George Mason University's
History News Network
New entry

Liberty & Power: Group Blog



Gene Healy
Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft has a piece on the worst aspect of Reagan's legacy--the expansion of the drug war.

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 15:54


Radley Balko
I just got around to watching the season finale of Deadwood and the season premiere of Six Feet Under, thanks to Comcast's very cool"On Demand" feature. My cable went out a week ago Sunday when both aired for the first time.

Both were excellent, though the Deadwood episode was in a league of its own. Probably the best hour of television I've seen in a very long time. The scene with Swearengen and the Reverend, followed up by Swearengen and the Magistrate, followed by Swearengen and the doctor were brilliantly laid atop one another. We saw a kind of primitive humanitarian, then a ruthless Machiavellian, then a frontier philosopher. All in the course of an evening. Yet it felt entirely plausible.

If Ian McShane doesn't win an Emmy for his portrayal of (appropriately named) Al Swarengen, the Emmys in my mind will take on all the relevance of the Grammies -- which would be"none." No one else comes close this year in television. I doubt Peter Krause will, much as I like Six Feet Under. James Gandolfini didn't. Sure as hell not Martin Sheen.

The show ought to take away quite a few other categories, too, though I suspect a variety of factors will prevent that from happening, including the late time slot, that it's a new show, that it comes on after The Sopranos, that many voters will likely be turned off by the violence and coarse language, and that McShane's performance is so spectacular, it tends to overshadow everyone else.

The show bustles with themes of rugged individualism, and explores the troubles and travails of a small community emerging from Hobbesian anarchy into a loose-knit system of law and property. I love the scene from a couple of weeks ago where the town's newly-appointed fire inspector Charlie Utter -- who was appointed only to give the town some credence in the eyes of Congress -- gets into a squabble with saloon-owner Nutall over the proximity of his stove pipe to the wall.

The dialogue is wonderful. In addition to the colorful profanity (how many different variations on" cocksucker" are there, anyway?), I love the NYPD Blue approach to character interaction, conversations sprayed with rough but real-world transitions -- lots of"anyways," and"like I was sayins."

When the Doc Cochran is examining one of Swarengen's prostitutes he inquires about her menstruation cycle with,"So where are ya' in yer' moons?"

I think the season's best line came from Swarengen himself, though, when talking to Doc Cochran:

"Announcin' your plans is a good way to hear God laugh."

So good show, HBO. Again.


Monday, June 21, 2004 - 18:17


Roderick T. Long
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]

Congratulations to the team of the SpaceShipOne project, who achieved the first manned non-governmental space flight today.

The present may belong to messianic thugs like George Bush and Osama bin Laden, but the future lies with peaceful commerce, rational minds, and venturing spirits.

Today's triumph brings that future one step closer.

Monday, June 21, 2004 - 21:23


Sheldon Richman
Ronald Reagan’s state funeral got me thinking about the American presidency. That effort yielded these possibly interesting thoughts.

Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 12:09


Libertarian Jacka (Guest Blogger)
[Cross-posted at LibertarianJackass.com]

Following a very gracious invitation from Professor Beito, I am here to guest blog for the next few days. I publish regularly at LibertarianJackass.com, so feel free to jump over there and scroll through the archives to see the damage already unleashed in the blogosphere.

Currently a graduate student in politics and economics in Southern California, I am the former lead singer of a now-defunct boy band, former summer intern at the Heritage Foundation in D.C. (where I met Bill Clinton at the White House during Fourth of July Festivities in 2000), and a former Summer Fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama.

At LibertarianJackass.com, we like to think we bring a refreshing form of radical libertarianism to the blogosphere, focusing on political economy, politics, economics and the freedom-loving Adventures of the Libertarian Jackass. I’ll attempt to provide L&P readers with a tantalizing taste of our distinct flavor this week. Thank you for the opportunity.


Friday, June 18, 2004 - 14:11


Chris Matthew Sciabarra

For many months now, a debate has raged about the possibility of links between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. I doubt that this debate will be ended any time soon, but I do think that the evidence offered up till now has been tenuous and speculative at best; if such a formal link had been documented in the days leading up to the US invasion, it would have impacted considerably on my own views of that campaign, even if it would never have altered my opposition to nation building as a foreign policy goal. In this regard, I share much with the 2000 Presidential Campaign Candidate, George W. Bush

In response to a Weekly Standard piece written by Stephen Hayes, who has published a new book on the subject of"The Connection," I've written a number of brief posts (see, for example, here, here and here), and have read a lot of very interesting literature, both pro and con (see, for example, here, here, and here).

It now seems, however, that the 9/11 Commission, which has access to many confidential, classified documents, has declared, finally, that there was no operational link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

I don't think anyone has denied that there were talks between various individuals connected to Al Qaeda and the Ba'athist regime in Iraq. But these talks never materialized into any kind of formal," collaborative relationship," like, say, that between the Taliban and Bin Laden's thugs.

A Hussein regime, in possession of WMDs, and in a" collaborative relationship" with Al Qaeda, would have been a threat to the security of the United States, in my opinion, meriting some kind of action. That Hussein possessed neither WMDs nor a cozy relationship with Bin Laden fortifies further my judgment that this war was an unnecessary and deeply troubling drain on national security resources at a time when Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-ism marches on.

Unfortunately, the situation in Iraq now makes US extrication impossible, practically speaking, insofar as the structural institutionalization of the US presence will not be challenged by either George W. Bush or his potential successor, John Kerry. Worse still, the"magnet theory" has failed: Al Qaeda may have been drawn into Iraq to do battle with the American"infidels," as the Bush administration predicted, but it has not departed from anywhere else on the planet; from Madrid to Riyadh, from Cleveland, Ohio to Brooklyn, New York, its minions continue to conspire. This"War on Terrorism" has many chapters left, and the outcome is by no means certain.


Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 09:52


Gene Healy
I am doubtless blinded by ideology, but it seems to me that the case for war in Iraq doesn't come off any better when stated forthrightly by an advocate of that war than it does when I viciously caricature it:

Bush faced two realities: He was not dealing with a nation state that could be defeated by military force, and his attackers could not be deterred by fear of retaliation -- they had to be arrested and incarcerated for an indefinite period, or killed. Even this, however, would not be sufficient. The al Qaeda ideology springs from failed societies and a failed culture; as long as the conditions that produced this cancer continued to exist, it would not be possible to eliminate the threat of further attacks.

What Bush needed was a strategy that included both a military and an ideological response. The military response was to deprive al Qaeda of bases and training resources; the ideological response was to deprive it of support in Arab and Muslim lands. To accomplish this, Bush chose to use the idea of freedom and democracy -- the American ideology -- as a weapon. Iraq was a target not only because it was a potential source of weapons of mass destruction for the terrorists and a threat to the stability of the region, but because its population was well educated, relatively secular in outlook among the Arabs, and one of the Arab populations most likely to be capable of self-government.

That's from the American Spectator's running What Would Reagan Do? debate.


Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 16:55


Keith Halderman
The war on tobacco, which seems to be continually ratcheting up these days, is but one aspect of the more general war on people who use certain kinds of drugs. One of the primary features of this war is unintended consequences. Some research reported in the British Medical Journal found that making the lives of lung cancer patients harder than they necessarily have to be appears to one of them.

Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 22:04


Chris Matthew Sciabarra

On Friday, as part of a flawless funeral for Ronald Reagan that ended in a touching California sunset awash in Nancy's tears, I have to say that I was very moved by the various eulogies I heard throughout the day. Still, the most pointed political criticism came from Ron Reagan Jr.. I noticed it when he first said it... and I'm glad others are noticing it all over the media:

Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians: Wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference.

Gee, who could Ronnie Jr. be talking about?


Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 07:33


David T. Beito
The Crimson White, the only paper in Tuscaloosa to actually criticize the University administration on occasion, has published a long editorial deploring the UA's attempt to suppress distribution of the Alabama Observer. The Observer is the publication of the UA Chapter of the Alabama Scholars Association.

As discussed on Liberty and Power several times, the right of the ASA to use the low rate for campus organizations (still routinely granted to politically correct groups like the Coalition for Diversity and Inclusiveness, CDI), was revoked after the Alabama Observer published several articles criticizing the administration. The article that produced the greatest anger was one exposing massive grade inflation.

Unfortunately, though we are overjoyed by the CW's editorial, it has a couple of important errors. First, as already pointed out, the Observer was not distributed for free. It paid the low rate of about 30 dollars to cover the whole campus. Second, the CW editorial does not mention that other groups like the CDI continue to receive the special low rate. These are minor quibbles, however.

In this campaign for free speech, the UA Chapter of the ASA has received the support of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

Meanwhile, Gilbert Cruz, the reporter on the campus beat who is best known for his story on Bear Bryant bobblehead dolls, has written another one-sided puff piece on the creation of yet another vice president position, this time for"Community Relations." He does not even allude to the fact, of course, that this new position will only add greater weight to an already top-heavy UA administration.


Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 12:39


Radley Balko
I've always been troubled by Ronald Reagan's decision to open his 1980 presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Philadelphia is really only known for one thing -- the murder of three civil rights workers there in 1964. I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for why the Reagan campaign chose Philadelphia as its kickoff stop. In a well-written, critical-but-not-sneering column, William Raspberry again broaches the subject, and adds that Reagan's Philadelphia speech made mention of"states' rights," an important principle unfortunately co-opted by Confederate apologists and segregationists.

The Media Research Center's Brent Bozell responds:

Actually, most of the speech targeted the failures of Jimmy Carter, but Reagan said,"I believe in states' rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can at the private level."

The weird thing about this is that we’ve almost never seen this anecdote in all the liberal screeds of the 1980s and 1990s. You won’t find it much in old TV news transcripts or news magazine stories. The main purveyor of this spin line over the last twenty years is....Jesse Jackson.

But every reporter who recycled Jesse’s old tale left out several crucial facts. First, Reagan wasn’t speaking in code to the KKK. He was dead serious about granting federal powers back to the states, period. One of his primary initiatives was a"New Federalism" that would reverse the trend of centralizing all government power in Washington, returning it to states and localities with block grants.

Second, on the day after the supposedly racist-encouraging Mississippi speech, Reagan traveled to New York for a speech to the Urban League, where the Washington Post reported on August 5, 1980 that Reagan declared,"I am committed to the protection of the civil rights of black Americans. That commitment is interwoven into every phase of the programs I will propose." Adviser Martin Anderson explained Reagan would uphold ongoing"affirmative action" programs. Do those sound like code words for Southern racists? That might explain why the story didn’t become much of a left-wing legend back in the 1980s.

Okay. But that still doesn't answer the question: Of all the strategic places to open a campaign, why did the Reagan campaign pick a relatively small town known only for the murder of Michael Schwerner, James Chaney and Andrew Goodman?

Reagan wasn't a racist. His personal letters and private reflections made public over the years confirm that. But he couldn't have been ignorant of Philadelphia's history. Seems to me the only logical conclusion here is that Reagan calculated the support he'd get from the working white south for the move's symoblism was more important to him than avoiding giving implied approval to the south's nasty racial history.

I think it's an ugly blemish on his record.


Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 12:09


Chris Matthew Sciabarra

One hundred years ago today, the steamboat General Slocum had ended its excursion up the East River on the way to Long Island Sound in a nightmarish blaze that killed more than 1,000 people. It was the City's first Titanic-size disaster, 8 years before that ill-fated North Atlantic vessel hit an iceberg.

Like the Titanic, the tragedy has been immortalized in celluloid. It was"Manhattan Melodrama," the 1934 film directed by Woody S. Van Dyke, that had etched upon the silver screen the fate of General Slocum. That movie was preceded by a 1915 silent depiction,"The Regeneration," director Raoul Walsh's first feature film. More recently,"Fearful Visitation" has debuted, a documentary exploring the nature of the disaster. (A History Channel documentary on General Slocum is scheduled for tomorrow night; it features historian Edward O'Donnell, author of Ship Ablaze.)

The New York Historical Society reminds us that the disaster devastated the city's large German-American community, which had settled on the lower east side, in a section that became known as Kleindeutschland. The steamship had embarked on a day-long excursion, with many women and children of German extraction; a fire began on board as the ship passed Roosevelt Island and quickly consumed the wooden vessel, killing an estimated 1,021 people. New York City had suffered the single greatest day of lives lost prior to the World Trade Center attack.

O'Donnell suggests that the Slocum tragedy slipped into a kind of collective unconscious in the years after World War I and World War II, as mainstream American culture demonized its German citizens. O'Donnell's book, which was published last June, has begun a necessary process of historical recollection. A General Slocum Memorial still stands in Tompkins Square Park.


Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 08:41


Radley Balko
Here's a very cool NY Times article on the what the early cosmos may have sounded like. Prof. Mark Whittle used ripples in the cosmic microwave background to discern what songs were played in the earliest moments of time:
The cosmic sound waves stretched 20,000 light-years, moved at half the speed of light, and were about 50 octaves below what people can hear. Dr. Whittle shifted the sounds to the human audible range, producing a chord like the sound of a jet engine. He used computer models to generate the cosmic chords from creation for the first million years and condensed them to five seconds.

The Big Bang actually erupted in complete silence. In the first instant, the mass of the universe was spread out completely evenly. No pressure differences, no sound.

But after that, the quiet vanished.

''For the first 400,000 years,'' Dr. Whittle said, ''it sounds like a descending scream falling into a dull roar.''

Over the first million years, Dr. Whittle said, the music of the cosmos also shifted from a pleasant major chord to a more somber minor one.

Whittle made wave files of his findings, which you can listen to here.

Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 08:48


Radley Balko
Mat_Fox_taxi.sized.jpg

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Extreme Ironing:

Clawing up ice-crusted, razor-sharp mountain peaks can get a little boring. And dangling upside down from a bungee cord over jagged cliffs is, face it, rather ho-hum.

But now there's a way to add excitement, a dash of danger, the adrenaline rush of risk: Take along an ironing board, a sturdy steam iron and a load of wrinkled shirts.

It's not for the faint of heart, to be sure. But extreme ironing - the marriage of activities like cliff jumping and kayaking treacherous rapids with what participants call"the satisfaction of a well-pressed shirt" - has been catching on...

...."Our aim is to have the level of recognition that it becomes an Olympic sport," he said."If you can have synchronized swimming and curling, I think extreme ironing has as much to offer."

It would be the first Olympic sport in which the athletes did not use their real names."In order to avoid the ridicule of our peers," Mr. Shaw and his compadres adopt pseudonyms, he wrote in a how-to book,"Extreme Ironing." Mr. Shaw is Steam. Others are Cool Silk, Iron Mike, Fe (the chemical symbol for iron), Jeremy Irons and Iron Lung.

The first Extreme Ironing World Championship was held in Germany in 2002 and was judged by a white-gloved panel of German homemakers. (A second world championship could come soon.) Eighty teams from 10 countries competed on an obstacle course arrayed in the shape of an iron, pressing boxer shorts and blouses while scaling a climbing wall, hanging from a moss-covered tree branch and squeezing under the hood of a car...

...The actual ironing does count."Ironists," Mr. Shaw wrote in his book,"are sometimes so absorbed in getting themselves into some sort of awkward or dangerous situation with their ironing board that they forget the main reason they are there in the first place: to rid their clothing of creases and wrinkles." The quality of the pressing counts for 60 of 120 points. Style counts for 40 points and speed 20.

Mr. Shaw's team took a gold medal, as did a German contestant, Hot Pants, who won a trip to Hawaii."She really took care on her collars and cuffs," said Short Fuse, a k a Penny Wilkerson, who is on the American tour along with Starch (Matthew Patrick) and Steam...

...Shirts have been pressed from Everest to the Brazilian rain forest, on bicycles and scuba dives. One of the few American ironists once cut an iron-shaped hole in a frozen lake in Wisconsin. But his shirt, upon surfacing, froze.

Next week, Mr. Shaw's crew will iron on Mount Rushmore and among alligators and bison.

Odd that most of the competitors seem to be men. How...er...ironic.

Sorry.


Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 08:51


Radley Balko
Here's the best advice college grads could possibly get, but is so rarely given to them:
The conclusion is unavoidable: If you have a good education, you shouldn't just consider getting rich. Creating and amassing wealth is an outright moral obligation. Do so and you can take comfort not just in financing public services but in knowing that you are giving people what they need or want, generating jobs and underwriting the affluence that makes art, justice, environmental protection and other social goods possible.
I long for the day when, instead of all the calls to service commencement speakers blather about to grads at Yale or Harvard or Stanford, a speaker peels the ivy right off the walls by saying, simply,"Go out and make tons of money. It's you're moral obligation."

It would almost be worth a lifetime of clandestine leftism just to come out of the free market closet for one brief, shining moment at an elitist university and deliver such a message.

Hat tip: Pieces of Flare.


Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 18:28


Keith Halderman
Fellow HNN blogger Allan Lichtman has a post, which discusses how the considerable attention paid this past week to Ronald Reagan’s legacy will affect the presidential campaign. He points out that Bush is the natural inheritor of this legacy but also that that fact can be a double-edged sword. Lichtman writes, ”On the one hand, he might be helped by celebration of the conservative heritage and the contributions of Ronald Reagan, which will likely be on full display at the GOP convention. On the other hand, the campaign could go too far in wrapping themselves in the mantle of Reagan and Bush could suffer from invidious comparisons with the now iconic ex-president.”

Can you imagine if this election were a three-way race among Kerry, Reagan, and Bush. George Bush would be so far behind he would probably be in single digits. Now if the Kerry campaign really wanted to take advantage of the national positive focus on Ronald Reagan and his values then they would find a substitute for Reagan. One does exist and he most likely will be on the ballot in all fifty states. Every single American who walks into the voting booth to pick our next leader will see the name Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President.

However, if recent electoral history repeats itself astoundingly few of those people will have a clue as to who Badnarik is or what he stands for. The more Kerry can change this history, the better chance he has of winning. Badnarik can play the same role for Kerry in 2004 that Nadar did for Bush in 2000. All the Libertarian lacks is fame, that is what is most important not money. In politics money is merely a means of obtaining celebrity but that can be had in other ways.

One-way for Kerry to acquaint voters with idea of Badnarik as a substitute Reagan, they could vote for, would be for the two of them to debate each other. It would be of enormous benefit for John Kerry to be onstage while Michael Badnarik calmly and precisely explains just how far away George Bush is from Ronald Reagan and the principles he stood for.

Such an event, or better yet series of events, would not cost Kerry any significant amount of votes. Those who are supporting the Democrat have but one overriding goal, to defeat George Bush and remove him from office post haste. Michael Badnarik, let us be honest, is not going to win and therefore Kerry’s people are not going to vote for Badnarik even if they like him. If the left is not going to desert Kerry for Nadar they certainly won’t for a Libertarian.

A lot of Conservatives, on the other hand, are very disenchanted with Bush and the way he has conducted himself in office. Policies such as the Patriot Act and uncontrolled spending are part of an extensive list of affronts to the legacy of Reagan committed by the present administration. Many on the right would love to punish Bush for this in the voting booth but they need someone other than a liberal Senator from Massachusetts to cast their ballot for.

Also, Michael Badnarik is ideal for Kerry’s purposes. The Libertarian Party has always had members from both the right and left side of the political spectrum and while they share core values there can be some stark differences in emphasis and style. Badnarik definitely comes from the right side of the spectrum, potentially much more appealing to Bush voters than some other possible candidates. He is a Constitutional scholar and computer programmer by trade who comes across as sober and conservative. No porn star on the arm or crown of marijuana leaves on his head.

Kerry would need but one rule for these debates, only candidates who are on the ballot in say forty states would be invited. This would keep Ralph Nadar off the platform because he does not have the Libertarian Party’s institutional access or the money and manpower to get on the necessary ballots. It therefore would be a three-way debate among Kerry, Badnarik, and most likely an empty chair.

Once Kerry and Badnarik had accepted such an invitation it would put Bush in a no win situation. He could show up giving even more legitimacy to the idea that people could vote for the Libertarian instead of him and we all know how well Bush does in live unscripted circumstances or he could not show up and give up what would be a very intense spotlight. The first such event would be unprecedented and extremely newsworthy.

And, the light would shine favorably on Kerry. One of the moments that helped to generate the great love and respect, even from most of his enemies, that we witnessed last week happened in New Hampshire when Ronald Reagan said I paid for this microphone we going to let him speak. By debating Badnarik, Kerry would be tapping into America’s innate sense of fair play while at the same time making Bush look somewhat cowardly.

I do not see how Kerry could pass up such a chance. At the very least he should write Badnarik a two thousand dollar check today and he should ask his wife to write one too.


Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 22:39


Chris Matthew Sciabarra

As the nation remembers its dead from wars past and present on this Memorial Day weekend, and as special attention is being focused on the opening of a National World War II Memorial, I wanted to take a moment to tell you about a man who, not unlike others of his generation, served his country abroad. His name was Salvatore"Sam" Sclafani, first cousin to my Dad, married to my mother's sister, and forever etched in the minds of our family as"Uncle Sam." Born in 1915, Uncle Sam left us ten years ago, having succumbed to prostate cancer. But it was this man who was my earliest inspiration in all matters political; he nourished in me a love of history and politics, and was the guy to whom I dedicated Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical.

My Uncle Sam was, without doubt, one of the funniest and most benevolent souls to ever grace this planet. And when you got him to talk about politics, it was like a veritable ride aboard the Coney Island Cyclone, that landmark splintery wooden rollercoaster. He was the most opinionated and outspoken critic of politicians, left, right and center, whom I've ever had the privilege to know and love.

Back in 1976, I interviewed Uncle Sam for a special project I'd done on the veterans of World War II. His comments are as precious today, as they were back then.

He remembered that"day of infamy" in December 1941. His mother labored by the stove, preparing the traditional Sunday home-cooked Italian meal. In the background, the radio played the sounds of a Swing band ... and then, a news flash came that the Japanese had attacked the US military base in Hawaii.

My Uncle had been classified in the army for the draft, but after years of working in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, he decided to enlist in the navy instead. Several days after his enlistment, he was shipped out to the Great Lakes Military Installation in Waukegan, Illinois, outside Chicago. Like a tale out of a storybook, he married his girlfriend, my Aunt Georgia, the day before he left.

From his hair-scalping at the installation to the strenuous marching, walking, running, rifle and rope exercises, boot-training was a test of his endurance. Even learning to sleep in a hammock—or as Uncle Sam reminisced,"trying to get into them, and involuntarily getting out of them"—was a chore. From Illinois, he was sent to Norfolk, Virginia for further training. He eventually became a part of the Seabees, a relatively new branch of the navy that was similar to the army corps of engineers. In learning the arts of naval engineering, these Seabees were taught everything"from building bridges and laying down airfields in record time, to advanced techniques of camouflage."

From Norfolk, Uncle Sam went on to Pleasantville, California, and then on to the Bremerton Navy Yard in Puget Sound, Washington state, where he participated in the salvage work on the USS Nevada, damaged in the Pearl Harbor raid. As they awaited orders on their next assignment, Uncle Sam's group was split into two: Group 1 was headed south—to Guadalcanal. By the mere accident of being part of Group 2, Uncle Sam ended up in the North Pacific."We then realized," he recalled:"This is it. This isn't playing anymore. We're not training. From here on, everything is real."

Morale was remarkably good on the trip. But there was a common expression on everyone's face, he told me: an expression of suppressed horror, worry, and uncertainty. There was that constant alert for possible enemy aerial or submarine bombardment. While he remained remarkably calm, many of his newfound pals were desperately ill."My comrades wished they had died. Men were throwing-up against bulkheads and walls and fainting on decks. They lost their appetites from terrible fear and severe seasickness."

Ten days after rough riding, the ship neared its destination. A heavy fog descended. And when the land mass came into focus, it looked like the cold, barren surface of a distant planet: no trees, no vegetation, immense mountains of stone and volcanic rock. Uncle Sam wasn't a few minutes on land before an alert signaled an imminent Japanese air attack. An earlier attack that day had destroyed the boats that lay docked around a makeshift pier. Running to take cover, the men passed an enormous hill of greenish-white pine boxes ... coffins waiting for new inhabitants. It was the kind of greeting that sobered the most stubborn among them."A morbid, depressing and unsettling sensation came over me," Uncle Sam said."We were finally aware that we had been sent to the notorious Dutch Harbor in the Alaskan Aleutian Islands, the closest US military base to Japan, only 600 miles away." This was a place where temperatures ranged from 12 below to 60 above. At times, many feet of snow would fall. Certain seasons brought 18-hour days, while others brought 18-hour nights. But always, there was a damp, musty fog; for the two years that Uncle Sam was stationed in the Aleutians, he never saw the sun.

Within the first week of their arrival, the new troops faced air attacks, volcanic eruptions, storms, earthquakes, and"horizontal rain," due to"winds that could blow a building across the Hudson River." Those winds, dubbed"Williwaws," were sudden and severe, up to 200 mph. Ironically, it was the difficult climactic conditions that saved Aleutian Island residents from both constant Japanese aerial bombardment and the typical diseases that infected troops stationed in the South Pacific."American pilots remarked that there were better odds in flying 50 missions over Berlin," Uncle Sam would say,"than even one mission over the Aleutian Islands."

He remembered walking along a dirt road, when a light breeze had suddenly transformed into one of those Williwaws. By the time he had hit the deck, the wind had uprooted steel cables, boulders, and a 13-ton patrol bomber on the beach—smacking it up against a mountain. The Seabees' efforts to camouflage their work were not very successful because of these winds."We were forced to build revetments for planes to try to camouflage them with heavy steel-cabled nets. After the first storm, all the nets went flying across the Pacific Ocean and days of work went down the drain."

But the Seabees transformed the rough Alaskan terrain, by literally leveling mountains. After laying down many miles of airfields with heavy metal stripping, the Seabees paved the way for an Aleutian air-force, since land-based bombers were now able to land.

By this time, Uncle Sam had become a Second Class Petty Officer. His days began at 5 am. His meals consisted of passable substitutes, since there were no eggs or milk. Remarkably, he gained 30 lbs. while living in Dutch Harbor. It was weight he desperately needed, as he worked hard on airfield and submarine installations. (He remembered going into one of those primitive subs:"I was qualified for submarine duty," he said,"but they were out of their minds: it was like staying in a narrow coffin, cluttered with levers, wheels, and machinery. I would never have survived!")

When his day of rigorous work was complete, he'd go back to the bunkhouses, which had been built to withstand the wind, the rain, and the war. Fighting his solitude and isolation, he found comfort with his comrades, smoking cigarettes, reminiscing of home, listening to their"Pacific sweetheart" on the radio: Tokyo Rose. Whoever she actually was, Uncle Sam had vivid memories of all the things she told them on the radio."She'd tell us how our girls were cheating on us back home. She would say that we were very stupid to be fighting ... we were going to lose anyway. So we might as well rebel, destroy our superiors, and go home." It gave them a lot of laughs, he said, but it was hard to avoid sobbing, silently, as you listened to the Swing music she played. From the crackling of the radio speaker, came the Big Band sounds of Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller, and Tommy Dorsey; more than anything"Tokyo Rose" had actually said, the use of this great music constituted a form of psychological warfare that infected everyone with homesickness, he said."It would place us in a very depressing state. Some men cried openly."

The men of Dutch Harbor served as a diversionary force in the Battle of Midway. They prepared munitions for the bloody US invasions of Amchitka, Adak, and Attu. They played an active part in the isolation of Kiska, even though they failed to prevent the evacuation of 5100 Japanese troops, who departed in the middle of a fog-heavy July night to return to Paramishiro Harbor.

During his two-year tour of duty, Uncle Sam experienced about six Japanese air bombardments; though the attacks were only seven to eight minutes in duration, they felt like seven to eight hours. A two-hour alert would usually precede an attack, as men would frantically prepare their anti-aircraft positions."We were told to run off the ships and scatter into the hills, where there were fox holes." Men clung to their own hopes for survival, some praying and giving substance to the old adage"there are no atheists in foxholes." You just didn't know if"that next bullet would have your name on it. Then you'd hear the incoming planes." Within seconds, bombs would be dropping, destroying installations, oil tanks, gasoline storage facilities, and piers. Raging infernos and thick, black smoke would engulf the camp."Things flashed quickly through my head," he painfully recalled. He had fears of invading parachutests, naval bombardment,"the end of the world. In one attack, our ship, the Northwestern, was blown into a million pieces as a bomb was dropped down the smokestack. Shrapnel and other fragments went flying, as the explosion echoed through the hills and canyons."

Uncle Sam learned a few things about wars, even"good" wars. He thought it was a joke when some said that the Americans would sell you the noose with which to hang them ... until he realized that scrap metal from Manhattan Els (elevated trains) had been sold to the Japanese and used by them to create their machinery of war. He even remembered going over to a downed Japanese Zero."And on the engine was labeled 'Pratt-Whitney Motors, USA.'"

While he wouldn't have thought twice about shooting another human being in order to survive—"quite frankly," he'd say,"it was either them or us"—he never accepted the notion that he should hate his enemy."We had been taught to hate the enemy for their bombardment of Pearl Harbor, for their cruel and inhumane treatment of our men." But when prisoners were caught,"you'd look at these men, 'our enemy,' and see a reflection of yourself. I felt sorry for them."

In 1944, Company C was reorganized and sent back to San Francisco. As his ship neared the Golden Gate Bridge, Uncle Sam cried"like a baby. It was the most fabulous sight I had ever seen. To be on American soil again, a feeling you can't imagine unless you had been in that situation. And there, on the dock was the American Red Cross—with gallons and gallons of ice-cold milk."

The climactic changes were not friendly to Uncle Sam. He developed a mysterious illness in which his legs swelled, as he lay nearly paralyzed in pain. When it was apparent that he would be in a military hospital for months, he was given an honorable discharge. In May 1944, he finally came home to New York. For months, he had difficulty adjusting. He was immensely uptight and shuddery. He developed a fear of passing overhead planes, a fear that some New Yorkers still have for reasons that my Uncle could never have dreamed. The war had split homes and families, had taken away friends and relatives, and had damaged relationships."You never know if you're going to come back during a war," he stated."But if you have that luck, you can really appreciate what you left behind."

A bolder and more patriotic American you'd be hard pressed to find. But Uncle Sam had had enough with politicians. He had voted for FDR because he was convinced that the President would preserve the peace."The President had said that American boys would not fight on foreign soil. He forgot to add: 'They'd be buried in it.'" For thirty years thereafter, Uncle Sam refused to go into a voting booth.

I come from a family of servicemen. Uncle Sam was fortunate enough to come home and to live a wonderful life, becoming a second father to me, as my own father had passed away when I was 12. But other relatives were not as lucky. My Uncle Frank was killed in the Battle of the Bulge. My Uncle Charlie survived, but was unable to talk about his war experiences for the rest of his life, having lived for years in a German POW camp. Fortunately, my Uncle Al and Uncle Georgie lived to talk about their experiences in the European theater. And my Uncle Tony remained in the army for the rest of his life.

The human cost of war is usually calculated by raw data on battle deaths, casualties, and medical evacuations. But whatever your position on the current war, it is important to remember not only those who died on the battlefield. It is important to remember, to tribute, those who survived as well, those who lived to tell us about the horrors of war, and who did the most patriotic thing imaginable: Building and sustaining their own lives in the aftermath, drawing strength from their love of family, of friends, and for life itself.

I honor their memory.


Monday, June 14, 2004 - 13:01


David T. Beito
Jude Wanniski (purely independent of Liberty and Power) has penned his own defense of Harding.

Monday, June 14, 2004 - 13:44


Radley Balko
Here's a wonderful defense of good eating and the good life by NY Times food critic William Grimes. Excerpt:
Unfortunately, in the United States, where even serial killers are considered innocent until proved otherwise, all sorts of harmless pleasures are routinely described as guilty.

May I mount a defense? Most arguments against fine dining as frivolous, excessive and somehow morally wrong rest on one of two propositions, both of them false. The first is utilitarian. The food that goes into my mouth comes out of someone else's. In this Malthusian view, the total food supply is seen as a large pie. Rich people push forward to the table and cut big slices for themselves, leaving their poorer fellow citizens to slice the pie thinner and thinner until, in the end, the truly desperate fight over a single cherry. On an international scale, it is greedy Westerners who load up at the expense of everyone else.

No one, rationally, believes in the pie-chart model. Food surpluses pose as much a problem as food shortages, and famines, it turns out, usually have political causes that require political solutions...

...There is something amiss in this reasoning. Disparity of incomes and national wealth might or might not be unjust. I'll leave that to others to sort out. But the $500 Manolo Blahnik shoe, the $50,000 car or the $3,000 television set is not, in and of itself, a wrong. And I'm willing to bet that a thorough audit of my impassioned letter writers would turn up one or more of the aforementioned items. For the record, I drove a Honda Civic to many of my dinners, rather than an S.U.V., which means that any potential food guilt should have been prorated by a formula calculating miles per gallon saved. I might also point out that restaurants employ people.

The second objection to fine dining is moral. It boils down to this: It is all right to enjoy food, but not too much. It is all right to eat out, but not to spend too much money doing it. There are two moral impulses intertwined here, the ancient prohibition against gluttony and the more modern Puritan objection to indulging pleasure for its own sake.

Grimes then dismisses both impulses.

A really well-written, clearheaded, and much needed piece.


Monday, June 14, 2004 - 11:41