Five Important American Events That Happened on July 4th

July 4th is the day we celebrate our independence, despite the fact that the actual act declaring independence passed the Continental Congress two days earlier.

Today, it's a day of fireworks, barbecues, and celebration.  In the past, however, it also was remembered for humiliating defeat, sad passings, and decisive victories.  Each involved one of America's most respected figures.

Fort Necessity at Great Meadows.  Here in a clearing in western Pennsylvania began a world war that transformed the British Empire and gave an American icon his first taste of military responsibility.

Europe had divided into two camps: Britain and her small club of allies against France and the most formidable empires on the Continent.  Any spark could set off a war covering the globe.  France and the British colony of Virginia both claimed the Forks of the Ohio, now Pittsburgh.  Virginia's colonial government sent 19 year old Major George Washington to set their claim on more solid ground.

Washington found Fort Duquesne already built at the forks, watched his Indian allies butcher a French patrol, then went to Great Meadow and built one of the worst fortifications ever constructed.  It sat near a source of water, but was surrounded by high ground on all sides, had large gaps in the wall, and had treelines within shooting distance.  The French could fire into it all day while hiding behind the massive virgin timber.

The Virginians fled the fort on July 4th.  French troops caught up, forced Washington to sign humiliating terms of capitulation, then sent him home to Virginia who immediately put him to work . . . building forts. 

July 4, 1754.  Proof that failure teaches better than success. 

One of the greatest friendships/rivalries in the history of this, or any other country.  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

They knew each other for nearly 50 years, although no one would say they spent that long as friends.  Adams' careful editing of the Declaration of Independence chased Jefferson from the Continental Congress into a multi-year pout.

Jefferson's self-imposed exile eventually ended.  Both men spent the post war period struggling to represent the United States (one nation or 13, many asked before passage of the Constitution.)  Both Adams and Jefferson earned more respect as individuals than they could sell for their country.  Their intellects differed, Adams more pragmatic, Jefferson more idealistic, but they complemented each other at this point even as they mainly interacted through correspondence.

Later, Jefferson and Adams clashed.  Not so much when Jefferson served as a restive secretary of state and Adams an ignored vice president, but  certainly when both ran for president.  One of the few major flaws in the founding document gave second place in the Electoral College the vice presidency.  The Federalist Adams had to constantly fend off attacks from his own vice president in the highly partisan press of the time.

Both men ran again in 1800.  Reason turned some of the more vicious partisan statements into campaign ads. Their mutual hatred lasted for well over a decade after.

Eventually hard feelings softened.  The two preeminent American intellects of the early 19th century sat on the political trash heap, rarely consulted.  Adams' son John Quincy and Jefferson's political son James Madison assumed the stage.  Between the two men emerged a remarkable series of letters about a wide spectrum of subjects.  Much of the correspondence involved questions, answers, and responses to answers.  

Intellectual sharing grew into a fully reborn and close friendship that lasted until July 4th, 1826.  As Adams lay on his deathbed, his final words were, Jefferson still lives.

But Adams was wrong.  His former bitter rival and close friend had died the same day.

One thing often forgotten about the Civil War, the Union did not see its victory as inevitable until the very end.  Northern superiority in so many fields could not easily defeat a fully mobilized Confederacy fighting on its own soil.  

The Union in 1862 had come close to capturing the Confederate capital of Richmond, but had to retreat despite being in sight of its goal.  Antietam was technically a victory for the Union in the fall of the year, but left Lincoln frustrated because General McClellan seemed uninterested in finishing off Lee's army.

Meanwhile, social cohesion in the South deteriorated.  Most of the Confederate States saw their ability to enforce authority break down in the back country.  Lee knew that European help would not come and that the South would lose a war of attrition.  He gambled on a master stroke: striking north.

Meanwhile, Ulysses S. Grant hammered his own war of attrition against Mississippi Valley strongholds.  Like Lincoln, he understood the Confederacy would only lose when its armies were destroyed.  He ground away at strong points that the South felt compelled to defend, like Vicksburg.

Lee's three day assault on fortified Union lines near Gettysburg cost his army.  The best of his beloved Virginians died on the third day and his Army of Northern Virginia staggered home on July 4th.

Grant surrounded Vicksburg, last Confederate held position on the Mississippi.  Over several weeks, his tightening grip strangled Confederate resistance.  When Vicksburg ran out of victuals, its commander proposed surrender.  Grant refused to accept until the 4th of July.

American Veterans' Center's Latest Videos: Remembering Some of Our Finest

American Veterans' Center just released a three part video series based on the remembrances of Colonel Edward Shames of the 101st Airborne in World War II

Part 1 describes the grueling and competitive regimen required to even qualify for Airborne training.  It involved a lot of hiking all over Georgia in the hot summer sun.

Part II describes deployment to England and the pivotal landing in Normandy

Part III takes viewers through the hard fighting in northern France as the Allies closed in on the Third Reich.

Colonel Shames tells his story with precise and entertaining detail.  AVC did a wonderful job editing in period music and pictures to make it come even more to life.

Thanks to the good people at AVC for bringing great stories of great veterans.

 

ISIS Versus the World?

Obama continues to gradually raise America's investment in protecting the tottering Maliki government in Iraq.  A total of 800 US troops, mostly Special Forces, have gone to help retrain the Iraqi Army to face this new threat.  According to Russia Today, widely seen as a Kremlin mouthpiece, Russia delivered five combat planes to Iraq to help in that nation's defense.

This comes as ISIS announced the formation of a caliphate.  In Islamic tradition, a caliph is a religious leader with somewhat less spiritual authority than a Roman Catholic Pope.  The closest Western approximation might be the Anglican title for the British monarch "Defender of the Faith."  Holy Roman Emperors also had similar combinations of temporal and spiritual authority.

According to Time, even Sunnis (whom the caliphate supposedly represents) have fears about the radicalism of the new movement.  Unease about new rules for worship and civil interactions could dampen enthusiasm for ISIS outside of areas it controls.

Control of Baghdad is key.  As the inheritor of civilized traditions reaching back 5,000 years, it would give legitimacy to the aspirations of ISIS terrorists.  This has spurred action from both the United States and Russia on the side of Iraq.

Russia has specific worries.  Around 20 million of its 142 million people worship in the Muslim faith.  Most of these live in the southern regions of the country.  The effect of a rising radical Muslim state must worry Moscow.  Similarly, Red China's Xingjiang Province has a high concentration of Muslims who have rebelled against Beijing.

Shi'ite Muslims have religious reasons to oppose the ISIS caliph.  Traditionally, they believe that it is blasphemous to name a caliph outside of the lineage of Mohammed.  Iran and much of Iraq worships in the Shi'ite tradition.  They likely would strongly resist rule by a Sunni caliph they found not only invalid, but a blasphemy against their faith.

The backing of Russia and the United States should boost the morale of the Iraqi government, so long as ISIS momentum can be dented.  Allegedly, ISIS plans to seize Africa north of the equator, Iran, India, and the rest of the Middle East and Central Asia.  Its designs include the conquest of three NATO states and parts of Russia, as well as Europe up to the borders of Germany and Poland.

Currently they control northeastern Syria and most of Iraq north of Baghdad outside of Kurdish territories.

Significant ISIS gains would likely bring together a number of states usually not on friendly terms.  Already, Iran has approached the United States to discuss a coordinated response, although working with the mullahs has its own danger.  Should Baghdad fall, likely many states would set aside differences in an international effort similar to the Boxer Rebellion expedition in 1898.

The Unlearned Lesson of World War I

World War I will always be remembered in history by many as a colossal waste.  Millions died; billions were spent.  The accumulated accomplishments of centuries of European history ground away to prepare for an era more known for evil.

The spark that lit it happened a century ago this month.  Serbian terrorist Gavrillo Princip assassinated the next in line to the Hapsburg imperial throne.

And yet, the war could not have been prevented.

Each nation involved played by the rules of national ambition and/or rose to defend historical obligations or interests.

Each followed a logical path that brought it into conflict with others.

Hindsight tells us that World War I's nihilistic effect on human history should render it tragically absurd, especially since that era had no leaders like Hitler and no nations with the ambition of 1941 Japan.  World War II actually may have colored our perception of what causes war.  Surely it must be an implacably evil madman behind it; no one could go to war otherwise.

No mad men here.  Truth be told, all of the major national leaders, Czar Nicholas II, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Franz Josef, H. H. Asquith, and France's premier of the month in the Third Republic were all fairly average men.  Not a brilliant visionary among them.

True, Germany under the Kaiser aggressively pushed itself into every territorial dispute and sought international parity with Great Britain and France. This, however, was one of many intertwining factors leading to war.

Anyone can look into the buildup to the war, but it would be challenging to find a decision made by any party which was not consistent with its national interest and explainable logically. One may not agree with the decision, but no country, for example, invaded peaceful and non threatening neighbors. Germany backed its ally, Austria-Hungary, Russia backed Serbia, Britain backed Belgium, and so on.

Point here is that the potential for war cannot always be discounted when all states have rational leaders.  States can avert war, certainly.  Pretending that major wars require some element of insanity or evil, however, remains a dangerous delusion.

What Does It Mean to Be "Poor" or "Broke?"

In the past week, this discussion has come up over and over.  Spurred on by the dueling poverty stories of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (in the last 15 years, not their childhood), many are taking a closer look at what people mean when they say "poor" or "broke."

In a related and strange statement, the former president's daughter blissfully confessed that she cared little for money.  Of course Chelsea Clinton makes $600,000 per year doing half the work of unpaid or low paid interns.  One does not need to care for money when the nest is permanently and opulently feathered.

Even the federal student loan people got in trouble for a tweet that seemed to minimize poverty. But what is it?

The federal government has a one size fits all measure of poverty.  It considers a family of four impoverished if it makes a little over $23,000 per year or less in every state outside of Alaska and Hawaii.  Cost of living, however, varies widely.  Earnings of $14,000 in West Virginia's most affluent area, Berkeley County, equals nearly $23,000 in Hartford, Connecticut, according to an online CNN Money cost of living adjuster.  Simply put, a dollar goes much farther in West Virginia than in Connecticut for a variety of reasons.

This shows that one cannot put a simple number on poverty, but doesn't explain what poverty actually is, or feels like.

Hillary Clinton described what many Americans occasionally experience regardless of income.  Her family's lifestyle ran their finances briefly into debt.  On one hand, they struggled with mortgages, tuition, and other financial commitments.  Fair enough, until you hear that these were multiple mortgages on multiple mansions.  They did not owe tuition to local state college, but to one of the most costly educational institutions in the world.

Paying bills when revenue dips causes stress and anxiety.  Having to sell a house to pay for bills could cause social embarrassment in their set.  The public, however, rightfully laughed at the Clintons' protestations of poverty.

The Census Bureau reported a few years ago that 30 million, or just under 10 percent, of Americans live in poverty.  They base this on income statistics instead of investigating actual conditions.  If being poor is defined as simply not making a lot of money, then the case gets rested.  Americans, however, assign a more stringent definition to the term poverty.

To most, poverty means real deprivation.  Does a family lack shelter?  Can they not pay for basic utilities? Do they not eat properly because of a lack of resources?  In most cases, the family may not be financially comfortable or secure, but they do eat consistently, they do have shelter, and they not only pay for utilities, but also vehicles (plural), cell phones,  and cable or satellite TV.

Submitted for your approval: if one regularly pays for satellite TV, alcohol, cigarettes, internet, and/or cell phones, one may not call oneself "poor."  If a family is starving and has all these things, it is not poor, but in sore need of re prioritizing.

Some institutions have a vested interest in inflating the poverty number.  More poverty means more money for the poor but also, more importantly, for bureaucrats and non profits that supposedly handle programs to help them. Examining true poverty does not help them expand their agencies, much less solve the real problems.

The more time spent on servicing the financially insecure as if they were poor, the more likely that the truly poor will escape notice.

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton's foray into the verbal forest (and we should not forget that Bill actually did know real poverty as a child) is great for poking fun.  It should, however, lead the country to discuss what poverty really is and examine the policies intended to address it.

Striking Back Against An Evil Empire

Last night a Republican revolution overturned an old order in central Maryland that could put that state's party on the road back to having a voice.

Moderates were sacked (in the medieval sense instead of the football) by conservatives more determined to fight the power of their Ruling Party than cooperate with it.  Delegate Michael Hough won nearly 70 percent of the vote against long time moderate incumbent David Brinkley.  Two of his "conservative team" of delegate candidates won their primaries in the three seat multi-delegate district.  Conservatives also seized command of Frederick County's Republican Executive Committee.

This, paired with Neil Parrott's victory in Washington County, among others, shows that Maryland Republicans will likely continue their march rightward.

Republican rediscovery of conservatism in the nominally Free State can be explained in a number of ways.

First, a handful of Maryland Republicans have honed campaigning to a fine confluence of art and science.  Ted Dacey ran the Hough campaign, whose coattails extended long enough to help elect two more conservative delegates and overturn the Frederick County GOP committee.  Dacey has a quiet and unassuming personality, but is also a tireless organizer and strategist.  He helped to elect his brother as Frederick alderman and has worked many campaigns.  Another up and coming, highly respected campaign leader is Delegate Parrott's campaign manager, Kari Snyder.  Both work endless hours and perform any task to make sure the campaign runs right.

They are only two of a growing army of young conservatives in that state who don't accept the idea that their Ruling Party cannot be dethroned or beaten.

Maryland conservatives also tap into growing discontent with the policies of their Ruling Party.  Issues such as the "rain tax," the "bathroom bill," and other Free State absurdities have turned Republican voters sour on "going along to get along."  Marylanders see their private sector at the state's extremities suffering.  Now they are fighting back.

Resurgence of Maryland conservatism will ignite voters who, otherwise, would see no difference between the parties.  If Maryland's GOP can continue this momentum, it can make more congressional districts and senatorial races competitive.  This will force their Ruling Party to seek more money nationally, taking Democratic resources away from other races.  Also, the failures of Maryland's leftist experiments will get wider examination and discussion.

Maryland's road back from Democratic domination will be long.  They can take heart that West Virginia's Republicans had to struggle and fight to get back to competitiveness, but succeeded against tradition, a corrupt machine, and other factors.  If they can go to the next step with successful outreach, continue to groom successful conservative leaders, and take advantage of the inevitable federal government contraction, Maryland's Republicans have no reason to not count on brighter days ahead.

Time to Reign In SWAT Teams, Restore Spirit of Posse Comitatus Act

In George Washington's Farewell Address at the close of his presidency, he warned Americans to stay vigilant.  Allowing a large military to grow unchecked would undermine liberties and infringe upon rights.

Washington's fears came from the dual role of the military.  It defended the nation, but also could be used to police it.  These lines grew blurred enough during Reconstruction and the Old West that Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.  This act prevented regular military forces from being used for internal policing.  State militia, later National Guard, are exempt as are the Coast Guard. As weapons and tactics of warfare grew more powerful and violent, Congress deemed that they had no place in policing a free society.

In the last century, criminal gangs grew more sophisticated and better armed.  They once hid in the recesses of cities and dominated the traditional vice trade.  After World War II, gangs expanded the drug trade.  More money led to more competition and more violence.  Police and citizens got caught in the crossfire.  For this, and many other reasons, SWAT, Special Weapons and Tactics units, were created.

Elite police units and advanced equipment costs money, but situations calling for their use is limited.  Despite media interest in the most dramatic scenarios, there just are not that many hostage situations, active shooters, or super dangerous gangs and terrorists lying around. Violent crime in the United States has also dropped considerably since the 1990s. So what can a SWAT team do?

According to an exhaustive ACLU study they do routine police work, but with deadly consequences. Only seven percent of SWAT actions responded to hostage or shooter situations. 80 percent of raids were for simple search warrants.  Two thirds of actions were performed as part of a drug search, but anywhere from one third to two thirds of those searches turned up nothing.

Most searches, again around two thirds, involve forced entry.  Officers use a battering ram to burst through a door with minimal warning, often deploy flash grenades, and rely on shock and awe tactics to stun their targets.  Often, possible presence of a weapon is cited as justification but most of the time, none are found.

Police bursting into a home with automatic weapons drawn and almost no warning relies on psychological trauma to immobilize the people inside.  It can also have deadly results.  In a recent case, a flash grenade mistakenly dropped into a baby crib nearly killed the 19 month old inside.

SWAT teams also make mistakes all too often.  Going to the wrong house and using such tactics can get officers and residents shot, or both.  In one instance, a 92 year old Georgia woman was killed in a hail of gunfire after shooting at police bursting into her home.

Problems also come with the militarization of police equipment.  Surplus armored personnel carriers have been granted to police forces across the country, even as National Guard units have lost their own.

No one has explained why Ohio State University's campus police need one.  According to the ACLU, they are almost exclusively used on drug raids.

The ACLU also said that the possible presence of a weapon is no justification to use SWAT. "Given that almost half of American households have guns," they noted, "use of a SWAT team could almost always be justified if this was a sole factor."

The problems with SWAT are profound because use of the teams have gotten out of control.  Local police need latitude to make decisions and respond effectively.  Then again, clearly local authorities in many areas have abused the privilege of having and using such units.

State legislatures across the country need to step in and create guidelines for the use of SWAT teams, then ensure in some way that these actions get reviewed for efficiency, effectiveness, and how well they protect or failed to protect the public.  Our system was never meant to allow routine policing with military equipment or methods.  Time to reign it in a little.

Update:  Salon article about a flash grenade blowing a hole in a young child's chest.  There is right and left agreement that this needs to be curbed.  Time to do it.

Kitchen Nightmares Crosses the Bar

Over 10,000 words that you cannot say on television and 234 powerful antacids could not keep Gordon Ramsay at the helm of his signature television show.  For Ramsay and restaurateurs around the United Kingdom and the United States, the Nightmares have come to an end.

Gordon Ramsay is pulling the plug on "Kitchen Nightmares."  This ends not only an entertaining series, not only a great place for tips on how to make great food, but also a free business tutorial.

The show debuted on BBC in 2004.  Fox picked up an American version in 2007.  The BBC version simply featured Ramsay giving tough love to bad businessmen, while the bigger budget US program included full makeovers.  In both cases, the core of the show was reforming the business owner him or herself.

Once successful establishments that had fallen on hard times were the staple.  In many cases, the owner simply suffered from laziness, apathy, or depression.  Ramsay described the owners that he worked with in a statement about the show's coming end as "weird and wonderful people."

Other owners had failed to keep up with changing palates and economic environments.  Or they had deluded themselves in some way.  Most of the time, Ramsay was able to fix the food, the business, and also the owner.

Most viewers remember Ramsay for freakouts.  Most food was not fit for a dog (some of it actually induced vomiting.)  Some restaurants had dead rats in the dining area. The cursing, confrontations, and freakouts were for show.  In between the opening shots of rage and the end scenes of hugging and gratitude came sound advice on how to run a business.

These included establishing relationships with customers and also local vendors.  Get a better handle on what the market wants.  Above all, make the restaurant about the customer instead of the ego of the owner.

Ramsay's lessons always implied that no one is entitled to success.  That comes from good judgment and hard work.  All these lessons apply in every field.

The show spawned others of a similar ilk, like Jon Taffer's "Bar Rescue." It differs in that it applies scientific concepts and technology to building a better business.

Together, however, these shows give viewers a glimpse into how hard small business is.  And that is their greatest contribution to television.

Defending Dick Cheney

Time for some in the GOP to stop wringing its hands over the Iraq War.

It was the right call and by 2009 was close to lasting stability.  Because of that, former Vice President Dick Cheney has every reason to speak from the high ground about Obama's failures there.

Imagine buying a junked car.  You give it extensive repairs with new parts, get it up and running.  It is relatively reliable if you do not put too much pressure on it and sensibly maintain it.

Then you sell it to an irresponsible owner who drives it for six years with no oil changes, no transmission service, no attention to coolant cleanliness or if it even has coolant.

What would you expect to happen?  The car would break down at the most inopportune time.

Iraq at the end of the Bush presidency had held free elections, despite terrorists' intentions to disrupt.  They had assembled a relatively democratic government.  Armed forces were being put together under the tutelage of the US military.  American troops remained in place, keeping terrorists at bay.  Advisers quietly urged the government towards good policy, albeit with mixed success.

Naysayers forget about the cruelty of Saddam, of his backing of terror, of his plans to leave his country's resources and military into the hands of his sadistic and psychopathic sons.  If that day had come, Iraq itself would be a dangerous source of instability in the region.

This Washington Post rebuttal of Cheney's thoughts on Obama and Iraq centers on the Bush Administration's original agreement to keep forces in Iraq until 2011.  It infers that Obama's task in renewing that agreement was impossible.  How hard did the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even try?

The State Department's fixation on oceans for the past few years indicates that its priorities are a bit out of whack.

Over six years, Obama turned his back on the fragile, but still developing government.  He did not negotiate a status of forces agreement to keep US troops in place.  American soldiers are the best ambassadors of our system and our way of life, whether fighting for the Iraqi people or simply talking about the US every day. The enemy also fears US troops, knowing that engaging our soldiers brings a potentially heavy price for them.

Obama sent mixed signals to the Middle East.  President Bush followed the Reagan tradition of using confident expressions of freedom and liberty to inspire the world. Obama went over there and ruminated about mistakes and problems that historically pale in comparison to the good we have done.

His going to Canossa was the first step in destroying the respect carefully constructed by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice.

Many will point to complaints, demonstrations, social media rants as proof that American policy was wrong because we were not loved.  They have it wrong.  America needs to be not loved, but respected. Respected for our power and the principles behind its use.

Iraq today stands at the edge of the precipice.  Obama abandoned it to a cruel fate and now considers a rushed last minute rescue, not because it is the right thing to do, but because Iraq's failure would hurt his legacy even more.

America cannot be the world's policeman.  Some situations, however, do call for action. Iraq was one such issue.  Had Bush's successor maintained a foreign policy based on engagement and respect rather than golf and celebrities, Iraq and the Middle East would be on a much firmer foundation today.

The Right to Be Unpopular

Among certain circles, Daniel Snyder is not popular.  Okay among most circles outside of his players, Daniel Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, is not popular.  Although Redskins players, even in retirement, have respect and affection for "Mr. Snyder" this does not extend to reporters, fans, or almost anyone else.

That image contributed to today's ruling by the US Patent and Trademark Office to strip the Redskins of much of their brand trademark protection.  The team and the NFL will no longer have exclusive rights to the word. Whatever one may think of the Redskins, Daniel Snyder, or their name, this bodes ill.

From a business perspective, the team should logically change its name to "Warriors."  The Warrior Road connecting the Iroquois to their Catawba and Cherokee enemies followed US 1 and Interstate 95.  The name makes sense.  But businesses should be able to rely on the law being enforced fairly, regardless of public opinion.

In this case, the Redskins were victimized by a politicized agency.

A business has the right to be unpopular, to fly against public opinion, to try and weather the storms of fashion.  Snyder's team joins other teams with names originally derogatory, like Fighting Irish, Tar Heels, and, yes, Mountaineers.  They deserve honest regulatory decisions, not ones based on someone's feelings being hurt.

Finally, Snyder himself lies at the root of this.  Any player that fumbles as much as his public relations team should be cut.  Snyder himself cuts a haughty figure that does not garner much sympathy. This landmark free speech case is only one of many failings. This bumbling attempt to placate Indians was another. Had Dan Snyder the abilities of a Jack Kent Cooke, or if his teams won, the politicos would not have come after the blood in the water.

The ruling here has much greater implication.  Any brand that offends anyone, anytime, is now at risk.  That is the danger here, the threat of totalitarianism in branding.

Your Reagan May Not Be My Reagan

In the buildup to the 2012 election, conservatives fretted about nominee Mitt Romney. Like the two Bushes before him, he felt the looming shadow of Ronald Reagan at his back.

Reagan biographer Lou Cannon said "it's (hard) to make a Reagan out of Mitt Romney."  The comparisons will be reset for 2016 as Reagan's image stubbornly keeps a hold on many Republican minds.  But which Ronald Reagan?

For conservatives, the epitome of Reagan comes through in "the speech."   This statement of political principles served as the platform for conservative Republicans for the next three generations. Ostensibly crafted to support Barry Goldwater, Reagan made the ideals his own.  They carried him to the California governor's mansion and eventually the White House.

Conservatives don't merely love the text, but also the strident and confident tone, quite unlike the rest of the GOP.  It exuded confidence in the future.  The delivery also convinced many conservatives that Reagan then and for all time was chiseling out conservative commandments in stone.  Somehow, he evolved after his death into a grim sentinel guarding against the idea of deal-making or compromise, hence the negative comparisons with Mitt Romney.

But is this fair?

Both men governed states with electorates to the left of themselves.  Reagan led a state determined to forge ahead on abortion, and he had to compromise with the tide of history.  Was it the right thing to do?  Maybe not.  Would the deal have been worse without his part?  You bet. Reagan also allowed passage of what Cannon described as "mammoth tax increases."

Romney had the same dilemma with Massachusetts, a state determined to get public health care.  Romney crafted a plan that satisfied voters and worked much better than the nationally touted Obamacare.  In fact, Obama's law wrecked Romney's design in his own state.

Between the governorship and the presidency, Reagan forged links with decidedly unconservative figures.  He reached out to the Rockefeller wing of the party during the 1970s to gain support.  In 1976, thinking himself on the cusp of upsetting incumbent President Gerald Ford in the primary, Reagan considered Senator Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as a running mate.  Schweiker had fully backed labor unions during his tenure (tough to see how he could not in 1970s Pennsylvania and win elections.)  In a conversation with Schweiker, Reagan admitted "I am not a knee jerk conservative."

Tax increases, compromising with abortion, and saying "I am not a knee jerk conservative" would have doomed Reagan among post Reagan conservatives. Romney's "moderation" actually looks farther to the right of Reagan in the late 1970s.

Romney likely saw himself as a disciple of Reagan too, not the firebrand of 1964 or the candidate trying to navigate a diverse GOP ocean in the mid 1970s.  President Reagan likely looked much like aspiring president Romney.  The Reagan of the 1980s told advisers that he would rather get 75 percent of what he wanted than drive his wagon off the cliff all banners flying.  He worked with a hostile Democratic House of Representatives to hammer through a tax reform bill.  Conservatives of the 1980s were even shocked.  West Virginia congressman Mick Staton went so far as to write the president a letter of complaint, wondering if he had lost his way.

Staunch conservatives see themselves as disciples of Reagan.  And in a way, they are right.  But moderates are also right when they claim the same mantle.  No great man remains the same as he grows and changes.  Reagan did adhere to the same principles, but understood as he gained tangible leadership experience that some success was better than all or nothing.

In 2012, the arguments about the GOP nominee often made the perfect the enemy of the good.  All too often, that "perfect" was represented by a Ronald Reagan that never existed, a Reagan image that cobbled together the best parts of 25 years of politics while conveniently ignoring other important attributes.

As we approach 2016, it is time to choose a candidate from this century.  Reagan was great in the same fashion as Lincoln and Washington, and also like them, not an option today.

Iraq's Modern Day Mahdi: Bald Faced Terror On the Move In the Middle East

As the American media drones on about the primary defeat of a Virginia congressman, the lights may be going out around the Middle East.

A wound that started erupting in Syria has now brought infection to neighboring Iraq. The Islamic State of the Levant and Iraq (ISIS) has expanded its reach into many of Iraq's western provinces and the second city of Mosul.  Its forces now have started moving towards the central government in Baghdad.

Some see this as a historical correction.  From the Roman Empire through the Ottoman period to the League of Nations mandates, boundaries in the Middle East reflected the priorities of other states.  Turkey and Israel alone relate to ethnic and historical boundaries.

ISIS militants, however, have imposed the most severe forms of Islamic law with the most violent measures. Hundreds have been brutally killed, including many beheadings.  Hundreds of thousands have fled rule by terror.

At stake is the government of Iraq.  The Iraq War left the nation in a fragile infancy as a democracy.  Millions defied terrorists to dip their fingers in purple ink and vote.  American forces remained available as part of a status of forces agreement that would allow the US military to help defend the democratic government when necessary.

Unfortunately, Obama has neglected the victory that American troops (agree or disagree) fought to achieve. He failed to reach a status of forces agreement with Iraq and painted it as his own success.

Well over a century ago, British controlled Egypt governed the Sudan.  Egypt employed General Charles George Gordon to help defend their position in Sudan.

Britain had offended Sudanese Muslims, not with imperialistic greed, but their demand that the slave trade end.  A charismatic leader, Muhammad Ahmad, emerged to give a religious cloak to discontent over the end of the slave trade, among other things.

Ahmad took on the name "Mahdi" which is something like a messiah.  The Mahdi does not restore earthly or heavenly kingdoms, but sweeps through the land killing anything in his path.

The Mahdi annihilated those who would not join.  He slaughtered almost all of the city of Khartoum, not just General Gordon and his Egyptian soldiers.  Eventually he died at the hands of a British force under Lord Kitchener, sent too late to save Gordon and Egyptian allied troops.

The Mahdi of the 1880s and ISIS of today do not bring historical corrections.  They bring only death and suffering.  They do not debate the morality of saving other nations from dictators.  They torture and destroy.

What has happened while Obama plays golf games and promotes Democratic candidates to high school students is the worst case scenario.  A terrifying warlord has gained influence and momentum and could upset the entire political structure of the Middle East.  We can turn on all the coal mines and oil and gas taps possible and do very comfortably without the resources of that part of the world.  But millions could die and an entire region could lapse into anarchy, a dangerous proposition in the nuclear age.

One could not imagine a worse scenario in which to have a presidential disaster.

Inspector General Report Makes Mockery of Jon Stewart, Salon's Mockery of Fox News

Fox News is often a left wing whipping boy.  Last spring, the network reported stories of "widespread" fraud and abuse involving the food stamp program.  Turns out, according to a recent Inspector General's report, Fox had the issue right.

Jon Stewart used the report to bash Fox News, saying for example "We read the chain emails you grandma gets in her inbox out loud like they were true."

Salon piled on. They described Stewart's act as "castigating the right wing propaganda shop" for repeating stories "you hear" about fraud and abuse.

The Department of Justice successfully prosecuted a Camden, New Jersey man for stealing over $2.5 million from the SNAP program. From recipients, he purchased benefits from customers for .50 cents on the dollar, then deposited the benefits as full purchases.

This case has been ongoing since May 2013, well before the Jon Stewart rant and Salon echo.

On the heels of this announcement came reports of the largest food stamp bust in history.  Five Georgians, according to the US Attorney's office, "canvassed low income neighborhoods and solicited WIC (a program to help parents buy nutritious food for expecting mothers and small children) and food stamp participants to illegally exchange their benefits not for food, but for cash."

The conspirators allegedly netted $18 million in the scheme.

Despite left wing pontificating, food stamp abuse is alive and well.

Hard Times For the Clintons

Give the Clintons credit.  They have at least enough self-awareness to understand when they have not been self-aware.

Hillary Clinton let slip a moderately damaging assessment of her family's post presidency finances.  "We were dead broke," she said.

Should she run for president, she will find those four words as ubiquitous as Mitt Romney's offhand 47 percent comment.  She will have to explain ad nauseum what she meant and that she does really understand what truly broke really means.

This will likely grow tiresome.  Neither Clinton entered the world with guaranteed millions and both, especially Bill, understand what poverty feels like. Saying "dead broke" instead of struggling to meet responsibilities was a huge error in judgment.

The Clintons, however, did the right thing.  When confronted with their own version of tough times, like good free market entrepreneurs, they cashed in.  People wrongly envy Bill Clinton's huge speaking fees.  There is nothing wrong with making top dollar.  The onus lies on those who pay the fees, especially if they pay from the public purse.  Bill Clinton or the town dog catcher can ask a million dollars to speak.  No one has to pay.

Problem is that being Democrats comes with connection to the party's ideology. One cannot just comfortably defend a million (or tens of millions) dollars honestly made. Nationally, the Democratic Party has moved well to the Left of the centrist comfort zone Bill Clinton always claimed.  If Hillary runs in 2016, Leftist candidates such as Martin O'Malley (does anyone doubt that this failure is running for president?) will hurl this statement back at her over and over.  Clinton will face class warfare, this time against her and the profits reaped by her family after the presidency.

Bad People Do Bad Things

During the Miss USA pageant last weekend, the contestant from Nevada landed herself in the crosshairs of left wing hate.

After being asked about the prevalence of campus rape, Nia Sanchez blasted colleges for sweeping the issue of sexual assault under the rug.  The fourth degree black belt holder then advised women to grow more confident and to learn self defense. "I learned from a young age that you need to be confident and learn to defend yourself." she noted.

And somehow, her advice to learn how to beat an attacker into unconsciousness or at least submission is seen as an endorsement of "rape culture."  One Twitter respondent claimed that women should not have to learn to defend themselves against rape since rape is wrong.

Marshall University's Women's Center defines rape culture in a number of different ways.  One aspect is "teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape."

Ludicrous!

Leftists believe that somewhere lies a magic button.  If society just looked hard enough, or if the Koch Brothers and the Republican Party would stop hiding it, rape would end.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with reminding everyone that rape is wrong, no means no, etc.  But the left has posited the issue of rape and self-defense as an inane zero sum game.  What is wrong with both reinforcing the moral value that rape is an offense against humanity and encouraging individuals to empower themselves.  Hope for the best; prepare for the worst.

The problem is that bad people exist.  No amount of social engineering or wishing upon a star will erase the fact that evil men and women walk the earth. They do not care about morality or justice. They do not care about you or me.  All that keeps them from hurting others is the fear of something unpleasant being visited upon them.

Most men do not want to harm women or anyone else.  But a few do not care and will act with impunity.

Solution? Encourage women to learn to protect themselves. Learn self-defense.  Carry a handy weapon. Interestingly, feminists used to advocate self empowerment as liberating oneself from the oppression of men.

Ask most Republicans and they would agree that a woman has every right to pull a gun and shoot her would be rapist. If the attacker died, no conservative would shed a tear.

Teaching that rape has consequences is the best way to reduce its instance even further. Every time that a woman shoots or beats an attacker into a hospital bed a lesson has been presented.  The media should make sure that it gets learned and learned well.

Somewhere, Andrew Johnson Is Thankful That He Is No Longer the Worst

Until perhaps now, the worst president in the history of the United States has to have been President Andrew Johnson.  No one else has managed to reach the same reverse Midas touch (everything he touches turns to name something foul and offensive) ineptness shown by Andrew Johnson . . . again, until perhaps now.

As a president, Johnson deserves his fate.  As a man, he deserves some slack.  The nation would have never elected Johnson to this office on his own merits.  He was an aggressive, sometimes drunken, angry man bearing not chips, but full grown redwood trees on his shoulders.  Johnson was useful as a Southern Democrat in the US Senate who hated secession and everyone associated with it.

Johnson tried to follow what he assumed Lincoln's policy would be.  But he lacked Lincoln's disarming diplomatic style.  His intellect paled in comparison, also.  Most importantly, Lincoln earned more political capital than any president since Washington by winning the Civil War.  He would have had to spend all of it and test his leadership abilities to their limit to implement his Reconstruction plan and make sure the South abided.  Johnson had no such capital and no such abilities.

His suspicious and angry nature alienated moderate Republicans who had been eager to assist and even defend him against Radicals who sought full punishment for the costs of secession.  The Democratic Party remained too tainted with the recent Rebellion to have given him substantial backing.

Johnson and Obama have many differences.  One grew up in rural poverty, the other in urban comfort.  But many similarities link them.  They both saw themselves as the moral center of events.  This created trouble for both because they could not understand that others may disagree for completely honest reasons.

Johnson, on Washington's Birthday no less, savaged his House Republican opponents.   He accused Thaddeus Stevens, among others, for preventing the reconciliation of the country.  "I do not intend to be bullied by my enemies!" he shouted.  Obama, too has played the morally righteous victim, attacked by unreasonable opponents.

Both men relied on shrinking circles of trusted advisers.  Obama has few, other than Valerie Jarrett, at this point after starting off with the capable Rahm Emmanuel and Robert Gibbs.  Johnson lost most of his Cabinet outside of the increasingly moderate secretary of state William Seward.  Seward had a relatively free hand and gave Johnson one of his few accomplishments, the purchase of Alaska.

Johnson's political influence did not hit its nadir in fall of 1866, even though he invested two weeks into speeches backing Democratic candidates.  Those who allowed him to speak in their support found he was little help.  Radical Republicans won big in the midterms that year and the nation repudiated Johnson.  In 2014, most Democratic candidates avoid Obama.  Allison Grimes of Kentucky hopes to build support for her Senate race against Republican Mitch McConnell by attacking the president.

And both men broke the law.  Historians generally agree that the Tenure of Office Act was a trap laid out in the open by Republicans hoping to catch Johnson committing "high crimes and misdemeanors." they impeached, but failed to remove him.  The odium of violating the law and facing a Senate trial ended whatever influence Johnson had left.

Obama last week violated a more important federal law.  He turned five terrorist leaders and strategists back over to the enemy for a Marine who may have been at best a deserter, at worst a traitor. The law requires that any terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay come after consultation with Congress and 30 days for discussion. Obama failed to follow the law, then allowed his National Security Adviser to claim the enemy captured him on the battlefield, which was far from the case. The Taliban must know that if these men plan and execute an attack that harms Americans, that it will spark a Constitutional crisis and the likely impeachment of the president.

Democrats seem to have found their breaking point.  Senator Diane Feinstein was livid in her denunciation.  This comes on top of the Veterans' Affairs scandal and the War on Coal regulations that provoked open rebellion from Senator Joe Manchin and Congressman Nick Rahall.  Obamacare's many failures and burdens on working Americans already define his presidency. Clinton will try to separate herself from the president and his policy, but will not have much success.

Johnson with his flawed personality and good intentions sank his own presidency.   He failed in everything that he tried, but Andrew Johnson did not make the country substantially worse off than when he took office. Obama's values and beliefs have underlain every policy decision that he has made, foreign and domestic.  The utter wrongness of those ideas has put the nation and the world in a much worse position

Why Is the EPA Out Of Control? Because They Succeeded.

Ever since travel writer Anne Royall regaled early 19th century audiences with tales of environmental destruction in the Kanawha Valley salt works, there has been concern about pollution and destruction.  Ronald Lewis' Transforming the Appalachian Countryside chronicles the effect of the later 1800s timber industry on the landscape, eroded mountains, streams devoid of fish, and other disasters. In 1969 came the seminal environmental event, when pollution in Ohio's Cuyahoga River caught fire.

Modern conservatives blame Richard Nixon for the later sins of the Environmental Protection Agency that he created.  Nixon, however, knew that systematic abuse of the environment had become standard operating procedure in many industries.  This was the problem that the EPA was created to address. The Industrial Revolution brought prosperity, education, higher living standards, and longer lives.  It also set a river on fire.  Nixon created the EPA to reduce pollutants and enforce new environmental standards to encourage conservation and protect the environment. 

And what came of it?  The EPA succeeded.  According to their own statistics, carbon monoxide levels in the air dropped 83 percent from 1980 levels, from 178 million tons to 51 million. Much of the drop in carbon monoxide emissions came between 2001 and 2009, the years of the George W. Bush presidency.  Airborne lead dropped 91 percent. Aggregate emissions of six common pollutants dropped 67 percent.

Percentages and raw numbers dropped even though the US has more people, producing more goods and services, and driving more vehicles than ever. 

So the EPA actually succeeded in its most important primary task.  It brought reasonable standards into being and provided an enforcement mechanism to ensure that the air and water did not harm us.  In any group of people, accidents and even disasters will happen.  But they do not have a serious long term impact because industries generally abide by EPA standards.  

If the story ended here, we'd call it a government success story.  Most people understand, however, that it did not, that the EPA now uses flimsy evidence and bad science to justify destroying industries.  Worse, they work at the behest, as Heritage's Stephen Moore describes, of green energy moguls who have a vested interest in its work.  So-called green energy cannot replace coal, gas, or oil.  It also requires enormous amounts of resources to build and ship which limit their benefit to the environment. 

A lot of politics and money have energized the EPA to attack the cleanest coal mining and power production that has ever been seen anywhere in history.  But why do they also go after farms?  Why, for example, as Delegate Kelli Sobonya said last week, has the EPA gotten so obsessed with limiting "bovine emissions" (that's cow farts to the rest of us.)

Another aspect fuels EPA lunacy.  They succeeded and now the agency has little real justification for crusading.  Going after bogeymen, real or false, gives bureaucrats a sense of purpose.  Secular Saint Georges slaying the mean and nasty pollution dragon, saving the world from global warming, err climate change.  This all sounds like much more fun than a scaled down agency administering reasonable regulations that maintain a successful status quo.  

The EPA achieved its original goal beyond what was likely expected in 1972. It eventually hit a balance between the needs of a dynamic economy and the needs of a protected environment.  Now, to justify itself, it goes out looking for new empires to battle and conquer.

It's human nature to want to matter and have a strong sense of purpose.  But this agency level self-fulfillment should not come at the cost of real jobs, real standards of living, and real lives.

 

Movie Review: To Be Or Not To Be (1983)

Since Hollywood keeps serving up loads of crap, and since the best talent and effort comes from cable television these days, you have to go back into the past to find decent movies to review.

From 1983 comes To Be Or Not To Be.  Mel Brooks produces, stars in, but does not direct this updated version of a 1942 Jack Benny movie of similar name and plot.  Brooks plays Frederick Bronski, a bad Polish actor whose theater gets caught up in the fear and chaos of newly occupied Poland in late 1939.  A key difference between Jack Benny's version and Mel Brooks adaptation is one of grave consequence.  In 1942, few in the United States had any notion of the horror engulfing Jews, homosexuals, political dissenters, Jehovah's Witnesses, Freemasons, and others pulled into the Holocaust.

Brooks' version has to balance dark comedy against utter darkness.

Starring alongside Brooks is Anne Bancroft, best known for her role as a predatory seducer in The Graduate, here playing Bronski's wife Anna.  The alluring Italian star (despite the very American sounding stage name) was Mel Brooks' wife for over 40 years.  Her chemistry with Brooks in once sense forms the foundation of the film, their unquestionable adoration for each other saturates every scene containing the both of them.  It does, however, undermine a crucial subplot.

Tim Matheson plays a young Polish pilot, Lieutenant Sobinski, who falls for Anna Bronski.  Anna Bronski never seems to decide if it is lust or love she feels for Sobinski.  At any rate, he flees to London after teh invasion.  There he learns that Professor Siletski (Jose Ferrer) has obtained a list of Polish Underground members that he intends to deliver to the Gestapo.  Matheson is convincing as the lovestruck dalliance of Anna Bronski. Bancroft, as great as she is in other areas, does not convince anyone that she has any feelings for him, lust or otherwise. And it's not really necessary anyway, because the film itself deals with more important issues.

Most of To Be Or Not To Be centers around Bronski having to play several roles to ensure the success of the caper, which is stealing the list of Polish rebels. Brooks plays Bronski playing a Gestapo colonel, Professor Siletski, and even Hitler.

The film is funny, sometimes hilarious, but always comes back to the underlying horror of the Holcaust. James Haake plays Sasha, the typical flamboyant gay man often seen in Brooks' films.  At one point, he complains that his inverted pink triangle clashes with everything else he owns (this was a symbol the Nazis forced homosexuals to wear for identification.)  Eventually, the Gestapo arrests Sasha.  Bronski must adapt his scheme to help free Sasha from deportation.

To Be Or Not To Be has a tremendous cast for its time.  Charles During, known best recently as Mississippi governor Menelaus "Pappy" "Pass the biscuits" O"Daniel in O'Brother Where Art Thou, plays a similar role as Gestapo colonel Gerhardt in that he is a harassed man of authority, dealing with pressures, and blaming much on his idiot subordinate.  In this case, the subordinate is "Schultz," played hysterically by Christopher Lloyd who would soon star in Back to the Future.  George Gaynes sounds almost Shakespearean as actor Ravitch, who usually appears on screen either as a Shakespearean character or a fake Gestapo general.  Gaynes would soon forge his own iconic comedic role as Commandant Eric Lassard in Police Academy.

For a Brooks film, there are surprisingly few trademark gags, such as when Bronski orders the character Sondheim to "send in the clowns."  The audience never is allowed to forget that gravity of the subject.  Towards the end, when the actors try to sneak a large group of Jews past the Nazis, one older woman grows too terrified to move until another actor allays the suspicion of the Germans and gets her going again.

Mel Brooks often delivers silliness.  Silent Movie, Spaceballs, and a few other films have no point except to make the audience laugh.  Then, consider a film like Young Frankenstein that satirizes a genre, yet also develops strong and memorable characters.  Brooks at his best, in works like Blazing Saddles, The Producers, and To Be Or Not To Be, jabs at mindless discrimination and persecution using both comedy and a powerful optimism in the human spirit. Evil never learns its lesson in these Brooks movies, but those who join together against the evil always prevail with grace and good humor.

Famous Last Words

Pope Gregory VII
Gregory VII served as Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church from 1073 to 1085.  In Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, he found his chief rival for leadership over the Christian world. Henry ignored the Papal edicts and earned an excommunication (was cut off from the Holy Sacraments) and, far worse, interdict.  This meant that good Christian subjects of the emperor no longer had a moral duty to obey.  How many times in world history has the most powerful temporal leader subjugated himself as Henry did to Gregory, standing in the snow barefoot outside a castle for three days.

Not that Henry changed his ways, but for Gregory the submission of governmental power to the spiritual made the point clearly enough.  At the end of his life, Norseman raiders drove the Papal government away from Rome.  As he died, Pope Gregory VII lamented:

I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile.

Major General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson C.S.A.

In 1859, Thomas Jackson was a classic campus radical.  Offspring of a western Virginia "fine family" and veteran of the Mexican War, Jackson probably got more slack than most contemporaries.  His eccentricities (later called obsessive compulsive disorder) included a fear of slouching due to the possibility that his organs might get compressed.  Once, told by his superior at Virginia Military Institute to wait outside, he obeyed completely.  Of course the superior forgot Jackson, left by another door, and found the professor still sitting there the next morning.  Jackson angered many by opening classes to teach slave children to read.

The Civil War revealed Jackson's brilliance.  More than most other military minds, he understood the value of maps.  He commissioned the first detailed maps of the Shenandoah Valley and proceeded to own it for two years.  At Chancellorsville, he met death in the form of an accidental bullet from one of his own troops.

Stonewall Jackson left posterity with typically beautiful, typically Christian imagery:

Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus

Or just plain "Nero."  Emperor Nero ruled between 37 and 68 Anno Domini, although most of those years may not have seemed like the years of any good lord to most Romans.  Eccentricity turned to despotism as the mad singer imposed his horrible songs and depraved lusts indiscriminately.  After the great fire of Rome, often blamed on Nero himself, the emperor targeted the Christians.  St. Peter died hanging upside down on a cross by Nero's order.

Nero considered himself first and foremost a great singer and few would disagree with him while he held power.  Finally he was condemned as a public enemy and forced to commit suicide, at which point the ever dramatic Nero proclaimed

What an artist is now about to perish!

Lou Costello

One half of the great mid century comedy team Abbott and Costello.  Costello was one of many comics outsized in physique and personality, inspiring future greats like John Belushi, John Candy, and Chris Farley.  Abbott and Costello performed in live acts, movies, and eventually television.  Most remember the duo for their fast paced, complicated, several minute long "Who's On First" routine.   Although both men were staples of American entertainment for decades, neither grew rich.  These, of course, were the days of the 98 percent tax bracket that made Ronald Reagan a Republican.  Both men died broke, the IRS harassing them to their grave.

Costello's last words summed up his public perception and love of life

That was the best ice cream soda I ever tasted

President John Adams

It's hard to find a picture of John Adams with even a hint of a smile.  Even as president, Adams seemed to fear showing the world the impish personality shared with his family.  Too often, conflicts over ideals boiled into personal feuds with the sensitive intellect.

History pairs him with the equally sensitive disposition of Thomas Jefferson.  When young Jefferson's Declaration of Independence met the tough editing hand of Adams, the writer sulked back to Monticello for most of the rest of the Revolution.  Building the Republic, at least early on, kindled a deep friendship based on shared abilities and goals.

That is, until the 1790s.  They differed over President Washington, principles of government, and almost everything else.  Adams' victory over Jefferson in the election of 1796, by a soon corrected constitutional flaw, made Adams president and Jefferson his second.  Neither man was ever capable of keeping political rivalry from growing personal.  They soon hated each other.

After Jefferson's two stormy terms of office, tempers cooled.  The two Founding Fathers, seen less as inspiration and more as living relics by the younger generation, did as old men usually did.  They complained about the young.  They reopened a correspondence and a friendship that produced some of the greatest political letters and debates ever put from pen to paper.

They rarely saw each other, but their friendship deepened over time.  On July 4, 1826, Adams lay suffering on his deathbed in his beloved Braintree farmhouse.  As he felt his last moment coming, he sputtered in relief

Thomas Jefferson still survives

Unfortunately Adams was mistaken.  Jefferson died earlier that same day.

Major General John Sedgewick

Sedgewick carries the unfortunate distinction of being the highest ranking Union officer to die on the field of battle in the drive on Richmond. He started his adult professional life as a teacher, but soon went to West Point, following the footsteps of his grandfather, a Revolutionary War general.

Revolutionary War and Civil War officers shared a higher mortality rate than command officers today.  They followed the example of  George Washington who, when necessary, believed in leading his troops from the front.

Frustrated with his units' lines not going exactly where he wanted them to go, he endeavored to instruct them in person.  Warned by his aide to not go to a certain spot due to Confederate snipers, Sedgewick exclaimed

Why, what are you dodging about? They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!

The snipers proved him wrong, putting a bullet through his eye.  He died with the smile on his face that accompanied his underestimation of his enemies' shooting prowess.

Charles George Gordon

Probably the most acclaimed British hero between Lord Nelson and Winston Churchill.  He had already enjoyed military success in China before going to Africa.

In Africa, he led an Egyptian force into Khartoum.  His purpose was to hold it against the army of a self-proclaimed Islamic prophet called the Mahdi.  The Mahdi whipped up anti British sentiment, mostly based on the suppression of the slave trade, and laid siege to Gordon and his Egyptian troops.  While they held out, they waited for a hesitant British government led by William Gladstone for relief.  Eventually help was sent, but too late.

His men lasted until they ran out of food and ammunition, then fought to the death.  Death would have been their fate regardless.  Alan Moorhead in The White Nile described Gordon's end.

He stood at the top of the stairs of the palace that served as his headquarters.  As the mob rushed towards him, swords drawn, Gordon calmly turned his back.

Without a word, Gordon met his grizzly fate.

Deincentivizing Mass Murder

Conor Friedersdorf  at The Atlantic may not have a sure fire way to stop mass murders.  But his idea may erode the perverse allure that it has for those who do it.

Traditional serial killers differ from mass murderers in one sense.  Serial killers work in the dark over time.  The media and nation knew their deeds, but not their name.  When finally caught, they turn out to be much more pathetic than the anonymous image imagined.  Mass murderers in the new century prefer to go out, as the song says, in a blaze of glory.  One vast and violent act so that their name may be written across the sky (or the internet.)  They expect to be defined by their ghastly acts and violent death.

The latest killer mistakenly thought this was not cruel and cowardly, but being an "alpha male."

Friedersdorf proposes that the media impose a self-discipline on itself that it has already done in other fields.  Outlets do not publish the names of rape victims, for instance.  They also stopped releasing manifestos from the Unabomber during his domestic terrorism rampage.  Sporting event coverage always turns its cameras away from streakers.  So why not refuse to release the names or manifestos of mass murderers.

In fact, these killers could be called narcissism terrorists.  They have an agenda, to put their name on the historical record through death and mayhem.  Perceived imbalance in society, namely that no one pays attention to them, drives their actions.  Expectation of attention motivates them.

So why not just stop going on and on about them; deny them their posthumous place in the sun.

Friedersdorf does not propose to make information a "state secret."  Just keep their attention seeking drivel and their names out of the media, at least for a while.  Hopefully, this would undercut their absurd motivations for visiting such cruelty on their fellow man.