I’m a little excited by the election so I’m double posting this week. Perhaps that is inevitable when you watch cable news round the clock everyday (I'm multi-tasking, I assure you). Here, politics, below mountain man.
Political hypocrisy
Sometimes I say that I watch politics for the hypocrisy. I am constantly amazed, not only at the irrational behavior and thought processes of otherwise smart people when it comes to politics. Not only am I amazed by the hypocritical or plain ridiculous things politicians say, but I am just as perplexed by the things people believe.
Here are my rules for partisanship that apply to any party, because once you identify with a party or movement, excepting a few, you are de facto silly.
All facts claimed by the other side are suspect (unless they inarguably support our position).
When you are in agreement with the other side, they have a bad motive, while you have a good one.
One historical fact on your side is worth one hundred on the other side, and two hundred if it involves one of the forefathers.
The opposition secretly hates America and lacks patriotism.
The *&%&^*@$% other side is just plain hateful.
It is the good fortune of my party that not only are we always right on policy, but also morality, regardless of the fantastic coincidence necessary for this to be true.
We will win because God is on our side.
The other side doesn’t believe in God and acts in opposition to God. We know. We have a pipeline straight to God.
When we lose, it is because of our adversary’s unfair tactics, having nothing to do with God.
Making fun of the personal characteristics of the adversary is just good, tough politics. The opposition makes fun of the personal characteristics of us, because they are just plain mean.
Wars started by a president in the opposition party are good, no matter what. Wars started by a president in our party are bad, no matter what.
The constitution must be read strictly, or reasonably, depending on which results in the correct result. "Strictly," “Reasonably” and "Correct result" all mean "interpretations that favor our party". Another way to put it is, the constitution must be interpreted in a way that favor our party, or, in a way that favors our party, depending on which interpretation favors our party.
Any one racist, angry, stupid or generally unloveable member of the other party can be used as the representative for the other party. A racist, angry, stupid or generally unloveable member of our party, is just that, one member. To generalize otherwise would be unfair.
The overwhelming evidence is that the other party commits the most fraud.
When one of our party is charged with a crime, it is because of overreaching by the prosecutor, and there is a presumption of guilt. When one of the other party is charged with a crime, they are guilty.
Those in our party who try to compromise with the other side are traitors.
Being moderate is worse than being an extremist for the other side.
We argue tough but civilly. They argue weakly and rudely.
When a forefather said something that supports our policy, it is authoritative. When it supports their policy, it is only one voice out of many.
The other party can best be described as a watered down version of any one of the most reviled parties in history (Nazis, fascists and Communists being favorites although the Know Nothing and Roundhead parties are good for a little pseudo-intellectual blather).
Trying to win makes people do dumb things.
When you are behind, you have to try and do something that takes down your opponent. This is true with minority parties in congress and candidates for offices. Since politics is hard, and your opponent won’t cooperate, this often makes people do dumb things.
One example of laughable hypocrisy in this election season was committed by Hillary Clinton during and following the last debate. During the debate, Clinton complained that Obama only “denounced” the words and person of a well known anti-Semite who was supporting him. She insisted that he must not only “denounce” but also “reject” him. This drew groans from the crowd. Obama apparently enjoyed stating that if Senator Clinton thought “rejecting” was stronger than “denouncing” he was happy to “denounce and reject” him which got cheers. Looking every bit the fool, Clinton could only say “Good” overenthusiastically, as if she had won the point. I’m sure her staff told her she did.
But that wasn’t the silliest part. Two days later, when asked about a follower who rejected Obama because he was “black” and whether she “denounced and rejected her” Clinton could only say that the supporter was entitled to speak her mind. I heard, but did not see later, Clinton finally get the hint, and denounce and reject this supporter.
A bit of Republican nonsense since the 2006 elections included repeated vociferous attacks by Republicans on the majority Democrats that they wouldn’t let legislation be debated by what is called open rules, as promised by the Democrats should they win the majority (which open rules would allow the Republicans to tie up or destroy the Democrats’ legislation). They also complained of billions of dollars of pork barrel spending in the proposed bills (if you don’t know what it is, look it up). Once in a while, one of the Republicans would cringingly admit that they never allowed open rules and were twice as bad as the Democrats in pork barrel spending when they were in the majority.
Moderation and civility
There is something in the air this time, and my natural cynicism tells me it isn’t going to last. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, as McCain is certain to do with the Republicans, then the two most civil candidates (who had any shot at all) won. That’s rare. McCain is known to reach across the aisle. Obama, already painted as very liberal (by liberals too) has tried to portray himself as being willing to listen to anyone (including America’s enemies). Both candidates state that they are intending to be civil in their campaigns (it didn’t sound like it to me yesterday in a back and forth exchange of television clips).
I’m a big fan of civility. Not everyone is. They feel that if they press hard enough, they will win (because God is on their side and they are just plain right) the other side will be destroyed (as Rush Limbaugh put it recently, McCain did not understand that “liberals are to be defeated”). Funny, but in over 200 years of government, one side has never defeated the other completely and eternally. Even where a party disappeared (like the Whigs) it would be replaced by another party, usually more extreme (like the Republicans).
Still, partisans do know that exciting your base (other partisans) is often more important than making your enemy happy.
This time, though, I feel that the deciding force will be independents, and they general like civil, moderate exchanges.
Now, we have been told that ". . . extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! . . . moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! (Barry Goldwater). Most often, civility leads to a change in ideas. That's true, but extremism to win power or an argument is just destructive. Moderation is usually a virtue. If you don’t think that your speaking civilly adds to your chances of persuading someone, you probably believe in the rules I listed above (whether you know it or not).
I wonder if McCain will disappoint me by going negative. I recognize it is also possible that talk radio can be so unlovely (such as by constantly repeating Obama’s middle name, as if he prays 5 times a day to Mecca and can't wait to have caviar with Ahmadinejad) that I might need McCain to “denounce and reject” some people he can’t afford to offend, just as he did in 2000. Unfortunately for McCain, I do believe that if Rush says stay home, many conservatives will think they decided to stay home on their own. Then again, getting upset at a bunch of harmless cranks is pretty silly too. Sometimes hard though. Remember when a little kid just repeats everything you say. You don't want to get mad, but . . . .
Leaving all this aside, this has been a remarkably civil campaign so far (don’t listen to the idiots I listen to on tv – they need to make it exciting). As far as I am concerned, may it remain so.
Sometimes, someone is just better
I think that is the case with Obama this time (although I am forced by my own ridiculous rules to stick with my Clinton is going to win the nomination prediction). He is just a better campaigner than she is. He has a great voice. She has a terrible voice (for the last time, don’t raise your voice EVER!). He is tall and attractive. She is a short middle aged woman with some heft. He doesn’t seem to be attacking anyone, although he will fight back. She, at least lately, seems to be relentlessly attacking him. He is relaxed. She seems artificial. He looks graceful when he dances. She should never dance. He makes inspiring speeches (and actually writes some himself). She makes strident woggish speeches that could put a coke addict to sleep.
Are you listening, Senator Clinton? He’s just better at this than you. It happens.
By the way, the two of you -- I don’t know what is more embarrassing – Hillary’s slipping into a Southern drawl when down South or Obama jive talking to a black audience. Come on, folks. Next, McCain will be shouting “Yeeeee, doggies” to a Texas gathering.
All that being said, and although I wrote the above as if Obama will win, I am one of those few who thinks that Hillary Clinton might not be done, although all those delegate counters and polls tells us she should be. I stick with my underdog pick for her, against most reasonable analysis and the odds. Why, because she is now the underdog, and we love underdogs, don't we. We might know in a few days.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
King of the West
Every once in a while I feel the urge to write about one of my favorite topics, the mountain men, that short lived phenomena of tough fur trappers and explorers who wandered the West, exploring the country for Americans after Lewis & Clark blazed the first long narrow trail across it. A few started out in a trickle in L&C's wake, but their glory years were the 1820-40s, after which large numbers of prospectors, business men and families began to fulfill the idea of manifest destiny.
I came to the subject backwards, first reading in law school (in lieu of concentrating on what I was supposed to be reading) a biography of John Fremont, who made three long expeditions throughout the wilds of the West, and popularized his trips and himself in his books, along with making a heroic figure out of Kit Carson (a decent soul and decent mountain man, but, despite his fame, not one of the greats in my humble opinion). Fremont's father-in-law, Thomas Benton, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, was Mister Manifest Destiny himself.
Like many biographers, the author loved his subject, and played some of which I have otherwise learned about Fremont, including, his running away from a battle in California, his court martial when he returned East, and his bizarre generalship during the Civil War. But the most important thing I got out of the book was the obvious fact that there were any number of men who were out West long before Fremont, men who were Fremont's guides, including the subject of this little piece, Joseph Rutherford Walker, or just Joe Walker, or Cap'n Joe Walker, in my mind, the King of the Mountain Men, although he is pretty much completely forgotten today except for a river, lake and mountain pass in the Sierra Nevada. In fact, if you looked him up on the web, you would more often see his middle name as Reddeford, a misspelling (although the error long preceded the digital age).
Why the King? Not because of any one shoot out, or glorious event, although there were more than enough battles and exciting moments. But because of his longevity (most of the famous mountain men died or left the West quite young), the belief by many that he was the most knowledgeable of the explorers and guides, particularly in the huge area known as the great basin, and the fact that although he led hundreds of men and later women, probably far more, and lost but one or two, whereas others lost most or significant amounts of their charges, particularly in the earlier days. Few doubted at the time, that the safest place to be in the wilds was with Joe Walker.
The usual rules apply when dealing with mountain men. It is hard to know what to believe and always there are holes you could drive a wagon train through in their histories, as unless they were with someone who recorded their adventures, it was lost or, the opposite, greatly exaggerated. The former is especially true of Walker (who fortunately played a role in a few memoirs or books) as he was known for his reticence, his particular reluctance to talk to reporters, and his refusal to participate in the dime novel rage which would have made him immortal. Almost nothing we know comes from him directly. Actually, he did start writing a biography, but lost it fording a river. After that he determined not to rely on his memory and possibly give false impressions about his life. He felt there was too much of that.
Walker's family was one of the great Scotch-Irish frontier families constantly pushing the borders West. At one point they settled in Southern Virginia not far North from where I live, near present day Lexington, Virginia. When Walker was still a relatively young teenager (he was born in December, 1798, when Washington was still alive and Lincoln would not be born for over ten years), he went with his older brother, Joel, also quite a frontiersman, but one who settled down early, to fight with General Andrew Jackson in one of the most famous and bloodiest battles with Indians in the Eastern U.S., leading to the destruction of the Creek Indian Nation as a power (1814). Ironically, the Creek Nation was also the name for Walkers' settlement in Virginia. For the sake of history, I have to add that there is no definitive evidence Joe Walker was with Jackson, although there is for his older brother, but it appears more than likely he was present along with many others of the Walker clan.
Around 1818, some of the family along with family and friends went further West to what at the time was the furthest Anglo-American outpost from the East, Missouri.
In the early 20s Joe and his brother, Joel, began traveling along and helped shape what would become the Santa Fe trail to New Mexico. Without definitive evidence (there just aren't records) but based on the solid information known, he was one of among a small group of men involved in laying out the historic trail. He would not have been the leader yet though. The issue is very shadowy due to the loss of records, although his close family certainly believed he was in New Mexico as early as 1820.
One story from this era prefigures Walker's future. Traveling on the trail in 1823, Joel Walker was stranded when Indians stole his horses. They also had men missing along the way. A figure came riding out of the distance. At first, Joel thought it was another Indian, but there appeared his long haired and Indian garbed brother, Joe, to the rescue. Returning from New Mexico he had followed signs indicating their were Americans in trouble. It would be far from the last time.
After years of trading along the trail, the family then helped in founding Independence, Missouri, then the furthest point West. The 6' 4" Joe Walker became the town sheriff in 1827. Records only show him in three altercations, none involving a gun. Besides, there were no rapid firing pistols yet. It is likely that Walker's size, considered quite large even now and certainly larger then, would have intimidated most likely agressors anyway.
However, he was soon back to being a trader and guide for those venturing out West. By then the fur trade was in full swing, beaver hunters traversing throughout the country.
In the 30s, Walker met the mysterious explorer (military spy?) Lieutenant Benjamin Bonneville, who would later be lionized by the great writer, Washington Irving, in a number of books. Somehow, Walker became the fall guy in the relationship according to Irving, to help explain away Bonneville's failed missions. Supposedly at the end of the relationship, again according to Irving, Bonneville chewed out Walker and sent him slinking back to Missouri. However, all the other evidence including a number of written evidence and memoirs indicates nothing of the sort happened. In fact, although Walker often disagreed with Bonneville's plans and split off from him, they parted friends, and even saw each other again the next year. There is no indication at all from Bonneville himself that he was anything but greatful for Walker's help. Unfortunately, for Walker, Irving's works remained well known. Still, it does not appear that historians take it seriously.
It was in the 30s that Walker began to be known as Captain Walker. It was nothing official or military. It was just that he was the boss. Zenas Leonard was among Walker's men for a while during this time period. He left what is in my mind the best mountain man memoir, full of honesty about his own fears and problems, Narrative of the Adventures of Zenas Leonard. He describes Walker this way:
He was "well calculated to undertake a business of this kind. He was well hardened to the hardships of the wilderness -- understood the character of the Indians very well -- was kind and affable to his men, but at the same time at liberty to command without giving offense -- and to explore unknown regions was his chief delight."
Through Leonard, we get a great deal of our information about Walker's great explorations. George Nidever, another one of Walker's men and a reknowned rifleman, similarly wrote of Walker: " He was one of the best leaders I have ever met, a good hunter and trapper, thouroughly versed in Indian signs and possessed of good knowledge of the mountains. He could find water quicker than any man I ever met".
While split off from Bonneville in 1933 (according to Irving, against orders) Walker explored the Great Basin surrounding the Great Salt Lake and through Bonneville, who made a map based on Walker's description, was able to rule out the existence of a river leading from The Great Salt Lake to the Pacific, which had long been sought.
However, Walker was determined to find an easier way through the mountains to the California, finally succeeding after a terrible month through the pass that later bore his name. Despite extreme hardship Walker managed to do so while losing none of his men. In the famous trip made by mountain man Jedediah Smith in the 1820s, he lost 26 of his 32 men and was taken prisoner for a while.
During this exploration, Walker faced a tough battle, as he and his men were surrounded by angry Indians after some of their tribe were killed by some of Walker's men (behavior which, according to Leonard, Walker angrily suprressed once he learned of it). Walker, it seemed, would always rather talk peace than fight. The men formed a quick barricade and Walker put his riflemen up front and had them demonstrate the power of their rifles. The Indians appeared to be more afraid of the noise than the effect on the ducks that were shot. When this did not deter the tribe, the men killed dozens of them, finishing them up with bow and arrow.
During this trip, it appears that Walker discovered Yosemite Valley, although there is also other evidence that he may have just camped near it.
Although the men under him suffered privations for over a month, they agreed at the end that due to the wonders they had seen, it had all been worth it. And, again, he lost no men. At one point, when mutiny was approaching, he told those who wished to leave to feel free, but they could take no supplies with them. It worked. Instead, they ate their horses.
When they reached California, the men were treated to the greatest meteorite shower in recorded history (11/12/33 - paintings done of the event make it seem as if it were literally raining meteorites) which terrified all but Walker (he really seemed unflappable); and were amazed to see a beached whale and Indians growing pumpkins, melons and squash. Unlike his predecessor Smith, Walker made sure he got an introduction to the authorities and, rather than being treated with suspicion, was offered 30,000 acres of his own if he would settle there. He ruled it out due to his love of travel. He was also offered a wife by a local Indian tribe, but turned that down as well.
Walker continued gathering fame and respect during the 30s and 40s as a guide. Often he is described as celebrated or famous, although we have now long forgotten him. He was unusual in a number of respects. Unlike those few famous mountain men who were not killed by Indians or bears while still young, or who settled while young in one area, Walker continued to explore and guide for decades. Caravans heading West sought him out. Sometimes they were frustrated that he refused to move on until they were well supplied while others passed by them, yet he always got his charges where they were going safely, and sometimes had to rescue the groups that had moved ahead of them without foraging or hunting first.
Walker made friends with many tribes, although particularly the Snakes (a Shoshoni tribe). He also made friends with the terror of the Great Basin, an Indian who specialized in kidnapping and horse thievery by the name of Walkara. After they met, Walkara even took to calling himself Walker or even Joe Walker, which led to a little confusion. Supposedly Walker endeared himself to Walkara by returning his kidnapped wife and children to him. This was not unusual for Walker as he seemed often to buy or otherwise obtain kidnapped woman and children and return them to their families.
Walker himself married an Indian woman whom he often traveled with from 1937 to 1946. Other than their marriage and the fact that they had children, little is known of her, including what happened to her; just that she was gone after that. Although Walker sided with whites in a conflict, on at least one occassion he organized a posse to track down and return horses whites had stolen from Indians.
It was in the 40s that Walker gained greater fame by twice guiding Fremont. The first time, Fremont was being guided by othe" legendary figures, including Carson, Fremont's favorite,and Tom Fitzpatrick (aka "Brokenhand"). They were lost, and believed they were about to be attacked and massacred by local Indians. Walker road into camp with men and many horses (horse trading had become a profession for him). Walker told him they had nothing to fear and even introduced Fremont to his friend, Walkara, smoothing out any further problems.
Fremont, who, remember, was already accompanied by two exceptional guides later wrote of Walker: "Nothing but his great knowledge of the country, great courage and presence of mind and good rigles could have brought him safe from such a perilous enterprise."
To Walker's credit, he later said that Fremont over-dramatized: "The fact is, the danger was all in Captain Fremont's fears . . . (I) would have traveled at that time with eight mountain men, well armed, anywhere over the length and breadth of the plains."
Walker, for reasons you will see below, thought little of Fremont, once saying that "morally and physically, (Fremont) was the most complete coward I ever knew". Probably not fair, as Fremont, an egomaniac, did show courage as was attested to by others (and during the Civil War made an effort to free slaves within his control which order Lincoln overruled). However, Walker had watched him run away from a fight and it stuck with him.
Walker took over as lead guide for the expedition (he had been offered the lead by Fremont on his first expedition but had turned it down), with which even Fitzpatrick could have no quarrel. It is hard to conceive of any other Western man who would have been thought Fitzpatrick's superior, and only a handful, his equal. There was no question though concerning Walker.
It would not be only time either than other famous mountain men guides had to take a backseat to Walker, although not always with the grace Fitzpatrick showed. On Fremont's third expedition, they met Walker in Utah. Carson, Lucien Maxwell of the famous Maxwell clan, and the another legendary figure, Ole' Bill Williams, one of the greatest and most colorful of mountain men, who had been in the mountains even before Walker, were all along. Williams was many things: certainly one of the great guides and trappers, but also a hard drinker, gambler, horse thief and even murderer. Nevertheless, the captain was given the lead role. When Williams protested too mightily, the captain faced him down and Williams stalked out of camp that night, taking a couple of Walker's horses for good measure. Although Williams had last many decades in the wild he had betrayed the Utes, his Indian family, and was killed by them not too long later.
It was on that trip that Walker, with Fremont, came into conflict with the Mexican government (we took California and much of the Southwest that very year) and barricaded themselves on top of Hawkes' Peak, ready to battle. It was from this that Fremont fled. Walker was furious, but the group disbanded (it was after this that Fremont was successfully court martialed, although it little hurt his reputation).
This isn't a book, so I have to leave out a lot of Walker's adventures, but one which deserves mention is the 1862 (thus during the Civil War) stand off between Walker, who was leading a group in Arizona, and Mangas Colorado, father-in-law of the more famous Cochise. Colorado and his tribe followed Walker for weeks in a battle of wills, almost like a chess game. Each time the Indian chief thought he had them penned in, they escaped. Finally, in a strange and celebrated move that is not entirely clear, Walker sent a tough guy named Jack Swilling out to arrest Colorado. He found him, approached Colorado and his men alone, put his hand on his shoulder and apparently told him that they were surrounded and he had no choice but to surrender. For whatever inexplicable reasons he had, Colorado surrendered, saying to his men -- "Tell my people I will see them when I see them". He was imprisoned, but quickly murdered by the U.S. troops to whom he was turned over.
It may have been more impressive for Walker if he had done the job himself, but remember, he was at this time 63 years old, and, although able to tramp about, was not impervious to age.
Walker soon after settled on a ranch in California where he operated a horse business with his family members who had settled there, particularly a nephew James from whom much about Walker was learned. He lived until 1876, dying at the age of 77. For famous Western guides, this was exceedingly long.
Think about it. Lewis & Clark certainly deserve front rank for their great expedition. But there travels went on for 5 years. Ole Bill Williams was killed by Indians as was the impressive Jedediah Smith while still in his twenties. The astonishing Ed Rose and the equally tough Hugh Glass were both also killed by Indians. Jim Bridger, also incredibly impressive, lived to about the same age as Walker, but had a few big black marks on his record, and settled down to one area (Bridger Fort in Utah) in the earlier 40s. Walker was active exploring and guiding well into the 1860s though he was about 5 years older than Bridger (who died in 1881). Solid Thomas Fitzpatrick, who we have seen would take a back seat to Walker, was active as a guide until the 1840s and died in the mid '50s back East. Carson, who was rarely a leader of men, but certainly was an experienced trapper and guide, never challenged Walker for leadership -- he died at age 59 (a personal note -- while in Taos I sought out his grave and asked a guard at the cemetary where he was buried where it was located. The next day, miles away, I read that the headstone had been vandalized that day and that they were looking for the culprit -- I think of this whenever I have an unexpected knock at my door).
Most importantly, the hundreds of thousands of people he led, many times greenhorns and settlers, all lived but for possibly two of them, neither of which could in any way be tied to his choices or leadership. It is not difficult to understand why. He came prepared for any fight, was fearless, but sought out the friendship of Indians, never treating them hostily unless he was attacked. His friendship with Walkara provided him with great leeway. He was always prepared ahead of time for hardship, and seemed to have not only an uncanny memory of places he had been decades earlier, but an almost eery ability to locate water. Wherever he went, because of his gentle nature and leadership qualities, he seemed to impress everyone.
I would only put one Western explorer in his company, but I hope to write about him another day. My secret.
Walker's nephew set his headstone, which briefly summarized his life in geographical terms:
Born in Roan County, Tenn -- December 15, 1798
Emigrated to Mo -- 1819
To New Mexico -- 1820
Rocky Mountains - 1832
California -- 1833
Camped at Yosemite -- Nov. 13, 1833
For a man who constantly traveled around the West for nearly five decades, any epigraph can only be an understatement. It does help place him in New Mexico at the very beginning though, and adds at least the family opinion that he had seen Yosemite first.
The King of the Mountain Men is an opinion, but it is my opinion. We should at least celebrate Walker as much as we do Daniel Boone, Kit Carson and Davey Crockett. But, this is what happens when you won't talk to the press.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Political Update for February, 2008
You know who was really upset about the broohaha over John McCain (hard to believe it is pretty much over already -- but more about that later)? I guess the McCains are (although he looked serene at the press conference Thursday morning) but I think the Clintons were more upset. Unless McCain turns out to be the same phony most politicians are, he will benefit from it, in fact, already has, as Republicans and conservatives rallied around what appears to be a hit job from their arch media villain -- The New York Times. But Hillary C. is desperately trying to find a way to gain popularity against the charismatic political figure in my memory. And yesterday, no one was paying attention until the debate (Serbia was a little distracting too).
If you read these pages, you know that I prefer McCain to all other candidates and have long predicted that he has the best chance to win the election amongst Republicans. It appears like I was wrong about Clinton winning for the Dems, but that we should know soon enough. However with Obama in the race on the left, they do get their best candidate. Clinton may have more experience (and I do not deride experience gained from her time as first lady, although it is limited), but her negatives are so high, and she will so rally the conservative troops against her, that she would be the worse candidate of the two.
If Obama and McCain are the candidates, it might tell us something. That people really are sick of politics as usual, and the partisan bickering that goes on in Washington. I know McCain has apparently dropped the f' bomb on a few people in his career, but that has never bothered me (really, I use it so often I'm thinking of printing up cards with it in bold). On the whole, it appears to me that his career is about the same thing that Obama's campaign is about. Let's cut down on the partisan attacks, debate civilly and try and work on the problems people have. That is the "change" people are looking for.
That being said, is it really true? Or will we just find that when push comes to shove, people will run back to their partisan bases, and find the other candidate evil and angry and unfair? I hope not, but after more than a quarter century of watching politics (I was a late starter) I have to say that I am cynical that a substantial amount of people feel more like I do, and less like Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann does. Frankly, almost everyone I personally know looks at the other side for the most part with a leery eye, even if they occasionally have a position independant of partisanship. If the other side does something good, then it is for secretly selfish reasons. If they do something they disagree with, it is because they are evil and want to destroy America, or gather power for themselves and their friends. I have to admit that often a lot of that is true (except the destroy America part) but it is certainly widely displayed by both sides, and it is not always true.
I will almost certainly vote for McCain (hard to think of circumstances where Obama or Clinton would convince me otherwise unless he turns so hard right to please the conservative base that it becomes a toss up). The Democrats and Republicans I like generally would not do well in primaries and caucuses. He did.
There are a number of reasons that McCain, against the grain of the conservative side of the Republican party, is going to be their candidate. First, his personal story is pretty much acknowledged by all to be impeccable. Although it is sometimes still brought up, I do not believe that most people who know about it believe he was more than a nominal name in the now ancient Keating scandal. He handled it as well as can be expected, by acknowledging that he had made a mistake (without saying he did anything wrong). Unlike with John Kerry, who served less than a half year in Vietnam and is perceived by some as speaking against the military, McCains military record is not only praised by everyone, but is genuinely taken to be heroic (although I have to admit, I have never understood the part of the story where he was given an opportunity to leave ahead of other men due to his status of being an Admiral's son, and chose to stay a prisoner -- could not his captors just have forced him to leave?).
Because it is clear that the Democrats have the upper hand right now in the congress and polls show that Obama or Clinton would likely beat any Republican) intelligent conservatives realize that if they do not want the two most powerful branches to be totally in the power of their political enemies, they had better put up someone who can win with independents.
I like McCain for the same reason I believe Obama will be a formidable candidate. They both appear that they will be principled and, at the same time, work with their adversaries. The difference will come down to experience. If Clinton can score points with some folks about her experience advantage, imagine what John McCain will be able to do.
Of course, Obama's campaign is proofed against an attack in that manner, as he showed recently. He will simply acknowledge that McCain has more experience, but insist that his judgment (get out of Iraq) is better than McCain's (stay in Iraq). He certainly will have popular opinion on his side, particularly if there is another sustained blow up.
Obama has been incredibly impressive as a campaigner. His presence coming on stage reminds me of Dean Martin (cool and graceful). Even when he danced on stage last night he did so in such a restrained fashion. If you can, check out Will Smith's character in the movie Hitch instruct Kevin James' character how to dance in a restrained fashion and then watch Obama move to the beat. I bet he saw the movie.
While he rightly countered Clinton's plagiarism attack by calling it silly to say that he plagiarized from one of his campaign chairman who told him to use the lines (and I think she is done with that -- having garnered boos from the debate audience last night when she brought it up) it is more annoying when he channels Martin Luther King, Jr.'s diction when making a speech. Although he carries it off very well, I'd rather he talk like Obama.
I'm not going to revise my prediction. They are for fun, as no one can really predict what is going to happen consistently, and if you change them, what was the point in making them. So, I have to stick with Hillary unless she gives up after next week. And I will stick with McCain too, regardless of who he faces.
McCain handled the mini-scandal, engendered by a New York Times article first appearing on it's website Wednesday night as well as I have ever seen any do it before him. In fact, he was so good, he could give a seminar to those who are telling the truth or lying. He had the press conference the very next morning, making that the story; he was exceedingly calm; he started right out by saying that the story was untrue; he did not rely on a faulty memory (which, after 8 years, would not be unfair); he brought his wife up on stage with him, ruling out questions like - "Did you ever have any type of sexual relationship with Vicki Iseman?"; when he was asked a direct question such as did you have an "improper" relationship, he gave a one word answer -- "No" and moved on to the next question. No finger wagging for him. In fact, he handled the whole matter the way Obama dances -- understated but with confidence.
Still, although I would hate to see someone I have hoped would be president for the last decade fail because of an old sex scandal, I still do have a few questions. Was it really within bounds for him to write two letters on Iseman's client's behest? A spokesman for the FCC said it was highly unusual and unprecedented. Did he do it at her specific request? If I wanted to pursue the prurient aspects I would have asked him if he were ever alone in her home or in a hotel room with her. Or if he ever had a meal with her alone. It's a better way to ferret out an admission that there was something.
As for my beloved New York Times (and here in Virginia, I still have The Sunday Times mailed to me), they blew it. It probably was not for the wrong reasons. After all, they did endorse him and even this week conservatives were still saying how McCain was the darling of the left wing media.
So, what happened? Why would they go with an anonymously sourced story (at least for the sordid part) where other editors have come out and said they would not have published it? Possibly, some in the media suggest, they have other information they can't corroborate, but that is really not even fair to consider unless there is some evidence of it. I think it is more likely they just goofed when they felt the heat from the New Republic which was going to publish a story about the story (this is getting ridiculous).
One thing the media politely does not mention is that it is long acknowledged that at least when McCain was young, he was quite the ladies man. Who could blame him? Women are going to be attracted to handsome war heroes in office. He does have a trophy wife, you know. Again, not that I blame him. So do many politicians. And it doesn't mean the trophy wives aren't wonderful people too. Being attractive doesn't make you dumb or mean (unless you are raised in the entertainment business). But, those of you who who are middle aged men -- can you deny that an attractive women half your age making a fuss about you, perhaps touching your arm occasionally, or laughing at your jokes, isn't going to give you --- ummm, manly thoughts? And that perhaps you would be tempted to play around? Hmmm? No? Yeah, right.
I would not be surprised to hear that just about any politician or otherwise famous person had an affair from the Pope to Bob Dole. These things happen. I'd be more surprised if they turned them down. Me, cynical? Naaah.
I have never understood the media's determination to get scoops. Does anyone usually remember who reported something first? News organizations even create quasi-scoops -- "this just in special to FoxNews" -- "CNN has just learned" -- and that sort of nonsense.
A McCain-Obama race would be exciting. Both are generally very popular and will, when push comes to shove, have the backing of most people in their party. But both also attract a fair number of independents, which will make it interesting. There is no doubt that McCain has far more experience than Obama, but the polls have convincingly shown that people really don't care about that right now. Bush didn't have much experience qualifying him to be president the first time around, but his team had oodles of it. And what haven't they messed up?
There are some people who absolutely will not vote for Obama. I can think of people I know or who I have met, who will not because they "know" or fear he is a Muslim (and, apparently, they conclude, that would make him sympathetic to terrorists and middle-Eastern tyrants). Frankly, those people would not have voted for Clinton either, so this is not much of a negative. I suppose that if I hear enough talk radio hosts call him Barack HUSSEIN Obama, I might get mad enough to sit out the election. Probably not though, unless McCain comes off like the old, cranky powerful white man that the left would like to paint him as.
My advice to Mr. McCain should Obama be your opponent -- never go negative. It would not work for you anymore than it did Clinton. Although that is McCain's nature as a candidate, when he went negative against Romney, he got a lot of flack. It will work with Obama all the less; he is just too likeable. He has even made being of mixed race cool (which is a good thing).
He should also ignore Mr. Limbaugh's suggestion to learn the lesson that you must beat liberals, not pal around with them. Being controversial gives Rush a lot of listeners (I'm one, although I turn him off every few minutes when he shifts from policy to partisan, but the real fight will be for independents and he has no good advice about how to win them). As an independent, I would really, really like it if just for once, both candidates had to pander for my vote. McCain must convince independents that he will be as non-partisan as they think Obama will be, and that they might as well have the one who also knows a few world leaders
I'd also suggest McCain pick up on my early suggestion (and, believe me, he and all powerful politicians read this) that he think about Michael Steele of Maryland, a moderate Republican -- not coincidentally a black male -- for a running mate. It galls me that I think picking someone partially based on race might be helpful, but there you have it. McCain should not even deny that skin color was a consideration because he can also say that is as qualified as anyone for the VP slot. Steele is the former lieutenant governor of Maryland and the current president of GOPAC, the premier Republican action committee. He lost out on a 2006 Senate bid, but I liked the way he debated. We know that McCain must go with a relatively young person, in any event. Failing that, I still think Huckabee (although perhaps too critical of McCain's legislative history) or Duncan Hunter would be a good choice. That way, the whole South would get to hope that McCain wins and then dies. Don't put it past them. Partisans aren't known for their sympathy.
I also think that Obama picking a black man or any woman would be a bad idea. Many people are very ready, even want to, vote for a minority or woman. But picking another minority or woman as a running mate will give many of those same people the feeling that he may be carrying a very liberal agenda with him. Balance is the name of the game this time around.
My main advice to Obama would be to be respectful but not deferential. Actually, he doesn't need to hear that from me. He is a rock star and knows instinctively how to act like one. Perhaps he is just a really nice guy. Of course, every instinct I have tells me to avoid humanizing any politician who has been around more than one year. Still, he shows that he is a force to be reckoned with -- a perfect example, perhaps, of the man meeting the moment.
But, so many things could happen in the next eight months or so up until the election. There could be another terrorist attack, which might be good or bad for McCain, depending on who wins the spin battle. Or, McCain could stumble over a cord and fall. Fair or unfair, it would hurt his chances.
My last subject. What is Ron Paul doing still running? Now that the nomination is all but certain, he has gone from eccentric internet phenom to quack. It was one thing when he could get a word in edgewise at the debates, but does he really think anyone is listening anymore?
I conclude these long winded remarks with my traditional, if not bold -- who knows? It's always safe.
If you read these pages, you know that I prefer McCain to all other candidates and have long predicted that he has the best chance to win the election amongst Republicans. It appears like I was wrong about Clinton winning for the Dems, but that we should know soon enough. However with Obama in the race on the left, they do get their best candidate. Clinton may have more experience (and I do not deride experience gained from her time as first lady, although it is limited), but her negatives are so high, and she will so rally the conservative troops against her, that she would be the worse candidate of the two.
If Obama and McCain are the candidates, it might tell us something. That people really are sick of politics as usual, and the partisan bickering that goes on in Washington. I know McCain has apparently dropped the f' bomb on a few people in his career, but that has never bothered me (really, I use it so often I'm thinking of printing up cards with it in bold). On the whole, it appears to me that his career is about the same thing that Obama's campaign is about. Let's cut down on the partisan attacks, debate civilly and try and work on the problems people have. That is the "change" people are looking for.
That being said, is it really true? Or will we just find that when push comes to shove, people will run back to their partisan bases, and find the other candidate evil and angry and unfair? I hope not, but after more than a quarter century of watching politics (I was a late starter) I have to say that I am cynical that a substantial amount of people feel more like I do, and less like Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann does. Frankly, almost everyone I personally know looks at the other side for the most part with a leery eye, even if they occasionally have a position independant of partisanship. If the other side does something good, then it is for secretly selfish reasons. If they do something they disagree with, it is because they are evil and want to destroy America, or gather power for themselves and their friends. I have to admit that often a lot of that is true (except the destroy America part) but it is certainly widely displayed by both sides, and it is not always true.
I will almost certainly vote for McCain (hard to think of circumstances where Obama or Clinton would convince me otherwise unless he turns so hard right to please the conservative base that it becomes a toss up). The Democrats and Republicans I like generally would not do well in primaries and caucuses. He did.
There are a number of reasons that McCain, against the grain of the conservative side of the Republican party, is going to be their candidate. First, his personal story is pretty much acknowledged by all to be impeccable. Although it is sometimes still brought up, I do not believe that most people who know about it believe he was more than a nominal name in the now ancient Keating scandal. He handled it as well as can be expected, by acknowledging that he had made a mistake (without saying he did anything wrong). Unlike with John Kerry, who served less than a half year in Vietnam and is perceived by some as speaking against the military, McCains military record is not only praised by everyone, but is genuinely taken to be heroic (although I have to admit, I have never understood the part of the story where he was given an opportunity to leave ahead of other men due to his status of being an Admiral's son, and chose to stay a prisoner -- could not his captors just have forced him to leave?).
Because it is clear that the Democrats have the upper hand right now in the congress and polls show that Obama or Clinton would likely beat any Republican) intelligent conservatives realize that if they do not want the two most powerful branches to be totally in the power of their political enemies, they had better put up someone who can win with independents.
I like McCain for the same reason I believe Obama will be a formidable candidate. They both appear that they will be principled and, at the same time, work with their adversaries. The difference will come down to experience. If Clinton can score points with some folks about her experience advantage, imagine what John McCain will be able to do.
Of course, Obama's campaign is proofed against an attack in that manner, as he showed recently. He will simply acknowledge that McCain has more experience, but insist that his judgment (get out of Iraq) is better than McCain's (stay in Iraq). He certainly will have popular opinion on his side, particularly if there is another sustained blow up.
Obama has been incredibly impressive as a campaigner. His presence coming on stage reminds me of Dean Martin (cool and graceful). Even when he danced on stage last night he did so in such a restrained fashion. If you can, check out Will Smith's character in the movie Hitch instruct Kevin James' character how to dance in a restrained fashion and then watch Obama move to the beat. I bet he saw the movie.
While he rightly countered Clinton's plagiarism attack by calling it silly to say that he plagiarized from one of his campaign chairman who told him to use the lines (and I think she is done with that -- having garnered boos from the debate audience last night when she brought it up) it is more annoying when he channels Martin Luther King, Jr.'s diction when making a speech. Although he carries it off very well, I'd rather he talk like Obama.
I'm not going to revise my prediction. They are for fun, as no one can really predict what is going to happen consistently, and if you change them, what was the point in making them. So, I have to stick with Hillary unless she gives up after next week. And I will stick with McCain too, regardless of who he faces.
McCain handled the mini-scandal, engendered by a New York Times article first appearing on it's website Wednesday night as well as I have ever seen any do it before him. In fact, he was so good, he could give a seminar to those who are telling the truth or lying. He had the press conference the very next morning, making that the story; he was exceedingly calm; he started right out by saying that the story was untrue; he did not rely on a faulty memory (which, after 8 years, would not be unfair); he brought his wife up on stage with him, ruling out questions like - "Did you ever have any type of sexual relationship with Vicki Iseman?"; when he was asked a direct question such as did you have an "improper" relationship, he gave a one word answer -- "No" and moved on to the next question. No finger wagging for him. In fact, he handled the whole matter the way Obama dances -- understated but with confidence.
Still, although I would hate to see someone I have hoped would be president for the last decade fail because of an old sex scandal, I still do have a few questions. Was it really within bounds for him to write two letters on Iseman's client's behest? A spokesman for the FCC said it was highly unusual and unprecedented. Did he do it at her specific request? If I wanted to pursue the prurient aspects I would have asked him if he were ever alone in her home or in a hotel room with her. Or if he ever had a meal with her alone. It's a better way to ferret out an admission that there was something.
As for my beloved New York Times (and here in Virginia, I still have The Sunday Times mailed to me), they blew it. It probably was not for the wrong reasons. After all, they did endorse him and even this week conservatives were still saying how McCain was the darling of the left wing media.
So, what happened? Why would they go with an anonymously sourced story (at least for the sordid part) where other editors have come out and said they would not have published it? Possibly, some in the media suggest, they have other information they can't corroborate, but that is really not even fair to consider unless there is some evidence of it. I think it is more likely they just goofed when they felt the heat from the New Republic which was going to publish a story about the story (this is getting ridiculous).
One thing the media politely does not mention is that it is long acknowledged that at least when McCain was young, he was quite the ladies man. Who could blame him? Women are going to be attracted to handsome war heroes in office. He does have a trophy wife, you know. Again, not that I blame him. So do many politicians. And it doesn't mean the trophy wives aren't wonderful people too. Being attractive doesn't make you dumb or mean (unless you are raised in the entertainment business). But, those of you who who are middle aged men -- can you deny that an attractive women half your age making a fuss about you, perhaps touching your arm occasionally, or laughing at your jokes, isn't going to give you --- ummm, manly thoughts? And that perhaps you would be tempted to play around? Hmmm? No? Yeah, right.
I would not be surprised to hear that just about any politician or otherwise famous person had an affair from the Pope to Bob Dole. These things happen. I'd be more surprised if they turned them down. Me, cynical? Naaah.
I have never understood the media's determination to get scoops. Does anyone usually remember who reported something first? News organizations even create quasi-scoops -- "this just in special to FoxNews" -- "CNN has just learned" -- and that sort of nonsense.
A McCain-Obama race would be exciting. Both are generally very popular and will, when push comes to shove, have the backing of most people in their party. But both also attract a fair number of independents, which will make it interesting. There is no doubt that McCain has far more experience than Obama, but the polls have convincingly shown that people really don't care about that right now. Bush didn't have much experience qualifying him to be president the first time around, but his team had oodles of it. And what haven't they messed up?
There are some people who absolutely will not vote for Obama. I can think of people I know or who I have met, who will not because they "know" or fear he is a Muslim (and, apparently, they conclude, that would make him sympathetic to terrorists and middle-Eastern tyrants). Frankly, those people would not have voted for Clinton either, so this is not much of a negative. I suppose that if I hear enough talk radio hosts call him Barack HUSSEIN Obama, I might get mad enough to sit out the election. Probably not though, unless McCain comes off like the old, cranky powerful white man that the left would like to paint him as.
My advice to Mr. McCain should Obama be your opponent -- never go negative. It would not work for you anymore than it did Clinton. Although that is McCain's nature as a candidate, when he went negative against Romney, he got a lot of flack. It will work with Obama all the less; he is just too likeable. He has even made being of mixed race cool (which is a good thing).
He should also ignore Mr. Limbaugh's suggestion to learn the lesson that you must beat liberals, not pal around with them. Being controversial gives Rush a lot of listeners (I'm one, although I turn him off every few minutes when he shifts from policy to partisan, but the real fight will be for independents and he has no good advice about how to win them). As an independent, I would really, really like it if just for once, both candidates had to pander for my vote. McCain must convince independents that he will be as non-partisan as they think Obama will be, and that they might as well have the one who also knows a few world leaders
I'd also suggest McCain pick up on my early suggestion (and, believe me, he and all powerful politicians read this) that he think about Michael Steele of Maryland, a moderate Republican -- not coincidentally a black male -- for a running mate. It galls me that I think picking someone partially based on race might be helpful, but there you have it. McCain should not even deny that skin color was a consideration because he can also say that is as qualified as anyone for the VP slot. Steele is the former lieutenant governor of Maryland and the current president of GOPAC, the premier Republican action committee. He lost out on a 2006 Senate bid, but I liked the way he debated. We know that McCain must go with a relatively young person, in any event. Failing that, I still think Huckabee (although perhaps too critical of McCain's legislative history) or Duncan Hunter would be a good choice. That way, the whole South would get to hope that McCain wins and then dies. Don't put it past them. Partisans aren't known for their sympathy.
I also think that Obama picking a black man or any woman would be a bad idea. Many people are very ready, even want to, vote for a minority or woman. But picking another minority or woman as a running mate will give many of those same people the feeling that he may be carrying a very liberal agenda with him. Balance is the name of the game this time around.
My main advice to Obama would be to be respectful but not deferential. Actually, he doesn't need to hear that from me. He is a rock star and knows instinctively how to act like one. Perhaps he is just a really nice guy. Of course, every instinct I have tells me to avoid humanizing any politician who has been around more than one year. Still, he shows that he is a force to be reckoned with -- a perfect example, perhaps, of the man meeting the moment.
But, so many things could happen in the next eight months or so up until the election. There could be another terrorist attack, which might be good or bad for McCain, depending on who wins the spin battle. Or, McCain could stumble over a cord and fall. Fair or unfair, it would hurt his chances.
My last subject. What is Ron Paul doing still running? Now that the nomination is all but certain, he has gone from eccentric internet phenom to quack. It was one thing when he could get a word in edgewise at the debates, but does he really think anyone is listening anymore?
I conclude these long winded remarks with my traditional, if not bold -- who knows? It's always safe.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Vintage WWII
It is somewhat cold here in the mountains of Virginia (compared to the 70s last week) and that makes me think of the North, which makes me think about Scandinavia, which makes me think about Norway, which makes me think about my favorite WWII story that took place there. Now you know how I pick a topic.
There are so many, seemingly endless, riveting stories out of that war that it is hard to pick one. But this one was fascinating enough that some have called it the most successful mission of the war, and Kirk Douglas starred in a not very accurate version of it in 1965 called The Heroes of Telemark . There have also been several books, including one by participant, Knut Haukelik (Skiis against the Atom). For a more unbiased account you can try Heavy Water and the Wartime Race for Nuclear Energy by Peter Dahl, and Assault in Norway: Sabotaging the Nazi Nuclear Program by Thomas Gallagher. My favorite modern non-fiction book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes also covers it briefly, but well. There have been a few documentaries too, including a 1948 Norwegian one featuring some of the saboteurs, which I have not seen and probably would not understand. You'll see why below that it has attracted so much attention.
The Nazis had conquered Norway back in Spring, 1940, long before the United States entered the war. Initially, it was just one more European country under German domination. However, once the race to develop the atomic bomb began, it became of strategic importance. A plant producing what is called heavy water, or deuterium, was located in Vemork in the South of that country. Deuterium was critical to the development of the atomic bomb. Basically, it moderates the atomic reaction allowing a controlled chain reaction to occur. It is probably toxic to humans (they have done mice studies only). There are only a few places where it was produced (still too). Thus, to deprive the Nazis of this specialized water became an important objective.
The plant, sometimes called the Rjukan-Vemork complex, was located in a ravine surrounded by a wild mountain area known as the Hardanger Vidda. There was one bridge to the plant which crossed a ravine about 600 feet high. It was, however, also connected to the outside world by a little used rail station, which would prove important.
The first effort, Operation Grouse/Freshman, went not so good, or, as we Norwegian say - "Ikke så fint."
Four Norwegian commandos trained by the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) were parachuted into the area on October 19, 1942. This was the Grouse team. Although, of course, they were dropped off course, and got lost, they finally arrived at their hiding spot and made contact by radio with the code words "three pink elephants." A month after their drop, two RAF bombers towed gliders with 17 men each, which were to land on a nearby frozen lake. The first bomber crashed into a mountain killing everyone aboard. Although the glider broke free, it also crashed, injuring many of the men aboard. The second tug determined to return to base, but, unfortunately, the tow cable broke and the second glider also crashed. When you read enough WWII material, you realize that before all of the successes, there were too many adventures that resulted in tragedy like this one, often much worse.
There were fourteen survivors who were picked up by the Gestapo, tortured and executed, all in one day. Efficiency. This was done upon orders by Hitler for any allied commandos (i.e., out of uniform). This itself is of some interest if you take a look at my earlier post, The Nazi Invasion of Long Island (1/24/07), and see the handwringing that went on when we caught German Saboteurs in America. Same result, we executed them, but a legal process was required. This still has ramifications today when we catch purported terrorists in America.
The four man Norwegian team, however, was barely surviving on mountain plant life (i.e., reindeer moss, a type of lichen). The head of intelligence for British air services, R. V. Jones, called the decision to send in another team one of his toughest decisions. Although they knew that the Germans were now alerted and would take precautions, the importance of the operation ruled out greater caution.
They were much more successful with Operation Gunnerside, parachuting in six more Norwegian commandos in mid-February, who were hooked up with and re-supplied the Grouse team, now dubbed Swallow. They wore British uniforms under their jump suits (which, they probably hoped would keep them from being summarily executed as spies) and along with food and weapons carried skis, a radio and enough plastic explosives to blow up each of the electrolysis cells that produced the heavy water.
One of the newly arrived group went on to do reconnaissance and reported back that not only had minefields been laid on approaches to the plant, but that there were armed guards on the bridge. There were also search lights in use and machine guns at the ready. However, the good news was that, probably due to overconfidence based on the plants location in a secure location (or perhaps dubiousness as to its importance) there were only about 15 guards on duty.
On the 27th of that same month, they mounted their raid. Despite the increase in security, the commandos had one distinct advantage. The designer of the plant was now heading the intelligence/sabotage wing of the refugee Norwegian High Command back in England and was able to give detailed information as to how to sneak in.
One man stayed behind with the radio and nine set out to destroy the plant's capacity. Five of them carried Tommy guns. They all had at least a pistol, knife and grenade. They also each carried a cyanide pill which they promised to use before capture and interrogation.
Naturally, they had to avoid the guarded bridge, so they descended down to the river, crossed it and then ascended to the shelf upon which the plant lay. Everything went perfectly for them. The searchlights were off, it was a moonless night and the wind prevented noise from warning the defenders. They entered the plant through the railroad opening, had a snack and waited until the sentries had changed and relaxed.
A little before midnight they cut through a thin metal fence and split into two teams, one to cover, and one to do the demolition. The team watching the barracks covered the wooden barracks and waited for the blast.
Finding the doors locked, the demolition team entered the plant through a cable intake the designer of the plant had advised them about, and which two of them crawled through.
Boom. The charges went off as planned. Outside, however, the noise was greatly reduced and there was initially very little investigation. The one German guard who came to check, noted that the doors were locked and apparently thought snow from the shelf above them had fallen and set off a mine. The commandos all escaped, partly by skiing, partly by descending and then ascending the mountain again. They left a British weapon behind so that the locals would not be blamed. They had made their escape before sirens were set off.
The German general in charge of Norway, Nikolaus von Falkenhorst, probably prevented the workers at the site from torture after they were taken to be interrogated by the Gestapo. He chewed out the Germans guarding the plant, but praised the mission with admiration, calling it the best coup he had ever seen. The official German report from the site attributed it to three armed men, likely British. Leaving behind the gun worked.
Six of the commandos left the country but some remained behind. Good thing. By April, the plant was up and running again, although not at full capacity. This time the allies bombed the hell out of it during a lunch break (trying to keep from killing the Norwegian staff if possible). Although most of the 140 B-17s which got through the German flak missed their target, and all the main target, enough hit to cause some damage, but it only shut the plant down for a while.
The Nazis eventually decided to ship the critical parts to Germany in 1944. Only Knut Haukelid of the commandos had remained, other than the radio man, and the task fell to him to destroy the shipment of heavy water to Germany with a new team he had to assemble from local talent.
Although Haukelid was living in Norway at the time of the German invasion and had spent most of his life there, he was actually born in Flatbush, New York, with a twin sister in 1911 and went to Massachusetts State College. Thus, he was in his young 30s when called to duty. His sister, Sigrid Gurie became a movie star during the war years, her best known film being Algiers.
First, Haukelid met with the plant's chief engineer, Alf Larsen, at night and worked out a plan. Larsen had himself been trying to secretly aid information getting out to the allies, and was not onsite when the initial raid was made the previous year, but rushed there in his wood burning car. From Larsen, Haukelid learned that the heavy water would be transferred in drums marked potash-lye by train down to a ferry at Lake Tinnsjo, then across the lake, to another train to the coast, and thereafter by ship to Germany.
The transport engineer, who also cooperated, was able to arrange that the shipment was made on a Sunday. By leaving the train alone, and attacking the ferry, they would minimize Norwegian deaths, although there was no way to prevent some aboard the ferry from dying. Sunday would be the day of least local traffic and was the best they could do.
Still, the engineers were dubious that an atomic explosion was even possible or, if it was, that the Germans were anywhere near accomplishing it (wrong on the first count and right on the second). They believed that there would be German reprisals on the locals and they naturally doubted the demolition was worth it. Nevertheless, when they radioed London they were told it was necessary to go ahead.
Haukelid learned which ferry would be used to transport the material and took it upon himself to do the job disguised as a working man (with a hidden sten gun, just in case). He needed to time just when the ferry would be crossing deep water so that it could not be beached and the product recovered. Using alarm clocks, detonators picked up by a local contact and the plastic explosives he had received from the British, he made a test run of the device up near his mountain cabin. He and a team member, Rolf Sorlie, had actually fallen a sleep in Haukelid's mountain cabin when it went off. They jumped up and grabbed their guns before realizing what had happened.
The night before the ferry was to leave, Haukelid, Larsen (the engineer) and three other local men including Sorlie and a driver took off in the driver's car after some trouble starting it. Eventually, they decided to take the driver home and not involve him. Larsen intended to escape Norway to avoid capture and had his valuables with him. Earlier that night he had met a musician who was going to be on the ferry the next day. He was not able to dissuade him from going.
The team came prepared with sten guns, grenades and pistols as well as the explosives. Larsen was left at the car with a pistol and told to escape if they did not return.
Haukelid snuck on board and was surprised that there was no guard. He overheard what he thought was a party and a poker game going on. Sorlie and the other local man, Lier-Hansen, who actually had a pass to go where he pleased, came aboard with him. They snuck down to the lower level where they intended to leave the timed explosives in a 12 foot loop pattern on the lowest level to blow a big hole in the ferry. Unfortunately, they ran into the watchman, Berg. But, more fortunately, Lier-Hansen knew him from a sport's club, and, in fact, had been told by another local that he could be trusted.
They told Berg that they needed to hide something from the Gestapo. Although nervous, Berg was very sympathetic with that and indicated that this was not the first time he had helped out with something like this.
While Lier-Hansen chatted with the watchman, Haukelid and another local slipped below, which was covered in a foot of water and set the devices. Haukelid did the last work himself as alarm clock devices were quite dangerous to set, there being less than a third of an inch between the hammer and the contact plate they had substituted for alarm bells. He finished at 4 a.m. The timer was set for 10:45 a.m., about forty five minutes after the ferry would leave, and when he expected it to be over deep water.
The local chatting with the watchman advised him that they had to leave to collect their belongings and would be back. Haukelid had to make one of those decisions that must take immeasurable moral courage. He did not warn the watchman, but thanked him and left him to his fate.
Having left the ferry, they dumped the car and Haukelid and Larsen made their escape to Sweden. Sorlie took a report to be given to the radioman for London. Lier-Hansen stayed to watch events and then returned to his job at the plant. The transport engineer who had arranged for the Sunday delivery arranged to have his healthy appendix taken out that same week end, giving him an absolute alibi.
The explosives went off on time. Of the fifty three aboard, I have read different accounts for how many died, but most often twenty six - although not the musician. He and his violin escaped. The freight cars containing the heavy water rolled overboard and sunk.
Haukelid lived until 1994 (his sister died of an embolism in 1969 -- he suffered an embolism soon after but survived). After the war he formally joined the Norwegian military and died a lieutenant general, much honored in both Norway and America.
Whether these thrilling operations really helped stopped the German bomb is still debated. Unbeknownst to Haukelid, there was a second team of saboteurs and then bombers ready if he failed.
There are some who believe the shipment of heavy water would have made no difference, that it wasn't rich enough in heavy water to have been useful, and, others who believe that the Germans had shipped regular water because they had learned of the mission (disproven by recovery of some of the barrels) or that the Germans had sufficient heavy water stocks in Germany. I can't decide all that. All I said I would do was to give you my favorite World War II story. And now my job is done.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
I love NY
This is a moving week -- me moving from New York to Virginia. I look forward to some mountain vistas and a river running near my home (buying a kayak very soon) but am currently thinking of the things I will miss in New York. They seem to be centered around books, food, old towns and nature. Some are abstract but some specific. It doesn't include friends or family, though, obviously, I will miss them most.
10. Bookstores. First, Borders. I've spent so much time in Borders pleasurably shopping or reading and drinking their unfortunately bad coffee this year, that it easily makes the list. However, The Book Revue in Huntington, New York, is my favorite bookstore in the world. I have heard it is the biggest (revenue? size?) independent bookstore in the country, but that could be hype. The racks are old and some of the selections have been around forever, but they have a fantastic military and history section, a great loft area where there is a wealth of used books and travel section as well as a little table and sofa area. Never went there and didn't feel happy about it whether I bought anything or not, but have walked out with everything from multi-set encyclopedias of mythology to ragged old novels from the 1930s.
9. Northport and Greenport. Two small and similar old towns devoid of modern chain retail stores and the other ugly stuff that makes you think you are in the same place no matter where you are. It is old building, docks, sails and sunsets that make these villages so captivating. Northport is in Huntington Township, only a short drive from Huntington Village, but much smaller and quainter. A great place to get some ice cream and sit out on the dock stretching into the water. Greenport is near the end of the North Fork of the Island with a couple of places to eat right on the water. A slow trip there past the wineries and the Sound shore is worth it tens times over. I much prefer the North Fork to the glitzier South Fork where the Hamptons are. You don't get the crowds or the noise, but that is what I like.
8. Rockefeller Center at Christmas. I don't have to tell you what that's like. Either you've been there yourself or you've seen it in the movies. For many years I went there with my daughter and nephew to skate in front of the tree. They are old enough to go themselves now, but I tried to skate last year with them and learned a lesson -- when I visit, I'll just be looking at the tree from now on.
7. Restaurants. I've traveled enough to know that the best and most varied restaurant experience in the world is right where I grew up. I've been to a Himalayan one and even an Ethiopian one, and too many Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Spanish, Russian, Hungarian, German, Swiss, French, Brazilian-Portuguese, Argentinian, Cuban and Indian ones to count. In all these years, I can think of very few meals that weren't good and I can't say that about the other countries and cities I've been in.
6. Northern State Parkway in the fall. It's not upstate or New England, but the parkway, particularly from Eastern Nassau until its end in Hauppauge, is spectacular in October (actually, this year not until November). Nobody likes a rush hour drive, but doing it in fantastic foliage makes it much better.
5. Manhattan Island in general. They can knock down its tallest building and it is still the greatest city in the world. I went to a holographic museum once in a store front set up. St. John's untrammeled cathedral uptown is as close as you are going to get to a European cathedral in America. The Metropolitan Museum of Art was called the greatest museum in the world by art critic, Sister Wendy. I take her word for it, but I prefer the Frick House a few blocks down 5th Avenue, which is possibly an unparalleled small collection. Everyone should go there for the art, but if that's not your thing, the home itself will blow your mind. I haven't been to the Cloisters on the Northern tip of the island in years, but will never forget it. There have been days in my youth where I spent twelve hours or more walking the city streets or playing in Central Park and Greenwich Village.
4. Huntington Village. Even without the bookstore, Huntington has been my favorite town on Long Island since I could drive. It is about as old as you get on Long Island, but recently renovated, with two great intersecting main streets, and just the right combination of brickwork and flowers, eateries and shops to make it great fun just to walk around. It is usually packed in the Summer with lots of places to sit and dine outside. I counted 6 coffee shops one year, each one filled to the brim with customers. No better date town around.
3. The last three are very personal. Blydenburg Park is about a square mile of quiet wood paradise, enclosing a huge lake I couldn't walk around in three hours, with many trails. Somehow, it is, seemingly impossibly, nestled between two major roadways. Very few people seem to know it is there or, if they do, what it contains. Every season is a different look and I've captured each one on film. One Summer I walked there every single day and I believe found every back trail. There were a lot. Horse people like my daughter ride there, but otherwise, you can walk for hours and never see a soul or hear a car.
2. The end of the Greenbelt trail in King's Park. Another virtually undiscovered paradise. You drive into the old town of King's Park, find Old Dock Road and take it North down a winding road past the old abandoned mental hospital until you come to a parking lot with a boat launch and a single restaurant. Drive up to the highest parking lot and get out. This is where the Nissequogue River feeds into the Long Island Sound (and sometimes visa versa). You will see a little tiny entrance to the woods with some steps. Go up into the hills and look down at the water and sand bars. You'll think you are in Europe. Eventually you can loop around and go back, or, if you are a little more daring, go down the steep hills towards the Sound, clinging to tree branches, until you come to the end of Sunken Meadow Park where there is a huge sand bar that contains a spectacular bird sanctuary. I've seen osprey and egrets and sand pipers and comorants and heron and so forth. I can't imagine why I rarely see more than one or two people there.
1. My bagel store. Several times a week, sometimes five or six times a week, I go there for breakfast. They know what I want and get it ready when they see me. They have the only coffee I know that I like better than Dunkin' Donuts. Don't know where I'm going to have breakfast and read the paper now.
That's my will miss most list. Long Islanders and New Yorkers can tell me what else should have been on it.
Two quick political notes just for the hell of it. First, Ann Coulter's meltdown on Hannity and Colmes where she claimed she would vote for Hillary Clinton over McCain was silly and dishonest. What it also is is a sign of the civil war going on between social conservatives and security/economic conservatives. Ann, Rush et al are furious that the social conservative domination of the party may be coming unraveled. Believe me, they will all vote for McCain, if he wins the nomination, and particularly if Hillary is his opponent.
As for Super Tuesday, I disagree with pundits who say we will know both nominees after today, although I think it is more likely there will be a conclusion among Republicans. Hillary and Barack are going on for a long time, perhaps to the convention. The polls show that McCain will probably do well today over Romney, but I do not think Romney will drop out unless it looks like he is very unlikely to win later on. If he has a reasonable shot, he has the money to burn. Ron Paul isn't going anywhere, but not too many people care.
I hope to be online at my new home sometime next week.
10. Bookstores. First, Borders. I've spent so much time in Borders pleasurably shopping or reading and drinking their unfortunately bad coffee this year, that it easily makes the list. However, The Book Revue in Huntington, New York, is my favorite bookstore in the world. I have heard it is the biggest (revenue? size?) independent bookstore in the country, but that could be hype. The racks are old and some of the selections have been around forever, but they have a fantastic military and history section, a great loft area where there is a wealth of used books and travel section as well as a little table and sofa area. Never went there and didn't feel happy about it whether I bought anything or not, but have walked out with everything from multi-set encyclopedias of mythology to ragged old novels from the 1930s.
9. Northport and Greenport. Two small and similar old towns devoid of modern chain retail stores and the other ugly stuff that makes you think you are in the same place no matter where you are. It is old building, docks, sails and sunsets that make these villages so captivating. Northport is in Huntington Township, only a short drive from Huntington Village, but much smaller and quainter. A great place to get some ice cream and sit out on the dock stretching into the water. Greenport is near the end of the North Fork of the Island with a couple of places to eat right on the water. A slow trip there past the wineries and the Sound shore is worth it tens times over. I much prefer the North Fork to the glitzier South Fork where the Hamptons are. You don't get the crowds or the noise, but that is what I like.
8. Rockefeller Center at Christmas. I don't have to tell you what that's like. Either you've been there yourself or you've seen it in the movies. For many years I went there with my daughter and nephew to skate in front of the tree. They are old enough to go themselves now, but I tried to skate last year with them and learned a lesson -- when I visit, I'll just be looking at the tree from now on.
7. Restaurants. I've traveled enough to know that the best and most varied restaurant experience in the world is right where I grew up. I've been to a Himalayan one and even an Ethiopian one, and too many Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Spanish, Russian, Hungarian, German, Swiss, French, Brazilian-Portuguese, Argentinian, Cuban and Indian ones to count. In all these years, I can think of very few meals that weren't good and I can't say that about the other countries and cities I've been in.
6. Northern State Parkway in the fall. It's not upstate or New England, but the parkway, particularly from Eastern Nassau until its end in Hauppauge, is spectacular in October (actually, this year not until November). Nobody likes a rush hour drive, but doing it in fantastic foliage makes it much better.
5. Manhattan Island in general. They can knock down its tallest building and it is still the greatest city in the world. I went to a holographic museum once in a store front set up. St. John's untrammeled cathedral uptown is as close as you are going to get to a European cathedral in America. The Metropolitan Museum of Art was called the greatest museum in the world by art critic, Sister Wendy. I take her word for it, but I prefer the Frick House a few blocks down 5th Avenue, which is possibly an unparalleled small collection. Everyone should go there for the art, but if that's not your thing, the home itself will blow your mind. I haven't been to the Cloisters on the Northern tip of the island in years, but will never forget it. There have been days in my youth where I spent twelve hours or more walking the city streets or playing in Central Park and Greenwich Village.
4. Huntington Village. Even without the bookstore, Huntington has been my favorite town on Long Island since I could drive. It is about as old as you get on Long Island, but recently renovated, with two great intersecting main streets, and just the right combination of brickwork and flowers, eateries and shops to make it great fun just to walk around. It is usually packed in the Summer with lots of places to sit and dine outside. I counted 6 coffee shops one year, each one filled to the brim with customers. No better date town around.
3. The last three are very personal. Blydenburg Park is about a square mile of quiet wood paradise, enclosing a huge lake I couldn't walk around in three hours, with many trails. Somehow, it is, seemingly impossibly, nestled between two major roadways. Very few people seem to know it is there or, if they do, what it contains. Every season is a different look and I've captured each one on film. One Summer I walked there every single day and I believe found every back trail. There were a lot. Horse people like my daughter ride there, but otherwise, you can walk for hours and never see a soul or hear a car.
2. The end of the Greenbelt trail in King's Park. Another virtually undiscovered paradise. You drive into the old town of King's Park, find Old Dock Road and take it North down a winding road past the old abandoned mental hospital until you come to a parking lot with a boat launch and a single restaurant. Drive up to the highest parking lot and get out. This is where the Nissequogue River feeds into the Long Island Sound (and sometimes visa versa). You will see a little tiny entrance to the woods with some steps. Go up into the hills and look down at the water and sand bars. You'll think you are in Europe. Eventually you can loop around and go back, or, if you are a little more daring, go down the steep hills towards the Sound, clinging to tree branches, until you come to the end of Sunken Meadow Park where there is a huge sand bar that contains a spectacular bird sanctuary. I've seen osprey and egrets and sand pipers and comorants and heron and so forth. I can't imagine why I rarely see more than one or two people there.
1. My bagel store. Several times a week, sometimes five or six times a week, I go there for breakfast. They know what I want and get it ready when they see me. They have the only coffee I know that I like better than Dunkin' Donuts. Don't know where I'm going to have breakfast and read the paper now.
That's my will miss most list. Long Islanders and New Yorkers can tell me what else should have been on it.
Two quick political notes just for the hell of it. First, Ann Coulter's meltdown on Hannity and Colmes where she claimed she would vote for Hillary Clinton over McCain was silly and dishonest. What it also is is a sign of the civil war going on between social conservatives and security/economic conservatives. Ann, Rush et al are furious that the social conservative domination of the party may be coming unraveled. Believe me, they will all vote for McCain, if he wins the nomination, and particularly if Hillary is his opponent.
As for Super Tuesday, I disagree with pundits who say we will know both nominees after today, although I think it is more likely there will be a conclusion among Republicans. Hillary and Barack are going on for a long time, perhaps to the convention. The polls show that McCain will probably do well today over Romney, but I do not think Romney will drop out unless it looks like he is very unlikely to win later on. If he has a reasonable shot, he has the money to burn. Ron Paul isn't going anywhere, but not too many people care.
I hope to be online at my new home sometime next week.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
My Devotional
I have been doing a bad job of collecting inspirational sayings since the early 1980s, usually writing them down in a notebook which I would then proceed to lose. Every once in a while I would redo it. It is a lot easier now on the internet where we can just cut and paste, so I recently recreated an earlier collection since gone to the dustbin. Some of these words still get me misty eyed (I know, big baby) but most are just inspirational. I wish I could say I have lived up to these fine words, but probably the best most of us can say is that they represent what we aspire to be.
Let’s start with this one which gets me wiping my eyes every January. You probably just heard it or at least part of it. And I ask you, when is the last time you heard an entire speech so moving, so perfectly delivered, since this one? Usually, these days, when we say that someone made a great speech, we mean we liked one, two or three lines from it. This one was as close to perfect as you can get in its entirety, as much a poem as a speech, and, unfortunately, way too long to print the whole thing here, so I’ll skip to the very end where I get misty eyed.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
Martin Luther King, Jr., from the I Have a Dream speech, Washington, D.C., 1964.
This next one is, to me, the apogee of inspirational words and one of the few poems not a limerick, that I can actually understand. Its advice may be too hard to live by, but what if we could?
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling
Learned Hand is probably the most respected judge in America who never sat on the Supreme Court of the United States. He did, however, serve for a long time on the United States Court of Appeals in New York. He may have written better than any judge before or after him, as is demonstrated in a speech made during World War II. I wish congress would read it every morning instead of opening with a prayer.
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.
The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country. P. 190-191, The Spirit of Liberty (1944).
Or, maybe on every other day, congress could read these words from my all time favorite American, in a speech made just before the constitutional convention was going to vote up or down on the proposal before them. I can't think of a greater or wiser man.
Mr. President
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error.
. . . . I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good.
. . . . On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
At some point in my life I realized that most of my heroes were not known for dressing well; in fact, some were known for the opposite. I can’t say if I am attracted to them because of that, or if it just means we think alike. This one is perhaps more defensive on my part than inspirational, but here I go quoting Jesus.
And why are you anxious about what to wear? Consider the
lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they
spin. And yet I say to you, that even Solomon in all his glory
is not arrayed like one of these.
- Jesus Christ according to Matthew 6:28-29
The following speech inspired millions of fighting men and has been seen on this site before. He and MLK are alone in this century as great speech makers.
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”
Winston S.Churchill in the darkest hours of World War II
Clint Eastwood put a similar thought much shorter in one of my all time favorite movies, The Outlaw Josey Wales – 1975.
Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is.
It’s not all about winning though. Sometimes it is about having the wisdom to say “No mas”. This next speech is, it turns out, possibly apocryphal and from the mind of a reporter who put them in the words of an Indian chief who, along with his tribe, had lost a frantic and deadly race to safety in 1877. I dont think it matters much who said it.
I am tired of fighting.
Our chiefs are killed.
Looking Glass is dead.
Toohulhulsote is dead.
The old men are all dead.
It is the young men who say no and yes.
He who led the young men is dead.
It is cold and we have no blankets.
The little children are freezing to death.
My people, some of them,
Have run away to the hills
And have no blankets, no food.
No one know where they are-
Perhaps they are freezing to death.
I want to have time to look for my children
And see how many of them I can find.
Maybe I shall find them among the dead.
Hear me, my chiefs, I am tired.
My heart is sad and sick.
From where the sun now stands
I will fight no more forever.
Chief Joseph of the Nez Pierce Indian tribe
This following statement, not really a speech, was quite brief, but means a lot to me right now, as I prepare to leave the island and state that has been my home for nearly a half century. I have never had to to suffer the inflictions Lincoln did and will face none of the trials he would in the future. Unlike him, I expect to return here many times in the future. Despite that, he still manages to convey a melancholy feeling that I completely understand.
My friends, no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when, or whether ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of the Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell.
These next two are by Mark Twain and are swiped from the gazillion wise and funny things he wrote. I will start with my favorite, the one I would take as a motto, if we did such things these days.
Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world - and it never will.
- - -
Spirit has fifty times the strength and staying-power of brawn and muscle.
I think I will leave off with words from a great American cartoonists, who understood that both inspiration and defeat must be shrugged off with a little humor. I believe that I used this as my favorite quote in my college year book (1981) and I love it still.
Speak softly, and carry a beagle.
Charles Schultz
Feel free to chime in with your own favorite.
Let’s start with this one which gets me wiping my eyes every January. You probably just heard it or at least part of it. And I ask you, when is the last time you heard an entire speech so moving, so perfectly delivered, since this one? Usually, these days, when we say that someone made a great speech, we mean we liked one, two or three lines from it. This one was as close to perfect as you can get in its entirety, as much a poem as a speech, and, unfortunately, way too long to print the whole thing here, so I’ll skip to the very end where I get misty eyed.
And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.
But not only that:
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.
From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!
Martin Luther King, Jr., from the I Have a Dream speech, Washington, D.C., 1964.
This next one is, to me, the apogee of inspirational words and one of the few poems not a limerick, that I can actually understand. Its advice may be too hard to live by, but what if we could?
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!
Rudyard Kipling
Learned Hand is probably the most respected judge in America who never sat on the Supreme Court of the United States. He did, however, serve for a long time on the United States Court of Appeals in New York. He may have written better than any judge before or after him, as is demonstrated in a speech made during World War II. I wish congress would read it every morning instead of opening with a prayer.
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.
The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country. P. 190-191, The Spirit of Liberty (1944).
Or, maybe on every other day, congress could read these words from my all time favorite American, in a speech made just before the constitutional convention was going to vote up or down on the proposal before them. I can't think of a greater or wiser man.
Mr. President
I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error.
. . . . I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good.
. . . . On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.
At some point in my life I realized that most of my heroes were not known for dressing well; in fact, some were known for the opposite. I can’t say if I am attracted to them because of that, or if it just means we think alike. This one is perhaps more defensive on my part than inspirational, but here I go quoting Jesus.
And why are you anxious about what to wear? Consider the
lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they
spin. And yet I say to you, that even Solomon in all his glory
is not arrayed like one of these.
- Jesus Christ according to Matthew 6:28-29
The following speech inspired millions of fighting men and has been seen on this site before. He and MLK are alone in this century as great speech makers.
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”
Winston S.Churchill in the darkest hours of World War II
Clint Eastwood put a similar thought much shorter in one of my all time favorite movies, The Outlaw Josey Wales – 1975.
Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is.
It’s not all about winning though. Sometimes it is about having the wisdom to say “No mas”. This next speech is, it turns out, possibly apocryphal and from the mind of a reporter who put them in the words of an Indian chief who, along with his tribe, had lost a frantic and deadly race to safety in 1877. I dont think it matters much who said it.
I am tired of fighting.
Our chiefs are killed.
Looking Glass is dead.
Toohulhulsote is dead.
The old men are all dead.
It is the young men who say no and yes.
He who led the young men is dead.
It is cold and we have no blankets.
The little children are freezing to death.
My people, some of them,
Have run away to the hills
And have no blankets, no food.
No one know where they are-
Perhaps they are freezing to death.
I want to have time to look for my children
And see how many of them I can find.
Maybe I shall find them among the dead.
Hear me, my chiefs, I am tired.
My heart is sad and sick.
From where the sun now stands
I will fight no more forever.
Chief Joseph of the Nez Pierce Indian tribe
This following statement, not really a speech, was quite brief, but means a lot to me right now, as I prepare to leave the island and state that has been my home for nearly a half century. I have never had to to suffer the inflictions Lincoln did and will face none of the trials he would in the future. Unlike him, I expect to return here many times in the future. Despite that, he still manages to convey a melancholy feeling that I completely understand.
My friends, no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when, or whether ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of the Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell.
These next two are by Mark Twain and are swiped from the gazillion wise and funny things he wrote. I will start with my favorite, the one I would take as a motto, if we did such things these days.
Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world - and it never will.
- - -
Spirit has fifty times the strength and staying-power of brawn and muscle.
I think I will leave off with words from a great American cartoonists, who understood that both inspiration and defeat must be shrugged off with a little humor. I believe that I used this as my favorite quote in my college year book (1981) and I love it still.
Speak softly, and carry a beagle.
Charles Schultz
Feel free to chime in with your own favorite.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The incomparable Bruce Lee
It may be difficult for anyone but men my age to truly appreciate martial artist 
Bruce Lee, but we’ve yet to see the likes of him again. The closest approximations may be Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Leonard in boxing, Nadia Comanenci in gymnastics, Michael Jordan in basketball and Greg Louganis in diving. That is, a mastery of not just the fundamentals of their chosen sport, but the physical ability and grace to transcend it as no one else can, coupled with a fluidity of motion and genius for entertainment that others seek, but cannot find. However, none of these great stars I mention above, can seriously rival Bruce Lee, although, in truth, he was not a competitive athlete like they are, but was somehow above it, as well as a great entertainer. Although he made his living as a film star, being, at one time, the highest drawing actor in the world, he may have some claim to being the greatest martial artist in memory. This is a difficult thing to say, of course, but my opinion, formed by watching him on film, is bolstered by actual martial artists who knew him. Lee did not really compete in tournaments as an adult, although he had a number of legendary street fights, perhaps more legend than fact. What we don’t know we don’t know.
There are some surprising facts about him. Although he had to suffer from his Chinese ethnicity in America, he was actually a quarter German on his mother’s side. It’s amusing to learn that he was a Hong Kong cha cha champion in 1958. He was also, possibly, a Hong Kong Interschool boxing champ (I think – it’s not clear and I can’t find confirmation). An eyewitness to a legendary boxing match with another very tough high school boy named Gary Elms (a friend of the witness) claims that his friend could not lay even one punch on Bruce in three rounds. To Elms’ credit, Bruce couldn’t knock Gary out (although he repeatedly knocked him down) like he knocked out the last three opponents he had faced, each in the first round.
That fight, not in the street, was the only one for which I could find an eyewitness who could describe it in detail. The others were purportedly against masters who were insulted by Lee’s iconoclastic attitude or martial artist/actors who challenged him on set. We are told that he defeated them all in rapid fashion. There are no films of these fights.
Seeing Bruce Lee in action made you a believer. His body was something out of a super hero comic book. Although he was not a big man, perhaps 5’ 7”, his latissimus dorsi fanned out like wings. When he posed with muscle flexed, he looked like he was made out of knotted steel springs. There are, of course, many highly developed athlete actors, including the huge body builders like Schwarzenegger and Lou Ferrigno (the Hulk) but nobody quite looked like Bruce Lee.
His speed was something literally unbelievable. It is often reported that directors had to change the speed of cameras in order to avoid his onscreen moves appearing as a blur. I can’t say whether that is true. His jumping ability and agility was demonstrated by his kicking out a light bulb directly over his head -- in the ceiling. That much has been captured on film. One trick of Bruce’s that has been repeatedly told is a variation on the “kung fu” move where he would grab a coin out of someone’s hand. The difference was, when Bruce did it, he would leave a different coin in the bewildered person’s fist. As he explained, it was a trick, but a trick based on speed.
His power was not completely a product of his speed. There are videos of Bruce at demonstrations knocking a volunteer down with what was called his one inch punch, with his fist starting already next to someone’s mid-section.
Of course, Bruce could not do the superhuman stunts he did in the movies, leaping into trees or beating 20 or 50 other guys single handedly, anymore than Michael Jordan can dunk from half court. But Jordan could dunk from the foul lane, and so Lee could do awesome things with his disciplined body.
Is Bruce Lee’s reputation puffed for the movie industry? I don’t think so. Chuck Norris, a martial arts legend in his own right and six time middleweight karate champion in the ‘60s, occasionally worked out with Lee, and made it plain that Bruce was the greater of the two. Many other martial artists and entertainers whom he trained (he did not train Norris) also raved about his abilities, even found them uncanny.
Watching Bruce Lee handle nunchucks, the twin sticks attached by a thin rope or wire, is to experience a virtuoso performance which does not seem to be a product of film technology. You are not likely ever to see anyone else perform with such speed and coordination (I’ve looked). Google Bruce Lee for video and judge for yourself. Some of the demonstrations he put on are also available on line. Watch him do two finger push-ups, then try and do them yourself. Watch him sidekick a heavy bag which jerks around like a man more than twice his size is punching it.
Had he not died as a young man, Bruce would only be 67 now, and I suspect, still a film star if not a director or producer. He was only 1 when he started his career in a now lost film. He made numerous films in Hong Kong, but was not a name when he came to the United States to conquer Hollywood. He was the owner of a couple of martial art studios when he got his break in 1966, playing Kato, side kick and chauffeur for the Green Hornet, in three episodes of Batman.
According to Burt Ward, when Bruce learned he was supposed to lose his fight to Burt’s character, Robin, he flipped out and started looking for the young actor to teach him a lesson (I never heard Bruce’s version of this, but it doesn’t sound plausible; if so, it’s wasn't very rational). Burt was himself a black belt in karate, but he wasn’t crazy and recognized the difference between the two of them. He avoided Lee until they changed the script to make the fight a draw.
Soon, Bruce had his own vehicle as Kato in the Green Hornet’s own show, on which he repeatedly stole the limelight, gathering virtually all the fan interest. Unfortunately, the show lasted only a year. If you catch the repeats on tv land, you’ll understand why. From there, Bruce got some appearances on shows like Ironside, Blondie (no kidding), Here Comes the Brides, Marlowe, in which he breaks up James Garner’s office, and then, most famously, Longstreet, in which he was the martial arts master to the blind detective.
Bruce also wrote a television screenplay called The Silent Flute. It involved a Chinese Shaolin priest who escaped China, where he was a wanted man, and made his way through the wild West, helping out those in need. Sound familiar? It was turned down because the studios did not believe an Asian could carry the show. Bruce went back to Hong Kong to make movies.
Imagine his surprise, and anger, when he learned that they had changed the lead to a half Chinese man, and gave David Carradine (who is not at all Asian) the lead in Kung Fu. Personally, I have no complaints, as Kung Fu is up there on my list of all time favorite shows. I am not sure Bruce’s personality would have been right for it. But Bruce had every right to be furious and probably should have sued. It was a different era.
Bruce made only a handful of Kung Fu movies, starting with Fists of Fury (1971), The Chinese Connection and Return of the Dragon (1972). In Return of the Dragon (which I seem to remember that America saw after the more successful Enter the Dragon), fledgling actor and Bruce Lee buddy, Chuck Norris got his start. The fight scene ending the movie between the two martial artists was everything a fourteen year old boy could dream about. Just watching Bruce flex his muscles before the fight made you want to scream Kiyaa!
The next year he made another Hong Kong film which I have never seen, and I am not sure was ever released in the West. All I know is that Bruce’s name was in the title. But that same year he got his shot at Hollywood and hit a home run with Enter the Dragon, cementing his status in America. If you have never seen the movie, Bruce is a martial artist who goes undercover on an island controlled by a wealthy Mandarin running a drug business, by entering himself in the island’s martial arts contest. There are great fight scenes all the way through, including one by John Saxon, more actor than martial artist, and another with Jim Kelly, more martial artist than actor.
Enter the Dragon also featured one of Bruce’s students, a hulking body builder (ten times Mr. Hong Kong) who played the Mandarin’s enforcer, but was offed in the film by John Saxon’s character, not Bruce (Bruce finished off the evil Mandarin, also a master killer with a false arm he could use as multiple attached weapons, in an artistic scene in a room filled with mirrors). Bolo Leung, who is now 69 or 70, is actually still active in the movie business, though much less so, and fifteen years later, but looking the same, he also played the heavy in Bloodsport, getting beaten at the end of the film by then new martial arts phenom, Jean-Claude Van Damme. He even had brief lead role stardom in Chinese Hercules in 1973, the same year as Enter the Dragon, and the heyday of the martial arts in film.
These few films made in just a few years left Bruce by far the world’s top box office draw. He had also developed his own style of Kung Fu known as Jeet Kune Do, the “way of the intercepting fist”. Its basic premise was that “style” got in the way, and that fighting, like every other art, was an expression of the individual. As much a philosophy as a martial art, it incorporated Asian techniques that were very direct in their approach (no fancy fingered stuff that looks so cool on the screen) but also boxing and wrestling from the West. Whatever worked was the premise. Possibly because there are no individuals like Bruce, it has not really prospered, although it has survived. Bruce’s own son, Brandon, was taught by Bruce’s most advanced student, Dan Inosanto.
Bruce’s last film was Game of Death, in which he has a final battle with another one of his own students, basketball great, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. It was eventually released, although never really completed, as Bruce died during the filming in strange circumstances while at the home of an actress friend.
He apparently died of brain edema (swelling). Possibly he had an allergic reaction to an analgesic she gave him to help with a headache. Claims that his death may have been related to cannabis found in his stomach always sounded silly, but there may be some truth to it, based on an allergy, not the inherent quality of pot. At least some doctors have thought so.
The weird thing is that according to a 1993 movie celebrating Bruce’s life (Dragon: The Bruce Lee story) Bruce’s life was supposedly always in danger from spirits as a result of a family curse. Hence his early death. According to the movie, his son, Brandon, was in danger for the same reason. Brandon actually turned down the lead role in the film (although his sister had a cameo appearance). In a rather strange coincidence, soon after Dragon came out, Brandon, then a martial arts star in his own right (pretty good, although, like everyone else, not his dad), was killed in a freak accident on the set by a bullet fragment from a stunt gun. He was only 28. The irony was such that many people believed it was a publicity stunt, as the film was about a man who came back from the dead, and that Brandon was still alive. It was no stunt. But it was eerie.
I remember being devastated when Bruce died in ’73 upon seeing the story in a small column in the New York Times, which unfortunately also contained a lot of misinformation (I reread it for this post, to make sure). I was also discouraged that a bigger deal was not made of his death by everyone else. Admittedly, I may have overreacted, but, I was only 14, and he was Bruce Lee. There was no one like him. I have no doubt that a lot of other men my age feel the same way.
I have always liked to imagine what great historical figures would be doing now in Heaven if they were here. No doubt, Bruce is up there teaching Hercules Jeet Kune Do and impressing everyone by flying at speeds beyond the dreams of angels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- David
- I started this blog in September, 2006. Mostly, it is where I can talk about things that interest me, which I otherwise don't get to do all that much, about some remarkable people who should not be forgotten, philosophy and theories (like Don Foster's on who wrote A Visit From St. Nicholas and my own on whether Santa is mostly derived from a Norse god) and analysis of issues that concern me. Often it is about books. I try to quote accurately and to say when I am paraphrasing (more and more). Sometimes I blow the first name of even very famous people, often entertainers. I'm much better at history, but once in a while I see I have written something I later learned was not true. Sometimes I fix them, sometimes not. My worst mistake was writing that Beethoven went blind, when he actually went deaf. Feel free to point out an error. I either leave in the mistake, or, if I clean it up, the comment pointing it out. From time to time I do clean up grammar in old posts as, over time I have become more conventional in my grammar, and I very often write these when I am falling asleep and just make dumb mistakes. It be nice to have an editor, but . . . .