I reposted this from my Army Blog.
A Night to Remember: Jonathan Bratten Army Strong Stories
Monday, May 2, 2011
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Phony Blockade
During the Civil War, General Winfield Scott of the Union Army devised a naval strategy called the Anaconda Plan. This involved placing a constricting blockade on all Confederate seaports. Foreign observers, namely Britain, quickly called "Foul!" The laws of naval warfare only allowed a blockade of one country against another. The United States did not recognize the Confederacy, and so, said critics, was blockading itself. This, they said, would not do. In typical American fashion, the Lincoln administration and the Supreme Court quietly ignored this, and allowed the navy to cut off as much rebel shipping as possible. In the end, over fifty percent of Confederate shipping was stopped by the blockade. Valuable shipments of arms were seized, and exports from the Confederacy were halted. Historians now see the blockade as being vital to the Union war effort.
This past week, another blockade has been in the news: that of Israel's on the Gaza Strip. Some call it immoral, some may even call it illegal. The Israelis call it prudent, given that Hamas-run Gaza is a national security risk. They deem protecting their citizens to be the most important task of the government. Incidentally, so do the Egyptians, who are not getting any press on their support of the blockade. These countries, like the Civil War Union government, see the safety of their nations as more important than world opinion.
Turning now to Asia, we see another aquatic mishap: a North Korean sub torpedoes and sinks a South Korean warship in contested waters. And there is international uproar. Can't you hear it? No? Well, your hearing is not failing because there is none. South Korea vows to take North Korea to task, I mean, the UN. There the incident will fall victim to red tape, long winded speeches, and diplomatic doublespeak. In the meantime, forty-six families mourn the loss of their loved ones. More Koreans should prepare themselves to do the same, for when North Korea realizes that the world will not respond to their belligerence, they will be sure to be repeat offenders. Perhaps South Korea should opt for less public approval and more private security.
This past week, another blockade has been in the news: that of Israel's on the Gaza Strip. Some call it immoral, some may even call it illegal. The Israelis call it prudent, given that Hamas-run Gaza is a national security risk. They deem protecting their citizens to be the most important task of the government. Incidentally, so do the Egyptians, who are not getting any press on their support of the blockade. These countries, like the Civil War Union government, see the safety of their nations as more important than world opinion.
Turning now to Asia, we see another aquatic mishap: a North Korean sub torpedoes and sinks a South Korean warship in contested waters. And there is international uproar. Can't you hear it? No? Well, your hearing is not failing because there is none. South Korea vows to take North Korea to task, I mean, the UN. There the incident will fall victim to red tape, long winded speeches, and diplomatic doublespeak. In the meantime, forty-six families mourn the loss of their loved ones. More Koreans should prepare themselves to do the same, for when North Korea realizes that the world will not respond to their belligerence, they will be sure to be repeat offenders. Perhaps South Korea should opt for less public approval and more private security.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Controversy
"...We need a little controversy/'Cause it feels so empty without me."
-Eminem
The undisputed king of rappers made this statement, and it brought me to thinking on the current election. The presidency has been portrayed in recent years as nothing less than a dictatorship. Indeed, hearing the candidates talk you would think that they had taken on Messianic roles to cure all ills of the world. For some reason, instead of playing the traditional game of "cheat the prophet" (see Chesterton's The Napoleon of Notting Hill for a full explanation of this game), the populace is willing to go on with this charade. No one seems to realize that after all is said and done, there are still two other branches of the government and literally hundreds of members of Congress. The latter happen to be reponsible for most things that touch our lives: taxes, laws, boring speeches on C-Span, etc. Why then is there such a hubub every election year? Why are millions of dollars (which could surely be going to something useful) pumped into campaigns? I have a theory.
Americans love to argue. They always have and always will. It shows on every level of society. It is the Great Social Equalizer (along with the stuff you have in your eyes when you wake up) that unites this great land. There are so many issues that hundreds and thousands of groups polarize behind them, ending up with a fractured society that cynics can point at and cackle in glee. However, the greatest cynics of all, the news media, are not satisfied by merely pitting gun nuts against animal rights nuts, or finding out whether people are pro-Britney or against her existence altogether. Nay, they seek greater spoils. One might imagine an NBC mogul sitting in his office; his jaw is slack, his eyelids lowered, he is deep in a daydream. In this daydream he has somehow managed to polarize the entire country into two deeply divided and partisan groups. Ranks of fanatical citizens fall in line behind their factions and spend billions of dollars on propaganda to convince themselves that they are the right choice. Leaders for the factions are picked and made to spout the most Godawful rhetoric that would make a monkey blush. At this, the powerful man behind the desk awakes, probably because he has begun to salivate at the prospect. Then, as he ponders, he realizes that with a little prodding, he can push the country into the situation he desires. Thus, election year is born. Its purpose? To provide more controversy that even Hollywood cannot rival.
There, you are now enlightened. Go forth wiser, and somewhat chastened that you have been duped so well.
-Eminem
The undisputed king of rappers made this statement, and it brought me to thinking on the current election. The presidency has been portrayed in recent years as nothing less than a dictatorship. Indeed, hearing the candidates talk you would think that they had taken on Messianic roles to cure all ills of the world. For some reason, instead of playing the traditional game of "cheat the prophet" (see Chesterton's The Napoleon of Notting Hill for a full explanation of this game), the populace is willing to go on with this charade. No one seems to realize that after all is said and done, there are still two other branches of the government and literally hundreds of members of Congress. The latter happen to be reponsible for most things that touch our lives: taxes, laws, boring speeches on C-Span, etc. Why then is there such a hubub every election year? Why are millions of dollars (which could surely be going to something useful) pumped into campaigns? I have a theory.
Americans love to argue. They always have and always will. It shows on every level of society. It is the Great Social Equalizer (along with the stuff you have in your eyes when you wake up) that unites this great land. There are so many issues that hundreds and thousands of groups polarize behind them, ending up with a fractured society that cynics can point at and cackle in glee. However, the greatest cynics of all, the news media, are not satisfied by merely pitting gun nuts against animal rights nuts, or finding out whether people are pro-Britney or against her existence altogether. Nay, they seek greater spoils. One might imagine an NBC mogul sitting in his office; his jaw is slack, his eyelids lowered, he is deep in a daydream. In this daydream he has somehow managed to polarize the entire country into two deeply divided and partisan groups. Ranks of fanatical citizens fall in line behind their factions and spend billions of dollars on propaganda to convince themselves that they are the right choice. Leaders for the factions are picked and made to spout the most Godawful rhetoric that would make a monkey blush. At this, the powerful man behind the desk awakes, probably because he has begun to salivate at the prospect. Then, as he ponders, he realizes that with a little prodding, he can push the country into the situation he desires. Thus, election year is born. Its purpose? To provide more controversy that even Hollywood cannot rival.
There, you are now enlightened. Go forth wiser, and somewhat chastened that you have been duped so well.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
"Cry Havoc"
If you have somehow been isolated from all media for the past few days, you may know not know that the game is afoot, in economic terms. And since you do not know, then you are probably in a great state of contentment and happiness, as opposed to all those who listen to the news who are in a state of panic. Panic breeds panic, it seems. As more people hear of the financial worries of AIG, Lehman Bros., and such, they begin to build a panic and withdraw their trust from these companies. This causes the companies to enter an even bigger downward spiral and increases their problems. In steps in the Almighty Fed (Federal Reserve Agency). With an outstretched hand and a mighty arm it magically infuses cash into whichever corporation is big enough. The smaller ones, well, they apparently don't matter in the long run.
Why am I talking about this? Because the political candidates are. Obama declares that more regulation is needed; McCain cautiously echoes this, backing off his deregulation platform. What does Common Sense declare? Who cares? Descartes says that more stupidity comes from people proclaiming Common Sense than anywhere else. What then does education say? The answer is simple: let the "giants" fall. Let's have a new slate. All that the Fed has done is confuse investors. The message that is sent is: do all the risky investing that you want. As long as the company is big enough, the Fed will bail you out. Playing the stock market has now become gambling on the Fed. It would then be better to start over anew.
Someone told me that the essence of blogging is controversey. Well, is advocating the withdrawal of support for the pillars of the stock market controversey? I hope so. If not, I will have to find something more controversial. Perhaps something concerning the presidential candidates...
Why am I talking about this? Because the political candidates are. Obama declares that more regulation is needed; McCain cautiously echoes this, backing off his deregulation platform. What does Common Sense declare? Who cares? Descartes says that more stupidity comes from people proclaiming Common Sense than anywhere else. What then does education say? The answer is simple: let the "giants" fall. Let's have a new slate. All that the Fed has done is confuse investors. The message that is sent is: do all the risky investing that you want. As long as the company is big enough, the Fed will bail you out. Playing the stock market has now become gambling on the Fed. It would then be better to start over anew.
Someone told me that the essence of blogging is controversey. Well, is advocating the withdrawal of support for the pillars of the stock market controversey? I hope so. If not, I will have to find something more controversial. Perhaps something concerning the presidential candidates...
Infantry
Some gentle readers might wonder why there is a picture of British soldiers as a backdrop to a Frenchman's quote. Two reasons: 1) I like the irony. 2) It is a good pictoral example of relatively unfree men of the British Infantry at Waterloo holding off equally relatively unfree Curuissiers of Naploeon's Grande Armee in order to keep France (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, but only if you obey the Emperor) from taking freedom from Europeans (so they could go back to expanding monarchical power). Oy. The irony of the whole thing is making me giddy.
I am also fond of the painting because it grasps the essence of the Infantry, the age-old "ground pounders," the "Queen of Battle." The British regiment is formed in square: tight packed formation, providing protection from attacking cavalry by only offering the points of bayonets to any horsemen silly enough to approach. The men are tired, dust-covered, have endured hours of artillery fire in the open, and are in the midst of a cavalry charge. Yet they still are indefatigueable. Some manage to even laugh, as others cry. Some yell as they discharge their weapons at the foe. Yet most hold the so-called "thousand yard stare." The picture forms an idea of solidity in our minds: no one will get through those men.
That, of course, is the idea that the artist wanted to depict. Some might call it propaganda, I suppose, but it still displays the essence of the Soldier: courage, obedience, and endurance. It is this that distinguishes the 18th and 19th century Infantry from the romantic dash of the Cavalry or the thunderous power of the Artillery. And I believe that this still holds true today.
I am also fond of the painting because it grasps the essence of the Infantry, the age-old "ground pounders," the "Queen of Battle." The British regiment is formed in square: tight packed formation, providing protection from attacking cavalry by only offering the points of bayonets to any horsemen silly enough to approach. The men are tired, dust-covered, have endured hours of artillery fire in the open, and are in the midst of a cavalry charge. Yet they still are indefatigueable. Some manage to even laugh, as others cry. Some yell as they discharge their weapons at the foe. Yet most hold the so-called "thousand yard stare." The picture forms an idea of solidity in our minds: no one will get through those men.
That, of course, is the idea that the artist wanted to depict. Some might call it propaganda, I suppose, but it still displays the essence of the Soldier: courage, obedience, and endurance. It is this that distinguishes the 18th and 19th century Infantry from the romantic dash of the Cavalry or the thunderous power of the Artillery. And I believe that this still holds true today.
Everywhere in Chains
"Man is born free, but is everywhere in chains."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau
Perhaps it is odd that a red state American is opening a post with a quote from an Enlightenment Frenchman. But then again, our day is full of odd things: to quote the cynical British comedy Black Adder:
Lord Blackadder: "Stranger things have happened, Baldrick."
Baldrick: "Yes sir. Like that horse becoming Pope."
Not that the current Pope is a horse; far from it. I happen to like Our Bavarian Heilige Vater immensely. What I mean is that the world is full of amazing and astonishing events, most of which are related in some way or another. "There is nothing new under the son," bemoaned King Solomon many years ago, probably in extreme boredom (he did have infinite wisdom after all). That fact remains true to this day, and shall for all time. Why on earth do you think they called it the book of Wisdom?
From the beginning of this post you begin to understand that my ramblings will be just that: ramblings. They are as errant as a back road in Ohio; they run on and on, and all of a sudden you don't remember where you were going and you're out of gas. Hopefully, the latter shan't happen. There are enough occurrences in this day in age to keep us all entertained. My thoughts cover a multitude of areas, including but not limited to history, politics, entertainment, the military, education, and cynicism. Which is why I opened with the Rousseau quote. It is a paradox, the type that the author G.K. Chesterton reveled in.
Freedom and chains: both vie for dominance in every aspect of our society and world. Both have roles to play. Unchained freedom sends us to the level of the beast, in the words of 18th century humanists (hats off to them!). However, if chains are allowed to dominate freedom then we have descended to the level of the despot, which is below the beasts. Beasts do not have despots, you see. Someday, perhaps, we shall see who wins this epic battle. My bet is that it ends in a tie in multiple overtimes after the crowd has fallen asleep or gone home.
-Jean Jacques Rousseau
Perhaps it is odd that a red state American is opening a post with a quote from an Enlightenment Frenchman. But then again, our day is full of odd things: to quote the cynical British comedy Black Adder:
Lord Blackadder: "Stranger things have happened, Baldrick."
Baldrick: "Yes sir. Like that horse becoming Pope."
Not that the current Pope is a horse; far from it. I happen to like Our Bavarian Heilige Vater immensely. What I mean is that the world is full of amazing and astonishing events, most of which are related in some way or another. "There is nothing new under the son," bemoaned King Solomon many years ago, probably in extreme boredom (he did have infinite wisdom after all). That fact remains true to this day, and shall for all time. Why on earth do you think they called it the book of Wisdom?
From the beginning of this post you begin to understand that my ramblings will be just that: ramblings. They are as errant as a back road in Ohio; they run on and on, and all of a sudden you don't remember where you were going and you're out of gas. Hopefully, the latter shan't happen. There are enough occurrences in this day in age to keep us all entertained. My thoughts cover a multitude of areas, including but not limited to history, politics, entertainment, the military, education, and cynicism. Which is why I opened with the Rousseau quote. It is a paradox, the type that the author G.K. Chesterton reveled in.
Freedom and chains: both vie for dominance in every aspect of our society and world. Both have roles to play. Unchained freedom sends us to the level of the beast, in the words of 18th century humanists (hats off to them!). However, if chains are allowed to dominate freedom then we have descended to the level of the despot, which is below the beasts. Beasts do not have despots, you see. Someday, perhaps, we shall see who wins this epic battle. My bet is that it ends in a tie in multiple overtimes after the crowd has fallen asleep or gone home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
