i've been slogging my way through My Life, by Bill Clinton for the last week or so. i'm about 90 pages into it. The book is written in casual prose, almost like a blog, and it's easily accessible to the least common denominator. Anyone expecting multi-syllable words and complex sentences from this "Rhodes Scholar" will be disappointed. Clinton is a competent writer, but he's no Thomas Jefferson. He's not even a Theodore Roosevelt. Further proof to my mind that those fawning ignorami who insist that he was "our smartest president" are way off base.

Clinton delights in naming people he knew as a young man, probably for their own benefit, so they can point to the book and say "hey, I'm in it," or "hey, my dad/brother/sister is in it." The first few chapters are full of anecdotes that are only marginally interesting: Bill's boyhood encounter with an angry ram, the famous confrontations with his abusive stepfather, the famous handshake with President Kennedy, the time Bill's car got stuck in the mud at a bauxite quarry.

i'm no fan of Clinton as a president. He had some successes in office, but lord knows he hurt this country in many ways, which we are only now beginning to fully realize. But as a man, as a historical character, he fascinates me. Like Henry VIII, he's a tragic leader who cannot be ignored if you have any real interest in history. And like King Henry, Bill Clinton was a sincere idealist, who left his country in a mess because he let his cock do more thinking than his head.

At this early stage in my reading, i thought it might be fun to see what Clinton had to say about the man who aspires to carry on his progressive Democratic legacy. i'm talking about the presumptive Democratic nominee for president at the time of the book's celebrated release: Massachussets senator John Kerry. As you may have heard, Clinton's book damns Kerry with faint praise. Actually there's almost no praise at all.

According to the index, John Kerry is mentioned only seven times, despite his being a "prominent" United States senator since 1985, throughout the entirety of Clinton's two terms. By contrast, Senator John McCain is mentioned eleven times. The other Kerry, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, earned seventeen mentions in Clinton's index despite having been senator for only eleven years compared to John Kerry's twenty years. In fact, all but one of John Kerry's seven apearances in President Clinton's book are in passages where he's only one name in a list of names.

Here are the seven passages that mention the "prominent" senator from Massachussets, John Kerry:

. . . America's efforts to reconcile and normalize relations with Vietnam were led by distinguished Vietnam veterans in Congress, like Chuck Robb, John McCain, John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Chuck Hegel, and Pete Peterson, men who had more than paid their dues and had nothing to hide or prove. [p. 161]

. . .

There was support in Congress from her brother, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senators Chris Dodd, Pat Moynihan, and John Kerry; and New York congressmen Peter King and Tom Manton. [pp. 578-579]

. . .

My decision was strongly supported by Vietnam veterans in Congress, especially Senators John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, and John McCain, and Congressman Pete Peterson of Florida, who had been a prisoner of war in Vietnam for more than six years. [p. 581]

. . .

After the meeting I went to Boston for a fund-raiser for Senator John Kerry, who was up for reelection and would likely face a tough opponent in Governor Bill Weld. I had a good relationship with Weld, perhaps the most progressive of all the Republican governors, but I didn't want to lose Kerry in the Senate. He was one of the Senate's leading authorities on the environment and high technology. He had also devoted an extraordinary amount of time to the problem of youth violence, an issue he had cared about since his days as a prosecutor. Caring about an issue in which there are no votes today but which will have a big impact on the future is a very good quality in a politician. [p. 659]

. . .

. . . [I]n July[,] I normalized relations with Vietnam, with the strong support of most Vietnam veterans in Congress, including John McCain, Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, Chuck Robb, and Pete Peterson . . . [p. 665]

. . .

At the end of the month, I announced that the Veteran's Administration would provide compensation to Vietnam veterans for a series of severe illnesses . . . that were associated with exposure to Agent Orange, a cause long championed by Vietnam veterans, Senators John Kerry and John McCain, and by the late Admiral Bud Zumwalt. [pp. 713-714]

. . .

. . . [F]our of the seven Senate candidates I had campaigned for won: Tom Harkin, Tim Johnson, John Kerry, and, in Louisiana, Mary Landrieu. [p. 734]

Sure, one might attribute the lack of extended praise to the mighty Clinton ego, but if you look elsewhere in the book you will find paragraph after paragraph where Clinton ladles extravagant compliments over the most minor characters in his life. i would think he'd have spent a little more time on the "next Democratic president of the United States" if he had really wanted to.

Then again, it's very likely that Clinton has someone else in mind to be the next Democratic president. Who could that be? Hmmmm . . . i don't know . . . Let me see . . . could it be . . . Satan?

Posted by: annika at 11:43 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 974 words, total size 6 kb.

1 It raises a number of interesting questions, including the main point I keep trying to make: Who on earth is the GOP going to run in 2008? The bench doesn't have any obvious young stars right now, unless folks really think the world is ready for a black woman (Rice) as president. Colin Powell is way too liberal for the hard right. Cheney is a non-starter. You have to have a pro-lifer, which knocks out Giuliani and Schwarzenegger, even if the latter can get a new constitutional amendment through. Jebbie? Not a chance, not with the infidelity issue so clear.

Posted by: Hugo at July 18, 2004 01:11 PM (ntfdi)

2 Kerry a leading authority on technology? The man wants to prohibit the new manufacture of a class of firearms that are functionally no different than what was being made in the early 1900's. Assholes like him would replace the MAG-58 with a Vickers if left to his own devices. But one thing you should keep in mind about the book: Herr Klinton is nothing if not egotistical. Any mention of anyone else will either be used to demonstrate his humility or to serve some other purpose. Don't be too shocked if he doesn't wax poetic about anyone to any degree that would overshadow him - unless of course he either A: would seem like an asshole in not doing it (i.e. talking of JFK fondly) or B: he can use it to cash in on something down the road. The praise of seemingly minor characters in his life is easy: they pose no threat or challenge to him while bolstering his image as a "people person" (more or less). Odds are you wont' find anything so generous concerning someone he views as a rival. I assume you've read Rand, Locke & others of similar mind so for an anti-dote after you're through reading Bill's book might I recommend something by John Ross or Boston T. Party? There are the almost polar opposite of any liberal/socilaist books flaoting around - possibly to the point where the ocnservative in you would find them extreme, but a little extremity is good for ya. BTW, you do realize by mentioning that you're fascinated with slick willy you're just reinforcing your pro-lizard stance don't ya?

Posted by: Publicola at July 18, 2004 04:03 PM (Aao25)

3 I KNEW she looked familiar!!

Posted by: Brent at July 18, 2004 06:19 PM (w+y2e)

4 Clinton isn't a "Rhodes Scholar" any more than Annika is an admiral. He dropped out. Only people who finished the program are entitled to that title.

Posted by: Eric M. Johnson at July 18, 2004 10:24 PM (svki/)

5 "Clinton is a competent writer, but he's no Thomas Jefferson." And TJ didn't even have the army of ghost writers that one presumes did most of Bill's real work.

Posted by: Dave J at July 19, 2004 07:57 AM (VThvo)

6 Kerry shows up seven times in Clinton's book? Wow! I think that's more than he showed up for critical votes in the Senate last year, and probably a few more times than Slick and Satan were actually seen together in public (er, I mean Santa).

Posted by: d-rod at July 19, 2004 08:43 AM (/B70b)

7 So when you are done with the book, I offer $5 (plus shipping) for you to send it to me, so I can be highly entertained as well : ) Since, you don't want to KEEP it do you? : )

Posted by: Jennifer at July 19, 2004 11:29 PM (iwROl)

8 Maybe he tried to dumb the book down so his fans could read it? Just one idea, LOL. And that was one great photo there -- scary.

Posted by: 2flower at July 21, 2004 05:52 PM (CDNE8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Good stuff: "If D-Day Had Been Reported On Today."

Link thanks to Shelly.

See also: Photon Courier's "BISMARCK SUNK, BRITAIN DOOMED."

Posted by: annika at 02:57 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

Whatever else you can say about this week, i think it's been a seven day long commercial for the Republican Party. Tremble Democrats, because countless young people watching the proceedings are almost certainly going to grow up to be Republicans.

Nancy Reagan handled everything with a selfless grace and dignity that should set an example for us all.

i love Michael Reagan. He seems like a really decent and kindhearted man.

When the Democrats act like pessimistic crybabies again, starting next week i should think, your average American will remember the pride he or she felt during the week of Reagan's remembrance.

Looking at the tens of thousands of people who waited 5+ hours on both coasts, just to pay their respects where the President's body lied in state, i was struck by how many hundreds of thousands there were, myself included, who would have done the same if they could.

And looking at the thousands of people who lined the route from Point Mugu N.A.S. to Simi Valley, just to show their gratitude, i was struck by the fact that we may all owe our lives to that great man. Maybe there's no way i can prove that, but can you prove it's not true?

President Bush managed to put a former president, a former prime minister and the heir to the throne of Great Britain to sleep. That's power.

i thought Ron Reagan's swipe at President Bush was inappropriate and unfair.

The musical performances at the Cathedral service on Friday were outstanding, particularly the choral version of Jerusalem, both versions of the Battle Hymn and the very moving recessional music.

The two most heart-wrenching moments for me were when George H. W. Bush got choked up for a moment, and when Nancy Reagan, surrounded by her family, said a final goodbye to her husband, who loved her so very much.

Did you see John Kerry whisper something in Bill Clinton's ear before the Cathedral Service, then hold his finger up to his lips? What sort of conspiracy are they cooking up?

Ronald Reagan was both a good man and a great man. i fear that the world owes him a debt that cannot be repayed. i am grateful that he lived, and for his many gifts to us all. But now that he's gone, i don't see anyone that even comes close to his goodness and his greatness. And that makes me afraid for the future.

Posted by: annika at 12:11 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 2 kb.

i love adventure stories and WWII is a great source for true stories of escape and adventure . From every theater, it seems. Everyone knows that The Great Escape was based on actual events. And i'd highly recommend reading the The War Journal of Major Damon "Rocky" Gause, which is a true story about an escape from Bataan.

Here's yet another true WWII escape story, about a soldier from the historic 506th PIR, who took part in D-Day, only to be captured by the Wermacht, escape twice, get captured again by the Gestapo, get beaten and tortured, escape again, flee to the east, take refuge with a Russian tank battalion, fight with them for a month as they headed to Berlin, get wounded during an attack by Stukas, land in a Polish hospital, where he met Marshal Zhukov, and finally make it back to the US embassy in Moscow, where he learned that he had been declared dead. What an amazing story.

Link via Serenity.

Posted by: annika at 05:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Garrison Keillor's Writer's Almanac informs us that today is the anniversary of Claude-Joseph Rouget de Lisle's birth. Who he? Well, he wrote the French national anthem, better known as La Marseillaise. It was originally entitled Chant de guerre de l'armeé du Rhin, which means "War Song of the Army of the Rhine."

Musically, i think the Marseillaise is one of the most inspiring national anthems ever written (i think the Internationale is quite rousing too, even though i hate communism as much as i hate the French). i get goose bumps watching that scene from Casablanca in Rick's bar when the Frenchies try to drown out the Nazis by singing their anthem. But i never knew what the words meant until now.

Garrison Keillor says that the Marseillaise's lyrics "are filled with some of the most bloody and violent imagery of any national anthem." i guess he's referring to lines like this:

The bloody flag is raised,
The bloody flag is raised.

. . .

They come right into our arms
To cut the throats of your sons,

. . .

Let us march, Let us march!
That their impure blood
Should water our fields

The Writer's Almanac also notes that on this day in 1994, Nelson Mandela was inaugurated president of South Africa. There follows a pretty glowing bio of President Mandela, but read this AP story if you don't mind your heroes having feet of clay.

Posted by: annika at 06:07 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Go ahead, admit it, Annika. From the Internationale to the Dixie Chicks, we lefties have ALL the good songs!

Posted by: Hugo at May 10, 2004 08:28 PM (jdBQm)

2 Pardon me, but when did the Dixie Chicks record a good song? I'm sure I'd have heard about this 180' change in their material. I mean after their mediocre (at best) cover of Landslide I'd hope they'd be repentent enough to do the right thing, but I had no idea it came to fruition. But other than the Dixie Chicks & Willie Nelson (now that's a performer with talent) I can't think of anyone in country music who is a lefty. But assuming you're talking quality rather than personal preference I'll see your Dixie Chicks & raise you one Lynyrd Skynyrd (yes I know they're not country but the southern rock genre is all but dead [Drivin' & Cryin' may have been the last band that came close - if you doubt me check out their song Honeysuckle Blue]& most people nowadays would label them as country rock). They may very well have been Democrats, but they were Southern Democrats & not lefties by any stretch. & any one of the Van Zandt brothers (or their back-up singers for that matter) had more talent in their individual lower intestines than the Dixie Chicks possess collectively going back a generation or two. Name one Dixie Chicks song that even comes close to the simplistic beauty of Tuesday's Gone or the odl time nuance of Things Goin' On. & how many people do you know that, 30 years after its release, will flick their bics in unison & sing along loudly (& correctly) to a Dixie Chics song being played instrumentally? & be thankful I don't call on the name of Bocephus or Merle or The Possum. Democrats they all may be but if they are it's a helluva lot closer to the Zell Miller kind of Democrat than the Kucinich kind. I'll grant that a lot of good performers & artists lean Democrat, but in the country & southern rock genres they are definitely in the minority. heh (when I say they may have been democrats I'm merely conceding the possibility that they may have been democrats. I have no idea as to their political leanings, except to note a few who are pro-Right to Arms or anti-Right to Arms.)

Posted by: Publicola at May 10, 2004 10:27 PM (Aao25)

3 Many years ago, there was a summer where the frogs considered changing the lyrics of their anthem from the blood-soaked gore it has to something a little more friendly. I remember reading one submission that started, Oh, how lucky we are to be French! and the rest of it sounded like something written by Up With People. It might as well have been I'd like to teach the world to sing/In perfect harmony... Can you imagine the Nazis in Rick's Cafe hearing that? They would've laughed their asses off.

Posted by: Victor at May 11, 2004 05:23 AM (L3qPK)

4 On another note, I've finally heard the tripe that is L'Internationale. Figures it was originally written in surrender-monkian. You can find a brief history of it, along with a circa 30's recording, right here.

Posted by: Victor at May 11, 2004 05:28 AM (L3qPK)

5 Country artists against the war? I'll give you my three fave lefties, and their music cred is top notch 1. Emmylou Harris, quite simply a goddess. I love love love her. 2. Steve Earle 3. Lucinda Williams All listed at http://www.moveon.org/musiciansunited/

Posted by: Hugo Schwyzer at May 11, 2004 02:55 PM (lQSoR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As noted in the aftermath of Pat Tillman's death, many sports figures gave up successful careers to fight in World War Two, including baseball players Hank Greenberg, Joe DiMaggio and boxer Joe Louis.

Baseball Crank reminds us that things were no different in the Great War.

* 'Harvard Eddie' Grant, formerly an everyday third baseman for the Phillies and Reds, killed in action October 5, 1918 in the Argonne Forest.

* German-born Robert Gustave 'Bun' Troy, who made a brief appearance with the Tigers in 1912, killed in action October 7, 1918 in Petit Maujouym, in France.

* Christy Mathewson, who suffered severe health problems from which he never recovered - possibly contributing to his death in 1925 at age 45 from tuberculosis - after inhaling poison gas in a training accident. (Ty Cobb also served in the same unit).

* Grover Cleveland Alexander, who as I explained here, would probably have made it to 400 wins or close to it if he hadn't lost a year at his peak to World War I, and who suffered lasting trauma from seeing combat with an artillery outfit.

* Sam Rice, who as I explained here, missed a year following his first big season after being drafted into the Army in World War I; Rice also got a late start in the majors because heÂ’d joined the Navy at age 23 after his parents, wife and two children were killed by a tornado (Rice saw combat in the Navy, landing at Vera Cruz in 1914). Without those interruptions, Rice could easily have had 3500-3700 hits in the major leagues.

* Hall of Famer Rabbit Maranville also missed a year to the Great War, as did several others I've overlooked here. [links omitted]

Posted by: annika at 01:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

The Maximum Leader informs us that he has been known to wear a kilt,* then links to this story about a Marine who plays the bagpipes.

[1st Sgt. Dwayne] Farr, an African-American from Detroit, was inspired to learn when he saw another player who didn't match the Scotsman stereotype.

'I was at a funeral and I saw a Marine playing the bagpipes, and I thought, this isn't a big, burly, redheaded guy with a ponytail and a big stomach. He's a small Hispanic Marine. I said if he can learn to play the bagpipes, I can learn,' he said, chuckling.

When he is not on the front-line, Farr wears a kilt when playing, and some Marines have been skeptical about a member of one of the toughest fighting forces in the world donning what looks like a skirt.

But Farr is unfazed. . . .

'Kilts are something that fighting men wore many years ago, and we know that the Marines are fighting men. So real men wear kilts. And they are pretty comfortable too,' he said.

There are lots of Scots amongst all the dead and wounded. Instead of trousers they wear a sort of short, warm skirt that only reaches halfway down their thighs. Well itÂ’s not really a skirt, itÂ’s more of a sort of folded wrap-around thing. It is a strange sight. IÂ’m amazed the boys donÂ’t freeze their bums off, walking around half-naked like that, because they donÂ’t wear any underwear either.

That said, they do have a warm, heavy coat like the other English soldiers. The colour of their uniform is much more suited to the terrain than ours. ItÂ’s a sort of dirty brownish green. Their hats and wrap-around things are the same colour. The English soldier can move much more freely than we can. With their practical clothing and light packs, they can run like hares. This really is an advantage when under fire. But weÂ’re still going to win.

* Permalink doesn't seem to work, scroll down to April 16, 2004.

Posted by: annika at 12:30 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

Via Anne SFTH's recommendation, i checked out this website/photo essay by a Ukrainian chick who toured the ghost town of Chernobyl on her motorcycle.

It takes a few minutes to go through all the photos, but they're fascinating and definitely worth your time. Her prose is cool too, she writes with a charming accent:

Motorcycling is a great hobby of mine. I ride all my life and I owned different bikes and I ended with big kawasaki ninja. This motorbike has matured 147 horse powers, some serious bark, it is that fast like a bullet and comfortable for a long trips. I travel a lot and my favorite destination lead through so called Chernobyl 'dead zone' It is 130kms from my home. Why favourite? because one can ride there for hours and not meet any single car and not to see any single soul. People left and nature is blooming, there are beautiful places, woods, lakes. Roads haven't been built or repaired since 80th but in places where they haven't been ridden by trucks or army technics, they stay in the same condition as 20 years ago. Time do not ruin roads.

Truly amazing, and so sad. Chernobyl is like Pompeii. It's a time capsule, but more than just a capsule of the Eighties, Chernobyl is a snapshot of the Soviet Union. It's all that remains of a society that no longer exists. There's Elena, on a big Kawasaki Ninja, visiting the Soviet factory that once made the dream bike of Soviet teenagers in the 1980's: a top-of-the-line scooter with only 26 horsepower. So much has changed.

Posted by: annika at 07:57 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Annie- this is fan mail-- I just love your blog. You really put yourself out there. You are a smarty-pants with your own personality and quirks. What better description could there be of a good blogger? Plus, you realize our nation is in an actual war with practitioners of a murderous ideology. I have little patience these days with people or bloggers who cannot see that. Anyway, kudos to you and your blog. I have really enjoyed it.

Posted by: gcotharn in Texas at March 30, 2004 09:49 PM (rZmE1)

2 Compelling photos, but clearly one of the more dumb activities you can possibly undertake. This chick has a JFK Jr. sized deathwish. Walking around in radioactive Soviet era buildings with no maintenance for 20 years? As long as you have your portable Geiger counter, everything's peachy!! Look as with each step we take toward this vehicle we get another 100 REMs!! Hey what the fuck, let's drive up to the CHERNOBYL PLANT GATE!!! To paraphrase the guy on the porch in Fletch: "Girl, what in the hell is the matter with you?"

Posted by: Jason O. at March 31, 2004 07:48 AM (QyDeG)

3 gcotharn, thank you so much, i hope you keep coming back! Jason, i wondered myself if i would do what Elena did, given the chance. i don't think i would take the chance. i mean, you take in all that radiation and you don't notice anything until later. Unless you go into the reactor like those guys in K19.

Posted by: annika at March 31, 2004 09:12 AM (zAOEU)

4 K-19...talk about a movie that could have been excellent. It was not bad, I liked the twist that Liam Neeson sides with Harrison Ford in the key point of the mutiny. Reactor scenes were brutal. Of course Das Boot is the best sub movie ever...in particular the scene when they have been through hell and the officers are invited to the party on the Nazi resupply yacht...the look of disdain Jurgen Prochnow gives the assembled partygoers is tremendous. Then: Red October Run Silent Run Deep Grey Lady Down Crimson Tide

Posted by: Jason O. at March 31, 2004 10:11 AM (QyDeG)

5 i'm a big russophile, so i loved K-19. Just like with Enemy at the Gates, it's cool to see things from the other side and how the old enemy could be heroic too. i reviewed K-19 back in sept. i also liked The Enemy Below, with Bob Michum a lot.

Posted by: annika at March 31, 2004 10:52 AM (zAOEU)

6 Did I just read you recommend Mr. Majestyk in that review??? To paraphrase Drexl in True Romance: "Hey Marty, look what we got heah....muthafuckin' Charlene Bronson!!!" Have you seen "Hard Times" with Bronson as the bare knuckle fighter and James Coburn as his handler? Bronson's best movie, IMO.

Posted by: Jason O. at March 31, 2004 11:41 AM (QyDeG)

7 Haven't seen it. But i'll rent it.

Posted by: annika at March 31, 2004 01:15 PM (zAOEU)

8 Chernobyl is Russian for Wormwood, which some believe means that this disaster is foretold in Revelations. "And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter." "The burning star recalls the explosion and fire, the poisoned rivers and fountains of water in the Bible bring to mind the contaminated rivers and water reservoirs affected by the Chornobyl plant's unleashed radioactivity, the name of the Biblical star Wormwood has the same meaning as the name of the Ukrainian town where the disaster occurred. Do the similarities between the tragedy at Chornobyl and Revelations 8:10-11 imply that this Biblical passage contains a prophecy that has been fulfilled, or are they merely a coincidence? This is a decision that everyone will have to make individually." ...interesting stuff IMHO. P.S. I think the best movie that, as annie puts it, lets you "see things from the other side and how the old enemy could be heroic too" is Iron Cross. Bad ass movie. Though the recent Enemy at the Gates is up there too... http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1996/219619.shtml http://www.endtime.com/past_article.asp?ID=94

Posted by: Scof at March 31, 2004 03:20 PM (XCqS+)

9 Damn, it's Cross of Iron, not Iron Cross. Still James Coburn kicks butt, "I will show you where the Iron Crosses grow!"

Posted by: Scof at March 31, 2004 03:23 PM (XCqS+)

10 Very cool photo journal. And she did the whole 911 km trip in only 9hrs 11 mins (just kidding). Thanks!

Posted by: d-rod at March 31, 2004 03:45 PM (CSRmO)

11 Okay Scof, lets test that. Here's Rev 8:11 in Russian: "Имя сей звезде `полынь'; и третья часть вод сделалась полынью, и многие из людей умерли от вод, потому что они стали горьки" Unfortunately, i can't read cyrillic, but maybe someone can tell me if the word "chernobyl" appears in that passage. Candace?

Posted by: annika at March 31, 2004 04:34 PM (zAOEU)

12 A friend of mine used to inspect cracks in nuclear reactors for a living, so I emailed him about the biker chick's radiation exposure and here is his response. That is amazing... The dose she received is pretty darn high. More than I ever received while working in the nuc-u-lar industry. Not enough to make her hair fall out though, so she *should* be fine. Just thought some here might be interested.

Posted by: d-rod at March 31, 2004 06:08 PM (CSRmO)

13 No Anni, it doesn't contain the word Chernobyl. Let me tell you something even more human. I was a Soviet Studies major in the late 70's. I remember feeling a certain smugness when the piece of shit reactor failed and killed so many and so much, but those were darker days, and the Russkies were the bad guys. Ultimately I fell in love with a Russian gal whose husband died of lung cancer at the age of 26 after probably inhaling fallout from the reactor. Life is strange and cruel, yet beautiful.

Posted by: Casca at March 31, 2004 06:52 PM (BRVtJ)

14 It's actually a "Russian transliteration of the Ukrainian word ‘chornobyl’, which in English means wormwood"

Posted by: Scof at March 31, 2004 10:14 PM (uluG3)

15 I second the recommendation for the movie 'Cross of Iron'.

Posted by: Ted at April 01, 2004 05:38 AM (blNMI)

16 Another excellent "enemy perspective' is Robert Vaughn's Nazi character in "Bridge at Remagen"...At the very end when he is about to be executed by his superiors for not holding or destroying the bridge, he looks up at the Allied planes overhead and realizes he is on the wrong side.

Posted by: Jason O. at April 01, 2004 07:53 AM (QyDeG)

17 I keep going back to that photo essay. It is strangely compelling.

Posted by: Desert Cat at April 02, 2004 09:30 PM (c8BHE)

18 Strangely compelling and scary. How quickly the whole world can change.

Posted by: Bernard at April 04, 2004 05:54 PM (v//Np)

19 Looks to me like the word "wormwood", in Cyrillic, is replaced with a phonetic spelling of "pollen".

Posted by: Tuning Spork at April 05, 2004 10:55 PM (2hOtF)

20 Try this ( but take a hankie) http://www.oneworld.org/index_oc/issue196/babel.html There are a number of charities in the U.S helping the Children of Chernobyl. Google "Children of Chernobyl" and take your pick. That Elena is a brave Ukrainian biker chick - and plainly madasafish. Good luck to her. Roger -- Feel as One Breathe as One Love as One Be as One

Posted by: Roger at April 13, 2004 07:42 AM (9f8j7)

21 well, the girl has passion. and you - you dont have balls event to think about somethinng nt 100% safe..

Posted by: to jason o. at April 16, 2004 04:29 PM (CvpwE)

22 ow .. where has the site gone too? that's one that shouldn't go offline

Posted by: Joan at June 07, 2004 03:11 PM (X5pgO)

23 Yes i just wanted to say she is Ukrainian not Russian. And Chernobil is in the Ukraine not Russia. Ukraine was the first country to split from Russia in 1987. Calling a Ukranian a Russian can be quite offencive.

Posted by: Concerned Uki at September 23, 2005 04:25 PM (Nu6MN)

24 thank you for the correction. i will fix it.

Posted by: annika at September 23, 2005 05:33 PM (AyYha)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Trivia Question: In the name of the famous British submachine gun of WWII, what does "STEN" stand for?

Check out this very interesting and informative site for the answer.

Posted by: annika at 09:04 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Very cool, Annie. I did not know that. (I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that my dad did know it, though . . . )

Posted by: Matt Rustler at March 21, 2004 09:53 AM (of2d1)

2 And the Bren gun--also from a Czech design--was a combination of BRno-ENfield

Posted by: hatcher at March 21, 2004 12:46 PM (6ilou)

3 It is an interesting site but I found a couple of errors. The main one that I saw was their repetition of the alleged tactical deficiency of the Garand - that when the rifle is empty the enemy knows this because of the "ping" made when the empty clip is ejected. Have you ever shot a .30-06 w/o hearing protection? Do you have any idea how hard it'd be to listen for a "ping" with massive "booms" going off all around you? If you're close enough to hear the "ping" odds are your hearing has already been damaged by muzzle blast. & even if for some reason you did hear the "ping" it'd do you know good. Let's say it takes 2 seconds to load a Garand (a Garand is much faster to load than a magazine fed rifle). You'd have to be within 14 yards to make an effecient & succesful charge of the soldiers position. Now if you got to within 14 yards of a soldier with a Garand trying to stop you then that's probably the soldier's fault & an empty or loaded garand wouldn't matter. But the idea that enemies waited to hear the "ping" & charge is a rumor with no credibility to it. Another thing was about the 1911 pistol. Now I admit I'm not a big fan of the cartridge but I'm not a big opponent of it either. That being said the 300ft-lbs of energy they make a big deal of isn't a big deal. Least not by itself. Many smaller, more ineffecient cartridges produce energy higher than 300 ft-lbs. Raw energy alone isn't that significant. & with that in mind I think they seriously erred in stating it was the "...most powerful weapon in war service." In 1911 troops were issued the 1903 Springfield which fires the .30-06 Springfield which produces something like 8 times the energy of the .45acp (if we accept their idea that raw energy alone is the final word on stopping power). But it is an interesting site. Just take some of the descriptions with a grain of salt.

Posted by: Publicola at March 21, 2004 12:58 PM (Aao25)

4 P, The apocryphal story about Garand clips pinging on the ground is something my dad heard directly from a Korea veteran when he was in the service, so I'm not entirely sure it's apocryphal. However, even if it's true, it's not much of a deficiency: The same guy told Dad that they used this so-called weakness their advantage. Take a couple of guys with full Garands, toss an empty clip on the ground, then mow down the competition when they charge the foxhole full of "empty" rifles. Suckers. You're quite right about the 1911; 300-some ft-lbs of energy isn't terribly much even for a pistol, and it's not even in the same ballpark with rifle cartridges (or at least military rifles in use for the past hundred years or so). Soldiers are the greatest proponents of myth and legend on the face of the earth, and that includes the stories they tell about their weapons, both good and bad. That's why those who rely on soldiers' anecdotes are apt to be led astray when it comes to details of guns and ammo and their performance. It's also why, when I hear soldiers today complaining about the terrible ineffectiveness of the M16 and M9, I take their complaints with a grain of salt (even though both weapons legitimately are underpowered, in my view).

Posted by: Matt Rustler at March 21, 2004 05:05 PM (of2d1)

5 M, I've heard the same story from vets as well - but I've never heard any vet who has directly experienced this. It sounds credible on its face but the reality is that if an enemy was close enough to hear the ping odds are he wouldn't be able to hear it clearly enough to figure out where to charge. & even if he did some how miraculously zero in on the ping he'd have to be pretty damn close to cover the distance before a soldier could reload a Garand. But even if it has some validity its more a testament to the ignorance of an enemy than an indictment of the Garand's shortcomings. Might as well charge a machine gun when it stops firing a burst cause that undoubtedly means they're completely out of ammo. BTW the garand does have 3 faults that I know of: firing 40+ rounds per minute for 20 minutes in a monsoon might let the grease on the op rod track wash away & cause the op rod to seize up: partial clips can be difficult to load; & the damned thing just won't float! (thought with a synthetic stock filled with foam....) But facts aside (why do I sound like a spokeperson for the VPC with that intro?)the soldier's stories abotu their weapons (good & bad) is something we should pay attention to: it gives us an idea of how much confidence they have in their arms. Confidence is something we can't neglect when it comes to the front line troops, so even if they feel their brand new federation pulse rifles aren't adequate Romulan stoppers (despite it being proven that they are) it's usually better to go ahead & let 'em have Disruptors than have them go into combat less than sure of themselves & their arms. But one day let's knock back a drink (or twelve) & discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of issuing a 10mm pistol for the troops (after we start re-issuing Garands of course).

Posted by: Publicola at March 21, 2004 06:25 PM (Aao25)

6 P, Much as I love the Garand, if we're going to start re-issuing a rifle, let's make it the M14. It's just a Garand on steroids, anyway. You're right that the troops' confidence in their weapons should be given weight. I didn't say to ignore anecdotes entirely; I just said to take 'em with a grain of salt. The thing is, if the pulse rifle's genuinely a better weapon, the better solution might be to edumacate the troops, rather than give 'em an inferior weapon for the sake of boosting morale. That's at best a temporary solution. Elan, esprit de corps and good morale get one only so far. Just ask the French.

Posted by: Matt Rustler at March 21, 2004 06:49 PM (of2d1)

7 Publicola, you should be proud of me, i was sorta suspicious of the Garand "ping" story (you taught me that), and the claim that the Colt 1911 was "the most powerful weapon in war service." After all, weren't Fat Man and Little Boy weapons? Matt, historically, we Americans have been known to work wonders with inferior weapons: c.f. how the "Thatch Weave" turned the Wildcat into a match for the Zero.

Posted by: annika! at March 21, 2004 09:29 PM (jyRhN)

8 M, (why am I having an "I'm really a 00 agent" flashback?) The M14 is acceptable. For a start at least. & the M14 isn't exactly a Garand on steroids - not if you go by chambering at least. I know it's simply a matter of preference but I got this thing for the '06 & the 7.62 just ain't the same. Don't get me wrong - it's great for what it is I just prefer the '06. As far as functioning goes a lot fo peeps say the M14 gas system is an improvement, but I'll argue that the Garand's gas system is more reliable. & the mag v. en bloc clip thing - both have advantages & disadvantages but I'm partial to the clip system. At the least I don't think it's a significant disadvantage over a mag system if (big if) you learn how to work it. But the M14 would be acceptable. Hell, a Lee-Enfield or '17 Enfield would be an acceptable replacement for the one we have now. & you're right that education is better than simple appeasement. But if the Disruptor is equally as good or better than the Fed Pulse Rifle then you have to consider that sometimes it's more practical to re arm than re-educate. Besides, what we're talking about (in rather amusing veiled tones) is the M16. I know if I was going into harm's way with one of those things I'd be shakier than normal. Now even if the M16 is adequate for the military's purposes I'd say it'd be better to upgrade than to try to convince a soldier that the little .224" bullet will put an enemy down - eventually! & that the gas system is fine even though it defecates where it eats & jam clearance isn't that difficult anyhow. & why'd ya wanna go & bring the French into this - we're talking about a martial issue. lol But it'd be interesting to get Q..er, I mean A's perspective on this.

Posted by: Publicola at March 21, 2004 09:34 PM (Aao25)

9 A, (sorry - this initial kick is hard to give up) I am proud of you. (morphs into his father/uncle voice - but not a father/uncle that's the same person - either a father or uncle voice) When I saw your first gun related post on that Nazi belt fed machine gun I knew you had potential. Sure, some of my friends scoffed. They didn't think a cute blonde in SF could even get close to being a gun nut - not even a cute conservative blonde in SF. Well you've showed them how wrong they were. Never mind the fact that you're in LA now, or that you live in a state where gun owners have to tie pink ribbons around their muzzles (of the guns that is - not the gun owners)to show fealty to the state. You know to be suspicious of an anecdotal story about a Garand even if it seems valid on its surface. (morphs out of father/uncle voice) But I would disagree about having inferior weapons. Ya see, it's not usually a contest of technology (although to an extent this has happened) but a contest of how to use the available technology. The Zero was very fast & very manuverable - but it was lightly armored & the fuel tanks paid off big if you could hit 'em. The Wildcat was slower & not as agile, but had more protection. So once we figured out how to use what we had it seemed like we bested their tech, but in reality we bested their technique. BTW, I've been on a SW kick lately (despite the ST references with M) & if you do some reading - especially the Rogue Squadron series - you'll see that Lucas took the concepts for the Tie & X Wing from the Zero & Corsair. The Tie was fast & maneuverable but had no shields & no hyperdrive while the X-Wing had shields & a hyperdrive. There were other similarities but I promised myself to only reveal so much "geekiness" per post.

Posted by: Publicola at March 21, 2004 09:51 PM (Aao25)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Karol at Spot On posted some very interesting facts about the year 1975. An interesting perspective on how much we have changed, or not. Do read the comments too.

Posted by: annika at 09:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

This is one of my favorite pictures of Ronald Reagan. With the Statue in the background it's so allegorical, isn't it?

He was, and is, a truly great man.

Posted by: annika at 07:13 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Without entering the fray on the AWOL controversy, (You probably can guess where i come down on that one, anyway.) i wanted to shed some light on the plane George W. Bush learned to fly back in the day. Kind of a bookend to my famous post on his fatherÂ’s plane (and this gives me an excuse to recycle that link yet again).

Truth be told, the F-102A was almost obsolete by the time George W. Bush began flying them. But in itÂ’s day, ConvairÂ’s Delta Dagger was pretty badass. It was billed as the first supersonic all weather fighter. It first flew in 1955 and began operational service about two years after the Korean armistice. Nine hundred and seventy-five were built by the Convair division of General Dynamics between 1955 and 1960. It was used sparingly in Vietnam. Later, some planes were sold to The Greek and Turkish air forces, and it flew during the Cyprus conflict of 1974.

It was big. If iÂ’m not mistaken, i think it was the biggest fighter weÂ’ve ever had. At over 68 feet long, it was almost six feet longer than the F-4E Phantom, which was no midget itself. But with only one engine, the Delta Dagger weighed half as much as an F-4.

The weight difference makes sense when you consider the mission of the F-102A. ItÂ’s kind of misleading to call it a fighter, because thatÂ’s a term that encompasses a wide variety of planes that were designed to do vastly different things. ItÂ’s more accurate to call the Delta Dagger an interceptor.

To understand the job of an interceptor, as opposed to a pure air superiority fighter, you have to remember what we were afraid of back in the Fifties and early Sixties. These were the early years of the Cold War, before intercontinental ballistic missiles. If a nuclear war happened, it would have been fought by long range bombers penetrating the enemyÂ’s homeland to drop bombs just like in World War II.

To defend against these long range bombers, the superpowers relied on early warning radar to detect an attack and interceptors to stop it. The idea was to shoot down the bombers as far away from the homeland as possible. Early warning radars needed to detect the bombers while they were still far enough away for the defending interceptors to take off and get within range.

Thus, speed was the one overwhelming requirement for a true interceptor. Maneuverability was not so important. These planes were like dragsters, not formula one cars. They needed to get within range of the bombers fast, so they could shoot them down before the bombers crossed into homeland territory or got near their targets. The Delta Dagger had no guns; interceptors werenÂ’t intended for dogfighting.

We had the Delta Dagger, and itÂ’s unbelievably fast successor, ConvairÂ’s F-106 Delta Dart. The Russians came up with the Yakovlev Yak-28 and the huge Tupolev Tu-28 Fiddler. Perhaps since it was the first of its kind, BushÂ’s Dagger was relatively slow compared to the Delta Dart and the Russian Fiddler. The DaggerÂ’s top speed was only 825 mph, while the Dart went 1,587 mph.

The strategy was for interceptor units to be ready to scramble on a momentÂ’s notice, in the event of a nuclear attack. They would race towards the incoming bombers and fire air-to-air missiles as soon as they came into missile range. i would guess that the range of an interceptor was important, but then the range of the air to air missiles would be added to the aircraft range.

i don't want to sound like iÂ’m minimizing the contributions of the brave pilots who flew the F-102A. Those men stood guard so my parents could sleep at night during a very dangerous period of the Cold War. Still, flying the F-102 was not the same as flying a Phantom over Vietnam. Interceptor pilots sort of pointed their plane in the right direction and stomped on the gas pedal. The radar automatically guided the plane into attack position and fired the missiles.

Thankfully, we never discovered whether interceptors would have been enough to stop a nuclear bomber attack. There was a period of time when military planners thought that the wave of the future would be faster and faster bombers. But that ended in the early 1970s when strategic planning had abandoned the idea of nuclear bombers penetrating enemy territory. The new method of nuclear war relied on inter-continental ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and submarine launched missiles. Obviously the interceptor was no defense against these newer strategic weapons. The nuclear missile made the long range bomber obsolete. And when the bomber was no longer needed, the interceptors became extinct too.

Although the Delta Dagger remained in service until 1974, the U.S. Air Force began moving its interceptors to National Guard units at the end of the sixties. So by the time George W. Bush graduated from his T-33A trainer into an F-102A at Ellington AFB, his unitÂ’s mission had already begun the transition from air defense on 24 hour alert status to pilot training.

ItÂ’s a tricky thing to try to place a value on one individualÂ’s service in the Armed Forces. Who am i to judge? i have a friend who has the seemingly cushy task of serving on the U.S.S. Harry S. Truman as an administrative clerk. Besides the fact that sheÂ’s sitting in a gigantic floating target, sheÂ’s doing a hell of a lot more to serve her country than i am doing, even if her duties are somewhat mundane. i would never denigrate her service, because she volunteered and every person in the military is there to protect me.

Obviously, flying an obsolete plane in a training squadron is different than driving a boat in the Mekong Delta. Still, they also serve who only stand and wait. Bush had the misfortune (or good fortune, depending on your perspective) of being born a few years too late for his chosen mission. We shouldnÂ’t hold it against him that he became an interceptor pilot at a time when that mission was winding down for reasons he probably was not aware of when he joined. If he had served in the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group a few years earlier, he would have been on the front lines of the Cold War, a far more important and potentially dangerous war than KerryÂ’s Vietnam. i donÂ’t think that lessens the value of his service to our country one bit.

Bonus trivia question: What is the plane in the picture doing?

Posted by: annika at 12:09 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 1100 words, total size 7 kb.

This piece at Free Republic.com appealed to my love of historical irony so much, i am reprinting it in full here:

We must fact the fact that our Republican president was a DESERTER! He never even served in the REAL military. Instead he was in the Illinois state militia during the Blackhawk War and NEVER saw any combat. Captain Abraham Lincoln even admitted years later that the worst he suffered in the Blackhawk War was a bunch of mosquito bites. Not only that, even though Captain Abraham Lincoln mustered out of the militia on July 10, 1832, there is NO RECORD of a Captain Abraham Lincoln being in the militia (not a REAL army) from May 27, 1832 to July 10, 1832. One can only conclude, despite any facts to the contrary, that Abraham Lincoln was a DESERTER. At the very least he was AWOL.

Contrast that sad military record with that of our great Democrat, George McClellan who bravely faced down Quaker Guns outside Richmond, VA in 1862. McClellan, who is now running for president, is absolutely correct in his assertion that Lincoln is a miserable failure as a president especially since he did not seek the advice and consent from our European allies in the War of Rebellion. I look forward to a political campaign featuring a distinguished REGULAR military officer with a chest full of medals up against a Republican deserter who slacked off in the militia, not the REAL army. One candidate spent the war slacking off and suffering from nothing more than a bunch of mosquito bites and the other candidate is a genuine WAR HERO who did not desert.

This November the choice is yours. VOTE for the Democrat candidate WAR HERO....NOT the Republican deserter.

p.s. Did I mention that the Democrat candidate is a WAR HERO?

Link thanks to Professor Hewitt.

Posted by: annika at 04:38 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 402 words, total size 3 kb.