital into the system.

There are two groups of people who are working for the government. First, there are actual workers who go to work each day doing the business of the government. Second are the people who are receiving monthly checks from the government as benefits or help of some kind.

Mostly, a government gets the money to meet these various "payrolls" by (1) making some of it's citizens pay certain taxes, and ALL of it's citizens pay other types of taxes; and (2) by taxing everyone indirectly through the back door by making their money worth less.

We certainly have socialism, to a degree, a large degree, in the United States. That is as it should be, I believe (except I think the proportion is too large right now.) Certainly, some things can only be done by government, and, just as certainly, our more unfortunate brothers and sisters need us to help them get by. We help these fellow citizens by each of us giving some money to the government, and then having the government pass out that money in proportion to need. (Like Karl Marx said.) That's socialism pure and simple, and there is nothing wrong with it unless and until it gets totally out of hand.

Where the danger comes in is when the government tries to take too much upon itself and forgets that "fresh" capital - that which is not simply being recirculated by the government - is necessary for the survival of the system. The second thing that must happen in order for the system to survive is for the government to keep the money supply reasonably finite and not expand it until it is worthless.

What is "fresh" capital? Fresh capital is "outside" capital. It is money a person earns or receives from sources other than the government. And it is money received by governments that they get from sources other than their own citizens - for example by selling natural resources it owns. Examples? When tourists from Japan and Germany visit the U.S. and spend money to eat and sleep and travel and to get into our national parks, that's fresh capital. When Saudi Arabia sells oil to the world that it gets from under it's ground, that's fresh capital for Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't have to tax its citizens highly (or even at all, probably) because it has this fresh source of income. Saudi Arabia also, one assumes, does not have to make it's money worth less and less every day by "creating" more and more of it on the printing presses. [Incidentally, pure socialism would probably work in Saudi Arabia since the government is making enough money - now, at least - from the outside. Unfortunately a "royal" few are keeping most of it.] When a Canadian farmer sells wheat to some country elsewhere in the world, that's fresh capital for Canada. When China sells plastic toys to the world, that's fresh capital for China. When South Korea sells Kias in the U.S. (as President Obama noted in his recent jobs speech) that's fresh capital for South Korea. I might add that when a country agrees to protect South Korea or Canada so they don't have to pay for the size of army they would normally have to pay for, that is also fresh income for South Korea and Canada (or whatever countries do that.) North Korea could probably cut the size of its military by about 80% and use that money to buy food for its people, and all it would take is for North Korea to start being nice to the rest of the world. There are all kinds of possibilities for "fresh" capital generation. Don't buy U.S. Savings bonds - that's silly to lend yourself money and then pay yourself interest. Invest in British municipal bonds and make Londoners pay you interest instead. See? Fresh, non-governmental, capital for you and me.

Any money you get from sources outside your government is fresh capital. Any money your government gets from sources besides its own citizens is fresh capital. Fresh capital is an object of desire. Fresh capital creates "real" jobs and makes you pay less taxes and makes your money worth something.

In my opinion, one major goal of a government should be to facilitate the influx of fresh (non-tax) income. In my opinion, when the government "borrows" more money and uses that money to hire people (even through private companies) to build bridges and roads, those are fake jobs. They are fake because the workers are getting paid by the government (by proxy) and because the contractors are getting paid by the government (directly.) Good has happened but nothing fresh has really been produced. All this is just another example of the government "churning" tax money.

In order for socialism to work (we have already agreed - at least I've said it - we need some socialism) there must also be some capitalism, some incoming of NEW money. How do we do this? Well, tourism was a good example. Work it more. The government should facilitate tourism more, and it should also encourage private travel companies to aggressively seek out tourists from overseas. Each state has unique attractions. Each state should be working hard to get foreign tourists to come there, not only American tourists. Some already are, of course, but all could probably do more. And food. We need to go back to selling food to the world. We need to stop paving over farmland and start growing crops that other people in other countries want to buy.

And we need to start manufacturing goods for sale again. Somehow we (and most of the rest of the Western World) have got this complex in our heads that cheap is the answer and only China can do that. Well, cheap is NOT the only thing! Innovative quality products are the thing. We can sell farm tractors to the world even if they may be more expensive than China's tractors, if they last longer or if they can do things China's tractors can't do. Inventive countries can always stay ahead of, and beat, copycat countries.

The other night, President Obama made a speech to the nation about how to create jobs. One of the good points he made is that our goal should not be to see who can get to the bottom by making things cheaper than everyone else, but by aspiring to get to the top by making things that are better and and more innovative and thus more valuable to buyers around the world.

Wake up and smell it

2011-09-10T13:02:00.011-06:00

A philosophy is one's system of beliefs with regard to reality. There is only one true reality - that which is - but everyone has their own view of the world, and thus anyone can play the "magical reality" game. Barack Obama comes to mind as someone who should be mentioned here as a fine example of a magical reality kind of guy.

Well, by gosh, a philosophy seeks to understand and even explain the nature of our existence. By "our" I mean, of course, "your" - I already know the nature of my own existence. Poverty. They say (and by "they" I mean Wikipedia) that our philosophy - our belief system - becomes our personal standard through which we perceive and process ideas. In this sense, you could say that philosophy is the foundation of knowledge. I'm not sure I would say that, but smart people have said it. You are smart, so you may say that too. Barack and company destest knowledge and sound ideas, so "they" wouldn't say that.

Basically, what we want to know is, what the heck is going on and what our place is in the world. Maybe in the universe even. Somebody once said that once you start philosophizing about your purpose in life, in the universe, then you are sick. So it's a catch-22. Was it Freud? Sounds like something he would say. Somebody smart like him, anyway.

Anyway, I started out wanting to do a little post on Objectivism, a word (and philosophy) coined by Ayn Rand to explain her philosophy of life (or personal crazy sickness) because... well, because the word existentialism had already been taken, I guess. Actually, I don't have to guess - Ms. Rand admitted those very words herself. BTW, please don't get Ayn Rand mixed up with Georgia O'Keefe.

Why did I want to make a little post on the subject of Objectivism? You might well ask. I don't really know. Just because it is the weekend and J.E.B. Stuart still hasn't returned in the other series of posts anyway. Besides, Ojectivism is REALLY interesting (just not that interesting on a blog, sadly) and has the added appeal of probably pissing off liberals. Win-win. But I ramble. I know I do. Getting back on topic now. Very soon.

Gary Cooper WAS Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead." I tell you this else no one but the Rocket Scientist would have gotten the connection of the clever picture insert. Well, A. would have gotten it, because A. knows most everything and is good at free association.

Incidentally - as if you weren't impressed enough already - there is an Ayn Rand Society, which is affiliated with the American Philosophical Association (A. Phil Ass) which you also may not have heard of (your loss) because there are only a few members. Ayn Rand, Georgia O'keefe and her buddy D.L. Lawrence (and almost surely his philosophical gardner) and myself and probably Soubriquet. Most assuredly NOT Adullamite. All are dead. Well, not ALL. But the famous ones are.

Objectivism promotes the values of love, friendship, wealth, and comfort. Sadly, Ayn realized none of these things, but hey. I personally like Objectivism because it emphasizes reason and clarity, both of which I could be a universal model. in.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." —Ayn Rand.

Sort of like President Obama's philosophy of life, only backwards. I was reminded of the man's hatred of self-reliance as I watched his jobs speech the other night. Pretty darn good speech, by the way. I mean, pretty good for a socialist. Count me in on that more spending and higher taxes thing. Put me down for another $75. And tax the living crap out of the small businessmen who create jobs; that'll do the trick. That's fair. Heck, more than half of Americans pay zero income taxes now. You call THAT fair? Everybody should pay SOMETHING. Oh, god, I kid you.

Gettysburg Day One: the Iron Brigade sees early action

2011-09-10T00:24:00.011-06:00

Claude-Etienne Minié, a French military officer, invented, in 1849, a "... conical-cylindrical soft lead bullet, slightly smaller than the intended firearm barrel's bore, with ... exterior grease-filled grooves and a conical hollow in it's base. The bullet was designed by Minié with a small iron plug and a lead skirting. Its intended purpose was to expand under pressure and obturate the barrel and increase muzzle velocity. It greatly increased accuracy. It came to prominence in the Crimean War and the American Civil War." [Wikipedia]

---------

Major General John Reynolds was, in effect, a "wing" commander, in that he was in overall charge of more than one corps of the Army of the Potomac, with individual corps commanders under his direction. Certainly he was Meade's equal (or superior) in experience and ability, if not in actual fact.

As the balance of the Federal First Corps continued to come up to Gettysburg from the south, General Reynolds personally directed the deployment of the First Division of infantry on McPherson's Ridge, and supervised the placing of the artillery in such a way as to cover the infantry as they were advancing into position.

The 1st Brigade of the 1st Division of the 1st Corps was called the "Iron Brigade," among the best in the Union Army. They would be sorely tested today. Time was of the essence. Fences were knocked down and haversacks and blankets were discarded as the brigade stripped for action and deployed in the path of the rapidly advancing Confederates. It would be the job of the First Division to hold out until the rest of the Corps could join the fray.

Reynolds arrayed the Iron Brigade en echelon - with the 2nd Wisconsin front right, nearest the Cashtown road from where Pender's Confederate division was approaching; followed by the 7th Wisconsin, the 19th Indiana, and the 24th Michigan. The final regiment (6th Wisconsin) was held in reserve slightly to the south on Seminary Ridge. Obviously they weren't going to hold off Heth and Pender for long, even with Buford's cavalry still engaged. But their object was to hold and delay until the rest of the corps got up. General Abner Doubleday (later the inventor of baseball) was commanding the division next in line of the upcoming First Corps, and he was making all haste to get up on Reynold's exposed right flank. The Confederates weren't waiting for that, though.

As the artillery from both sides began to boom, General Heth's brigades came in from the Northwest, led by General Archer's Alabamians. Artillery claimed the first lives of the battle on both sides. As they approached closer, the lead Confederates could hear the strains of the Union First Division's band: "The Girl I Left Behind Me". I don't know about you, but I think that took balls. At least it might have put a final smile on the faces of the Iron Brigade to hear their theme song, in the face of what was about to happen to them.

If Heth still held illusions that he was only up against unmounted cavalry and poorly-trained Pennsylvania Home Guard, he was immediately disabused of that notion. The Iron Brigade wore their legendary black sombreros with the right side turned up and pinned with the light blue infantry ribbon and sporting a plume, a la JEB Stuart; there was no chance Heth would mistake the Iron Brigade for amateur Home Guard. He let loose with more artillery and bodies began to fly. The Union guns answered. Showtime.

After directing the deployment of his infantry and guns, General Reynolds sent off a courier with an urgent message to General Meade, informing him that he had engaged the Confederates in force, and that a major battle would be fought at Gettysburg, not Pipe Creek. His message to General Mead said in part: "The enemy are advancing in strong force and I fear they will get to the heights beyond the town before I can. I will fight them inch by inch and, if driven into the town, I will barricade the streets and hold them as long as possible."

Although Pettigrew had the day before, several times, given Heth and Hill the lay of the land of Gettysburg, and had asserted that McPherson's Ridge was where the Federals were likely to defend, and General Archer had been standing right there listening, he hadn't heeded. Now the Federals were on McPherson's Ridge and were splitting his brigade.

The top of McPherson's Ridge was a farm, owned by a politician by that name, and on that farm was McPherson's woods. Into that woods went Archer's Alabamians, followed closely by the 2nd Wisconsin, followed by the Iron Brigade. Archer's Alabamians were in trouble and Archer knew it. Spilt, they were in danger of being double flanked. General Reynolds himself was directing this textbook envelopment. Unfortunately (for the Union), he recklessly exposed himself as he directed his troops. From the side, he could see the Confederates in the woods but he continued riding his big black horse and exhorting his troops, wearing his senior general's uniform: an obvious target.

Some books say it was from a sniper in a tree, but it didn't have to be: the Alabamians were fully in the woods now and had formed a skirmish line. It could have come from anyone there in that clump of trees. The Minié ball struck General Reynolds in the back of the head and came out his eye. He slumped on his horse, then fell.

It was 10:15 a.m. on the first day of Gettysburg.

---------

Fun trivia: The Hardee Hat, with it's turned up side (reminds me of the Aussies) had been authorized to be worn by the First Brigade of the First Division in the late 1850s by the Secretary of War. At that time, the U.S. Secretary of War was a man by the name of Jefferson Davis, soon to be President of the Confederacy.

---------

I am drawing these accounts from several (many) books, and gluing the various authors' accounts together with my own comments and narrative. Hopefully it doesn't sound too disjointed. I am, of course, leaving much out. My collection of books on the Civil War has grown large over the years. I'll publish a main bibliography at the end of this series of posts. I can't put more than this in a blog post, and, in fact, will be drastically summarizing the rest of the Gettysburg battle. I will shorten the posts because I would rather get into analyzing the battle and tactics rather than describe each individual contribution as I have up until now. In between the battle timeline, I will try to do posts on what the various generals were planning and doing along the way. I want to analyze Ewell's failure to pursue his first day's victory, and the consequences: did it lose the battle and perhaps the war for the Confederacy? I want to give my opinion about the importance of JEB Stewart's absence the first two days of the battle. Of course I want to second guess Lee's decision to frontally attack the dug-in Union's center, just as all historians have done over the past 150-odd years. I have some personal comments to make on the quality of the senior commanders of the Confederate Forces. I want to debate why Lee left the field (he wasn't really beaten after Gettysburg) and why Meade didn't pursue more aggressively. Oh, all kinds of more interesting things to argue about than simple troop movements and statistics. Hang in there. Soon I will stop describing and we can start arguing. :)

Military organization. Or is that an oxymoron too?

2011-09-06T00:02:00.005-06:00

In an effort to make it even MORE fun to follow these Gettysburg posts (both previous and upcoming), please try and memorize the following information. If there are no corrections within 1 blogging day, I will assume the information is correct.

---------

An army is broken down into specially-named organizational units. These units have "commissioned officers" who are in command. The larger the organizational unit, the higher in rank is it's commander. Usually. Following is a list of the organizational units found in an American army. They are the same names now as in the Civil War. The Confederate Army had the same organizational structure as well. They are shown in order of size:

army (commanded by a general)*

corps (commanded by a lt. general)*

division (commanded by a major general)*

brigade (commanded by - of course - a brigadier general)*

regiment (commanded by a colonel or lt. colonel, depending on size)

company (commanded by a major or captain, depending on size)

Following is a list of the ranks of "commissioned officers" in a current American army. In the Civil War, these modern ranks were also used by the Confederacy. The Union ranks for generals in the Civil War were the same except for the top generals, explained at the bottom. The ranks, from lowest to highest in today's American army (and in the Confederate Army of the Civil War are/were:

2nd Lt.

1st Lt.

Captain

Major

Lt. Colonel

Colonel

Brigadier General (1 star)

Major General (2 stars)

Lt. General (3 stars)

General (4 stars)

*In the Union Army in the Civil War, they only had Brigadier Generals and Major Generals. There was only one Lt. General (3 star) in the Union Army, and that only from 1864. That was Lt. General Ulysses S. Grant, promoted to that rank only shortly before the end of the war, when he was made commander of all the Union Armies. Also, technically, Winfield Scott was still on active duty and he was a brevet Lt. General. There were no full (4 star) generals in the Union Army back then.

Foot soldiers (or cavalry, for that matter) such as privates and corporals and sergeants, are not commissioned officers.

Commissioned officers in the Civil War had swords (sabers) and they rode horses. Cavalry of all ranks rode horses. In close fighting, cavalry would (very often) prefer sidearms to sabers. Generally, sabers were only sharpened on one side near the tip, since sabers were mostly just used for breaking collar bones and upper arms. When slashing or probing was required, the tip sufficed. Rifles were next to useless for mounted cavalry in combat, but were used, of course, by "mounted foot" who dismounted to fight in skirmish lines. Even then, carbines (rifles with much shorter barrels) were preferred. Here, it should be noted that 25% of "mounted foot" were wasted, since one man in four had to hold the four horses (which would otherwise bolt in terror, especially with incoming artillery explosions) while the other three used their rifles. Artillery was drawn by horses. Supply wagons, ammunition trains, and ambulance trains were drawn by horses. There were a LOT of horses in the Civil War. More horses than you can probably even envision were at Gettysburg and died at Gettysburg.

"Dependent on size" tells us that military organizations are always in flux, especially during battles (people get killed) and therefore you can't really say things like "a company has 150 men; a regiment has 600 men; a brigade has 3,000 men." But those are nice targets. Otherwise, an army can have as many corps as needed; a corps consists of 3 divisions if it is fully manned; a division consists of 3 brigades when fully manned. How many regiments in a brigade? As many as it takes to make up 3000 or so men. Regiments are always being merged and supplemented as people die and newly recruited regiments arrive. It is really impossible to try and say with exactness how many soldiers make up this or that organization. That is true for our modern army today as well.

In today's modern army, there are also battalions (larger than a company), platoons (smaller than a company) as well as squads and fire teams. One solitary soldier is a "troop". Not to be confused with horse cavalry units, (of the Indian Wars and of some Civil War units) some of which were also called troops collectively. "Battalions" in the Civil War often referred to the artillery units, and there were artillery brigades and even divisions, and the same applies to cavalry. A cavalry division had a LOT of horses, and long feed trains to feed them. Confederate cavalry, incidentally, brought their own horses, by and large. 60 days were given to a Confederate cavalryman to procure another horse if his got killed, and if not able to procure one, he got to be in the infantry. Artillery units will be talked about separately for those still awake at that time. The above information is intended to mainly refer to infantry. Today's cavalry is speedy ground (Bradleys, Humvees, Strykers, some tanks - perhaps ALL tanks, depending upon the mission and your definitions) and "air cavalry" consisting of helicopters instead of horses, but the purposes (recon, raids, rescue, disruption, blitzkrieg, and breaking through lines) remain the same. Although we don't usually think of major armor engagements like Patton and Rommel and Montgomery as being cavalry allegories, they really were. And certainly Patton was as much of a maverick as Stuart ever was.

Companies and regiments were recruited by the states (both sides) and sent off to war. Some larger cities could recruit entire regiments (several hundred people) but most were made up from companies recruited by smaller towns and counties. Regiments were assigned numbers followed by their state name (both sides.) Many had nicknames as well for various reasons.

Confederate generals of all four ranks wore the same insignia of rank, shown below, not 1-star, 2-stars, 3-stars or 4-stars like the army does today. Generals in the Confederate Army were appointed by the Confederate President directly. Obviously recommendations for promotions were made to him. As higher general ranks were authorized, the Confederate Congress began having to approve those high ones. The Confederate President was the Commander-in-Chief of all Confederate Army, Naval, and Marine forces. President Lincoln was Commander-in-chief of the Union forces. Incidentally, both sides had air forces, if you count air balloons which were used for (rather scary) reconnaissance work. As I understand it, they often went up tethered so as not to float over the enemy lines (that would be the scary part, otherwise.)

Many, many more tidbits keep popping into my mind that would be enhance your understanding of this battle a bit better, but I think it best to stop here since I realize a few of you are not as interested in the American Civil War as I am, and would rather analyze other things.

Confederate General Insignia (all)

Interesting (to me) trivia: Robert E. Lee was one of only six (surviving) full generals in the Confederate Army at the time of Gettysburg, in command of the entire Army of Northern Virginia. None of the other generals of the other Confederate Armies outranked him. Yet, Lee chose to wear the insignia only of a colonel (three big stars, no oak leaf encirclement). I don't remember ever having read "why" he did this, other than he was a modest man, and that doesn't make sense. I (of course) have a theory about this, which I will share in a later post.

Gettysburg, Day One: Hell's to pay.

2011-09-03T19:30:00.003-06:00

Often it is hard to put complete faith in the history books our children are taught from. Here's an example, still being printed here on the web as if it were gospel:

"The Battle of Gettysburg began quite accidentally. Two Confederate Brigades under the overall command of General Heth moved in to occupy the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Unbeknownst to them, the town was already occupied by two Union Calvary Brigades commanded by General John Buford. The fighting broke out around 8 a.m. as the Confederate Brigades moved in from the Northwest. They expected little resistance but were quite surprised to find the Union Brigades."

What a load of bullpucky! If Heth and his boss, corps commander A.P. Hill, were "surprised" to "accidentally" discover the Union cavalry in Gettysburg, it was only because their heads were too thick to allow their ears to function.

Nothing about "procuring" shoes, which was why Heth had taken 2 brigades from his division down into Gettysburg in the first place. Well, I'll bet Pettigrew and Young weren't surprised to see the Yankee cavalry parked in Gettysburg.

And cavalry usually means a main army is not far behind.

---------

If you were a bird with sharp eyes, as most birds have, and you happened to find yourself flying from south to north over the soon-to-be Gettysburg battlefield, what you would see, as you flew, would look something like this:

You would see wheat fields, orchards, farmland, pasture, scattered woods, big rocks - with three roads coming up from the south, all converging into Gettysburg, and two more roads from the west, also converging on Gettysburg, and two more roads from the east, also converging on Gettysburg, and more roads to the north coming in from Carlisle et al. Well, you get the picture - Gettysburg was an important crossroads for travelers of all directions. You would see ridges on the left and some distinct hills and another ridge on the right, with the open land in between the two sides of ridges less than a mile wide. You would see several creeks running generally north and south; you would see the town of Gettysburg up dead ahead of you.

And, if you were making this flight of yours in the early morning of July 1, 1863, you would also see, on the road from the west, Pender's Confederate Division coming up from Cashtown. Upon another one of those roads, coming up from the south, you would spy dust clouds for as far as your sharp bird's eyes could see behind you; dust produced by tens of thousands of boots and hooves and wheels. As a bird, you would have no way of knowing this, but those boots and hooves and wheels belonged to the First Corps of the Army of the Potomac, under the extremely able command of Major General John Reynolds.

---------

The left-hand, or west, ridge just south of Gettysburg was called Seminary Ridge. Because... umm... because there was a 3-story brick college (Lutheran Seminary) built on top of that particular ridge. Seminary Ridge would soon host the battle headquarters, a small cottage, of one Robert E. Lee, but at the moment, the Union Cavalry General, John Buford, had climbed up into the seminary's cupola and was nervously surveying the surrounding territory to the northwest. What he saw was confederate infantry moving in a proprietory fashion down towards the town of Gettysburg, and Pender moving in from the west.

Buford's cavalry had already abandoned the town and had ensconced itself upon McPherson Ridge just to the west of town. Buford rode south to the seminary to reconnoiter while his men engaged the Confederates.

General Heth, division commander of Pettigrew's brigade and others, he of the deep desire for new shoes and a penchant for ignoring advice about the enemy's troop movements, was pondering his options. Who to kill first? In his wisdom, he "felt out" the enemy and decided he faced nothing but unmounted cavalry, so, first things first, he decided to go brush the Union Cavalry off McPherson Ridge.

Buford saw from his high perch that his own men were fighting Heth's boys well, but falling back of course. As it turned out, they would continue to fall back, all the way from McPherson Ridge to Seminary Ridge, then across town all the way to Culp's hill on the other side, just north of the Cemetery, and halfway up that hill. They would have reinforcements long before then, but, then, so would the Confederates.

General Buford, of course, had sent a courier out riding fast to the south with a message to the corps commander that contact with the enemy had been made and to come at once. PLEASE come at once. He was depending on fast help from its commander, his friend John Reynolds.

---------

If someone were to say that John E. Reynolds was the best general in the Union Army, there would be few who would dispute that statement. A 1841 graduate of West Point, he had served in Florida and in the West and, of course, in the Mexican War, under Zachary Taylor. Later, he was commandant of Cadets at West Point and also taught artillery, cavalry, and infantry tactics.

Reynolds was an outstanding horseman - some say the best the army had, equaling even J.E.B. Stuart, who would later fight for the South. Some recalled, without proof, that they had seen Reynolds pluck a dime from the ground at a gallop, back in their younger days in the West. Ah, well. I don't think I'm believing that.

Known only by General Reynolds and a handful of other people in Washington was the fact that Lincoln had offered him command of the army after Hooker resigned. Lincoln refused Reynold's condition that he be completely autonomous, and so he recommended to Lincoln that he choose Meade. Meade didn't know this, of course.

At 42, General Reynolds was still a fine horseman and he had galloped ahead of the corps and was now dismounting on top of Seminary Ridge. He had seen the Confederate columns from afar, and had smelled enough battlefields in his day not to need to wait for a courier to come tell him what was afoot. Looking around, he immediately sensed that he needed to get a division up on the heights before the Confederates moved up first.

General John Buford was probably getting more and more nervous in his perch up in the seminary cupola. He turned last to the south, and saw, what must have seemed like an endless dark line approaching up the Emmitsburg Road. Then, barely, he made out the guidon of the 1st Corps, and, next to it, the stars and stripes. Buford must have heaved a big sigh of relief: he KNEW his friend John Reynolds wouldn't let him down. He turned to climb down the steep ladder out of the cupola, anxious to buck up his troops with the news. He was startled by a familiar voice next to him.

"What's the matter, John?"

It was Reynolds, far out ahead of his corps. Buford must have been relieved beyond measure, but he only spoke the obvious:

"Hell's to pay."

Pettigrew encounters Buford

2011-08-28T01:42:00.006-06:00

The first actual fighting contact between the spread out elements of the two armies took place a little north and west of the actual town limits of Gettysburg in the early morning of July 1. More historians than not agree that Gettysburg was not chosen for battle by either side, that it was simply providence that'd done the choosing. Gettysburg was where the shoes were, that's all. But there - or somewhere else - it didn't make that much difference; that's where the two armies made first contact, after the first day's fighting, there was no turning back. Gettysburg it was.

Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was still coming up, it's corps and their divisions camping at various places of opportunity. Meade's Army of the potomac (Meade had very recently replaced Joseph Hooker as its commander) had crossed the river shortly after Lee, and was making its way up too, also in a long spread out line, keeping to the east of Lee, more or less between Lee and Washington.

The fortunes of war are sometimes bizarre, and one the reasons that the two armies made contact at Gettysburg was over shoes. Ok, since you want me to tell the story of the shoes, and how they caused the meeting of elements of the two armies, I will.

Napoleon Bonapart had once said that an army travels on its stomach. Both Lee and Meade knew this wasn't true: an army travels on its feet, and both sides were due for some needed reshoeing.

On June 3o, Lee was near Cashtown and Meade at Middleburg. Meade had selected Pipe Creek (in that area) as the place he would like to fight. Intelligence from his scouts and from Washington seemed to indicate that Lee had apparently changed his mind about Harrisburg and Philadelphia, and was veering east, with Washington and Baltimore his new apparent goals.

This story really started earlier in the day, June 30, 1863 - the day before Day One of what was to later be called simply "Gettysburg," where, at Cashtown, Brigadier General Johnson Pettigrew was eagerly bringing news of his brigade's brush with Union cavalry in the town of Gettysburg to his division commander, Major General Harry Heth, about his sighting of Yankee cavalry. As he was speaking, the corps commander himself, Powell Hill, arrived and listened first hand as Pettigrew recounted encountering, or at least seeing up close and personal (Buford's) Union cavalry. Pettigrew had taken his brigade to Gettysburg to try and get those shoes, but withdrew from the town quickly in the face of Gamble's (Buford's cavalry commander) calvary, coming up from Emmitsburg in advance of Buford's Division.

Harry Heth was an interesting man. He was a career soldier, a cousin of George Pickett. They had been at West Point at the same time, staying in the regular army until Virginia seceded. Heth was an arms specialist and had been the foremost authority on the rifle in the old army, even writing a book. "A System of Target Practice" was still used as the range guide in the army. Lee enjoyed his company and conversation. Heth's division was a bit heavy, with 4 brigades instead of 3, due to recent reorganization and consolidating. One of his brigades was commanded by Brigadier General Joseph R. Davis, a nephew of the Southern President. But it was another of Heth's brigade commanders, Pettigrew, who was engaging Heth's ear at the moment.

Frankly, neither Heth nor Hill believed Pedigrew, but listened semi-politely. General Hill had just come from Lee, whose intelligence from scouts agreed: Lee and Hill knew where the Yankees were, and it damn sure wasn't Gettysburg.

One imagines the corps commander losing interest, perhaps looking to Heth to silence Pettigrew's now-repetitive exuberance. Heth turned to Hill and interjected: "If there is no objection, I will take my division tomorrow and go to Gettysburg and get those shoes."

Hill: "None in the world."

---------

No screaming while head is in dustpan

2011-08-27T14:10:00.004-06:00

Please tell me the below picture is posed. Surely not a real mom?

Mo' Teaparty

2011-08-26T15:26:00.004-06:00

I'm still trying to define the "Teaparty" thing. It isn't as benign as I wrote in my last post. It looks like the original tax protest (against Obama's stimulous package, I think) has been hijacked by a lot of other organizations with their own agendas, each with the name "Teaparty" somewhere in their name.

You probably weren't surprised. Nothing ever happens spontaneously without it soon being appropriated. Still trying to find out how bad it is and who the big fat boys are that's using it.

Your government loves you and has your best interests at heart.

2011-08-26T00:09:00.003-06:00

Those of you who have followed my blogs have come to know how truly objective I am in my reporting, and how especially tolerant and neutral I am when I blog about my beloved government. Hardly a day passes that I am not reminded of the caring benevolence spread over me by my Federal Government. Sometimes, when I realize just how thickly their concern for my well-being is spread all over me, my heart nearly bursts with love as I give thanks that I live in a country which cares enough to warn me, like a loving ~~nanny~~ father, about things like, say, giving in to the urge of putting a plastic bag over my head.

How many times has my government literally saved my life by mandating the printing of pictures of lifeless babies with x'ed out eyes and little tongues hanging out on the little plastic bag that my keyboard came in? Or, since I am prone to blow-drying my hair while sitting in the bathtub, how many times do you think, over the years, I have given a huge whew of relief when I've opened a new hair dryer and - just in the nick of time - saw the likeness on the plastic wrapper of the hapless schmuck with the electric bolts coming out of his ears and smoke rising from his electron-fried boyo? It boggles. I rejoice publicly in front of your prying eyes.

How long has this been going on? When did it start? I'm guessing it may have been one of the nice things Jimmy Carter did for us, but I may be wrong. It may be even older. If I try hard enough, I can conjure up long-dead (may Allah be praised) congressmen from the 1960s with fat cigars and blue smoke around their heads with skinny suspenders holding their pants up over their bloated pot-bellied pork bellies, passing major plastic-bag safety legislation in lulls between congressional pay-raise bills. And LBJ signing them as fast as his bought-and-paid-for slimy hands could sign. And then, probably, selling the pens he signed them with.

God, how proud the fallen boys from the hedgerows of France must feel as they smile down from heaven and witness the fruits of their sacrifice manifested in such greater personal freedom from intrusive government than they were able to enjoy in their brief lifetimes. How proud the Framers must be to realize just how much their progeny understands what they meant by "regulate interstate commerce". Glory.

Would I like to live in a world where the government doesn't require asinine needless warnings on plastic bags? Would I like to see all the rows of empty "handicapped parking" spaces disappear? I think I would like to leave those things up to state and local governments, thank you. One size doesn't fit all. It has NEVER been more efficient to send in your money to the Federal Government and then have them send some of it back to the states and cities wrapped neatly around new stupid regulations. EVEN if they are big enough to make me do things I don't want to do.

If the Feds want to regulate something, how about them thar bank charges? No price fixing there, by golly - it's just a big fat coincidence that all banks charge the exact same fees. Sure. Just like it is only a big fat coincidence all four gas stations on each intersection with different signs price their gasoline the same, to the penny. You bet. And how about seeing my interest rates keep going up on my credit cards even though I haven't missed a payment in 10 years? Huh? Even though the price banks pay for money has gone down and down and down to ZERO practically. How about that, Mr. and Mrs. Fed? How about putting some of your crony stock broker buddies in jail for stealing all the bail-out money YOU gave them? Hey? That'll keep you busy enough that you don't have to worry about mandating warnings on my toothpaste. I say let the Feds keep the thieving banks and credit card companies off my back and buy some decent body armor for the Army, and just leave the rest to the people. (Other people, not me.)

---------

Obligatory notice for my dear liberal readers:

All this sarcasm aside, I do believe there are some (many) things that we need our Federal Government to do - things that don't make sense for local governments or state governments to be trying to do. That's another post, since I will have to think up some things our Federal Government is better at than local governments would be good at, other than the obvious things that are outlined in the Constitution already. Among these would be uniform Civil Rights laws and enforcement. I would consider things like no child labor and not having to starve in the gutter to be civil rights.

By all means, please list all the things YOU think the Federal Government should be involved in because they love you and me and are concerned for our welfare. Don't be afraid. I won't bite.

-----------

And if I was the President

The minute the Congress'd call my name

I'd say "Now, who do... who do you think you're foolin'?"

I got the Presidential Seal

I'm up here on the Presidential Podium

And my country loves me, she loves me

She gets down on her knees and hugs me

She LOVES me like a rock

She rocks me like the Rock of Ages

My country loves me

She love me love me love me love me.

Apologies to Paul Simon. Big time.

Lee invades the North

2011-08-24T00:06:00.007-06:00

Max is interested in studying the Civil War. I can't tell you why, except that it is complex and therefore challenging to unravel. Max loves to come unraveled.

Realizing that the American Civil War is not especially interesting to many readers of this blog, I will keep the posts short and spread them out over time, say every third post for the next 10 years.

Relax Max's rendition of the American Civil War is probably not the same exact version you've read in your history books, but it will be accurate, and it may be more interesting. At the very least, due to my attention span, you may be sure I will skip around. I'm going to start out with just one battle of that war - a battle that happened about halfway through the war. Max and a zillion other people have studied and critiqued that battle over the years. As a result of all that reading and studying, much of this is from memory, so feel free to correct me in comments. Be gentle.

---------

In the spring of 1863, General Robert E. Lee was growing more than a little frustrated at winning major defensive battles fought in Virginia against the (at times) ineptly led Union Army of the Eastern Theater, and still not seeing them go away. He had repulsed the Army of the Potomac (and its appendages) four times: under McClellan, under Pope, under Burnside, and most recently under Joe Hooker - hammering it and sending it staggering back well pounded and bloodied, only to see an endless line of fresh recruits in new blue uniforms replenish the gaps in the Union line and resume the grinding pressure against Lee, eating up the resources of the South at an alarming rate while the fresh replacements arrived from the Washington Forts, and the Union Navy sat in the tidewaters and provisioned them at will. Something had to give. General Lee made the decision to invade the North.

---------

Actually, Lee had three reasons for invading Pennsylvania. First, from a tactical standpoint, he wanted to draw the Army of the Potomac out away from Washington and, if he could interdict - or at least stretch - their supply lines, he was confident he could defeat them in the open, so to speak. Second, if he could take Harrisburg (and he could, easily enough) and maybe even Philadelphia, he would put some fear into the citizens - enough fear, perhaps, that they would put some pressure on Washington to consider ending the war in a compromise and letting the South go their own way. After all, the people in the North were getting tired of the war, too.

Last but not least, Lee had a great desire (and need) to begin feeding his army in Pennsylvania instead of in Virginia. His army was eating Virginians out of house and home. The prosperous "Pennsylvania Dutch" German farmers wouldn't miss a million or so chickens and much of their cattle and bursting storehouses full of grain and orchards laden with heavy fruit - not to mention 50,000 or so pairs of shoes.

So it came to pass, in late June of 1863, General Robert E. Lee began to consolidate his great army, and the waning days of June saw the three splendid corps of the Army of Northern Virginia on the top side of the Mason-Dixon line, in search of provisions and the Army of the Potomac, whichever came first.

Odd that Lee would have to search, but, as it happened, Lee had just lost his right arm and was almost totally blind as the invasion began. His right arm, of course was what he euphemistically called his main man, General Stonewall Jackson, who had been killed recently at Chancellorsville. Lee hadn't gotten over that yet and wondered aloud at what he would possibly do without Jackson. Worse, Jackson had been shot by his own men, at night, when Jackson had absentmindedly failed to answer the challenge of a sentry.

As for being blind, Lee hadn't seen hide nor hair of General J.E.B. Stuart in days now, not since Harper's Ferry or thereabouts. An army without cavalry, in those days, was a blind army. Lee wondered why Stuart and his cavalry didn't appear and bring him intelligence as to the whereabouts of the Army of the Potomac. Worriedly, he continued north, hardly invisible to anyone who could see.

As it turned out, the army Lee was looking for was in a bit of disarray as well, very spread out. Lincoln had just fired Joe Hooker that day, so the Army of the Potomac - wherever it was - was without a commanding general for the time being. Joe Hooker had a bit of a mouth on him and he had recently lost an argument with Lincoln and the War Department in Washington.

See, after Chancellorsville, Hooker was convinced Lee was still bogged down at Fredericksburg (he had even had General Sedgewick, commander of the "Big Sixth" Corps of the Union Army, send a brigade down across the river to punch at "Lee's" army which Hooker thought was still hunkered down in Fredericksburg, and Sedgewick's boys fancied they felt enough resistance from the Confederate forces there - it was really "only" J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry, not Lee's army - to tell Hooker that Lee was still there) so Hooker quickly got it into his head that Lee had left Richmond exposed (he had) and told Lincoln he intended to trot on down and take the Southern Capital.

To which Abraham Lincoln replied, "Your ass, Joe. Get thyself back up here and put my army between Washington and the Confederates. I don't need another Southern city to feed." Or words to that effect.

To which Hooker replied with words to the effect that if Lincoln didn't like the way he was handling the war in the Eastern Theater, then he could just take his resignation right then and there, and Lincoln allowed as how he WOULD do just that and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Joe. Like that. More or less.

So it came to pass that General George Meade became head honcho of the Army of the Potomac just as Lee was bringing the pride of the South up to introduce themselves to the Pennsylvania farmers. And Meade? George Meade didn't have a clue what Hooker's plans had been, and really didn't know exactly where all "his" army was right now. In fact, just to show you the confusion and suspicion going on in the Union high command at the moment, Meade later said when he was woken up to be told he was now the new Commander, he thought he was being arrested for something else he had recently done. Ah, well.

So General George Gordon Meade got out his maps and at the same time was sincerely unhappy to be informed that the South was invading him. Somewhere. Welcome, George. Have a cup of coffee, and let's get it on.

Robert E. Lee proceeded to cautiously continue to bring his army up, sans cavalry and intelligence - where WAS Stuart? Arrrgh. It is really a pain in the ass to keep tabs on three full corps of infantry, artillery, and miles of supply wagons - while looking for the rather bleary eyed George Meade. And Meade was alookin' for Lee too.

Soon the two armies would find each other just outside a prosperous little town in southern Pennsylvania, called Gettysburg.

Today is August 18 again. It seems only yesterday it was August 17.

2011-08-18T00:09:00.002-06:00

A lot of things happened on August 18. Not necessarily today, but in years past. Historic things happened. People were born. People... you know... died.

Were YOU born on August 18? If so, happy birthday! And I mean that. I certainly hope you don't DIE on August 18, at least not today. If you do, please have someone comment about it and I will write a nice piece about you in this spot.

THINGS THAT HAPPENED ON AUGUST 18:

1. The Thousand Islands Bridge was dedicated on August 18 in 1904 by Teddy Roosevelt. Ok, that's a lie. It was dedicated on August 18, 1938 by FRANKLIN Roosevelt. Of course, the Thousand Island Bridge isn't really a bridge at all (it's a salad dressing. Kidding again) it's a series of 5 bridges. It goes from New York across the St. Lawrence into Ontario and then back down to North Carolina. Or at least NY to ONT. Oh! but that area is simply gorgeous. There's also a castle on one of the thousand islands. I forget which one. Our very own Sheila did a post about it one time though, and you should go back and read it. Anyway, here's a bridge picture. You'll never forgive yourself if you don't click on it to make it slendiferously bigger:

2. On August 18, 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving women the right to vote in the U.S. So that was a cool August 18 thing.

PEOPLE WHO DIED ON AUGUST 18:

1. Persus Khambatta, in 1998. That sucked. Persus was a Miss India at age 17 and went on to compete in Miss Universe, but to me she will always be the exotic Deltan Lieutenant Ilia in the original Star Trek movie. Here's pictures of her:

2. Honore de Balzac, in 1850. Famous black coffee drinker and marathon writer. A favorite of mine and the more I read of him, the favoriter her gets. I could quote you some of the things he said but the whole world already knows what he said. Ask Soubriquet to tell you about the coffee. Here's Honore's picture, looking all cool and fat:

PEOPLE WHO WERE BORN ON AUGUST 18:

1. Virginia Dare, 1587. Virginia was the first English child born in the Americas.

2. Franz Josef I, Emperor of the Austrian Empire, pictured at top of this post. August 18, 1830 was when this precious one entered the world. You may recall that the Great War, WWI, began when his nephew-successor Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914 by Serb nationalists in Sarajevo. The war dragged out until the U.S. entered in 1917 and won it quickly. Then again, you may NOT recall. It's ok.

3. Robert Redford, Born August 18, 1936. It's really hard to describe all that he has done over the years. He is one of my favorite actors of all time. Even the real Sundance Kid once told me (in an afterlife postcard) that Redford was a better Sundance than he was himself. It's hard for me to believe that Robert Redford is 75 today. Damn.

4. Roman Polanski, child rapist, beloved of the liberal left, he who is too cool to be subject to justice like a regular non-artistic common man and should just be left alone because the rapee wants it so now and, God, he has suffered enough, born 1933. He is also one of the absolute best, most talented movie directors who ever lived. Incidently, Vincent Bugliosi was also born on August 18 of the very next year. How eerie is that? oooooEEEEEooooo. (Bugliosi was the LA district attorney who prosecuted Charles Manson and family for the murder of Roman Polanski's wife, Sharon Tate.)

5. Roselyn Carter, former U.S. First Lady and sweet southern Belle. Unfortunately, some say her husband was the worst President in the history of the United States. Of course, that wasn't HER fault, even if it were true. How quickly people forget Lyndon Shithead Johnson and his Great Society debacle and something else. Oh, I remember: Vietnam. So Jimmy wasn't the worst, but bad enough to get Ronald Reagan elected because he shone in comparison. Me? I vote James Buchanan as worst, simply because he could have prevented the Civil War and just sat on his ass instead. But none of those things have anything to do with August 18. Here is a picture of Roselyn and her guy:

The So-called Tea Party

2011-08-17T00:11:00.006-06:00

Without knowing exactly what it was or what it REALLY stood for, I decided, finally, to do some research on this thing people have been calling "The Teaparty."

I should say that before this little bit of half-assed research, I only "knew" what was being thrown out by politicians and the "media." I have admittedly read a lot of rhetoric on Looney Left blogs and websites, and heard about (though not actually listened to) the Rabid Right's radio talk shows, and, by reading these things, have concluded that the "Left" doesn't like "The Teaparty" or a woman called "Sarah Palin." I think the Rabid Right does. So I tried to dig deeper, in hopes that maybe I could come up with a personal opinion of my own; I plugged my nose and jumped into the septic tank of American Politics, euphemistically-speaking. At least I dove as deep as the internet would take me; I don't want to know badly enough to actually go outside and see for myself first-hand.

This alone - this frothing hatred of them by the Far Left - was, of course, reason enough for me to be predisposed to like them both - The Teaparty and Sarah Palin - even before beginning my elusive search for "some" truth. Add the fact that my friend Adullamite disparages and scorns both "The Teaparty" and this Palin woman, and you give me yet another reason to think they must both be pretty good. Joke.

Be that as it may, I decided to see if there was any truth to be found out there beyond the vast bald-faced lying wasteland of the Looney Liberal bloggers and the droning propaganda of the Rabid Rightwing talk radio shows. It wasn't as easy to find out the truth as you might think. Maybe there isn't any truth, just rhetoric. But I found a few "possibly true" facts that I am pretty sure are "almost complete" facts. Here goes.

1. The first thing I found out is there is no such thing as "The Teaparty." Wow. At least not officially. It isn't a party at all (not a political party, I mean, maybe an ice cream party). It has no official leadership or official headquarters or official website (which REALLY made it hard to find out the truth, since there is no "horse's mouth" so to speak.

2. In spite of there being no official organization or official website, there are at least a ZILLION websites out there with red, white, and blue design motifs with the American flag and American eagle plastered all over the home pages. You'll have no trouble finding places to donate to "The Teaparty" online, but your money will go to whatever causes that particular website thinks is best. Maybe his own bank. Just saying.

3. I found one website that seems to have done more research than I have, and it was the only one which seemed to have a bit of an honest ring to it when it stated bluntly:

"There is no 'official' Tea Party website. There is no 'official' Tea Party organization or board of directors. Anyone who tells you different is a liar, and anyone who tells you his website is the official place to donate money to the Tea Party is a thief."

4. A few facts seem to consistently emerge when you look hard enough.

a. The "Tea" in "Tea Party" stands for "TEA" - "Taxed Enough Already." It was the slogan of the original handful of grass roots tax protesters who gave birth to this thing that the whole world has largely perverted. For the record, the tax protest that spawned "The Teaparty" was begun by a young lady in Oregon (of all places) who began blogging about it. She ended up with something like 130 people who agreed with her and then it went viral.

b. Don't believe in polls. Polls vary wildly and are manipulated to the purposes of the ones who think up the questions and decide who they ask and how they ask. But a short list of items seems to keep showing up on all the responses. Most people who said they were in agreement with what "The Teaparty" stood for, thought they stood for the following:

1. Smaller, less intrusive, government; but take care of the truly needy

2. Lower taxes, but crack down on big banks and big corporations

3. More personal responsibility of individuals in all areas

4. The federal government should stop spending so much and start living within their (our) means

5. We should stop starting wars all over the world and start minding our own business

6. We need to return to backing our money with something that is intrinsically valuable, like gold or silver.

That's about it. Those are the things that the Looney Left and some bloggers I know are making fun of.

For not having an "official organization," so-called "Teaparty candidates" who vocally espouse the above principles are sure being elected in droves and having their campaigns donated to.

One other thing that is going to piss off the Left, though it didn't surprise me:

(a) there are more Democrats who believe in the above principles than the Lurid Left or Rabid Right thinks there are. "Teabaggers" are not all Southern Baptist Republicans.

(b) worse for the Obama reelection camp, there are a LOT more independents who believe those things too.

Bottom line. Does Max think these folks are going to deny Obama a second term? No. No, I don't believe that. Our current President will be around for a while, is my prediction. I do think there is a good chance his party will lose the Senate though, if they don't get off their butts and do something about the economy really quickly, and that would mean he would have to bend his ear a bit more to the lowlife people he is now disparaging, if he wants to get anything accomplished in his second term. But the likes of Palin or Bachman or any of the other lightweights are hardly going to defeat Obama.

God I hate politics and politicians. I read in my local paper today that Congress has reached an all-time low of 18% approval rating by the citizens. That's one poll I think I believe. Can you believe it? What scumbags! All they would have to do to get some respect is go to work and do what their bosses tell them they want done. But they can't manage to do that. Is there anything stupider or grosser than a fat cat lawyer politician when their snout is in the trough? Any other employees would have been fired a long time ago. What is Congress' current response to the economic crisis and high unemployment that is going on right now? They are in Washington, working tirelessly day and night, right?

Wrong. They went on summer break.

---------

Update: after this published and I read it carefully, it is obvious I didn't stress enough that these fake "Teaparty" parasites with all their disingenuous blogs and self-serving usurpers are doing plenty enough to deserve the scorn and ridicule the world is heaping on "The Teaparty". But these are the charlatans and money grubbers and not, I don't think, the same people who are quietly financing and electing the new "replacement" politicians who have promised to toe the demanded fiscal responsibility line.

Competent Men

2011-08-13T02:01:00.004-06:00

A "competent man" (or competent woman) according to Wikipedia is a stock character in a novel who exhibits a wide range of abilities and knowledge; a form of fictional polymath.

Many superheroes in comic books and science fiction novels are of this character type. Sherlock Holmes, as another example, was a Competent Man. Howard Roark (The Fountainhead) was, in my opinion, Ayn Rand's "competent man" characterization. Batman is another example.

The late amazing science fiction author Robert Heinlein - who had an unbelievable imagination, in his award-winning novel "Time Enough for Love" had his "competent man" character Lazarus Long speak the following words:

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallently. Specialization is for insects."

I like that.

Why am I thinking of Soubriquet right now?

Or even Re... Well, that would be TOO arrogant. :)

No, Max is not a polymath. He is an indefatigable philomath, though; this blog's very existence is some evidence of that. And now he knows of Robert Heinlein and Lazarus Long. And even Hildegard of Bingen.

There is nothing like a long-distance shot to the head to make Max talk oddly in his posts.

Falling for it

2011-08-08T00:12:00.005-06:00

I've recently read some odd things and visited some odd websites while Googling to find out about the various aspects of falling. Free-falling in the sky, I mean - not falling out of my chair or down the stairs.

The first thing I was trying to find out was how long it would take you to splat into the earth falling from various heights, but I soon came across some other interesting questions from other readers of the various articles.

As to my first question, about how long it takes a person (or object) to fall to the earth from various heights, they started talking about physics right away so that sort of turned me off. All I really wanted to know was how long it would take an object to fall to earth from 20,000 feet, but could I get a straight answer? No. They kept talking about things like mass and resistance and attitude. I will admit to the attitude by then.

I realize that if I jump out of an airplane and go into a diving position I will fall faster than if I fall flat with my arms out like a skydiver. And I realize that a rock tied under an umbrella is probably going to fall a lot slower than a non-umbrellaed cannonball would, but I just wanted a general answer. Not possible, the Googled scientists said - need to know some factors first.

I remember Rocket Scientist telling me one time about terminal velocity, which I assumed referred to a child running through an airport. Anyway, the subject was sudden loss of cabin pressure and whether one would really get sucked out the airplane window like Goldfinger did. I think she said no, because the pressure would be lost too fast and wasn't that great of a differential in the first place, but if you were under several atmospheres of pressure or lack of pressure, like in a diving bell, then your bod would get pushed through the meat grinder pretty grossly.

Back to falling. What prompted this was me reading an old news story about two large airliners crashing over the Grand Canyon at 20,000 feet back in 1956. I was wondering how long it might have taken them to fall from that height to crash into Grand Canyon, and whether or not it would be a long enough fall for the passengers to have time to realize what had happened and what was about to happen to them, if you get my drift. I'm not insensitive to their terror, but inquiring minds want to know and I can't help them anymore by not asking anyway.

So, basically you get back to air resistance of the various parts of the still-intact parts of the airliners which contained the 200-some passengers (it was the largest loss of life of any airline accident up to that time.)

I'm guessing, and only guessing, that it took a least a couple of minutes. Must have seemed like an eternity to them. Neither of the planes were flyable and went straight down, crashing near each other, although one assumes engines or some of them were still running, they were screaming down to earth and not "gliding." The TWA super Connie had it's entire tail torn off, so you assume some passengers in free fall away from the plane, but the United DC-7 had half of one wing ripped off so maybe the pilot was able to keep the shiny side "up" rather than spiraling, but almost straight down. Can anyone improve upon my guess of "a couple minutes?"

---------

The second question that came up (other than the normal questions of throwing cats and caterpillars out of upstairs windows) was about falling through the center of the earth. The deal was you drill a hole all the way through the earth and jump into it and fall out in China. And the question was how long would it take to make the trip. Everyone came up with between 12 and 14 minutes, which I thought was preposterous. Of course, you had to pretend a lot of things like you could breathe and there was no air friction and it wasn't hot at the center of the earth and things like that.

Nobody, none of the elementary school science teachers, came up with the answer I came up with, so I will present it to you here. They were concerned with mass and terminal velocity and diameter of the earth, and I was concerned with something they didn't even mention, which was gravity. I say, you would fall slower and slower and finally come to a stop at the center of the earth when the gravitational forces equalized. What's wrong with that idea? But nobody else mentioned gravity, so I must be wrong.

---------

When I left the google thing, my mind kept on going, in free-fall, as it were. Like, what if you dropped two round lead balls out of an airplane, one the size of a marble and one the size of a small cannon ball. Pretend the airplane could come to a stop while you dropped them carefully. Pretend there was no wind to blow the lighter one sideways. Just think about mass. I say they would reach the ground at exactly the same time (if you pretend there was no air resistance. Sigh.) I say that the two objects of different weights (neglecting aerodynamics) would fall at exactly the same speed.

---------

Speaking of terminal velocity. I think we were at one time. It turns out that an object doesn't just fall faster and faster until it reaches its terminal velocity and then continue at that speed until it hits the ground. Air being denser and denser the closer to the ground you are, the objects slow (slightly) down the closer they get to the ground. That's what they said. So you reach terminal velocity and then (still falling side by side?) you begin to slow down a bit. We are probably talking about less than a second here, but you know how scientists are.

---------

I have finally convinced myself that if you are trapped in a falling elevator you will still be killed if you jump hard and high a split second before you crash. But I can't explain why. Sounds reasonable to me.

Speaking of religion (if not morality)

2011-08-05T12:15:00.002-06:00

Perhaps you have been looking for a side income lately? Check this out.

Religion and Morality

2011-08-01T08:29:00.009-06:00

I have been blogging about morals and morality the last few posts. I have postulated that morals are personal and learned (not innate) and can change. I have asserted that society can impose a code of morality upon us that is different (or can be different) than our personal moral code. Finally, I made the obvious point that society (we) can make up any moral code it feels like if we allow it to, or force it to, at the ballot box.

Of course, we can all complain and ridicule the current moral code our society (neighbors) have adopted. We can opine how stupid and silly their moral code is and how we would write the code differently, but that is really only saying "My personal moral code is better and society would do well to adopt my values. By God." In short, it does no good to opine about the smartness or dumbness of society's rules. Doing so is only a theoretical argument. One must work to get the rules that one dislikes changed. It could happen. Society's code can change. It has happened before.

Another place we learn our moral code is through religion. I state the obvious. Religion is, more or less, one big moral code, and if one learns it from early childhood, one accepts it tenets, whether it be Islam or John Calvin's version of Christianity. Religion is more like society's rules, though, in that you HAVE to go by it's rules if you want to be a part of it. Religion is different than society in that you can't really change it; you can only leave.

There is a lot more I could say about morals and morality, but I would probably only start getting intrusive, and that isn't my intent in these posts. As usual, I only seek to research truth and to restate what I think I have found that truth to be, for my own benefit mostly.

Man cannot live in society without a moral code; he can't just go around doing as he pleases.

Allowing people to come CLOSE to doing as they think best is the best kind of society to live in, don't you think? As soon as I wrote the preceding sentence, I realized I don't really believe it; man needs structure and order to thrive, and sometimes that means a certain structure must be imposed upon us.

What are your own thoughts about that?

Do you believe that the moral code you have formulated for yourself, based on what you have learned so far in life, is the best moral code?

Do you agree that when you ridicule certain "dos and don'ts" that society tells us we must abide by, you are really only comparing them to your own set of values?

I personally believe one cannot judge the goodness or badness of a society's moral code without, at the same time, comparing that code to one's own personal moral code, and noting flaws or excellence - defined by how society deviates from our own personal values or how society is congruent with our personal values. I also think the exact same process takes place when an author creates a fictional character in a book: that fictional character has "good points and admirable qualities" only when those "good qualities" are in harmony with the author's true real-life code of morals; and the character can only have "bad or even despicable" qualities when those acts deviate from the author's personal view of what is good and acceptable. In other words, the author, without perhaps even thinking about it, defines what is bad behavior for the fictional character by contrasting it to personal definitions of "goodness and acceptable behavior" in the author's real life.

You think your morals are ambiguous? The dictionary tells me ambiguous means undefined or open to more than one interpretation.

Really?

I certainly believe a person can consciously refrain from judging the morals of other people (a lot of the time.) I certainly believe a person can have a very broad live-and-let-live personal moral code. But I also think that no matter how broad it is, it is still defined - else one day you could murder and rape without remorse, and the next day you would be horrified to do the same thing. And you would countenance horrible and hurtful acts by others, because you had no opinion on the subject.

I believe we all have a moral code. Some people's list is longer than others'. But what things, long or short, are on our list, they ARE defined.

Society and morality

2011-07-30T00:13:00.002-06:00

Having said in my last post that I think our personal "moral code" is learned over time, rather than being something we are born with, I want to use this post to quickly add that the society in which we live ALSO has established a moral code which we must live by, even if that code is different than our personal code.

By "society" I am speaking of the other people who live in this world, country, state, county, city, as an aggregate entity. You can't do EVERYTHING you feel like doing, just because it may fall within the limits of your own personal moral code. You might feel it is morally right to murder someone you don't like or who had done you wrong, but "society" has decreed that murder is one of the "no" items on their master list of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. You just have to live with being overruled by higher authority, and submit to that authority. No murdering, even if he takes your parking place right in front of you. Case closed.

Of course, doing murder is a rather extreme example. Most people's morals are not in conflict with a society which decrees there will be no murder done. But what if the society you lived in had other things on their "no" list, such as no abortions allowed, or no gay marriage? Society has "yes" lists, too. What if the majority in your society said you must pray a certain way to a certain alleged deity in a certain church on a certain day? It could happen. It HAS happened.

It is up to each of us to make sure things like that don't happen. We are "society," after all. We must take care not to impose our personal morality code on everyone who lives in our society, even though we believe our code to be right and just and best. True? Not true? Conversely, we must insure we don't go down the path of absolute permissiveness where "anything goes." Exactly what is our responsibility here, with respect to living by our own moral code while at the same time allowing the larger society a little slack to live by their code, too?

John Stuart Mill referred to democracy as the "tyranny of the majority," and so it can be. In a democracy, the majority -- no matter how slim that majority -- can force their will and their morals on ALL of their fellow citizens. That's just the way it works. But is your moral code really superior to mine, just because your beliefs happen to be shared by a majority?

The power of the majority in a democracy, I believe, should be tempered by a degree of tolerance and compassion for those who believe differently than we believe. In the system we have in the United States, whenever we cannot find that tolerance and compassion within ourselves voluntarily, our courts step in and enforce that pesky and often inconvenient "equal protection under the law" provision of our constitution.

That little clause says that a small band of haters can attend military funerals and verbally and obscenely abuse grieving families, because to restrict speech too much, ESPECIALLY IF WE DON'T LIKE WHAT IS BEING SAID, would lead us down a slippery path we don't want to travel down; it would lead to other kinds of speech being more easily restricted. This, even if the majority wanted them silenced.

That little clause overruled an election in which the tyranny of the majority decreed people may not be married in part of a certain state if they were different than other married couples, since they were of the same sex. Equal Protection means you can't treat one group of people differently under the law than you treat another group of people. Checks and balances. Yet many injustices are suffered every day at the hands of people who think their moral codes are superior, and they are in a democratic majority.

People need to develop a set of morals they can live by and not hurt other people in the process. At the same time, no one can argue that society as a whole needs to have rules and needs to be able to enforce those rules. When those rules have to do with "right and wrong" or "good or bad" or "acceptable and not acceptable" then those "rules" are a code of morality, pure and simple.

But how far do we go? How tolerant should we be before "moral decay" sets in and our society begins to disintegrate? How, at the same time, do we guard against being too rigid where all meaningful personal liberty is lost to that society?

What are your thoughts on the reality of democracy being, or capable of becoming, the "tyranny of the majority?" What is the solution to that? How do you make people be tolerant of the beliefs and values and morals of other people when they are in the voting booth? Or should they even think about anything except what they think is best for their society, based on their own morals?

So many questions still, and so few answers yet. Sadly, I'm not even half done here. I know I have raised more questions than I have answered.

Next: "This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."

Really? Is it that easy?

Morals and morality

2011-07-29T00:58:00.001-06:00

Do animals have morals?

I don't think so. The concept of right and wrong or good and bad is a human concept. This is not to say some animals don't analyze; I'm convinced that they do. But they analyze how to steal nuts from other squirrels, not whether it is right or wrong to do so.

I believe your "moral code" -- the list of things you personally think are ok to do or not ok to do -- stem from your personal values, and values are beliefs. What we believe to be true changes over time, as we gain new experiences and are offered new proofs. Working backward, when our beliefs are changed, our values (things we believe in) adjust to acommodate our new beliefs, and thus, too, our personal "moral code" is adjusted as well. This is my own reasoning and it may not coincide with your own reasoning.

When we are young children, we don't really have much of a moral code yet. We are mostly concerned with getting what we want, and if we want a cookie being held by another baby, we don't think twice about taking that cookie. We have no more guilt than the squirrel, I say. Soon we learn that certain things are right and wrong, good and bad, acceptable and not acceptable. This comes from our parents teaching us and from other babies punching us in the face.

What I am trying to say is that I believe our "morals" are learned over time and not something we are born with. This probably flies in the face of many of your basic religious teachings about a child being born knowing right from wrong in his heart, but I have not really witnessed a small child being anything other than your basic barbarian, morals-wise.

Since we all have different parenting, life experiences, and environmental learning experiences, I believe it is reasonable to say that our value systems (and hence our morals) are different. Some of us believe it is wrong to do this or that thing, and others don't think the same thing is wrong at all.

What we believe to be right and wrong certainly affects our behavior. For example, Baptists don't make love standing up, because they fear someone will walk in and think they are dancing. Dancing is wrong to a Baptist. Maybe Relax Max is different. Maybe he doesn't think dancing is wrong and so he might occasionally slap his tickle uprightly. Or, perhaps, he just doesn't care if people see him or not. It's a judgement call.

In my next posts on this subject, I want to explore things like whether your idea of right and wrong is superior to mine; whether society can tell us what is right and wrong; whether it is possible for you NOT to judge someone else's morals (even if you think you are tolerant or broad-minded); whether a person can have ambiguous morals (he can't); and, most importantly, why a fictional character in a book cannot POSSIBLY have a moral code that isn't based on the author's true belief system.

Please come back. This one will invoke debate.

Motivations

2011-07-28T00:10:00.001-06:00

What do I want to get out of writing?

I visit a lot of writing blogs, mostly just to read, and that is a common theme. Writers seem to search for meaning.

I have given up questioning long ago. I simply HAVE to write. I HAVE to take pictures. I HAVE to analyze things. Shrug. Let the others wonder why.

Sometimes it seems such a waste, this writing business. Sometimes I bubble over, most times I realize I don't really have anything important to say. But what would life be without writing? What would life be without taking pictures? What would life be without trying to put the puzzle together? The alternative is not really an option. Whatever else I may do, I must continue to write. Somehow (I think) if I write long enough, I will get all the drek pumped out of my brain and the good stuff will be able to come out.

I don't think Dickens had to wait this long, though.

Did the masters also have their doubts? Or did the words just flow from Dickens' quill like a silvery stream, with no effort on his part? I've tried to research what famous authors had to say about why they wrote, but, in truth, most of them didn't know why they wrote, they only knew they had no choice. Lost souls, like me.

George Orwell spoke about motivation, that you had to have some sort of inner passion that you cared about even to write fiction. He said his motivation was oppressive government and the plight of the average serf-citizen. He said he was inspired by the Spanish Civil War and after 1937 said he never wrote anything that wasn't driven by some sort of improvement in the human condition. Social Democracy was Orwell's driving passion. 1984. Animal House. I guess I get it now. This was after he got all the bad poetry out of his system.

I've always liked Ernest Hemingway's terse, pithy style of writing, so I thought maybe he had some terse pithy advice. But he didn't know either. He confided to F. Scott Fitzgerald in 1934: "I write one page of masterpiece to ninety-one pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket."

Big help.

For every thousand writers, there are a thousand individual reasons why they write. I just like to tell the stories of things.

Stringing them up. Voilà.

2011-07-22T14:27:00.013-06:00

Of the 4 traditional orchestral strings, the violin and the bass are tuned alike, only with the order of the strings reversed: GDAE, low to high on the violin and GDAE, high to low, on the bass. The tonal range of the violin is of the treble clef and that of the bass the... ummmm ... bass clef.

The two instruments in between the violin and the bass are the viola and the (violin)cello. The viola is slightly larger than the violin but still played under the chin; the cello smaller than the bass but also played on the floor, sitting rather than standing.

Violas and cellos are strung up differently than violins/basses, their voices being of the alto and tenor persuasion (so to speak): CGDA (C is low for the viola and high for the cello, so again reversed in order of installation.) No E string here, so don't look for it.

Of course the strings on a violin are not as thick as those of a bass, and they are tuned to different octaves. Well, duh. Same with violii and cellia. I just HAD to say that.

Violins and basses don't really associate socially that much, polls show, and the one thing they most have in common seems to be a desire to poke fun at the sissy clef that violas and cellos use. Unless you've had violin lessons inflicted upon you as a child, you probably won't even recognize a C clef, and maybe not even then since a violin doesn't use it. Well, by god, here it is, though, in all its amusing glory. Hello.

"Hello." (Habitually said by Bill Cosby in his standup comedian days.)

We won't be going over baritone clefs or Heathcliffs, so no need to search. Just sayin'. In fact, we won't be going over any cliffs at ALL until next post.

While it is fairly common during a symphony orchestra performance for the violins to get up and wander about, even up and down the aisles in the audience, sometimes playing requests, it is expected that the violas and cellos remain seated. Conduct for basses varies from orchestra to orchestra and has never been clearly defined. Sufficient to say their behavior is often vile. Basely vile.

I guess that's about all. To say more would require me to think up a point for making this post. Except to say that the picture at the top of this post is a viola and not a cello. Can anyone tell how you can tell from the picture? That reminds me of a story. Sorry. In eighth grade orchestra, one of our cello players - not exactly Rhodes Scholar material - once bet me his gangly arms were long enough to play his cello in the manner of a violin. So I bet my lunch money and held his bow while he skewered his neck clean through.

Ok, that was Socratic irony. Always be prepared from now on since I read that Wikepedia article on Socrates and critical thinking, although I haven't yet connected the two. Give me time.

--------

Double feature coming up next:

1. Johnny Paycheck's grandson says, "Take this flute and shove it."

2. Is it possible for a double-reed player to get its tongue pinched between its reeds? And what if it is and it is not in a situation where it can scream?

3. Bonus! "Other uses for bassoons and bagpipes: no longer only good just for firewood."

All the gory details will be revealed as truthfully as a Rupert Murdock editorial and as unbiased as a Guardian report on Republicans. You won't want not to miss this one.

Hello.

I see nothing

2011-07-20T00:54:00.001-06:00

Actor John Banner died January 28, 1973 at age 63.

I don't know what his big movies were. All I remember him is as Sgt. Schmidt in Hogan's Heroes.

Update: Sgt. Schultz, I mean. I guess I don't remember so well, after all.

Analyzing Balls

2011-07-15T21:48:00.004-06:00

Here is an analysis of the various sports that are most popular with different types of workers.

1. Basketball is the sport of choice for urban poor.

2. Bowling is the sport of choice for maintenance employees.

3. Football is the sport of choice for regular line workers.

4. Baseball is the sport of choice for supervisors.

5. Tennis is the sport of choice for middle to upper management.

6. Golf is the sport of choice for top executives and company officers.

Conclusion of analysis:

The higher you go up the corporate ladder the smaller your balls get.

Many thanks to whomever I stole this from originally. Although they stole it too. I need to keep better notes on sources.

Little things mean a lot

2011-07-02T11:44:00.004-06:00

My father always used to tell me if I would watch my pennies, then the dollars would take care of themselves. I don’t think I really understood what he meant when he repeated that old adage, but I did start, from a young age, picking up free pennies off the ground as I walked, and still do. I realize now that that is probably not what he meant. Maybe partly, in a "cents."

If you are looking for perfection in a blog, in writing, or anything else that Relax Max has his imprint on, you will be disappointed. I strive mostly to inform, amuse, even share my learnings on occasion, but perfection is something I have given up on long ago.

It strikes me as paradoxical, therefore, (some might say hilarious) that I spend much of my time, both hobby-wise and income-wise, in troubleshooting systems and describing theories for improvement in the way things are now, or in the way things are being done. You can chalk that up to my personality type.

In the process of defining or describing excellence, or in interpreting what the systematic path to success in a thing might be, it is usually necessary to first describe the current state of affairs, point out shortcomings and tell how one thinks the current status quo falls short of excellence. Only then can one put forth a vision for improvement.

Perfection might never be achieved, but one should always strive for excellence to the degree possible. When one person doesn’t take pride in his work in the assemblyline of life, the entire operation is degraded and will fall short of what it could have been. This is true if one is putting nuts on automobile wheel bolts as they pass by; it is true of individual members of a symphony orchestra; and it is true of armies and governments.

My old Air Force basic training sergeant explained this philosophy more succinctly: "Americans don't do half-assed work." Well, they didn't used to, anyway. Would you rise above the crowd? Then don't do half-assed work.

Since I am primarily a big-picture kind of person, it is especially hard for me to make myself pay attention to the dtails in life that form that big-picture, but we simply must try to make each small contribution we make to the larger whole as perfect and excellent as we possibly can. In all things, try to care.

Presidents of Congress

2011-06-30T08:26:00.005-06:00

I was writing a piece the other day on the U.S. Constitution, for another project, and had to do a little research on one or two points. For example, after the constitution was agreed to at the convention in September, 1787, the convention members signed it and sent it over to congress to be voted on. One of the things I looked up was the cover letter of transmittal. It was addressed to the "president" and signed by the President of the Convention (George Washington.) Who was this other president?

I was stymied at first. Then I recalled we were operating under the Articles of Confederation at that time, and the new constitution was being sent to the "President of Congress." (The Continental Congress.)

That brings up the old trick joke of "Who was the first President of the United States?" Some say John Hancock. Wrong. Some say George Washington. Right. George Washington is the right answer because he was the first president of the United States under our present constitution, and before that, the "presidents" were presidents of congress.

There were a lot of presidents of congress, starting back in 1774. Mostly they changed with each session of congress, more or less. They were more like an elected chairman of a committee rather than the "grandeur" of our current system. And John Hancock was, indeed the president of congress on July 4, 1776. But he wasn't President of the United States like now, and he wasn't the first president of congress, either.

The first president of congress was Payton Randolf and the last was one Cyrus Griffin. In between were 14 others (two were duplicates), including the aforementioned John Hancock. Also numbered among those early, rather fleeting in terms, presidents were John Jay, who would become our first Secretary of State and, later serve on the Supreme Court; and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, ancestor of Robert E. Lee. Randolf and Hancock each served two terms each, both non-consecutive.

So it was president of congress number 16, Cyrus Griffin, that the cover letter signed by George Washington was sent, along with the new constitution. Griffin dutifully put the matter before the congress of that time, and the new compact was passed and sent out to the states for their concurrence. Griffin stayed on as president until George Washington was sworn in under the new constitution on April 30, 1789.

One point of interest: one of these old congressional presidents, number 15, was Arthur St. Clair. He was pretty famous and pretty interesting. I won't go into his life here, but he came to America from Scotland, as a British soldier, during the French and Indian War (the 7 Years War, as the British call it) and is the only American president of congress who was born on foreign soil. He was born during the latter stages of the Jacobite Rebellions and his family moved because of them, and that is why his name came to my attention.

I have a little more to say on my other blog about the Jacobite Risings.

I am aware that one of the things other countries hate about Americans is that we always are talking about our Wonderful, Glorious, Constitution and saintly Founding Fathers. A lot of them don't think too much of our constitution as anything special, and are sick of hearing about the traitors who were our founding fathers. To them, I hope they are not offended by this post.

Was anyone aware that Blogcatalog still exists?

2011-06-28T09:18:00.009-06:00

Well it does, apparently. After many months of silence I today received notice from them that someone new was following me. So I went to Blogcatalog, for the first time since I was much younger, and, lo, it is still there. It is very different and they have lost all the avatars of me and my countless past followers, and nobody is reading it or using it anymore (except new bloggers who don't know how nice and fun it used to be before they got uppity and mercenary.)

But they are still not updating anybody's blog posts. So that is still like the old system.

Since I felt the need to replace their generic avatar of a cartoon woman with glasses and a notepad with my real avatar that they lost during their conversion, I took the opportunity to update my entire profile with them, so newbies can bask in my glory once again over there. I respect you who read this blog, and therefore wish to save you an actual trip to Blogcatalog, so my new profile is reproduced below. Thank you.

[Note: if you are still using Blogcatalog and think it is good, please take this post as a joke. Thank you.]

Relax Max

New Mexico

Summary

Relax Max is amazing. Read all his blogs daily.

Blogs

BritishSpeak - http://www.britishspeak.blogspot.com

The Slap & Tickle - http://www.britishspeak3.blogspot.com

Way Harsh - http://wayharsh.blogspot.com

Clarity2010 - http://clarity2010.blogspot.com

About Relax

Why do you blog?
I hope to be discovered as a great writer and receive a large advance.

If you could, what would you rename 'blogging'?
Blugging

Has blogging impacted your life? How?
You mean "affected"? It hasn't "impacted" me, as in hit by a bus. So no, I guess. It has made me dumb down my writing a bit.

Who is your favorite band right now?
Glenn Miller

Why are they your favorite?
They're old

What book are you reading now?
Dog of the South

What is your favorite book?
You mean right now?

What is it about this book that you really like?
It isn't really about a dog. Isn't that cool?

What is your favorite movie of all time?
That's a toughie. "Wayne's World", probably.

What is it about this movie that makes it your favorite?
Hard to explain.

Who is your favorite author?
You mean, like, OF ALL TIME? Maybe ... George Bush? No?

Why is he/she your favorite?
Because he/she is gone now.

What are you most proud of?
Being privileged to be an astronaut and walk on the moon.

Share two things about you that no one knows :)?
Why would I want to do that? :) ?

Their Culture's Keeper

2011-06-25T09:06:00.004-06:00

Not to belabor the subject of culture.

I awoke this morning to a Newser story about the Syrian government escalating its brutality against its protesting citizens.

I condemn that, but this post isn't about government brutality. It is about different cultures. The culture in Syria, at least, as portrayed by an ultra-liberal news aggregator. So maybe it's true, maybe it's not true, but it was put out there this morning as news.

The man interviewed (a "protester") says the brutes of the Syrian army have now escalated their brutality to a new high and are now raping women. (Women who don't support the Syrian government, one assumes.) I don't have any way to actually verify this is happening, but since the Washington Post is printing this unverified story, then why not me?

I have seen the news clip lately, over and over again, of Syrian troops beating an old man and kicking him repeatedly while he was on the ground, so it wouldn't take much to make me believe they would "escalate" their behavior from mere beating to death and cutting off of heads all the way up to rape. Of course, that's exactly what Saddam and his henchmen did for the last zillion years and nobody thought that was any of our business, so I am certainly not advocating we make the same mistake here by invading Syria in order to "liberate" their people.

The (allegedly) Muslim man (unidentified, of course) who was the source of this story, explains that the raping of the 4 sisters (also unidentified) was outrageous because it was an insult to the HONOR of the men in that community.

He goes on to explain that, normally, the villagers would now just kill the women since they were no longer fit for marriage, or, at least, mark them so no man would ever marry them by mistake. But here is the headline of this story:

"Syrian Men: We Will Marry Rape Victims!"

16 men have come forward in the village and agreed to marry the sisters. Now it is down to 4 men, but still it is hard to not admire these wonderful men. No? A tear wells up in Max's little doggie eye.

"The women are the victims of the revolution, and we will protect them," the man said. A bit late for that, I think (to myself, of course, so as not to seem to be attacking that culture's time-honored traditions.)

And the Syrian government? Do they admit their soldiers did this?

The Man: "At first they said it was sectarianism. Then they said it was criminal gangs. When that didn't work... they are attacking our honor!"

Excuse me while I go out back and throw up. Please don't think my feeling like throwing up has anything to do with commenting on this ancient culture's thoughts as to the definition of honor. (Or from whence those thoughts originated which have crept into that ancient culture.)

I'm just saying that if 4 women in my little town got brutally raped by the army or the police, I would be outraged against the army or the police because they raped the women. Not because it was an insult to my own honor because they disrespected ME.

Ok, I know I have been accused of being narrow-minded when it comes to these sort of things, so I've said my piece and now you can let me have it. Be sure you mention that this represents only a small small number of members of this culture and that billions are peace-loving, and the modern men of this culture don't think like this.

People, we have got to stop fighting in the name of culture, no matter what the name of that culture is. Don't you see?

Mo' on Crime

2011-06-24T01:13:00.002-06:00

Crimes - acts which society has decided you can't do and can punish you for if you decide to do them - are really "law violations." Society makes up laws against things they don't want you to do, codifies the act, and stipulates the penalty. "Society" meaning you and your neighbors at a town hall meeting, or, much more frequently, your elected representatives, such as your city council, county commission, state legislature, or, sometimes, even the federal legislature. Oh, we have no shortage of criminal-type laws, and violating ANY of them can get you punished. Theoretically.

Does it matter if you personally don't agree with a law? If you think a law is foolish? If you think no one is harmed by a particular act? Not really - not unless you can convince a lot of your fellow citizens to think as you think and modify or abolish the law you don't like.

Because all laws are thought up and defined by some level of society, all violations of laws (called "crimes") are committed against society as a whole ("the people" or "the state") and not against individual persons. If you kill someone (and if it is against the law to kill someone in your state) you may be sure that your criminal charges will read, "State of Ohio vs. John Doe" and not "Dead Person vs John Doe." We speak in this post of criminal law and not civil law.

The state - the society which has been offended by your actions - is represented by a State's Attorney or District Attorney or County Prosecutor, or whatever you call him or her in your location. This person represents "The People" and it doesn't really matter if the offended party wants to press charges or not. At least not in theory. The person who was raped or beat up or robbed can be subpoenaed, as a hostile witness if necessary. Why? Because it isn't about a woman who gets beat up by her drunk husband who doesn't want to press charges against him. It is about the people at large not wanting to allow people to beat up other people in their society.

The reality, of course, is very different. There is precious little actual "justice" meted out in any state in the U.S.A. The District Attorney (acting in the name of "The People") will likely drop charges if the woman won't testify willingly. There are 100 other cases to be dealt with, so if she chooses to get beat up time after time, what are we to do? Move on to the next one.

Please resist the temptation to drift off onto the side road of why battered women stay with and defend their abusers. That would be the subject for a much different post.

Trials are expensive. As a result, the District Attorney and his minions spend most of their time "plea bargaining" and insulting justice in the process. Nothing else to be done unless we want to construct a hundred times as many courtrooms and prison cells. At least bad people sometimes spend SOME time in jail when they plea bargain. That's the DA's rationale for plea bargaining. Remember that a criminal is unlikely to face any serious prison time until he has had 87 chances to rehabilitate himself and has already hurt or robbed many people. And remember if a criminal is sentenced to 10 years in prison, he may serve 18 months or so in actuality.

Laws change. It was probably once against the law to throw rotten eggs at politicians in Wisconsin. I don't know. It was once against the law to kill unborn babies in all states. Fancy that. Here's an odd one: I read an article in my local paper just yesterday that this guy was sentenced to 10 years in prison for killing an unborn baby by beating up his wife and kicking her in the stomach while wearing heavy boots. It took a few years to get him tried. I was irate about him getting only 10 years, Palin law-and-order zombie that I am. Then I thought, if the guy had been a doctor, it would have been ok. Depends on what the woman wants at the time, you know.

Don't go down the side road of doctors not using the boots and kicking method of abortion. Just don't. Thank you.

Marijuana? Public nudity? Prostitution? Apparently enough of your neighbors still don't want to live in that kind of society. So you need to work to get those laws abolished if you don't like them. I have read that in the Netherlands, even the hardest drugs are legal and the vilest chilepronergerphy is A-ok with the Dutch. Not so in West Texas. Maybe not so in Amsterdam, either. Like I said, I just read it somewhere.

All laws are enacted by society.

All crimes are defined by society.

All crimes when committed are (therefore) committed against society.

All crimes that are prosecuted are prosecuted in the name of the people of that society.

All people who are punished for committing crimes are punished in the name of society.

There are no victimless crimes. There are only laws broken and laws unbroken. If you don't agree that something should be against the law, well, that's too bad, isn't it? You can live by your own standards when you live alone on the planet, I guess. Otherwise, work for change. Society, in some way, is always the victim. At least until that society decides it doesn't want that law anymore. Go figure.

A tiny bit (the abortion part) of this is just my opinion. The rest is just cold hard facts of life.

My Sister's Keeper

2011-06-23T14:55:00.000-06:00

Not to belabor the subject of religion.

I awoke this morning to a Newser story about the Syrian government escalating its brutality against its protesting citizens.

I condemn that, but this post isn't about government brutality. It is about Muslim thought. Muslim thought in Syria, at least, as portrayed by an ultra-liberal news aggregator. So maybe it's true, maybe it's not true, but it was put out there this morning as news.

The Muslim man (unidentified, of course) who was the source of this story, explains that the raping of the 4 sisters (also unidentified) was outrageous because it was an insult to the HONOR of the Muslim men in that community.

"Syrian Men: We Will Marry Rape Victims!"

"The women are the victims of the revolution, and we will protect them," the man said. A bit late for that, I think (to myself, of course, so as not to seem to be attacking the Muslim religion's time-honored traditions.)

And the Syrian government? Do they admit their soldiers did this?

The Man: "At first they said it was sectarianism. Then they said it was criminal gangs. When that didn't work... they are attacking our honor!"

Excuse me while I go out back and throw up. Please don't think my feeling like throwing up has anything to do with commenting on ancient Muslim thought as to the definition of honor.

Ok, I know I have been accused of being narrow-minded when it comes to these sort of things, so I've said my piece and now you can let me have it. Be sure you mention that this represents only a small small number of Muslims and that billions are peace-loving, and the modern Muslim men don't think like this.

People, we have got to stop fighting in the name of religion, no matter what the name of that religion is. Don't you see?

Crime

2011-06-22T00:41:00.004-06:00

1. Crimes against property.

2. Crimes against people.

3. victimless crimes.

Are there really such things as victimless crimes? If two people agree to do something and neither is hurt by the doing, or one person does it alone but no one is injured, what is the harm? Where is the crime? PeeWee Herman wants to know the answer to this.

•Marijuana use

•Public intoxication

•Suicide

•Prostitution

•Not wearing a seat belt (and no accident has occurred)

•Public nudity

Some of these are on the books because they offend public morals (that is, they violate the right of a community to set its own standards.) Some are on the books because they could possibly cost the public money (like you can drive without a seat belt if you want to, just don't ask us to send police or an ambulance if you hit a tree and get thrown 100 yards and get all cut and broken up.)

Can you think of others? I mean other TRULY victimless crimes?

And what if the act is beneficial to society but still illegal (such as beating up a lawyer or dragging a politician behind your car.) Should a person still be punished for those "crimes?"

Is there such a thing as crimes against society? If so, do "victimless" crimes fit in that category?

Is vigilantiism ever justified?

Should drug addicts be sent to prison because they rob homes to get money to buy drugs? Or should they be intensely counseled and mentored?

What about "hate" crimes? Stupid or needed? If it is a capital crime to murder a homosexual in Wyoming, will enhancing it with a hate crime add-on make the murderer take longer to die or what?

What if most of the people think something should be a crime (like screaming obscenities at the funerals of dead soldiers for the purpose of hurting the families) but the constitution says it is just fine and dandy to do that? People are just out of luck?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Revolting

2011-06-15T00:41:00.005-06:00

Revolution: A forceable overthrow of an existing government or social order, in favor of a new system.

Bolshevik: A member of the Russian Social Democrat Party. Later renamed the Communist Party.

Democratic Centralism: The organizational principles of Communist parties. For example, all directors of the Party shall be elected, top to bottom, and then supported fully by the losers; the minority subordinated to the majority.

---------

There was an attempt at revolution in Russia in 1905, after their disastrous war with Japan, but the Tsar was able to put down that attempt. Sort of. Not all the unrest was directed at the government; there was widespread dissatisfaction with the average Russian's lot in life in general. There were strikes and terrorist attacks and military mutinies and so on. The Tsar had to compromise in order to remain in power, and was forced to allow that most hated of institutions (to a monarch): a parliament. In Russian, a parliament is called a Duma.

Unrest settled down a bit, and by 1913 when the Tsar celebrated his family's 300th year in power, the crowds turned out. When World War I started the following year, the Russian people rallied as one and the Tsar had never really known such popularity as he stood before the chapel altar in the Winter Palace and spoke the vow never to conclude peace as long as a single enemy remained on Russian soil. It was the same words his great-great-grandfather, Alexander I, spoke in 1812 when Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Russia. Alexander was, at least, able to keep his word, pursuing the French all the way back to Paris after the Russian winter killed Napoleon's army. They left behind the word "bistro" which is the French version of a Russian word meaning "hurry up" or "make it snappy."

Tsar Nicholas, however, would not be involved when peace was concluded this time.

A recently hopeful revolutionary by the name of Vladimir Lenin was about as dejected as a would-be revolutionary could be. He must have thought revolution would never come to pass after all. He had lived in exile since 1907, and he continued his frustrated existence in his sparse walk-up flat in Switzerland with his butt-ugly wife Nadezhda Krupskaya.

Fame and good fortune and adoration are all fleeting, of course. The war went badly for the Russians and the unwashed smell of revolution again filled the frosty air in early 1917. The Tsar abdicated and he and his family were placed under house arrest by the provisional government of Alexander Kerensky. That was in March (O.S.) Kerensky decided to fight on against the Germans, who retaliated by sending a frothing-at-the-mouth Lenin back to Russia in a sealed boxcar like some sort of smallpox bacillus. Which he was, of course.

Enter the second Russian Revolution of 1917, the October Revolution of Lenin and his Bolsheviks. Goodbye Tsar and family. Goodbye Russia. Hello Communism.

The word "Bolsheviks" actually just means "majority," which they were (politically speaking) compared to the Mensheviks in 1905. They kept the name after the revolution until, in about 1952, it occurred to papa Stalin that they were no longer a "majority" any more — they were an "only" now. Then they changed to just plain Communists.

Although it is possible to click on this image and enlarge it, I wish you wouldn't.

The Dog of the South

2011-06-13T00:34:00.003-06:00

I'm not much on reading fiction.

But I do sometimes, if it's good enough.

The Dog of the South is good enough.

I'm not much on blogging book reports, either, but Descartes paid a rare visit to this blog the other day, so I will, in honor of him. (Jon talks about books, tv, movies on his blog.)

"The Dog of the South" is a perfect novel for me: It's old (1979); there is hardly anything in the way of a plot; and, best of all, the characters do not develop in ANY way. They are what they are and they don't improve with age.

Why would I want to read it then? Because it is good. It is entertaining. It is interesting. I couldn't put it down when I first read it and I couldn't put it down the second time around, now that Overlook has had the brains to reissue it after twenty years or so.

Why else? Maybe because Charles Portis makes me laugh so hard and so long that I pee all over the couch and scare the cats.

Charles Portis is funny. Charles Portis' first big book was the comedy "True Grit" back about 1968 or so. I'm talking about the book, not the movie (although he made a pretty penny selling the book to the movies too - not once, but twice so far.) Maybe you didn't think True Grit was a comedy, but it is in the book. Only Portis could make up names like Rooster Cogburn or Mattie from Yell County.

But The Dog of the South is not True Grit. It is in a class of its own. A world of it's own. There is no real need to think: just read and laugh your ass off.

The hapless protagonist, Ray Midge, is more than bad enough on his own, but Portis, in a fit of overkill, throws in Dr. Reo Symes as Midge's poor man's Pancho Sanza:

"I always tried to help Leon and you see the thanks I got. I hired him to drive for me right after his rat died. He was with the Murrell Brothers Shows at that time, exhibiting a fifty-pound rat from the sewers of Paris, France. Of course it didn't really weigh fifty pounds and it wasn't your true rat and it wasn't from Paris, France, either. It was some kind of animal from South America. Anyway, the thing died and I hired Leon to drive for me. I was selling birthstone rings and vibrating jowl straps from door to door and he would let me out at one end of the block and wait on me at the other end."

---------

It's hard to explain comedy. In fact, if you can explain why it's funny, it probably isn't. Suffice to say it isn't the 50 pound rat that makes the reader lose bladder control; that only gets you set up and mentally smiling. It is, of course, the vibrating jowl straps that pushes you over the edge. Anyway, here's a bit of Ray Midge talking at the beginning of the book:

"My wife Norma had run off with Guy Dupree and I was waiting around for the credit card billings to come in so I could see where they had gone. I was biding my time. This was October. They had taken my car and my Texaco card and my American Express card. Dupree had also taken from the bedroom closet my good raincoat and a shotgun and perhaps some other articles. It was just him like to pick the .410 — a boy's first gun. I suppose he thought it wouldn't kick much, that it would kill or at least rip up the flesh in a satisfying way without making a lot of noise or giving much of a jolt to his sloping monkey shoulder."

More:

"Here he was then, cruising the deserts of Mexico in my Ford Torino with my wife and my credit cards and his black-tongued dog. He had a chow dog that went everywhere with him, to the post office and the ball games, and now that red beast was making free with his lion feet on my Torino seats."

More:

"In exchange for my car he left me his 1963 Buick Special. I had found it in my slot at the Rhino Apartments parking lot, standing astride a red puddle of transmission fluid. It was a compact car, a rusty little piece of basic transportation with a V-6 engine. The thing ran well enough and it seemed eager to please but I couldn't believe the Buick engineers ever had their hearts in a people's car. Dupree had shamefully neglected it. There was about a quarter-turn of slack in the steering wheel and I had to swing it wildly back and forth in a childlike burlesque of motoring. After a day or two I got the hang of it but the violent arm movements made me look like a lunitic. I had to stay alert every second, every instant, to make small corrections...

The speedometer cable was broken, but...

"I had to keep the Buick speed below what I took to be about sixty because at that point the wind came up through the floor hole in such a way that the Heath wrappers were suspended behind my head in a noisy brown vortex."

---------

One reviewer said nobody should die without reading "The Dog of the South." I don't think I would go that far, but "The Dog of the South" is probably the best book that includes an old school bus in Mexico that you will read for a long time.

Another reviewer said this book is like being held down and tickled. That about says it for me, too.

Warning: like the naive girl who reviewed it on Amazon: "This book is not about a dog!"

On the need to teach the American Civil War in our schools

2011-06-10T21:28:00.007-06:00

"Any understanding of this nation has to be based and I mean really based, on an understanding of the Civil War. I believed that firmly. It defined us. The Revolution did what it did. Our involvement with the European wars, beginning with the First World War, did that it did. But the Civil War defined us what we are, and it opened to us what we became, good and bad things. And it is very necessary, if you are going to understand the American character in the twentieth century, to learn about this enormous catastrophe of the nineteenth century. It was the crossroads of our being, and it was a hell of a crossroads." —Shelby Foote, 1990

"The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here." —Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, 1863
---------

Shelby Foote died in 2005, 15 years after Ken Burns' 1990 epic documentary "The Civil War" aired. Mr. Foote was an historian with a life-long interest in the Civil War. His own writings on the subject are monumental.

I am a lover of history. I know some of you are as well. I, too, have gotten sucked in by the Civil War, mostly, I think, because of it's many facets and complexities. I am one who likes to try to unravel complexities. But, more than that, I really believe the Civil War was exactly the turning point for our country that Mr. Foote says it was.

The Civil War had to happen, of course. I think many Americans today don't think much about it's lessons anymore.

I can't believe Burns' documentary was 21 years ago! And I am saddened to learn Mr. Foote has died. Many people don't recognize the name, but know him when they see his picture.

D-Day June 6, 1944

2011-06-06T10:28:00.002-06:00

Good D-Day site here.