Modern Medicine

I'm always fascinated by the ways and means with which modern medicine arrives at certain treatments and cures. The latest example of this is this story, which say that the cure for HIV might be found through some form of crocodile blood extraction. Wow....never mind that they might be on to something; who'd have even thought to experiment with crocodile blood in the first place!?! I had a similar reaction when I found out that there were experiments being done with rocket fuel (yes, rocket fuel) to see if it had any effect on cancer patients. I've not heard anything about this since the late 90's (not that I've been keeping track of it), but it has always been a source of amazement to me that medical researchers would even come up with the concept to use a certain arcane source to cure the world's ills. What a tremendously imaginative time we live in.

File This One Under "Law Of Unintended Consequences"

"Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out the new same-sex marriage legislation with a twist--they're straight men. . . . The two--both of whom were previously married and both of whom are still looking for a good woman to love--insist that after the humour subsided, a real issue lies at the heart of it all. 'There are significant tax implications that we don't think the government has thought through.' Pinn said."--Toronto Sun, Aug. 6, 2005

Women Control The World

So says a British television journalist. It is a refreshingly politically incorrect diatribe the likes of which America would gasp over. Let me put it to you this way: I don't think Dan Rather would ever say something like this. Whether I agree with it or not isn't really the point. What is the point is that it is worth a good chuckle. Read up.

Clinton

“I desperately wish, that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early. I don’t know if it would have prevented 9/11, but it certainly would have complicated it.”

--Former President Bill Clinton, in full damage control mode

I'm not a Clinton-hater, contrary to what some may think. The man had tremendous political gifts, smooth elocution, and he was probably the most charismatic president this country has had since JFK, and before then, possibly FDR. And to be fair, I profited a great deal personally during the bull market of the 90's; whether Clinton was directly responsible for that is a subject of debate for some, but I'll give him a small pinch of credit on it. (Sidenote: We used to have a joke back then that went something like this: "Yeah....Bill and Al are responsible for this market. Bill Gates and Al Greenspan.") That said, there are two things about his presidency that are awfully hard to refute. One, that he failed miserably in getting his administrative agenda through, save tax hikes in '93 and NAFTA (which was started by his predecessors). Secondly, that his personal charm extended only so far is his person. In other words, nobody was capable of riding on his coat-tails, not the least of which was his party. (Hillary notwithstanding.) There's very little room for debate on these points, as the record speaks for itself. After all, if this wasn't the case, how come his party is out of power in every branch of the federal government, and has a minority stake in the state governorships and state legislatures?

As for Clinton's post-presidential work, he has at times infuriated me and at other times impressed me. His speech a few years back on the roots of terrorism was so ridiculous and historically inaccurate I had to shake my head with disbelief that a Rhodes scholar such as he could make such silly statements. (However, I'll set aside dissecting that speech for the moment.) On the other hand, he has impressed me with his tsunami fund-raising work and his statesman-like grace, at least in regards to this effort.

Clinton recently gave an interview in the New York magazine. I haven't read the entire interview, but I have read a few excerpts. And from the excerpts that I've read thus far, it appears that Clinton is doing his level best to disconnect himself with his culpability in regards to the 9/11 attacks. The above statement is indicative of this effort. According to Richard Clarke's assessement of the situation at the time, Clinton knew very well that Al Qaeda was behind the USS Cole attacks, but Clinton swore off retribution in the fears that it would sink the Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement that Clinton was working on. (It subsequently failed, through little fault of Clinton's.) Clinton has also stated that he warned the incoming Bush Administration that Osama bin Laden was the biggest threat to national security at that moment. That might or might not be the case, and pending any documentation that shows that such a warning was given, I'm a bit skeptical of the charge. Either way, Clinton had a good eight years to nail down bin Laden and al Qaeda, and chose not to rock the boat in the Middle East. Additionally, I'm still very interested to find out what the documents that Sandy Berger destroyed were about. And now we have the Able Danger controversy brewing. To my knowledge, I recall very little rhetoric coming out of Clinton's mouth regarding the growing threat of Islamo-terrorism, despite repeated acts of terrorism on American interests and Americans citizens. Additionally, I recall little to no retribution for these acts of terrorism, save the cruise missle attacks on bin Laden's camp, which were futile to begin with because the White House informed the Pakistani government that they were sending them, thereby giving bin Laden plenty of time to vacate the premises. (Remember that Pakistan was one of only two countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.)

Let me make one thing very clear: I do not blame Clinton for 9/11. The people responsible for 9/11 are the people who hijacked the planes, the people who trained them, funded them, and directed their operations. But if Clinton is going to shoot his mouth off about how diligent he was when it came to terrorism, he's going to have to answer the one simple question that comes back in response: What were YOU doing for eight years? Defenders may contend that Clinton was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Without getting into who was ultimately responsible for the impeachment (Clinton or the GOP head-hunters), that also begs another question: How was Clinton able to wage a war in Yugoslavia, but not against Islamo-terrorists, during the impeachment crisis? I think Clinton knows he dropped the ball on this terrorism issue, and he's doing a lot of ex post facto damage control. I'm fine with that, but he needn't slime his successor to do it, particularly since his successor could very easily do the same, and with more devastating proof.

Guess Who Said The Following?

Make your guesses and judgements accordingly...


"America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for."

"[The U.S. government] is a morally repugnant system. We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington!"

"[Lynne Stewart, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's lawyer who was recently convicted of aiding and abetting Islamo-terrorists] is my Atticus Finch"

"We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden..."

"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

"In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants."

Man's Nature

Nature is what we are put on earth to rise above.

--Old English proverb

VJ Day

Today marks the 60th Anniversary of the surrender of Japan in 1945.

Let Kim Jong Il Insult You

Here.

What's In A Name?

Having just gotten finished with Ron Chernow's epic biography of Alexander Hamilton, I was struck by the vitriolic divisions in American politics early into George Washington's first administration; alas, they were much more splenetic and more violent than I had originally thought. As I've written in past postings, the Founding Fathers really didn't like each other very much. Despite being somewhat ideologically sympatico, Adams loathed Hamilton, which was probably the result of Hamilton's superior political talents, as well as the fact that Hamilton was, without a doubt, Washington's favorite subordinate. Adams hatred for Hamilton was personal, but Jefferson's hatred of Hamilton was both personal and ideological (as was Hamilton's for Jefferson's). The ideological division between the Hamiltonians, who favored strong central government with superior legal authority over states, and Jeffersonians, who favored weak central government with strong state government influence, led to the two party system we now have today. But what of their titles? For the Jeffersonians, they picked the name "republicans", which was picked for the purpose of semantically boxing-in the Hamiltonians and affixing in people's minds that the Hamiltonians were monarchists and for aristocratic rule, since they weren't "Republicans". Well, they were all republicans, they just had different views of republican government. Mind you, in the days following the American Revolution, the worst type of ideologue you could be was a monarchist, therefore, if you're not a republican, if would naturally follow that you're a monarchist. That was the point. The title of the party was a declaration of war, with words as the weapons. The Hamiltonians became Federalists, a title which prior to its assumption by the Hamiltonians actually meant a loose confederation of states. However, when Hamiltonians co-opted the term, it came to mean dominant federal authority. The title of the new-born political party came to mean the opposite of its original, intended meaning.


Today we have two major parties, Democrat and Republican. They're not entirely honest names for them, either. A Democrat, of course, subscribes to the concept of republican government, which by definition is rule by a non-monarch. A Republican, of course, subscribes to the concept of democracy and thus could ingenuously be called a democrat. (Although the Left can't stop calling them fascists, but I digress...) But the titles of these parties do not successfully denote what they stand for. The titles of British political parties are much more honest and self-explanatory: Conservative and Labour. Labour is for labour, the working folks, and Conservative are for a slow implementation of reform when needed, and if not needed no reform necessary. Even the term "liberal" isn't really an honest political term anymore. It now means one who is a quasi-socialist, a peacenik, and inevitably, one who calls conservatives "fascists". 'Twas not always so. Liberal, in the original sense of the word, means one is open to new ideas, new concepts, and an exploration of a wide range of alternatives to battle social ills. Unfortunately, a liberal in today's sense of the word typically is dogmatic, close-minded, and more times than not, noxious and hateful of anything that is not socialist or pacifist. (Just ask Michael Moore.) Conversely, conservatives are still conservatives: they're still reactionary in most matters, some seriously religious (although I don't come across those types in these parts), mostly hostile to social engineering and the de-stigmatization of taboos. Fairly consistent with the original meaning. Then there's neo-conservatives, who essentially are for social engineering but through private (as opposed to governmental) means. They're for pro-active nation building, by force if necessary. They've essentially co-opted Harry Truman's foreign policy. Progressives, on the other hand, can be classified as somewhat reactionary. They're still touting the same socialist prescriptions for the nation's and world's woes. And they're stuck having to defend the status quo of socialist programs that already exist in this country from the neo-cons. And how can one be a "new" conservative? Is that not in essence an oxymoron? And what is so "progressive" about defending old socialist programs, most of which have already been implemented, or have been tried and failed already? Language has been co-opted, twisted, and re-assigned new meanings, while the original meanings have been bleached. Orwell warned about this stuff in Politics and the English Language.

A neighbor that lives across the street from my father has a son who became a priest. I happened to have witnessed an interesting conversation between his brother-in-law and him. The question was a simple one: why does the Vatican still speak Latin? The answer was one I'd never thought of, but made perfect sense. It went something like this, "In popular culture, hot becomes cool, cool becomes hot, and essentially the words, which are opposite of one another, become the same. Latin is a dead language save the Vatican, so the meanings of the words never change. 'Hot' in Latin will always mean hot, and 'cool' will always mean cool." As for me, I'm still trying to figure out how they came up with the term "home economics" to describe a curriculum class that essentially teaches you how to bake a cake.

Canadian Splinter

I nominally follow Canadian politics and current events, as I have family in both Quebec and Ontario, and thus feel some need to keep track of what's going on north of the border. In all likelihood, I'm probably one of the few Americans that could tell you who the first Canadian Prime Minister was (John A. MacDonald). I'm also one of the few Americans that can tell you that the reason for the initial formation of Canada, culled as it was from its various disparate provinces, was to ensure a stronger Canada in the event that the American Civil War somehow spread north of the border. (You can look it up!) I can also tell you that Canada didn't gain complete independent constitutional power from Great Britain until 1982, when the Canadian constitution was put in place to replace the British North America Act. And....I can tell you that Canada has never been a particularly strong federation. And it still isn't. The Quebecois are still agitating to secede from the union (well, they're French; what can you expect?), but now so is a large chunk of Western Canada. Read up, Americans!

Spitfire's True Porno Boy Stories Continues....

Porno Boy came home in a state of intoxication, decided to make a vat of spaghetti, then promptly fell asleep. Whilst asleep, the stove remained on, and the spaghetti remained in boiling water. Then the water evaporated and the spaghetti strings wound up burning on the bottom of the vat. This must've went on for hours, as the next thing Porno heard was the sound of something forcefully beating his door. Thinking nothing of it, and still terribly drunk, he remained semi-unconscious. Shortly thereafter, a fireman with full oxygen gear on was attempting to revive him from his sleep, and the apartment was filled with yellow smoke. "Sir...sir, are you okay?!?" said the fireman. Porno came to, then the fireman figured it out. "Awwww....he's f*ckin' drunk...." he said to his comrades. They promptly turned the stove off, opened a window, and left Porno to his own devices. "F*ckin' idiot..." they said to each other, as their voices trailed off down the staircase of the building.

When A Pundit Loses Credibiliity

I'm a fairly avid reader of op-ed pieces, and I pretty much read most of the big names on the opinion journal business, as well as some of the lesser names. On a daily or weekly basis, I'll read far-left, slightly barmy Eric Alterman, David Corn (The Nation), Jonah Goldberg (NRO), Victor David Hanson, George Will, Mike Barnicle, Tom Friedman....you get the idea. Opinion journalism is just that, someone's opinion. But the facts with which they arrived at their conclusions have to be credible, or they lose me. Case in point, John Podhoretz.

I've been reading JPod for a couple of years now. He's usually somewhat incisive, but he did something that made him lose major credibility in my eyes: he let his politics color his facts. After writing about the first presidential debate between Bush and Kerry, Podhoretz gushed about how Bush trounced Kerry. Hey, I'm a Republican, but there's no way that happened. I watched that debate, and Bush was just awful. He had a scowl on his face, he kept repeating himself, and with the exception of jumping on Kerry for his "global test" comment, Bush scored almost no points. On the other hand, Kerry was smooth and his elocution was superior. Mind, he made absolutely no sense, straddling every issue and obfuscating his positions with his overblown verbiage. But Podhoretz wrote that Bush trounced him. No way, and to this day, ten months after, I've lost my ability to take Podhoretz seriously, despite being ideologically sympatico with the man.

Then there's the case of Maureen Dowd. Dowd has brought dishonesty and sheer idiocy to an amazing level. Not content to analyze things in a cogent, mature manner, Dowd resorts to cute little derogatory nicknames, like Rummy (Rumsfeld) and Shrub (George W. Bush). But this isn't what knocked her credibility out for me. What did destroy it was when she deliberately cuffed a Bush quote to make him look unserious about al Qaeda. Bush exclaimed a while back that "70% of al Qaeda's leadership has been either captured or killed. Let me put it this way: they're not a problem anymore." Dowd's version of the quote went like this: "al Qaeda....they're not a problem anymore." Dowd took this quote and proceeded to write an entire column slagging Bush for a quote that she herself fudged. I never found Dowd particularly insightful to begin with, as she is a juvenile, cheapshot artist...which is probably why she's won the Pulitzer Prize. But when you cuff a quote from a sitting president, a quote that he never said within the sentence structure that it was presented, you've lost all credibility in my eyes. Unfortunately, that journalistic standard (credibility) doesn't extend to her when it comes to covering a Republican. Kind of explains why the Times is under fire all the time, and its circulation is dropping. But there you go.

Andrew Sullivan is another op-ed columnist I've since given up on. I still peruse his blog from time to time, but his credibility is shot with me. He blew it last year when he decided to back Kerry in the election. Fair enough, though shocking, as he was a stone Bush fan for the previous three years that I'd read his work. But it's a free country, he can back who he wants. But he wasn't honest about his choice, for he said he was backing Kerry because he felt that Bush was mismanaging the war. This was entirely disingenuous, for I doubt that anyone out there that voted for Kerry did so because they thought he would to a better job in Iraq. Anyone I ever talked to voted for Kerry because they were against the war, not because they thought he'd prosecute it more vigorously. Sullivan, you see, is gay, and openly so. Being a gay quasi-conservative can't be an easy thing, mind. But Sullivan turned on Bush not because of the Iraq enterprise or the way it was being conducted, but because Bush was pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment, which sought to federally ban homosexual marriage. Sullivan posted daily about this, frothing at the mouth with rage over the social conservatives that were pushing the president on this issue. Which was his right. But he was dishonest about his change of heart right to the very end. Sullivan kept insisting that it wasn't FMA, but the prosecution of the war. No one out there really honestly thought that Kerry would or could do a better job prosecuting the war; they voted for Kerry to END the war. I subsequently tried to read Sullivan regularly thereafer, but he lost me. I couldn't come back. I didn't trust his credibility anymore. I still don't.

In conclusion, I don't mind opposing views, and I actually seek them out. It pays to know what the other side is thinking politically, be you left or right. But when a columnist of any stripe resorts to slander or dishonesty, I just can't read 'em anymore. I just can't.

Spitfire's True Porno Boy Stories

Jay is the bartender on Saturday afternoons at Kenny's Castaway. An educated guy and multi-lingual (French, German, Flemish) despite being an American by birth (how many Americans you know who speak Flemish?), Jay was brought up in Switzerland by his older sister and her husband. Jay is also a very funny guy, and occasionally does stand-up around the city and in Jersey.

I was introduced to Jay by Porno Boy, who about eight or nine years back struck up an acquaintance with him. We used to go down there on Saturday afternoons to hang with Jay, who was always wise-cracking and always good for a real laugh. (Sidenote: I learned from hanging at Kenny's with Jay on Saturdays that Chinese are terribly addicted gamblers. Waiters and deliverymen from the restaurant next door would stop in on Saturday afternoons, look at the TV screens (which always had ESPN on), then storm out cursing in Mandarin (or was it Cantonese?). ) But as I usually would refrain from getting liquored up on a Saturday afternoon, Porno would get good and sloshed....which would be fine, were it not for the fact that he'd act like an idiot and say something fresh to one of the patrons. After putting up with this for a few years Jay finally cut him off. But it's not as if Porno didn't stop trying to get back into Jay's good graces. One of the last conversations Jay had with Porno went like this:

Jay: Kennys...

Porno: Jay, it's me.

Jay: Hey, what's going on [recognizing Porno's voice immediately].

Porno: I wanted to come down and watch some football.

Jay: Okay...but no drinking.

Porno: Why?

Jay: Eh.....it's just better that way.

Porno: Awwww....c'mon....why?

Jay: It's just better that way.

CLICK![Porno slams phone down. Dial tone ensues.]


Later that afternoon, the phone rings....

Jay: Kenny's....

Porno Boy: You're dead to me. [CLICK!]

Wow. A Glowing Review Of The Rolling Stones. In Rolling Stone Magazine. Shocker.

The Rolling Stones played a surprise show at a club in Toronto. Rolling Stone Magazine gave it a rave review. Color me shocked. This is the same magazine that gave Mick Jagger's solo effort Goddess in the Doorway a five star (as in "classic!") review, while every other music reviewer in Britain and America panned it. Either Jann Wenner has more finely tuned ears than the rest of us, or he's in the tank for the Stones. Which one you think is true? (For the record, Jagger's solo outing wasn't too bad, but it was far from excellent.) I've seen some semi-interesting articles in Rolling Stone over the years, but by and large, I found it to be nothing more than a glorified Teen Beat Magazine. I haven't bought an RS in well over a decade, and if I do see something in it that interests me, I'll usually read it at a newsstand or a Barnes and Noble. It certainly isn't easy to find good new music these days, and frankly, I haven't been trying very hard lately. But if I do decide to sniff around for something good, Rolling Stone Magazine would not be the place I'd start. It wouldn't be the place I'd end, either.

Jimmy Carter (Again)

I've long contended, and continue to think, that Jimmy Carter was the worst president of the United States in the latter half of the 20th century. I was young when he assumed the presidency, but I recall seeming rather impressed with him. (Ah....youth....) He certainly had a considerably more sanguine disposition than the lumbering Gerald Ford, and he didn't have the baggage of Watergate, either. (I recall being aware of Watergate as a child. It seemed weird to me that the president was in so much trouble for letting all the water out of the gate. Did he cause a flood?) But Carter's tenure at the White House turned out to be so bad that the world (and specifically the United States) is still paying for his ineptitude. Sure the Shah was an autocrat, but was Ayatollah Khomenei preferable? It was Carter, not some random twist of fate, that put Khomenei in power. If Carter had followed American policy in regards to backing the Shah, a policy that stretched back to the Eisenhowever Administration, there would not have been an Islamic revolution in Iran. There wouldn't have been 52 American hostages held for 444 days, and more importantly, there wouldn't have been Hezbollah (which subsequently went on to take over Lebanon (along with the Syrians)). Hezbollah was responsible for killing 241 of our Marines (sent there as UN peace-keepers, might I add) in Beirut, as well as kidnapping many, many western journalists, clergymen (remember Terry Waite?), and diplomats. (Hezbollah once sent a videotape to the American embassy in Beirut which found its way to CIA Director Bill Casey. The contents of the video was the murder of a CIA agent who was one of Casey's best friends. In the video, Hezbollah killed him by shoving a tube down his throat and attaching it to a hose, thus drowning him to death. On viewing this video, Bill Casey was inconsolable and purple with rage. He started to formulate the plan to get the release of all western hostages, a plan that would later take shape as Iran-Contra, therafter.) They're still wreaking havoc throughout the region, not to mention perpetrating various acts of mass killing throughout the world. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that had Hezbollah never come into existence, there might've already been a real settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis. Mere speculation on my part, mind, butI can't see how their existence makes it easier. The loss of Iran also resulted in losing a key CIA listening post while the Cold War was still burning hot. I needn't get into the problems Iran is causing at this moment, with its nuclear ambitions and its support of the jihadists in Iraq. Bad policy has long-term consequences, eh?

Carter also embarked on "reforming" the CIA. Positioning Stansfield Turner as director, the CIA was then turned into an affirmative action experiment, with obvious results. Michael Ledeen relates a story about an East German spy who had made contact with the CIA in the hopes of defecting. He told the CIA in Berlin that he would meet at a cafe in West Berlin with his newly-minted contact, but to make sure that the contact was germanic in appearance and demeanor. Inconspicuous was the watch-word. The CIA sent a young black man, who needless to say, stuck out like a sore thumb. The East German spy turned around and walked out of the cafe when he realized who his contact was, never to be heard from again. No wonder Brehznev invaded Afghanistan without reservation. Look at who his geopolitical opposite was? (In case there's any question as to why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, take a look at a map. Afghanistan in and of itself is strategically insignificant; it is land-locked. But over the border was Pakistan, where the Straits of Hormuz ran through. The significance of the Straits of Horuz? It was and continues to be a major artery for the shipping of petroleum. Secure Afghanistan, subsequently conquer Pakistan, and the Cold War would be won....by the Soviets.)

I've vented my spleen about Carter enough for one day. I'll let George Will take it over. To quote Jonah Goldberg at NRO in regards to this column, "Carter should be on all fours searching for his teeth after this one." It's a good rip job, but honest as well.

(Note: Might need to sign up for the article.)

Unexpected Distress From My Mistress

I've been listening to quite a bit of Peter Gabriel-era Genesis as of late, and while I'm more a "music" guy (as opposed to a "lyrics" guy), I've actually taken the time recently to read the lyrics out of context of the music. What I've found is that Peter Gabriel was a heck of a lyricist, and tremendously original one at that. Below I've cut/pasted the words to a tune called "Counting Out Time" which I think are pretty indicative of the man's lyrical abilities. I think it more than humorous that anyone would want to write a song about a kid's inability to successfully apply sexual techniques that he learned in a book, but that's Peter Gabriel for you. Read it, and hopefully you'll enjoy:

I'm counting out time,
Got the whole thing down by numbers
All those numbers!Give my guidance!
O Lord I need that now.
The day of judgement's come,
And you can bet that I've been resting,
For this testing,
Digesting every word the experts say.

Erogenous zones I love you.
Without you, what would a poor boy do?

Found a girl I wanted to date,
Thought I'd better get it straight.
Went to buy a book before its too late.
Dont leave nothing to fate
.And I have studied every line,
every page in the book,
And now Ive got the real thing here,
I'm gonna take a look, take a look.This is Rael!

I'm counting out time,
hoping it goes like I planned it,
'cos I understand it.
Look! I've found the hotspots, Figs 1-9.
Still counting out time,
got my finger on the button,
Dont say nuttin-just lie there still
And Ill get you turned on just fine.

Erongenous zones I love you.
Without you, what would a poor boy do?

Touch and go with 1-6.
Bit of trouble in zone No. 7.
Gotta remember all of my tricks.
There's heaven ahead in No. 11!
Getting crucial responses with dialation of the pupils.
Honey get hip! Its time to unzip, to unzip. Whipee!Move over Casanova!

I'm counting out time,
reaction none to happy,
Please don't slap me,
I'm a red blooded male and the book said I could not fail.
I'm counting out time,
I got unexpected distress from my mistress!
I'll get my money back from the bookstore right away.

Erongenous zones I question you-Without you, what would a poor boy do?
Without you, mankind handkinds thru the blues.

More Porno Boy Stories

Alluded to in the last post was the fact that Porno Boy essentially got himself excommunicated from my erstwhile circle of friends. (Erstwhile due to the fact that almost all have gotten married and moved out of the city, or have gone in a different direction life-wise, but I digress...) The reasons for his excommunication will become apparent shortly. This next story involves all the elements of Porno Boy's execrable traits: drug taking, alcohol intake, racism, and an abject lack of accountability for all of them.

It was St. Patrick's Day, approximately ten years ago. Everyone was smashed (natch). Five or six of us, all young Wall Street types, go to El Dorko's (not his real name) apartment on 5th Ave. and 9th St. to party a bit more. On the elevator ride up, two young Asian fellows get in with us. Porno Boy, in his best (unintented) Archie Bunker-like manner, proceeds to commence on the following verbal attack on them. It went something like this:

Porno-Boy: Youse chinks...you come to our country, you take our jobs....(etc...etc...)

During this entire malignant diatribe of his, all of us kept on trying to shut him up and implored him to cool it with the racist language. His response? "What!?!? What are you on their side!?! (Which prompted one of our group to sardonically exclaim, "Wow...I had no idea there was a race war going on, Porno....") The two Asian fellows, both in suit and tie, just stood there taking it. They were in shock, but I'm sure the reasons for their failure to respond in kind was due to the numerical disadvantage. Probably a wise choice on their part, though the chances of them popping Porno in the mouth and any one of us rushing to his aid were pretty much nil. But they didn't know that. About a half hour later at El Dorko's apartment there's a tap at the door. Lo and behold, two policemen, with the two Asian fellows behind them, all of them with scowls on their faces. To make matters worse, one of these officers was Asian. To make matters even more precarious, there were illegal substances in the apartment, and they were in plain view. Intoxicated though we all were, we all had the presence of mind to stream out of the apartment and shut the door to the apartment before the cops saw the green and white piles of, er, substances. The conversation between Porno and the cops went something like this:

Cop: Who's the guy who said racist comments to these gentlemen?

All Of Us: Tell 'em, Porno [or something to that effect]

[Porno steps up to take his medicine.]

Cop: You know I could book you for a hate crime right now? I'm half-Asian too, pal. So what do you have to say for yourself?

Porno: [Speaking in the direction of the two Asian fellows] Wha?!? C'mon guy, I was just kidding around....you don't have to take things so seriously....

Cop: Buddy, if I have to come up here again, or get anymore complaints about you from anyone else, I'm booking you. Understand? I work in this precinct. I'll personally find you. Got it?

Porno: Yeah...but I was just kidding around...jeez....

After all of this was resolved in the hallway, Porno took a lot of crap for the rest of the night. His normal response was something like, "F*ck youse, youse chink-lovers...." But that was nothing compared to what Porno wound up doing to El Dorko, the guy who lived the building where the event occurred.

The next day after the incident, El Dorko went down to the apartment where these two fellows lived, and apologized profusely. He explained that Porno wasn't his friend, but a friend of his friend (true), and he in no way condoned what was said to them. The two fellows accepted his apology...or so he thought. For the next few days after the incident, El Dorko kept on getting weird looks from his neighbors in the building, if not outright dirty ones. People who normally would make small talk with him in the elevator refused to even acknowledge him. Eventually, one of his neighbors told him that the two guys in the elevator had made a flyer and slipped it under everyone's door in the building, cleverly refraining from putting one under El Dorko's door. The flyer said something like, "El Dorko, the occupant of apartment 605 is a racist!" The rest of the flyer proceeded to recount the whole incident, only it painted El Dorko as the perpetrator. Needless to say, El Dorko wasn't very pleased that his good name had been defiled by Porno, in his building no less. When Porno was told of what had happened to El Dorko, his response was this: "Wow....that El Dorko's a racist, eh!"

True story.

The Wit And Wisdom Of Porno-Boy

My erstwhile drinking buddy, Porno Boy, was known for saying and doing the unexpected. I subsequently distanced myself from him in the interest of saving my own life and limb. That said, he provided some major comic relief from time to time. Never in my life will I come across a character who'll say more outrageous things to more unsuspecting people. I was recently reminded of an encounter he had with a young lady about eight or nine years ago. The dialogue went like this:

Porno Boy: You know...you look like a friend of mine...

Young Lady: Is that meant to be a compliment?

Porno Boy: I dunno...his name's Jeff.

As I remember more, I'll post them. Some of them are not fit for public consumption, as they violate the wholesome ethic I seek to preserve on this blog. But I'll leave you with one more. This exchange involved a young lady who rejected his advances. Bear in mind, all of these encounters occurred whilst under the influence of massive amounts of alcohol:

Young Lady: I'm not interested.

Porno Boy: Hey...that's okay. But you might want to do something about that mustache, kid. That might fly in Romania, but it doesn't here.


Just be lucky you were never friends with him, folks....

Nagasaki

"Fat Man" was the name of the plutonium bomb dropped on the city of Nagasaki on this day, sixty years ago. One footnote in history has gotten lost in the story: that Nagasaki wasn't supposed to get the bomb. The city of Kokura was the original target, but due to heavy cloud cover, the B-29 carrying the bomb (Bock's Car) could not get a sighting on the city. As was the standard operating procedure of the day, when a bomber or bombers could not a get a fix on a primary target due to thick cloud cover, they had a secondary target already picked prior to the mission. That secondary target was Nagasaki. Talk about dumb luck...

Did You Know That Baseball Was A Lesbian Sport?

Neither did I. But Sharon Stone seems to think it is, along with golf and fishing. Based on this logic, my (now) casual affection for baseball renders me 1/3rd lesbian. What a relief.

Yes, You Too Can Create Your Own Conspiracy Theory!

I'm often asked by members of my voluminous fan base how I come across some of these esoteric websites. My answer is very simple: ancient Chinese secret. That said, I offer to the multitudes a new website, which enables one to concoct one's own idea of what kind evil endeavor the Bush Administration is cooking up, or already has cooked up. Enjoy.

Great Moments In Celebrity Idiocy

"I don't believe (monogamy) is realistic. But, I believe that we, as people, have the power to make it happen."

--Kate Hudson

A Few Thoughts On This Day

An interview with the navigator of the B-29 Enola Gay, which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, this day sixty years ago:


SPIEGEL: Do you feel any regrets today about dropping the first bomb?

Van Kirk: I'm not proud of all the deaths it caused, and nobody is. But how do you win a war without killing people? If you don't want to kill people, you should not start a war. And I think people that go around and start wars for any reason whatsoever are crazy, but that's another story. When you have a war, there is only one thing to do in my opinion, and that is make damn sure you win it and expend any energy that you must in order to bring that war to a rapid conclusion with a minimum loss of life.

You can read it in its entirety here.

Sixty years ago today, a B-29 Superfortress by the name of Enola Gay (named after Cpt. Paul Tibbett's mother) flew over the city of Hiroshima, dropping a uranium-filled explosive bomb nicknamed "Little Boy". In one fell swoop, 60,000 lives were vaporized, 10,000 of which were members of the Japanese Imperial Army. (The Japanese 2nd Army was stationed there.) Strangely, the Japanese didn't immediately and unconditionally surrender. They didn't even do that after another B-29 Superfortress (Bock's Car) three days later dropped a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki, incinerating another 40,000 Japanese. No...the surrender eventually came on August 15, nine days after Hiroshima and six days after Nagasaki. Contrary to the writings of faux historians like Howard Zinn and other far-left historical revisionists, Japan had no intention of surrendering before or after the bombs. It was only after Emperor Hirohito, the only man in the Japanese government who's word was indisputable, capitulated did Japanese hostilities cease. In the interim between the Nagasaki conflagration on August 9 and eventual surrender on August 15, US forces lost the following: several American flyers were captured and subsequently decapitated, the submarine Bonefish was sunk (no survivors), and two Destroyers, the Underhill and the Callaghan, were sunk. In the Pacific Theatre of Operations, American casualties were running at an average of 7,000 a week. The last week of the Second World War was no exception to that average. In addition, the Japanese were holding well over 40,000 American POWs. The Geneva Convention didn't apply to the Japanese, for over 12,000 American POWs had already been decapitated, worked to death, or denied sufficient medical treatment...resulting in death. (Consider that the Germans had over 100,000 Allied POWs, of which only 2% perished in their custody, normally due to escape attempts or malnutrition.) Emperor Hirohito eventually gave a taped surrender address on August 15; in its wake, the Minister of War and all of the Japanese military high command, who had attempted a coup d'etat and actually imprisoned Hirohito to prevent him from surrendering, all committed suicide. The war was over. But even after two atomic bombs, it was not a certainty. The military high command had no interest in surrender; their actions revealed their intent.

Various theories as to why the bomb was dropped have been floated over the last sixty years, many of which attempt to depict the United States as the villain. Among them are that Truman dropped the bomb in Japan to impress the Soviets, that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway and it was dropped out of vengeance, and that the Japanese got it instead of the Germans for racist reasons. Let me take a moment to confront all three and eliminate the apocryphal nature of all three contentions: The bomb was dropped to end the war. Period. End of story. The alternatives to dropping the bomb were so hideous that they actually made the atomic bomb look humane. For one, Gen. Curtis LeMay planned to completely incinerate the Japanese home islands vis-a-vis incendiary bombing. Since the European war was over, he would've had an additional 10,000 B-17s and B-24s arriving to Pacific air bases within weeks. The British, with 1000 Lancaster heavy bombers, would've contributed 11,000 additional bombers. Considering that a firebombing of Tokyo, done a few weeks before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, claimed 150,000 lives, one can easily see what the toll would've been. Secondly, the invasion of the Japanese home islands would've cost the Allies 500,000 casualties. Faux historian Howard Zinn claims this number was concocted "out of thin air" and claims that an invasion of Japan would've cost "only" 46,000 Allied lives. One more Allied life would've been cause enough to drop the bombs, in my opinion. Zinn also contends that the war would've ended, at the latest, by November of 1945. A quick calculation of that, sixteen more weeks of war at an average of 7,000 American casualties a day, comes out to an additional 112,000 American casualties. (Amazing how Zinn so blithely makes these unresearched, poorly thought out statements. Food for the malignant, I guess. But I digress....)

There is no reason to celebrate this anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. Some wars are justified, some are not, but they are without exception awful. The best that one can wish to do this day is give thanks that this horrible device, which claimed 100,000 people in two explosions, stanched the overwhelming additional carnage (which would've run into the several millions) that would've resulted had the bomb never been exploded at all.

If This Is True...

The Drudge Report has broken a story that claims the New York Times is looking into the adoption records of John Roberts' two children. I'll wait a few days before passing final judgement on this, but if this is correct, it would signify a new low in journalism. Arthur Sulzberger Jr's name will have been placed along side the names of other rotten figures in yellow journalism: James Callender, Benjamin Franklin Bache, Philip Freneau, William Randolph Hearst, etc.

The Times better not be guilty of this. They're already on thin ice as it is.

Weirdly Delusional

"This election is a shockwave of voter discontent that will be felt all across the country. Every Republican in Congress should consider himself put on notice. Tonight, we have seen rock-solid Republicans say that they have had enough of a Congress that is in the grips of the special interests, roiled by ethics investigations and doing nothing to help solve the pressing challenges facing the middle class."

--Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emmanuel


"The issues, political and ethics environment are good for Democrats, and Paul Hackett's campaign in a Republican district proves it. Republicans are on notice -- Americans are demanding a change. Americans will no longer tolerate the Republicans' continued abuses of power and catering to corporate special interests at the expense of the public interest."

--House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

"The post-mortems will come in the coming days, but for now, I'm happy with what everyone accomplished in Ohio. It's a new day for the Democratic Party, one in which no Republican district is safe."

--Markos Moulitsas, Daily Kos

Clearly these quotes are referring to a recent election. The question I have is is how many of you think the candidate being spoken of won the election that is being discussed? Take a moment before you read further......got your answer in your mind? Okay...the election results in question are the ones in Ohio's Second Congressional District between Republican Jean Schmidt and Democrat Paul Hackett. Guess what? The Democratic congressional nominee, Paul Hackett, lost. But judging by the quotes above, you'd think that he won resoundingly. Now, I'm all for trying to find the positives in defeat, but these quotes seem to project a strange kind of psychosis, one not only of denial, but of outright delusion. How any of the aforementioned can spin this election, one of the few congressional elections this year, into a resounding victory, when in fact their candidate went down to defeat, simply compells me to shake my head. Was it a tighter race for this particular congressional district than in the past? Sure, but special elections don't usually draw out a large amount of voter participation. Do GOP candidates in this district usually blow out Democratic candidates? Sure. But a win of 52% to 48%, close though it may be, has to be put in context. Again, this was a special election called because the prior Ohio congressman left his post to take a position in the Bush Administration. Here is the voter breakdown in comparison to past election cycles:

2002-184,100 R-136,523 D-47,618
2004-310,000 R-227,102 D-89,598
2005-111,000 R-57,974 D-54,401

Make note of the totals. The 2005 election had appreciably less voter turnout than in last years election, and less than even the mid-term elections in '02. This is what has the Democrats excited, that their congressional candidate lost by approximately 4%, instead of getting blow out like theirs did in '04?

Weirdly delusional, indeed.

Abusive (Founding) Fathers

John Adams on Benjamin Franklin:

"His whole life has been one continued insult to good manners and to decency."

Benjamin Franklin on John Adams:

"He means well for his country, is always and honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of his senses."

Thomas Jefferson on John Adams:

"He hates Franklin, he hates [John] Jay, he hates the French, he hates the English. To whom will he adhere?"

Open letter to George Washington from Thomas Paine:

"...the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor, whether you have abandoned good principles or whether you ever had any."

John Adams on Thomas Paine:

" [He is] the satyr of the age...a mongrel between pig and puppy, begotten by a wild board on a butch wolf..."

John Adams on Alexander Hamilton:

"That bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar [sic]"

Adams later stated in regards to Hamilton:

"I shall pay no regard to his puppyhood."

Tidal Wave

"The tap-root of German mechanized power" was how Winston Churchill described the oil refineries located in Ploesti, Romania. He was not incorrect in this assessment; the Ploesti refineries accounted for close to 40% (some intel put it as high as 60%)of all German petroleum consumption during the Second World War. On August 1, 1943, 177 B-24 Liberator heavy bombers flying out of Benghazi, Libya, flew across the Aegean Sea to hit this extremely important target. The operation was code named Tidal Wave. For the purpose of avoiding radar detection, the bomber groups all flew 100 feet above the ground and maintained strict radio silence. (Consider that the normal altitude maintained during bombing raids during the war was 35,000 feet.) They probably shouldn't have bothered. When they arrived at Ploesti, the Germans were waiting for them, having been tipped off by eyewitnesses on the ground far from the target who radioed in. Additionally, contrary to the contention made by Allied intelligence that the target wasn't heavily defended, Ploesti was the most heavily fortified location under German control outside of Germany proper. The Germans had been expecting them for close to a year. And then the inevitable commenced: the German Luftwaffe squandrons and the ground defenses blew American bombers out of the sky virtually at will. Some bombers hit their designated refinery targets, but most didn't even get the opportunity. Of the 177 bombers that took off from Benghazi, only 33 made it back. The rest were either forced to crash land in Romania and became POWs, landed in Turkey and thus were interned (Turkey was officially neutral during WWII, and would detain any member of the warring factions), or were obliterated outright. Almost a third of the approximately 1700 bomber crewmen that flew the mission lost their lives. And the Ploesti refineries, far from being destroyed, were quickly repaired with little change in production output. American bombers would revisit Ploesti several times afterwards, but at 35,000 feet. Ploesti never ceased production until the Soviet Red Army overran Romania late in the war.

Five Medals of Honor were awarded to participants of the Ploesti mission. It remains the most amount awarded for a single mission. That this mission is largely forgotten today is the reason for this post, this first day of August. It happened this day, sixty two years ago.

No blood for oil. If only.

(Those interested in further study on this can see pics here and read more here.)

Quotes Of The Day

"For God's sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies, and cut him to pieces in the face of the public!"

--Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, imploring him to keep up all efforts to destroy Alexander Hamilton.

"No character, however upright, is a match for constantly reiterated attacks, however false."

--Alexander Hamilton, in his report to the House of Representatives regarding his alleged misuse of treasury funds; the accusations were fomented by the Jefferson and his minions.

Comeuppance

Helen Thomas, perhaps the most noxious member of the White House press corps, gets a taste of her own medicine. Read all about it here.

Musician Humor

How do you get a guitarist to stop playing? Put sheet music in front of him.

How do you get a guitarist evicted from his apartment? Get his girlfriend fired.

How do you get a guitarist out of your apartment? Run out of weed.

What do you call a guy who hangs out with musicians? A drummer.

Killing Their Own

"The head of the Algerian mission Ali Belaroussi and the diplomat Azzedine Belkadi, whose government is ruling in violation of God's will, were killed," said the Internet statement by the terrorist group Al-Qaida in Iraq.

Story here.

Sidenote: Notice that they consider the Algerian government to be a "violation of God's will". Can anyone seriously claim that the aim of these people is not to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate-nation, but to settle the Israeli-Palestinian dispute?

Spitzer Investigates Payola

Read all about it here. And wonder no more why pop music sucks so bad.

Don't Touch My Bone!

This dog not only won't let you go near his bone; he won't even let himself go near his own bone. Must see: Download donttouchmybone.wmv

(Shame on you for thinking this by-line was some kind of phallic reference! Get your minds out of the gutter!)

Gold Sparkle Gives A Great Buzz....

...But you probably should sneak it out before you use it. This fellow obviously skipped step one and went right onto step two....sniffing it.

I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation.

Hockey Is Back

But how much has been lost?

I'm a huge hockey fan, but I'm not sure hockey will ever recover its momentum. For one brief, shining moment, hockey had an opportunity to join the ranks of the other major sports in the States: baseball, basketball, football. The year was 1994, and the Rangers, killing off 54 years of futility in a dramatic, seventh game win, finally won the Stanley Cup. It was a momentous occasion, not just for the Rangers, but for the game itself. Think of it: the most high profile NHL team in hockey wins the Stanley Cup in the media capital of the world. You had one of the biggest marquee names in the game, Mark Messier, the captain. You had two high profile, telegenic Americans, Mike Richter and Brian Leetch. And you had Adam Graves, the epitome of heart and soul, less talented than ambitious, and Alexei Kovalev, the fleet, fast, highly-skilled, and more than little nasty. And what happened after the Rangers won the Stanley Cup? The league called a lock-out and delayed the next season for three months.

Last year, professional hockey didn't have half as good a season as they had in '94; the product was just not as good. But the league called for a lockout anyway. Die-hard fans like me will be back. But what of the casual fans, the sports fans that watch all sports, albeit in more of a shallow manner. Will they be back?

There are some positives, mind you. The elimination of the red line will open up the game; no more trap defenses and "dump and grind" hockey. I'm not sure I like the "no-touch" icing rule they're seeking to implement, but it will probably cut down on injuries. I'm not sure moving the net back two feet towards the boards is a good thing. But at least it will be a different game, a more wide open game. The product, in all likelihood, will be better. But what if no one is watching?

Worst Album Covers Ever

Too good not to share.

Get 'em right....here!

Quote Of The Day

"Some of the people tell you Islam is a religion of peace because they think that then you'll want to convert. But you cannot possibly say Islam is a religion of peace; jihad is not an internal struggle.

We can fight wherever, in Iraq, London, Paris, or Berlin. There is no such thing as innocents. The idea of the Islamic state is terror against anyone who doesn't support Islamic ideology."

- Khalid Kelly, British resident and follower of radical cleric Abu Osama

My question: Should we take him at face value?

Kennedy At Gitmo

Ted Kennedy and Daniel Akaka, a Democratic Senator from Hawaii, paid the troops at Guantanamo Bay a visit this past week. They didn't get a very nice reception. Read up.

No word yet on Dick Durbin's plans to visit.

Rice In Lebanon

Regular readers of this blog are well acquainted with my obsessive observation of what is going on in Lebanon. Well, I think that Condoleeza Rice's visit to Beirut gives the democratic movement a tremendous psychological boost.

Already, Rice's tenure at State is turning out to be a momentous one. While I consider Colin Powell to be a great American, I don't think he was a particularly good Sec. of State; he got hoodwinked by the French on UN Resolution 1441, and he couldn't sell the obvious violations to the UN Security Council as a legitimate casus belli, even though they were being haughtily violated by Saddam. But Rice has shown tremendous courage, not only in going to Beirut, but also to Darfur, Sudan, the scene of the worst ongoing genocide in the world (at the moment). Members of her entourage were roughed up while in Khartoum, which prompted Rice to get very pissed. Good stuff. It's refreshing to see a Sec. of State with some teeth, and Rice isn't afraid to show them. As a bonus, liberal reporter Andrea Mitchell got dragged out unceremoniously when she shouted a politically incorrect question to the Sudanese President Ahmad al-Bashir. As a result of this experience, perhaps Mitchell will tell some of her cocktail circuit reporter buddies that, yes, true evil does exist in the world, and no, it's not the Bush Administration. She might get excommunicated for that, mind, but there's always hope.

Dead Time

I'm about 40% of the way through Ron Chernow's epic biography on Alexander Hamilton. It has been a banner year for me in regards to reading. In the last eight months, I've been able to plow through a biography on Mozart written by Marcia Davenport in 1932 (which is, needless to say, out of print; my mother, a librarian, fished it out of a stack of books her library were in the process of disposing of. The mere act of disposing of any books must've caused her great consternation. But I digress...), His Excellency, George Washington by Joseph Ellis, John Adams by David McCullough, 1776 by David McCullough, Alexander Hamilton, American by Richard Brookhiser, and last but not least, Traveling Music, by my personal hero, Neil Peart. With the exception of the Brookhiser and Neil Peart book, almost all of these works clock in at approximately 700 pages, so I feel like I'm more than able to do some seriously heavy lifting, intellectually speaking.

Whilst it is true that the last five months have been ones of leisure for me, courtesy of a certain large financial institution's decision to give me an early retirement (ahem...), the reason for my fairly prodigious consumption of the printed word is because I've mastered the art of productive "dead time". What is "dead time"? Simple. It is the half an hour you wait for the subway to come, and the time that you're on the subway waiting for your stop. It is the time that you're waiting in the doctor or dentist office for your name to be called. It is the time in the waiting room of Mr. Goodwrench (muffler, $400). It is the time in Penn Station, waiting for your train to arrive so you can depart the dirty city. (An exercise I no longer have to endure, as per my departure from the Isle of Manhattan and the subsequent purchase of my first wholly owned motor vehicle.) It's being stuck on a trans-continental flight. And it is riding on a bus throughout Central America for hours on end on roads that make the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway seem blissfully smooth. That's "dead time". We're all afflicted with it, be it waiting in DMV, or taking a bus back from college. How we use that "dead time" is a pretty important question, because I'd surmise that most people either play games on their cell phone, listen to their IPod, or sit around ruminating about how sh*tty it is to be so bored for so long. I don't know how anyone else does it, but I find that reading is the all-purpose elixir to the elimination of boredom, and never do I read more than when I have no choice but to kill a half an hour, two, three, five, or seven hours. Granted, I don't read for hours on end without a break. But having a book, particularly a dense one, alleviates a tremendous amount of boredom and stress.

A former girlfriend of mine of dubious sanity used to call me just to loudly complain about her delays on the bus, train, etc. My first reaction when this started happening was that she obviously was incapable of living in New York City. My second reaction was to tell her not to call me anymore, and to read a book if she hated waiting for mass transit. After all, I was victimized by the crappy service of the MTA as much as she was. She didn't take my advice, so I fired her*.

She didn't use her "dead time" wisely.

*To the members of the fairer sex, be assured that there were much more extenuating circumstances to her departure than her poor use of "dead time". Please pardon any perceived undertones of chauvinism, for they were not intended to convey such.

Rivington Street

The next time you're on the Lower East Side and you go by or walk down this street, you can take comfort in the knowledge that you know for whom this street is named. James Rivington was one of the major Revolutionary-era publishers in New York, as well as a bookseller. His paper, The Royal Gazette, was vehemently anti-independence and pro-Tory, at least on the surface. His print press building was ruined in 1775 by a mob of independence advocates, but he rebuilt and kept on churning out his paper when the British occupied New York City from 1777 on. His publication was filled with contempt and invective for the cause of American independence. Post 1783, the first year of genuine independence, his paper, with its pro-Tory views, ceased to exist for lack of circulation. Rivington spent the rest of his days living at subsistence level. What wasn't known during the time that Rivington was publishing the Gazette was that Rivington was secretly using his status as an ardent Tory to glean important information about the manoeuvres of the British army and, specifically, their navy. He would communicate this information within the bookcovers of books he sold to undercover patriots. After the war, Washington, in New York for a farewell party his officers held for him at Faunces Tavern, paid Rivington a visit. Adjourning to a back room of Rivington's bookseller business, Washington secretly rewarded Rivington with several gold pieces. Rivington had stolen the British naval fleet's signal book and successfully communicated it to the Americans; this broken code contributed in no small part to the American victory at Y0rktown

Rivington died in 1802, his great role in helping the cause of independence unknown to the larger masses.

Operation COBRA

On July 25 of 1944, Allied ground forces under the command of Gen. Omar Bradley (who's quote regarding Gen. McArthur's stance on going to war with China over Korea was that it was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" was pilfered by John Kerry last year...unattributed, might I add), bogged down in the countryside of Normandy, decided to end the slog with one big push. Bradley conceived of a "breakout" of Normandy, which would consist of using medium and heavy bombers, in concert with ground forces, to obliterate German resistance to the Allied advance once and for all. From June 4 to late July, Allied forces had been moving slow through Normandy, getting picked off at will by Germans who hid behind the massive hedgerows that ran parallel on both sides to a great many Normandy roads. The casualty rates were too high for the invasion to be successful, even after the initial landings in early June.

Employing heavy B-24s and B-17s, as well as medium B-26 bombers, Allied aircraft pounded the German line for days at a time. But a few things happened that didn't go according to plan: some bombers let their payload go too soon, and bombed the American lines. 100 GIs lost their lives to "friendly" bombing, 600 were injured. Lost in the bombing was Lt. Gen. Leslie McNair, the highest ranking officer in US history to ever lose his life to "friendly" fire.

Despite the losses, the bombing was successful, and American forces met diminished resistance going forward. The actions taken during Operation COBRA would be the reason behind the successful push to Paris, which was liberated in late August of 1944. Despite its success, Eisenhower was left bitter by the American casualties that the bombers inflicted, vowing never again to use heavy air bombardment in coordination with ground advancement in any future operations.

I bring up Operation COBRA for a couple of reasons. Pre-eminent British military historian John Keegan, through his research, has put casualty figures throughout ALL wars at or around 25%. Some have claimed that military casualties due to friendly fire run as high as 40% of all casualties inflicted. Whatever the number is, one salient truth holds firm: war is a dirty, deadly, and unpredictable business. Thucydides, whilst writing about the Peloponnesian Wars, once stated that, "...when a man comes face to face with his enemy, he rarely sees what he needs to see.." It was as true in 460 B.C. as it is today.

Much was made a few months back about the death of Pat Tillman, the professional football player who decided to foresake fame, fortune, and (relative) safety to join the US Army. That Tillman immediately advanced through the ranks to become a Ranger, one of the most elite units in the Army, was no surprise. Tillman subsequently lost his life in Afghanistan, the result of what has been designated as "friendly fire". Tillman's parents have been quite vocal in their anger over their contention that the military attempted to "whitewash" his death and make it appear more heroic than it really was. Understandably so. However, how he died, be it via enemy or friendly fire, is immaterial in the grand scheme of things. That he was in Afghanistan, with the Army Rangers....that was more than heroic enough.

Scotty Gets Beamed Up

James "Scotty" Doohan, of "Star Trek" fame, has left us. Had an interesting life story as well, including participating in the storming of Juno Beach with Canadian forces on D-Day. Other famous people that were at D-Day include Charles Durnan and Yogi Berra.

Bush's SCOTUS Pick

Well, Bush zagged when everyone thought he'd zig. Good for him. I don't know much about Judge John Roberts, but let's get one thing clear: Bush owes nothing to the Senate Democrats as far as who he decides to pick for SCOTUS. It's his presidential prerogative, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, to choose who he feels is right for the position. The Democrats won't like it, but they're in no position to object; Bush won, Kerry lost, and to the victor go the spoils, amongst them the presidential right to pick the next Supreme Court justice. Additionally, if the Democratic minority in the Senate try to filibuster Roberts, they'll promptly have the filibuster taken away from them by the Republican Senate majority. Bush has all the cards. Not only that, but if the Democrats attempt to obstruct Roberts, they run the risk of appearing as bad faith actors.

Jokes About Liberals

Yeah...it's juvenile. But so damn what? They're funny, and they take the piss out of liberals. And to think that this guy writes for the Huffington Post!

A teaser:

How many islamic fundamentalists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

ANSWER: Why do you think they would want light bulbs? This is what foments hate against the West.

A Few Observations....

• Recently I've been listening to K-Rock, and I've noticed that in the last six or seven times that I've tuned in, the Run DMC version of "Walk This Way" has been on the air. I have no idea why this is making the playlist in such a heavy way, or why the Aerosmith version of the song isn't. For a while K-Rock was playing a pretty large dollop of rap, but they seem to have reverted to a more "retro" playlist. I thought and continue to think that the rap version of "Walk This Way" is a fun piece of music, but I'm not convinced it beats the original.

• I've also noticed that a lot of "glam rock" from the late 80's/early 90's is starting to make it onto the K-Rock playlist. Ratt's "Round and Round", Motley Crue's "Dr. Feelgood"...you get the idea. I've never been a huge fan of this genre of rock, as I found it to be a bit "dumbed down" and kind of appealed to the lowest common denominator, but fifteen years hence, it is kind of refreshing to hear. I will say this about a number of those bands: they had musicianship. Though their lyrics were the epitome if idiotic ("She's my cherry pie/cool drink of water/such a sweet surprise/tastes so good/brings a tear to your eye/sweet cherry pie!!!"), they always seem to have a hot sh*t guitar player who could really burn it up. Guitar solos seem to have gone terribly out of style the last decade, brought on in no small measure by the grunge movement (particularly Nirvana, where Kurt Cobain couldn't play a burning solo if he tried) and other neo-punk acts like Green Day. Mind you, this isn't a dig on either band, both of whom kick (or in the case of Nirvana, kicked) ass. But a good, raucous guitar solo in today's music seems to be non-existent. I'm sure times will change and they'll be back in style, and hopefully some new players will exhibit some originality, as opposed to the "glam" players back in the late 80's who all seemed to be copping Edward Van Halen licks, but without half as much verve or pinache, great though they were.

• In a similar vein, there seems to be a great deal of cultural regurgitation going on these days. From the remake of "Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" (renamed "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"), to the "Dukes of Hazzard" movie, to Broadway remakes of movies like "Steel Magnolias" and "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels", I'm starting to wonder if there is either a dearth of originality or whether it is that the venture capitalists of the entertainment industry are more apt to back a proven concept, as opposed to a fresh, original play or movie. Being a money man (or woman) in the entertainment industry, be it on Broadway or in Hollywood, is a pretty risky proposition, so it is understandable that the venture capitalists behind these projects would want to bank on something with already proven appeal. However, we the ticket buying public are going to have to get used to seeing the same things over and over again. Culture is feeding on itself...yuck.

Anyway...that's it for the random thoughts.

Spot The Idiot

The Rev. Jesse Jackson is asked on Hannity and Colmes whether the evil of terrorism can be fought by other than military means, and gives this reply: ''Well, you know, we found an end to slavery, which is evil, without killing the slave masters."

Rev. Jackson must've forgotten about the Civil War, or before that, the violent abolitionist movement throughout Kansas and other western territories in the 1850's that claimed the lives of many slave masters, vis-a-vis people like John Brown who...uh....murdered them.

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"

Life....In A Nutshell

"Not getting killed is the key to a long-term, comprehensive benefits package!"

--A fireman friend of mine, who barely survived Tower 1 of the WTC falling on him

All Rock, No Action

From New York Times Op-Ed Page

By JEAN-CLAUDE SHANDA TONME
Published: July 15, 2005
Yaoundé, Cameroon

LIVE 8, that extraordinary media event that some people of good intentions in the West just orchestrated, would have left us Africans indifferent if we hadn't realized that it was an insult both to us and to common sense.

We have nothing against those who this month, in a stadium, a street, a park, in Berlin, London, Moscow, Philadelphia, gathered crowds and played guitar and talked about global poverty and aid for Africa. But we are troubled to think that they are so misguided about what Africa's real problem is, and dismayed by their willingness to propose solutions on our behalf.

We Africans know what the problem is, and no one else should speak in our name. Africa has men of letters and science, great thinkers and stifled geniuses who at the risk of torture rise up to declare the truth and demand liberty.

Don't insult Africa, this continent so rich yet so badly led. Instead, insult its leaders, who have ruined everything. Our anger is all the greater because despite all the presidents for life, despite all the evidence of genocide, we didn't hear anyone at Live 8 raise a cry for democracy in Africa.
Don't the organizers of the concerts realize that Africa lives under the oppression of rulers like Yoweri Museveni (who just eliminated term limits in Uganda so he can be president indefinitely) and Omar Bongo (who has become immensely rich in his three decades of running Gabon)? Don't they know what is happening in Cameroon, Chad, Togo and the Central African Republic? Don't they understand that fighting poverty is fruitless if dictatorships remain in place?
Even more puzzling is why Youssou N'Dour and other Africans participated in this charade. Like us, they can't help but know that Africa's real problem is the lack of freedom of expression, the usurpation of power, the brutal oppression.

Neither debt relief nor huge amounts of food aid nor an invasion of experts will change anything. Those will merely prop up the continent's dictators. It's up to each nation to liberate itself and to help itself. When there is a problem in the United States, in Britain, in France, the citizens vote to change their leaders. And those times when it wasn't possible to freely vote to change those leaders, the people revolted.

In Africa, our leaders have led us into misery, and we need to rid ourselves of these cancers. We would have preferred for the musicians in Philadelphia and London to have marched and sung for political revolution. Instead, they mourned a corpse while forgetting to denounce the murderer.

What is at issue is an Africa where dictators kill, steal and usurp power yet are treated like heroes at meetings of the African Union. What is at issue is rulers like François Bozizé, the coup leader running the Central Africa Republic, and Faure Gnassingbé, who just succeeded his father as president of Togo, free to trample universal suffrage and muzzle their people with no danger that they'll lose their seats at the United Nations. Who here wants a concert against poverty when an African is born, lives and dies without ever being able to vote freely?

But the truth is that it was not for us, for Africa, that the musicians at Live 8 were singing; it was to amuse the crowds and to clear their own consciences, and whether they realized it or not, to reinforce dictatorships. They still believe us to be like children that they must save, as if we don't realize ourselves what the source of our problems is.

Jean-Claude Shanda Tonme is a consultant on international law and a columnist for Le Messager, a Cameroonian daily, where a version of this article first appeared. This article was translated by The Times from the French.

Bastille Day

The French holiday commemorating the "storming" of the Bastille is today, July 14, so I figured I'd write about it. It certainly isn't what you think it is...or was.

French peasants in Paris were starving. There had been a food shortage due, in all likelihood, to either delivery problems from the agricultural countryside, or merely a bad harvest. Whatever the reason, the peasants were pissed. Louis XVI, instead of taking steps to alleviate the situation, fortified the Bastille, a tall, stone edifice in the heart of Paris. (It has since been torn down.) Starvation, coupled with a nasty heat wave, made this a combustible situation. However, one overlooked fact put the problem over the top: a number of French peasants raided a wine warehouse, looted the place of its casks, and everyone in Paris got smashed. Combustible indeed.

Anyway, the drunken, hungry Parisians stormed the Bastille, figuring that it was filled with political prisoners and unfairly prosecuted French folk. There were all of six prisoners in the monstrous edifice, two of which were insane or retarded, depending on which version of the story you read. It mattered not. They took the castle, decapitated several heads of guards, stuck them on pikes, and paraded them through the streets. Not exactly Lexington and Concorde.

The rest is history. The French Revolution went from a quasi-republican revolution to a full-blown genocidal movement in the space of three years. Not only did the rebellion wind up as an anti-royalist one, but also an anti-church one. Many catholic clergymen lost their lives, many churches and monasteries destroyed, and a sort of atheistic, amoral state emerged, complete with days, months, and years renamed and rearranged. (The point of this being to eliminate all traces of Christian tradition.) The high water mark of the revolution was obviously "The Great Terror", which Maximillian Robespierre helmed. The Jacobins, which Robespierre led, commenced on killing everyone, even fellow revolutionaries, such as Girondiste Georges Danton. In the end, the revolution wound up decapitating even Robespierre and his fellow Jacobins. (Sidenote: Robespierre, on getting wind that armed men were coming to arrest him, attempted suicide, but failed. He spent the remainder of what was left of his life in agonizing pain, having shot his jaw off.) The end of The Great Terror occurred when The Directory, a triumvirate led by Napoleon, seized power. Napoleon soon assumed complete control of the French republic, crowned himself emperor, got deposed twice, and was inevitably followed by....Louis XVIII, the successor of Louis XVI. And back to a monarchy France went.

Having studied the French Revolution in college (I had an amazing professor, Dr. Karen Halbersleben), the inevitable question that arose towards the end of the class was, "why would they ever celebrate Bastille Day in the first place?" It would be like celebrating the Fourth of July but having lost the Revolutionary War, with the only long-term benefit being that America wound up as a commonwealth like Canada or Australia.

For the record, the French are on their FIFTH republic.

No Byline Needed...

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - The man on trial in the slaying of filmmaker Theo van Gogh admitted his guilt in court Tuesday, declaring he acted out of religious conviction and would do it again if given the chance. Mohammed Bouyeri also turned to Van Gogh's mother, Anneke, in court and told her: "I don't feel your pain."

Andrew Goodpaster 1915-2005

For no reason in particular, I "googled" Andrew Goodpaster's name, just to look up a few articles on him. I'm familiar with this man because his name pops up in several WWII books that I've read. Sadly, he died this past May. Usually notable deaths such as this don't get by me, but I guess either I missed it in the press, or was reading the wrong thing that day. If the name doesn't sound familiar to you, it's no surprise; Goodpaster was a behind the scenes guy. But this relatively unknown historical character had a huge impact on the conduct of both the Second World War and the Cold War. He may have also helped to save the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American servicemen.

In the dying days of the Second World War, all the allied armies came within spitting distance of Berlin. General Eisenhower's two most unmanageable generals, Patton and British general/pain-in-the-ass Montgomery, pressed Eisenhower to give them the green light to cross the River Elbe and take Berlin. Eisenhower had no illusions about the strategic significance of Berlin, for it had none. It was a prestige objective, nothing more. As a member of General Eisenhower's staff, then later part of the War Department and a right-hand man to General Marshall, Goodpaster was deep in the high command. Eisenhower requested a mathematical assessment of what the cost in human life and ordnance would be to take Berlin. The number came back from the States: 100,000 men. "Hell of a price to pay for a prestige objective", Eisenhower was recorded as saying. Instead, Stalin took it upon himself to assault the last bastion of Nazi Germany. Needless to say, the extrapolated number of 100,000 combat casualties was proven accurate, for that is what the Soviet Red Army lost in the final push of the war, Berlin. Andrew Goodpaster was the man who came up with the 100,000 number. As a result, 100,000 American and British kids would make it home in one piece, since Eisenhower chose not to turn that amount into cannon food for what was essentially a militarily useless objective. Goodpaster was also involved in the numerical extrapolations the War Department (now known as Dep. of Defense) drew up for the invasion of the Japanese home islands. 500,000 casualties were forcasted, as well as an occupational force of over a 1,000,000 Americans post-war. Fortunately, the atom bombs spared the US the misery of the first number. This writer's father in all likelihood would've been one of those lives lost or maimed in that 500,000 casualty statistic.

Goodpaster later went onto being one of the logistical coordinators of the Berlin airlift in 1947, which circumvented Stalin's blockade of West Berlin. He was involved in the high command of the United States military establishment for his entire life, having also been the supreme military commander of NATO, and served under five presidents (Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson), and was the commandant of West Point.

What an amazing life, and what a tremendous experience it must've been to be an eyewitness to history, time and again. Even more amazing is the fact that Goodpaster has served at the highest levels of the military and was in direct contact with presidents since his early 30's.

Goodpaster was 90 years old.

As For One Of The Other "Root Causes"....

Inevitably, the Left will also see fit to tie the London bombings to the ever-ongoing problems between the Jews and Arabs in Israel and the surrounding territories. And yet, at the G8 summit, a package of three billion for the Palestinian Authority, ostensibly to further the two-state "peace" process, was approved at the conference prior to yesterday's bombings. So the root causes of Islamo-terrorism are poverty in the Third World, the Jewish/Arab problem in Israel and the surrounding territories, and of course, the ongoing military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, right? Well, I think it's obvious that at least two of these "root causes" are bogus. This is a world-wide war, jihad if you will, against the institutions of secular democracy. These people can not be placated, and there is no amount of appeasement or negotiated settlement that will satiate their appetites. Their stated goal is a world-wide caliphate, through prolonged jihad. Strangely, those on the Left seem to think they're just pulling our chain with their rhetoric. After 9/11, I take them at their word. It is not about our occupation of Iraq, it is not about our occupation of Afghanistan, and it is not because we had an airbase in Saudi Arabia up until a few years ago. It isn't because of the ongoing strife between the Jews and Islamists in Israel proper and the terroritories. It isn't about the Crusades, which ended in 1291. It isn't the Reconquista of Andulucia in 1492. It is because these people subscribe to a conquest oriented version of Islam that wants to bring down the West as is THEIR stated goal.

"I say these events have split the whole world into two camps: the camp of belief and the disbelief. So every Muslim shall take -- shall support his religion."

--Osama bin Laden, 10/01

London

No need to write in this space about what happened this morning in London. I do, however, note the irony that many on the Left claim that the motives of al Qaeda have to do with the injustices of poverty in the Third World. And yet, was not the G-8 Summit's overriding agenda this time 'round concerned with Third World poverty? Was not the utterly useless Live 8 concerts put together for the same reason? And if this is the case, and the developed world was in the midst of discussing ways to rid the Third World of poverty, at what point will members of the bleeding heart Left finally admit that the "jihad" has nothing to do with poverty and everything to do with the destruction of the secular, free world?

Think about it.

Mark Steyn's Take On Live 8

To wit:

Don't get me wrong. I love old rockers - not for the songs, which are awful, but for their business affairs, which so totally rock. In 1997, David Bowie became the first pop star to hold a bond offering himself. How about that? Fifty-five million dollars' worth of Bowie "class A royalty-backed notes" were snapped up in minutes after Moody's in New York gave them their coveted triple-A rating.

Once upon a time, rock stars weren't rated by Moody, they were moody - they self-destructed, they choked to death in their own vomit, they hoped to die before they got old. Instead, judging from Sir Pete Townshend on Saturday, they got older than anyone's ever been. Today, Paul McCartney is a businessman: he owns the publishing rights to Annie and Guys & Dolls. These faux revolutionaries are capitalists red in tooth and claw.

Read the whole article here. It's worth it, and quite funny too.

Spot The Idiot

"[This is] the greatest thing that's ever been organized in the history of the world."

--Chris Martin of Coldplay, from the G8 concert stage in London

Independence Day

John Adams thought that July 2 would be remembered forever as the day of American independence, for that was the day that the vote was taken and the document was endorsed by the majority in the Continental Congress. It was ratified for good on July 4, but it wasn't completely signed and endorsed by all members of the Continental Congress until August of 1776. But it matters not. Much in the same way that the Battle of Bunker Hill was actually fought on Breeds Hill, July 4 became the day of ultimate independence, instead of July 2.

I'm now reading the fourth book on the Revolutionary War and/or the Founding Fathers. To date, I've read bios about Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and McCullough's excellent "1776" tome. Not bad for seven months. But what all this reading has brought home to me the genius, and barring that, the sheer tenacity, of the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army. As for the army, it was led by men with little education, and if they did have one, it had nothing to do with military matters. Nathaniel Greene had a fifth grade education and walked with a limp. But he boned up on military matters through books and became one of Washington's primary aid-de-camps. Henry Knox was an overweight bookseller turned brigadier general, was clever enough to convince Washington that it was possible to bring over 60 tons of captured artillery left over from the French-Indian War from Fort Ticonderoga, 300 miles away, to Boston's Dorchester Heights, the highest point in Boston and overlooking the British fleet in Boston Harbor. In a two month period, all the artillery arrived via horse driven sled to Boston. In one night, the Continental Army lugged all sixty tons of artillery up the mount and emplaced it under cover of darkness. The British woke up to find their entire fleet endangered, and were forced to evacuate Boston. A British commander was heard to have exclaimed that the Americans had achieved in one night what would've taken British regulars three months. Alexander Hamilton was a student at Kings College (now Columbia), joined the army as a junior officer, read every book on artillery strategy that he could get his hands on, and rose to the rank of general, so efficient were his actions in battle. Washington himself had very little military experience prior to the war for independence, and of the experience that he did have in the French-Indian War, he had performed poorly. Couple all this with the fact that the bulk of the Continental Army were made up of filthy rabble, most of whom were from New England, and it didn't seem to amount to a winning line-up. But win they did. If the inherent psychology of the American mind is one of "all things are possible", it most assuredly took its root in the fact that the Continental Army defeated the most formidible fighting force in the world.

The Fourth of July is not the celebration of final American independence. It is the celebration of a declaration of sovereignty, though true sovereignty was no guarantee. But it was and is a benchmark. The end didn't come until late 1781 at the Battle of Yorktown, and the Treaty of Paris giving the United States full sovereign rights was not drafted until 1783. Several years of bloodshed and hardship occurred between July of 1776 and the end of the war. But it was and is the watershed. A truly revolutionary document, it is the only document that ensures life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There's no nation in the world that has "pursuit of happiness" as a God-given right but ours. What a country, eh?

Canada

A friend of mine went up to Canada recently and got into a bit of an altercation with the management of a strip club whilst there. Words were exchanged (natch) regarding Canada's somewhat milquetoast standing in the world. Hard to disagree nowadays, as Canada has, for the last thirty years since the awful Pierre Trudeau, decended into the same pit of feelgood spinelessness that Western Europe (with its average unemployment of approx. 10% and stagnant GDPs) is now afflicted with. But it wasn't always thus. David Frum, former speechwriter for President Bush and a Canadian, while pondering Canada's contribution to the Great War (World War I), jotted down these thoughts:

But I can’t let Canada Day pass on such a dubious note. There is another Canada, memorialized in a short but extremely valuable book I read in honor of the holiday: Shane Schreiber’s Shock Army of the British Empire: The Canadian Corps in the Last Hundred Days of the Great War. Between August and November 1918, the Allies inflicted a staggering series of defeats on the once invincible German army: the Battle of Amiens on August 8 (the “black day of the German army” in the phrase of the German commanader, Gen. Von Ludendorff), the Battle of Arras on August 26-29 the breakthrough to Cambrai on September 15, and culminating in the liberation of Valenciennes on November 2 and the German retreat out of France. (Those interested can find some useful summary maps here and here.)

Schreiber’s superb monograph in just 150 pages offers the most detailed account of the victory. Those victories were made possible of course by the long years in which the British, French, and Russian armies had bled Germany, and by the arrival of large numbers of American reinforcements in 1918. Acknowledging that, however, it is also true that the force that spearheaded the great final push was General Arthur Currie’s Canadian Corps, flanked by the Australian/New Zealand forces under General John Monash. The battles of those 100 days must stand as the most stupendous thing ever accomplished by Canadians and Canada’s single greatest impact on the history of this planet.

The final verdict:

In those 100 days, Canadian forces spearheaded the defeat of almost one-quarter of the entire German army remaining on the Western front, 47 out of 200 divisions. Add in the Australian/New Zealand forces, and the two Dominions together engaged some 40% of the German army. Over those three months, the Canadians suffered more than 45,000 casualties, killed and wounded – or about as many as in the whole year from D-Day to VE-Day in World War II.

Being a Canadian, of course, Schreiber underscores his point with a final statistical comparison to the US forces in the Meuse-Argonne region on the southern portion of the Western front.

Troops engaged
Americans: 650,000
Canadians: 105,000

Duration of Operations
Americans: 47 days
Canadians: 100 days

Maximum Distance Advanced
Americans: 34 miles
Canadians: 86 miles

German Divisions Defeated(Out of a total of 200)
Americans: 46
Canadians: 47

Average Number of Casualties Suffered per German Division Defeated
Americans: 2,170
Canadians: 975

Total Casualties
Americans: 100,000
Canadians: 45,830

“The ultimate conclusion that must be drawn,” he sums up, “is that … the Canadian Corps was able to make a highly significant contribution to the defeat of the German army on the battlefield at precisely half the cost in terms of life and limb as the American army.”
Yet the over-rated General John Pershing is celebrated with a magnificent modern monument on Pennsylvania Avenue – and Arthur Currie’s name is utterly obliterated among his own people.