What Is It?

The newest cliche athletes come up with recently is this meaningless phrase: "It is what it is." Chad Greenway plays linebacker for the Vikings, and he says that almost every time he is interviewed on the radio. Today I was reading an article on Yahoo about John Elway releasing Kyle Orton. Here is his quote:

When we just laid it all out and we looked at all the different factors that were involved, it was the best thing for us to let him go,” Elway said Monday. “We knew obviously with the situation where some teams had quarterbacks go down--Kansas City being one of them and Chicago being one of them--that if he was gonna get claimed there was a chance we could play against him. . . . It is what it is."

It is what it is doesn't mean anything! It's like saying the sky is blue. Maybe it's supposed to be some detached look at the situation: There's nothing we can do about it, or something like that.
Either way, I find it more bothersome every time I hear someone say it--especially football players.

The NTSB Nannies

On my way in to work today, I was listening to KFAN’s morning show. Chris Hockey was reading a news item about the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board recommending a ban on all cellphone use while driving. My first reaction to these stories is always shock. Really? The government is going to ban drivers from using cellphones?

Here is the quote from the NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman, “Too many people are texting, talking, and driving at the same time. It’s time to put a stop to distraction. No call, not text, no update is worth a human life.”

Huh? How about a drive in the country on a Sunday afternoon? Maybe we should ban Sunday afternoon drives in case we lose one human life. How about driving to a sporting event downtown. Is that worth a human life? How about driving to work in the morning. Is that worth a human life? Is it possible for politicians and federal bureaucrats to make an argument without including the idea that they are doing it to save a human life. In this instance, as with many others, we see that the statist always has the convenient argument for taking away citizens' freedoms: it is always worthwhile if it can “just save one life.”

I’ve got an idea. How about enforcing existing distracted driving laws on people who cause accidents while being distracted, whether it is on the cellphone or while putting on makeup or fiddling with the radio. The laws already exist, why not prosecute under existing laws?

Here’s another idea: how about reducing the number of people who work at all these governmental agencies who think their number one job is telling freeborn Americans what they can and can’t do. Cut the staff of these places in half--they seem to have way too much time on their hands.

I sometimes wonder if the politicians and bureaucrats who come up with these laws drive themselves anywhere. It’s easy, I guess, when you have a chauffeur driving to text and call to your heart’s desire. It reminds me of the story from several years ago when the new part of 35E was put in with a 40 MPH speed limit. A state representative from Apple Valley was caught speeding on that stretch of road. As is so often the case, we discovered that the speeding law was good enough for me, but not for thee.

Here are six questions for Ms. Hersman:
1. When you say that “too many people are texting, talking, and driving at the same time,” it implies that some people talking on cellphones is okay. Would a ban on cellphone use while driving apply to politicians and federal employees as well as regular citizens?
2. Could we also ban any cellphone use by a politician who is being driven around by a federally paid driver?
3. In not making a distinction between hand-held devices and built-in or headset devices, it seems that the NTSB is more concerned that citizens might take it upon themselves to talk on the phone than being concerned about distracted driving. Why do hands-free cellphones also fall under this proposed ban?
4. You say, “No call, no text, no update is worth a human life.” What else, in your opinion, should be outlawed that “is worth a human life”?
5. Do you think it is healthy in a free country for the laws of the land to be so onerous and numerous that even good, law-abiding citizens break dozens of laws every single day?
6. Does it bother you when citizens exercise their rights?

The Story Behind "Fiona" by Romantica

I really like the song "Fiona" by the Minneapolis band, Romantica. The lead singer, Ben Kyle, grew up in Belfast but moved to Minneapolis. At first listen, "Fiona" seems to be about a guy taking a bus to see his girlfriend and kind of missing her in the connection. I thought of it like "Skyway" by The Replacements. But it finally occurred to me that the lines "bombs explode" and "even the cops are scared" indicated a deeper meaning. Here is a video from YouTube in which Ben Kyle tells what "Fiona" is all about. Because of his Irish accent, I thought I would transcribe the explanation he gives before playing the song.

To get to the high school, you used to have to go through town. Take one bus in one side, and take another bus out the other side. And in the city center, oftentimes you'd have these things called bomb scares where somebody would call in and say that they planted a bomb. And half the time is wasn't true, but half the time it was. And so every time they did it we had to evacuate--the whole downtown area had to be completely evacuated. But what ended up happening is instead of the whole downtown clearing out because there was such a mad rush while everyone just got stuck there for hours--just one big traffic jam trying to get out of downtown. So I would take this bus to school--it would go through the city center and out the other side to school and then on the way home go back into the city and from time to time we'd get stuck in these bomb scares. Obviously, as a kid, it was very unnerving. What was going to happen? And one of these times on the bus, my sister was on and a bomb actually exploded, not on the bus, but nearby, and the windows in the bus were shattered--so a little bit terrifying for a child. This is a song I wrote sort of through the eyes of the young boy and girl.

Left the house at six-forty-five
Caught the 76 downtown on time
Stood there in the rain
She called out my name, and I just cried
Took the 17 uptown
From the back of the bus you could hear the sound
Of the bombs explode, and our fears implode into the night

Oh Fiona
I had something to show you, honey
Wanna walk you home, baby, maybe tonight
Oh Fiona
I had something to show you, honey
Wanna walk you home, baby, maybe tonight
Baby, tonight
Baby, maybe tonight
Baby, tonight

Got out of school at half-past three
Took a bus from Methody downtown
Stood outside the shops, everything had stopped, like the end of time
The sun was going down too fast
I couldn’t wait to leave Belfast on time
No one’s going anywhere
Even the cops were scared out of their minds

Oh Fiona
I had something to show you, honey
Wanna walk you home, baby, maybe tonight
Oh Fiona
I had something to show you, honey
Wanna walk you home, baby, maybe tonight
Maybe tonight
Baby, maybe tonight
Maybe tonight

A Korean War POW—Herbert J. Schmitz

On September 6, 1951, my father was captured by the Chinese when the hill he was on was overrun. Because of the recent 60-year anniversary of this event, I did a little research to find out as many details of this event as was possible so that our family could have a short history of this time in my dad’s life.

September 6, 1951—Dad’s Story
My dad did not talk about Korea a lot when I was growing up, but this was basically how I understood the night of Dad’s capture: An officer looked out into no man’s land, and said, “We need to get some people up on that hill.” A company was sent up there, and Dad went along too, not because it was his company, but because they needed some extra radio operators up on the hill. Dad often would say, “I didn’t even belong up on that hill.” After being on the hill a couple of nights, the Chinese attacked and overran the hill. Dad ended up in a foxhole with three other men--a medic and two soldiers, one of whom had been shot in the foot--who were all captured the next morning.

Several years ago, my dad started attending yearly POW reunions. At one of these reunions, he spoke to one of the men who was in his foxhole the night he was captured. The soldier’s name was George Berube. Berube told my dad that he spoke to a guy who made it back to the U.S. lines who said that about 180 men were on that hill the night it was overrun. Ten were captured (including Berube and Dad) and 27 got back to the U.S. lines. That means that the KIA (killed in action) number for that engagement would have been 143 men.

My Research to Confirm or Correct Dad’s Story
I decided to do some Internet research to see if there was any way to verify the story that I heard from Dad. First of all, I wanted to confirm Dad’s division and regiment, and that was easy enough to find out on the Internet. My dad was assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division, 7th Cavalry Regiment. He was a radio operator in the 1st Battalion Headquarters Company.

From here, I decided to see if there was a way to discover engagements or casualties chronologically. I wanted to know if 143 men were actually killed in that action. I discovered a website that allows you to see KIA by day throughout the war. This chart shows all the 1951 casualties for the 1st Cavalry Division. The green arrow points to the 30 casualties on September 6, 1951.

So this engagement was not the biggest for the 1st Cavalry Division, but it was significant enough that I hoped to find some narratives of the night Dad was captured. (Interestingly, in reading up on this, I discovered that the high casualty days at the end of September were fought on the same ground where Dad was captured earlier.)

The Casualties
My next step was to search for all the 7th Cavalry men who were listed as casualties on September 6, 1951 to see if it matched the graphic from the Korean War Project or Dad’s story. Here are the men who were killed, wounded, or captured according to sources I discovered on the Internet.

Killed in Action
Sylvan Adelsgruber PV2
Edward Cook PFC
Alfred Langston 2LT
Carl Logan PV2
Donald Munster PFC
Irwin Rappaport Corp.
Charles Steele PFC
Jasper Williams PV2

Died of Wounds
Aubry Brumfield SGT

MIA/Declared Dead
Harry Andersen PV2
John Heavener PV2
Jack Lee Corp.

Captured
George Berube Corp.
Frank Borrelli PFC
Charles Bryant PFC
William Cheatham Corp.
James Coogan PFC
Donald Frazee PFC
John Johnson Corp.
Charles Lawson PFC
Donald North PFC
Herbert J. Schmitz PFC
Luis Velasquez Corp.

Wounded
Jack Bongiovanni SFC
James Campbell PV2
James Copeland PFC
Thomas Crosby PV2
Justo Fejaram PFC
Daniel Giggliello SGT
Karl Hicks SGT
Huey Olivier Corp.
Lawrence Pernell PFC
Charles Shipman PFC
Barton Snow PV2
Andy Swetky PV2
Donald Wendel PFC

This is a grand total of 36 men. It differs slightly from the 30 in the graphs above. In doing a little more research, I discovered that the 5th Cavalry Regiment was also engaged on the 6th, and they lost 18 men KIA. Therefore, the number 30 above is accurate for the whole division’s KIA on September 6, 1951. So here is the summary of casualties as far as I can tell for the engagement in which Dad was captured on the night of September 6, 1951.

KIA / MIA/Declared dead / Died of wounds = 12 men
Captured = 11 men
Wounded = 13 men

I think we can say that the official sources disagree with the story Dad heard from at the POW reunion--there were definitely not 143 men in the 7th Cavalry KIA on September 6, 1951.

Company C
The key when doing any research on a person who served in the military is to get the unit to which he was attached. The more detail you can get, the better the chance of finding information. I knew dad’s division, regiment, and battalion assignment, but I didn’t know who he was on the hill with. Who were these men? What company were they assigned to?

Further Internet searching brought me to an account by Lt. David Hughes. Hughes was a West Point graduate who was in charge of K Company of the 7th Cavalry during the fall of 1951. On the boat home from Korea in the spring of 1952, he wrote an account of his time in Korea for his captain. The letter is interesting on its own, but there was one paragraph in particular that caught my attention:

For another couple weeks, we ran patrols from near Yonchon, and I got in five good officers. Then we watched the two patrol bases out in front of us get it in the neck. One was on Hill 343 and the other on 339. Hill 339 was key, and about halfway between lines. It was lost and gained by patrols every few days. One day Company C was sent out to hold a perimeter on it, which they did for two days and on the night of the third was completely overrun in a mass attack. We got the hill back again with the 2d battalion and then they were ordered off. This yo-yo game continued until 21 September when they ordered the 3d Battalion out to hold a patrol base from 339 to 343 and back over to 321, a 4,000 yard perimeter.

Company K got the delightful mission of holding 339, and 1,000 more yards of perimeter.

. . .

Lt David Hughes
7th Cavalry, King Company

I thought there was enough evidence in this part of the letter to assume that what Lt. Hughes was describing was the action the night Dad was captured. It gives the Company that seemingly was engaged on the 6th, a hill number, and the overrun. The only clue not explicit here was the date of the action he described, only that it happened before September 21.

Figuring that Hughes might show up in other places on the Internet, I did a search on his name. He came up in several places, and one website included his e-mail address that was current as of a couple of years ago. I took a chance and sent him an e-mail asking him if he had any additional recollections of early September 1951. Here is his reply to my e-mail:

Yes your dad was surely ‘with’ Company C, and on 339 the night it was overrun on September 6th, 1951. A Rifle Company, which Company C was, was 200 strong. But all units were under-strength, so it might have had 150–175 max. (I was at 169 at that time.) The Headquarters Company your father came out of was the 1st Battalion Headquarters Company (the Bn had Rifle Companies A, B, C and then D a heavy weapons company, and the Headquarters Company. It too would try to be about 200, but would have been lower).

With this reply, Hughes gave me confirmation to my conclusions. But it turns out the action of the night of September 6, 1951, also appears in print. Hughes sent me a PDF of a page from a book called Of Garryowen in Glory from 1960. (Garryowen is a nickname of the 7th Cavalry.) The book confirms the tale that Hughes told me.

Hughes also responded to my question about casualties:

Knowing what I do, the number killed on the 6th seems low. For every one killed in that kind of combat there were at least 5 or more wounded. And I know the entire Company C at 150 strength could NOT have occupied just the peak of 339. Too small an area. So at least one or two of the 40 man rifle platoons would have had to be down the slopes to the north, and east. So the ‘overrunning,’ may have occurred only at the peak and 90% of the casualties and captured could have come from that small area. But once the Chinese had a force on top, they could fire down on the other platoons, who could not stay so exposed. It was late at night, so yes the majority of the other two platoons could have gotten away fairly intact once they saw that the top of 339 was all Chinese.

Hughes directed me to his own website where he was writing his memoirs. The section Hughes wrote about the Korean War is fascinating reading. David Hughes went through a lot in his time over there, and he can rightly be called a hero.

You can get a more detailed accounting if you go to http://davehugheslegacy.net and on the home page go to the left and ‘Military Years’ then to ‘Korean War’ section Korean War (23) and read through it. Then keep going through Korean War (25) to the very bottom and you will see a larger sketch map of the area with 339 and an arrow to 347. Then at the very bottom you will see a color map showing 339 with relation to 347 battles we fought.

Finally, I spoke to Hughes for about an hour on the phone one afternoon, and he told me about his time in Korea. He answered specific questions for me about unit strength, the accuracy of Hill 339, and other information that was helpful to me in researching this history.

Missing in Action/Declared Dead
One of the sad things I realized when doing research for this history is that quite a few of the postings on websites like the Korean War Project are from people who are still searching for information about husbands, uncles, brothers, and friends who were missing in action, but whose bodies have never been recovered. Two of the three men with the designation of MIA/Declared Dead from the action of September 6, 1951 still have family members actively searching for information about them. I have communicated with family members and friends of both Harry Andersen and Jack Lee, wondering if I have discovered some information that would help them find closure on this event in a loved one’s life. Unfortunately, I have not been able to help them, except to confirm that no others besides the 11 captured men marched north from that battle site.

From a niece of Jack Lee, however, I have learned the government’s account of the night of September 6, 1951. It contains a few details that are missing from the “Garryowen” book:

By the fall of 1951, the situation on the Korean Peninsula was approaching a stalemate around the area of the 38th Parallel. Fighting was generally characterized by battalion or smaller unit actions and artillery duels in tactical fights for possession of key terrain features in the area of the mid-Korea waist. In September 1951, the 1st Cavalry Division occupied the western part of the Chorwon Valley. The 1st Battalion of 7th Cavalry Regiment and supporting elements occupied a series of hills about four kilometers south of the current Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). On 6 September 1951, C Company of 1st Battalion and the attached 58th Counter Fire Platoon occupied a patrol base on Hill 339 and received fire from enemy artillery and mortars periodically throughout the day. Later in the day the Chinese attacked behind a mortar barrage on the U.S. defenses, an assault that was fought off with automatic weapons. The U.S. occupiers of Hill 339 withdrew under pressure 1,500 yards southeast to Hill 321, and the Chinese attack continued on Hill 321 throughout the night.

The U.S. had regained 339 by the next day—too late to stop the Chinese from sending their captives north.

When I recently asked about specifics of that night, Dad said he went off-duty at 8:00 and went to sleep. He woke up when the attack began, and quickly jumped into the foxhole where Berube and Cheatham already were. Berube had been shot in the foot, but it was not a severe injury. Coogan joined them in the foxhole soon after. Dad said from the beginning of the attack until the point when the hill was overrun was probably about 15 minutes. Dad had been in Korea for almost three months (the summer months of 1951 were relatively quiet), and he had never heard a shot fired in his vicinity before this night. He was captured without ever discharging his gun.

The Location of Hill 339
When I spoke to David Hughes, he told me a few other things I didn’t know. I asked how the hills were numbered, and he said that they got their numbers because of the height of the hill in meters. The soldiers were looking at topographical maps, and they named the hills by the height recorded on the map. Because of this, it is quite possible that more than one hill could have the same number. He said Hill 339 was east of the Imjin River, west of Chorwan and north of Uijonbu.

Importing a couple of maps into Photoshop, then layering and resizing them, I began to search with Google Maps to see if I could find the area that made a good match. The double horseshoe of the Imjin River is a dead giveaway, and not too long after beginning the search, I found what I was looking for--the indisputable location of the action when Dad was taken as prisoner of war. Here is a Google Map of the border of North Korea and South Korea, with a small red circle around Hill 339.

And here is a much closer view of that area, again with a small red circle around Hill 339. Hill 339 is just south of the Korean DMZ.


Prisoners of War—These Eleven Men
After his capture, Dad was taken with the other ten soldiers and marched for two and a half months through North Korea. In talking to dad, I got the sense that these men were the people who really shared his experiences in the Korean War. These were the men with whom he went through some of the most difficult times of his life. I thought I would do some Internet research to see if there was anything to report about each of these men. It turns out that all eleven men taken on the night of September 6, 1951, lived through their time as POWs.

George Berube—George is from Maine. He was an infantry man and he was one of the guys who was with dad in his foxhole when he was captured. George was shot in the foot, according to dad. George is also the one guy from this group who dad has met at past POW reunions. Here is a contemporary mention of George in a Bangor, Maine, newspaper:

George Berube Sr. of Caribou was in the Navy in World War II and was part of the force ready to attack Japan when the A-bombs fell. He came home to The County, then wound up in Waterbury, Conn. He enlisted in the Army and was at Fort Benning, Ga., before being shipped off to Korea. On the day he was to come home, he got captured and became a P.O.W. for two years. They got two meals a day, mostly of rice and sorghum. When released they headed across the international bridge, where they were sprayed down to get rid of the lice, took showers and were given clean clothes. When George left Korea he weighed 91 pounds.

As of this writing, George is still living.

Frank Borrelli—Frank was from San Francisco, California. Dad said that Frank was not in the best of health in Korea, but he made it to the Big Switch, so he must have been okay healthwise. From what I have been able to tell, Frank died in 2003 on his 77th birthday.

Charles Bryant—Charles was from Cincinnati, Ohio. He was one of two black soldiers taken with dad. Dad said that when they were staying in a village on the march north, a little North Korean child came up to Charles and touched his face. According to dad, Charles didn’t like that very much. There was a blurb in the Newark Advocate when Charles was repatriated in 1953:

Pfc Bryant’s release was the answer to the prayers of his mother, Mrs. Grace L. Bryant. “It’s such good news,” she said. “Thank God my prayers have been answered.” Her son was captured Sept. 6, 1951, during an engagement with the North Koreans and Chinese Communists at Honchon. Mrs. Bryant said she heard from her son about every two weeks for the first three months he was a prisoner. Since then letters have come only about every three months.

William Cheatham—William was from Allegany County, Maryland. William was the other black soldier taken with dad. He was a medic, and he was in dad’s foxhole when they were captured. I found an obituary from The Afro-American newspaper of October 7, 1967:

Funeral services for William Cheatham, 700 block N. Central Ave., were held yesterday at the Elroy Wilson Funeral Home. Burial followed at the Baltimore National Cemetery. The 40-year-old Korean War veteran died Thursday at Ft. Howard Hospital. While serving in Korea, Mr. Cheatham spent 23 months in a prisoner-of-war camp. An employee of Bethlehem Steel, Mr. Cheatham attended Waters AME Church. He is survived by his mother, Mrs. Helen B. Cheatham, a sister, Miss Helen J. Cheatham, and a brother, Ralph Cheatham.

James J. Coogan—James Coogan was from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. James was also in the foxhole with dad the night he was captured. According to dad, James had some health issues later in their captivity. This is supported by the fact that he was repatriated in the “Little Switch” in the spring of 1953. Coogan caused a bit of a stir when his mother publicized a list of 71 POWs that Coogan had listed as still being in captivity. I found this from the memoirs of a ex-POW named Dallas Mossman:

We had a little more room in each room than we had had in Camp 1. In my room there was Jake Miller, Rocky Holmes, W.W. Smith, J.P. McMillan, and me on one side. There was Ivan Eaton, George Maryea, and James “Jimmy” Cougan [Coogan] on the other side. . . . While I was at Camp 2, the two sides in the war conducted “Little Switch,” which was returning sick and wounded prisoners of war back to their own side. . . . We also sent Jimmy Cougan back home. He hadn’t been there very long when his wife sent him divorce papers and told him that she wanted a divorce right away. She wanted to marry some other guy. He went berserk. Here was the love of his life and she wanted a divorce. So we sent him back. Jimmy used to come to our reunions but he is now deceased. His brother-in-law was a POW in Korea too.

James died in Florida in May 1997.

Donald E. Frazee—Donald was from Dayton, Ohio. I could not find additional information about Donald on the Internet.

John G. Johnson—John was from LaPorte, Indiana. Johnson was quoted in the local paper in August 1953 about a friend of his from the POW camp who decided to become a communist and stay in China:

A sergeant from Indiana started today on the “most heart-breaking mission in the world.” He must tell an anxious mother in New York State that her son is now a Communist and won’t be coming home. It would be easier to tell her that the boy died in a Communist prison camp, Sgt. John G. Johnson, 21, of LaPorte, Ind., said. Johnson must tell the unsuspecting mother that her son chose to remain with the Communists, even though the Chinese commandant urged him to go back to New York.

I could not find additional information about John on the Internet.

Charles R. Lawson—Charles was from Combs, Kentucky. I could not find additional information about Charles on the Internet.

Donald W. North—Donald was from Constance, Kentucky. Dad said that when they would stop at a village for the night while marching to the POW camp, Donald would sing songs like “Danny Boy.” Dad sent him a Christmas card after the war, and Donald’s sister sent a note saying that Donald was killed in a car crash. I looked him up online, and I found out that he was killed in a car crash in Independence, Kentucky, in November 1953. He was 21 years old.

Luis G. Velasquez—Luis was from Alameda, California. I could not find additional information about Luis on the Internet.

These eleven men finally arrived in late November 1951 at the POW camp at a place called Changsong. (The U.S. identifies it as Camp 1.) It was near the Yalu River (see map below). Dad spent the next 20 months as a POW. There is much more information about the POW camps online because of the number of men who were held as POWs and the number of memoirs about their time as POWs. Dad was repatriated on August 16, 1953 as part of Operation Big Switch, in which the final groups of POWs were swapped.


Sixty Years Ago
Sixty years ago, Dad was captured by the Chinese and spent basically the next two years of his life in a prisoner of war camp. This was a monumental event in Dad’s life, and because of that, I hope that this short history can be something of a monument to Dad. He didn’t want to be drafted; he didn’t want to be in the army; he didn’t want to go to Korea; and he definitely did not want to spend two years as a POW. But he did his duty to his country and that is a great and admirable thing.

As always seems the case, most of what we know from the oral history is true, but there are always a few surprising facts that can be uncovered with some research. Knowing the whole story of the 7th Cavalry’s time in Korea, and looking at the casualties that were to come, we can now see that the action of September 6 was a small engagement--more of an appetizer for the upcoming battles that would face the 7th Cavalry. Everything considered, Dad might have been lucky to be captured when he was, because there were some big battles ahead for this regiment.

The 1st Cavalry Division lost over 3,000 men in the Korean War--12 of them the night Dad was captured. I think of the fact that if Dad had been killed, obviously we wouldn’t be here today. I feel sadness for the names on the list of KIA, and I think of all the children that those men didn’t have, and then I think about how lucky we are for our lives and our freedoms.

I encourage everyone to read the narrative of Lt. David Hughes at his website, especially his remembrances of the fall of 1951. It is very interesting reading. He is a living, breathing hero of the Korean War, and he is still alive today. Without his and other veterans’ memories, the events of 60 years ago on Hill 339 might be lost in the mists of time.

Reporters—Do Your Jobs, Please!

I saw this blog post in the UK Spectator from a link from Jay Nordlinger. Andrew Roberts talks about attending a party where Bill Clinton told him and his wife something "rather shocking about one of the Republican presidential frontrunners, unrepeatable in a family magazine such as this. If it’s true, the race is still wide open . . ." So it sounds like the kind of revelation that could sink a candidate in the general election.

It seems to me that this is the kind of thing a journalist needs to follow up on immediately. If someone doesn't ask Bill Clinton to find out what the rather shocking information about one of the Republican frontrunners is in the next day or two, then I must conclude that the press is not doing their jobs.

(The whole of Robert's brief article is worth reading. It's interesting to see how the rich and powerful play, and it makes me think that the whole idea of Democrats championing the regular people is a complete and total lie.)

A Sad Day for Freedom of Speech

Andrew Bolt is an Australian columnist who wrote a few articles in 2009 and 2010 about light-skinned Australians who identify as Aborignal. He was taken to court, and he lost his case. In the interest of free speech solidarity, I am linking to one of the articles that an Australian court found to be illegal.

White Is the New Black — Herald Sun, April 15, 2009.

In case the link comes down, here is the article in screen captures.

A Useful Way to Get Your Head Around Yearly Deficits and the Debt

The United States Debt is currently over 14.7 trillion dollars, and climbing uncontrollably. There is a lot of partisan sniping over which administrations have raised our debt the most. This argument is a bit of a diversion because both parties spend recklessly. Also, when power is divided between the presidency and Congress, it’s hard to assign blame. But regardless of who was in power when each budget was passed, it is hard for the average citizen to comprehend numbers that are so large that they are beyond imagining—152 billion or 468 billion or 1.4 trillion.

The way I've recently begun to think about it is I use a formula where a trillion dollars equals one dollar. Using this method, 100 billion equals 10 cents and 10 billion equals 1 penny. Using this method, I thought I would make a list of U.S. deficits for the last 40 years in numbers that are easier to grasp.

1972 $0.12
1973 $0.07
1974 $0.03
1975 $0.21
1976 $0.27
1977 $0.19
1978 $0.19
1979 $0.12
1980 $0.19
1981 $0.18
1982 $0.28
1983 $0.44
1984 $0.38
1985 $0.42
1986 $0.43
1987 $0.28
1988 $0.28
1989 $0.26
1990 $0.36
1991 $0.42
1992 $0.44
1993 $0.37
1994 $0.29
1995 $0.23
1996 $0.15
1997 $0.03
1998 surplus of $0.09
1999 surplus of $0.16
2000 surplus of $0.29
2001 surplus of $0.15
2002 $0.19
2003 $0.43
2004 $0.46
2005 $0.35
2006 $0.26
2007 $0.17
2008 $0.46
2009 $1.40
2010 $1.35
2011 $1.50 (estimated)

If we add these all up, we can see that the total debt in the last 40 years is $12.51. Since the total U.S. debt is $14.70, we can calculate that the debt before 1972 totaled $2.19. It is also obvious that since 2009, the U.S. has turned a corner—deficits have gone beyond large to unsustainable. Something has got to change now.

Links in the Fence

Whenever I get the chance, I listen to the Dennis Prager show. There is no better radio show that I know of than his. Last week, they were playing a "best of" show, and they replayed an interview Dennis did with Charles Murray, who had recently published a piece in the Wall Street Journal. I was intrigued by the discussion, so I looked up Murray's article on the Internet. It was from March 2009, and it was called the Europe Syndrome.

In it, Murray goes into some ways that the people of America and Europe (and the governments they have instituted) are different. Then he steps back and discusses what he calls "deep satisfactions." Americans still find their deep satisfactions in family, community, vocation, and faith. Because of this, they are more inclined to do things like raise a family, go to church, give to charity, and volunteer their time than the people of Europe. The European mentality, Murray says, goes something like this: "Human beings are a collection of chemicals that activate and, after a period of time, deactivate. The purpose of life is to while away the intervening time as pleasantly as possible."

I have a thought that is in the same vein as Murray, but a little bit different. I think one way that conservatives and liberals (or traditionalists and progressives) are different is whether or not they see themselves as one more link in the chain of life, or if they see themselves as the culmination of all that has come before. We can't know the full story of our lives because we will not live to see our progeny's accomplishments long after our chapter of the story has been written. Of course, if you don't believe that there is a story being told, then you could care less about what comes after you are gone.

That is why so many liberals and leftists don't have children. The self-absorbed progressive sees himself as the culmination of the story--the top of the pyramid; there is no reason to spend time raising another generation. The traditionalist, though, sees themselves as a middle page of a long book, playing their part, and then passing on the tale to those who come after. And this doesn't only apply to those who have families--it is true for all who care about the generations that follow. I think a good example of this is the people who have fought in wars for our country. Many of these young men didn't even have families at the time they fought, but they were assured that those who survived and did raise families would pass on the story so that the sacrifice would not be in vain.

Abraham Lincoln touched on this in one of his speeches. He said that we are all heirs of those who fought for our freedoms in the Revolutionary War--even the millions of Americans who could not trace their ancestry back to that conflict. I feel the same way about those who fought in the Civil War and World War II. My family was not yet in the country during the Civil War, but I honor the sacrifice of those men, and I strive to continue the hope of our country and pass it on to the next generation. Likewise, I had no grandparents that stormed the beaches on D-Day, but I hope that I am worthy of the sacrifice made by those men.

So it is not by direct biological descent, but by working to ensure that those who come after us will enjoy the freedoms that we have, which really marks the conservative.

If I Were Editor of the Star Tribune

My wife and I have three children, the older two are biological and the youngest is adopted. Because we have an adopted child, my mom thought I would be interested in an article in the August 2 Star Tribune. The lead article of the Variety section was "Newfound challenges unite adult adoptees."

The article profiles a few adult adoptees who have issues with the fact that they were given up by their birthmothers for adoption. The underlying purpose of the article, though, is to introduce a state agency called Adoptees Have Answers.

This article was instructive in a number of ways.
1. We find out that Adoptees Have Answers "opened last year to offer services for and about adult adoptees, including support groups, public events and webinars." (What this statement really means: This is a nothing agency—it is work-fare for Democrat voters.)
2. Adoptees Have Answers is "apparently the first of its kind in the country." (What this statement really means: No other state in the country is as stupid as Minnesota to waste money in this way.)
3. "The hope is parents, social workers, adoption professionals, therapists and lawmakers will be listening." (What this statement really means: We want more state funds funneled through this agency.)
4. Adoptees Have Answers "is funded with $589,750 from the state Department of Human Services to operate from February 2010 to September 2012." (What this statement really means: Agh! We've just flushed a half a million dollars down the drain!)

Why in the world is the state of Minnesota, which just went through a government shutdown as the legislature and the governor haggled over creating a balanced budget for the next biennium, funding a nothing agency like Adoptees Have Answers? We so often hear of the lack of funds for school districts or public safety officials or the court system, but then we have to read about the absolute waste of almost $600,000. $600,000 could buy a lot of pencils and books for students, or pay for several policemen or public defenders.

I have become convinced that agencies like this exist all throughout the state and federal governments, but they are almost impossible to get rid of. When we are short of taxes, how come programs like this are never up for elimination—it's always cops in city and state budgets and teachers and sports in school budgets.

A sidebar to this article lists several websites where people can go for more information about adoption issues. Most of these organizations, like Children's Home Society, are nonprofits who have been in this game for many, many years. I wonder how they feel about the government coming into their field?

The cherry on the top of this sundae is the letters page on August 7, where we get the obligatory letter-to-the-editor from the manager of Adoptees Have Answers, Kate Maloney. She begins: "Thank you, Katy Read, and the Star Tribune for starting a new conversation on the long-term impact of adoption . . ."

So the circle is almost complete: the press release from the agency, the puff piece from the newspaper reporter, the big kiss of gratitude from the manager of the governmental agency. The final move to complete the circle will be Adoptees Have Answers getting more state funding to continue ad infinitum.

There is a story here, but don't expect to find out what it is from the "reporters" and "editors" of the Star Tribune.

Important Numbers to Keep at Hand

Byron York briefly gives the numbers for deficits during Bush's terms. This is important information to keep close at hand when contrasting Bush era spending with Obama spending.

I Thought There Was No Money

But I guess they've scraped together $120,000 for this fraud: the chief of equity and social justice.

I would guess this is par for the course for most larger school districts. Perhaps the most chilling part of the story is the last paragraph.

Asked to comment on the issue, Supt. Jose Torres pointed out at the start of the meeting the board said the Pledge of Allegiance, which ends with the phrase “justice for all.”

The purposeful inversion of the meaning of the phrase "and justice for all" is par for the course for these ideologues.

To those who say this position is necessary, I say that I can't believe you any more.

Government As Nonprofit

My wife and I give to several charities each year. Sometimes, we give $35 or so to a new charity that we think is for a good cause. Often, that $35 is all we will give because the first gift is followed up with a barrage of mail soliciting more donations and phone calls as well. I guess we are naive enough to think that when you give $35 to a charitable nonprofit, most of that money will actually go to the people helped by the nonprofit and not to the people who work for the nonprofit. United Way is one of the worst offenders: for example, paying their CEO over $1,000,000 a year. Once I found that out, I decided never give another dime to United Way.

I work for a nonprofit, and I know that the salaries of the people who work there are on the low side of the local market rate. And that is as it should be. The money we generate should go to the mission of the nonprofit and not to the people who work there.

I think government should be the same. In a way, taxpayers are like people who donate to a charity—there is an understanding that the money raised through taxes will be spent as conservatively as possible. Government waste is more than poor money management, it is a betrayal of the unspoken contract between the taxpayers and the government.

These thoughts came to me while reading an opinion piece ripping on Matt Damon for the stupid comments he made to a reporter after the "Save Our Teachers" rally.

Government workers (in this case, public school teachers) no longer have the trust of the taxpaying public. They may not start at a great salary, but very soon afterwards, they are making very good money when compared to their neighbors (who are paying their wages through taxes), often with very good benefits.

Like the nonprofit organizations that call night after night, I just want them to use the money for the purpose it was given to them.

The Best Way to Visualize the U.S. Debt

Recently, Power Line ran a contest to award $100,000 to the person who could best show the federal debt through visual, audio, or other media. They have yet to publicize the winner, but I think the one I would choose is from a website called usdebt.kleptocracy.com.

The size of U.S. debt is staggering.

I was recently joking with my brother-in-law that I have become so cynical about this issue, that I just hope society is still functioning in December 2013 so I can see the complete movie of The Hobbit.

A Theological Case for a Low Tax Rate

There is no phrase that is more of a trojan horse in the religious arena than "social justice". It’s a term that is used to give cover to groups trying desperately to bring left-wing political ideas into the church. Most “contemporary” Christian churches have social justice groups that are always trying to convince their congregations to the political left. I’ve read quite a bit of the Bible, and I’ve attended weekly mass my whole life, and I’ve never heard anything that makes me think it is the church’s business to ask politicians to take money from person A and give it to person B. In fact, I think there is a clearer theological case to be made for a low tax rate.

My argument starts with the biblical idea of tithing: giving to God 10 percent of what you have. Though the tithe has not been uniform throughout the years, the idea of giving to God has always been a part of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Also, though some argue for a giving that is less than 10 percent, I’ve never seen evidence that a tithe was ever expected to be more than 10 percent of anyone’s income, whether rich or poor. When the state extracts too much of our income, it makes it difficult for the conscientious believer to give 10 percent to God.

Along with tithing, I think the first commandment has some bearing on this argument: “I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me.” As a child, I thought that this is one of the easiest commandments to keep. Who in the modern world would ever make a golden calf and dance around it? As an adult, it occurs to me that this is the most often transgressed commandment: everything I desire I get. My question, then, is this: does the state become a kind of god when we are forced by law to give it more than we give to God? It seems to me that the answer to this question is yes. How do we change this? By advocating for a moral tax rate that places our priorities in order. God comes first, country comes second.

In the United States, most people pay a federal income tax, a state income tax, and various local taxes (city and county). I would like to make the theological argument that in any one area—federal, state, or local—taxes should be less than 10 percent. I am all for a progressive tax rate, but I also believe that taxes should be paid by anyone that makes any money during a particular year. Therefore, my tax proposition would be a federal rate on income between .5% and 9.5%; a state tax rate set by each state, but not exceeding 10%; and local taxes not exceeding 10%—no tax credits, no loopholes, no deductions. Added together, this would make top earners pay up to 30% of what they make in a year in taxes, depending on where they live. I think that is about all a government can take from any person and still consider that person to be a citizen of a free country.

Thoughts on Looking at a Graph

Sometimes there is clarity in looking at an image. In a recent case for me, it’s in looking at a graphic. The Federal Spending Chart shows two lines on an X/Y graph: dollars and the last 45 years. In this graph, we can easily see federal spending and compare it to federal revenue. When the blue line is above the red line, we have a deficit. When the red line is above the blue line, we have a surplus.

If you track the first nine years, spending and revenue are very close to each other. It seems that there was a general consensus that we spend what we bring in. The next eight years show a slight separation between the two lines—we are spending more than we are taking in, but the deficit still looks reasonable. For the next sixteen years, there is quite a large deficit. Spending is rising, but revenues are not keeping up. Then around 1994, revenues jump up and spending slows, allowing us by 1997 to begin a time of surplus, which lasts about 5 years. Around 2002, with revenues nose-diving, spending increases quite a bit. The gap closes a again toward 2007 before going completely out of whack. Revenues dive and then flat-line and spending jumps dramatically.

I often argue that debt itself is not the worst thing. Like a family with a credit card, we can sometimes be in debt. The key is that the debt cannot be overwhelming. It’s never been at a crisis situation until the last four years. I think it is shocking to see the yearly deficit over the last four years.

It would be interesting to see this graph extending back before 1965, but even without that shown, I can still guess that the last four years are unprecedented in our history. I cannot think that this can continue for very long.

Conservatives are often maligned as being against government entirely. We are presented with the false choice of being for Democratic levels of spending, or being for no government whatsoever. But in looking at this graph, I can easily argue for increased spending year after year. I just want spending to stay in line with revenue. I truly believe that if we keep spending to things that are necessary and keep tax rates low, we will have plenty of money to cover all our debts and to balance the budget each year. The green line on the chart is my addition to show a reasonable, or even generous, growth in spending.

There is nothing moral about kicking this can down the road. It seems to me that our succeeding generations will not think very highly of the mess we left them to clean up.

Researched-Based Idiocy

I've been thinking recently about the "genderless baby" in Toronto. The parents have three children, and they've decided not to reveal the gender of the youngest to anyone, including parents and aunts and uncles. After an article appeared in the Toronto Star, it became a fifteen minutes of fame item that was linked and commented on around the Internet and talk shows. Shortly after all this attention, the mother, Kathy Witterick wrote an editorial that was very interesting.

In it, you can see all the idiocies of the modern, clueless leftie. These are people that actually believe the theoretical crap that is spouted by the modern university. In particular, she kept coming back to the idea of research-based ideas. It is so important to understand that research is often done to back up a preconceived idea, and especially in the soft-sciences you can make the research say anything you want. I generally agree with Dennis Prager: if a study doesn't confirm what common sense tells me, then I don't put much faith in the study.

But even more so, it is interesting that as the modern liberal gives up on traditional values and mores, they have to put their faith somewhere, and that somewhere is science, even when the "science" is laughable. So you end up with the canon of research-based idiocies and an idea that centuries of common sense is nothing more than ingrained prejudices.

Here are a few bits from her opinion piece:

I re-read the research and approaches of Alfie Kohn, Barbara Coloroso, and Adele Faber to find ways to support him. The firm rule around self image became: it has to be clean and healthy, but you can choose the colours and the lengths.

When encountering a parenting question, go to research of credentialed goofballs, and then call their conclusions a "firm rule."

And if you really mean what you say about being kind, honouring difference, having an open mind and placing limits thoughtfully where they help children develop competencies and be safe, then you better walk the talk.

Maybe instead of having an open mind and honoring difference, you should act like a parent. You are the parent of these kids, not their friends and not their difference-honorers.

It is true and demonstrated in research and in the day to day world that strict gender stereotyping causes suffering to both men and women.

Here is the seed of all her confusion. Witterick takes it as a self-evident truth that "strict gender stereotyping causes suffering to both men and women." She builds her parenting on this idea. Common sense says that this is idiocy, but I'm sure she could point me to countless, research-based articles that would back up her claim. More is the pity.

More accurately, we have received many letters that include intelligent, heartfelt, research and experience based support for the idea.

Along with the elevation of research is the elevation of experience. Experience is important, no doubt, but you can travel the world and still not know anything—or gain any common sense.

In my heart of hearts, I squirm when my son picks a dress from the rack (won’t people tease him?), even though I know from experience and research that the argument that children need a binary gender orthodoxy taught to them in order to feel safe is simply incorrect.

Here, we see that even in someone as far gone down the leftward path as Witterick has gone, still has the kernel of common sense deep in her heart. I can only hope that in time that her "heart of hearts" wins out, and she puts her blind faith in "experience and research" about binary gender orthodoxy aside, and becomes the best mother she can be for her kids.

I certainly couldn't say it any better than a commenter "Jacob" did.

Sex determines the nature of our minds just as it determines the shape of the body. Whatever it is between the child's legs, what is between the parents' ears is certainly bollocks.

Two Semesters of Science in Less Than Five Minutes

In the past few weeks, I've come across two very cool things on the Web. The first is called the Scale of the Universe.




The second is a panoramic view of the nighttime sky, called the Photopic Sky Survey.




Both of these are amazing works of computer imagery, and they show us something about science in minutes that would otherwise take hours to understand.

Advice from the Oldest Man

There is the well-worn story of a man who travels far and through great obstacles to seek the wise old man with the meaning of life. Usually it ends in the punchline to a joke. I think the meaning of life can be summed up in two words: Time passes. Once you understand that, everything else follows.

Recently, the oldest man in the world died, and I thought some of his advice was worth reviewing. This is from an article in the Chicago Tribune:

Walter Breuning's earliest memories stretched back 111 years, before home entertainment came with a twist of the radio dial. They were of his grandfather's tales of killing Southerners in the Civil War.

Breuning was 3 and horrified: "I thought that was a hell of a thing to say."

But the stories stuck, becoming the first building blocks into what would develop into a deceptively simple philosophy that Breuning, the world's oldest man at 114 before he died Thursday, credited to his longevity.

Here's the world's oldest man's secret to a long life:

— Embrace change, even when the change slaps you in the face. ("Every change is good.")

— Eat two meals a day ("That's all you need.")

— Work as long as you can ("That money's going to come in handy.")

— Help others ("The more you do for others, the better shape you're in.")

Then there's the hardest part. It's a lesson Breuning said he learned from his grandfather: Accept death.

"We're going to die. Some people are scared of dying. Never be afraid to die. Because you're born to die," he said.

That last thought is worth pondering. So many of us live with a fear of dying. And why not? It is the end of this earthly life. But a life lived in fear will not be your best life. Time passes either way, so fear will only lead to regret later in life. Here is where religious people have an advantage over non-religious. Religious people do not have to fear death, because we know that it isn't the end of all things. There is life beyond the grave, and that is a freeing idea.