Tag Archives: DOUG SMITH

DOUG SMITH: AN EDUCATION PROPOSAL FOR ILLEGALS

2 Mar

There is no free ticket to the American Dream!

doug smith

REGULAR FSP CONTRIBUTOR

AUTHOR AND HISTORIAN, DOUG SMITH

This week, Governor Andrew Cuomo, D NY, threatened to withhold state aid to citizens unless the legislature agrees to state ( Taxpayer) supported aid to undocumented ( “ in the United States illegally”) residents. The progressive Governor purports to offer the American Dream to non-Americans who manage to geographically locate their bodies within Progressive states.

mc 1

If you have had a child go to college, or paid your taxes, or even renewed your driver’s license, you are keenly aware of the great lengths needed to prove that you were who you said you were. Greater lengths, by far, than Brown and Cuomo want children here illegally to endure before getting a free college education.

Now the progressive line on education, and government underwriting of post-secondary education loans has given colleges, (also progressive bastions) to drive their prices up at a rate far outstripping inflation for decades.   Many middle class Americans find themselves increasingly unable to afford the traditional college experience, or afford it only with crippling debt.

mc 4

A bachelor’s degree is no longer the ticket it once was to a higher paying job, or even a job at all. Nearly a quarter million under 30 college grads are working part time, minimum wage jobs as of this writing. Many are still living with their parents approaching their 30s, undermining that other part of the American Dream: home ownership.

So the result of the progressive’s nosey hands ( hmm, is that a mixed metaphor?) in education is that a college costs more and more, delivers less and less, and educates young people to do less that is productive, except vote for Democrats.

At the same time, companies have jobs for skilled trades such as welders and electricians that go languishing for lack of qualified applicants.

mc 3

So, how about if we put your beliefs to the test, progressives? Let the NEA and the Department of Education start colleges in Mexico and Central America. Let s send diversity coordinators, gender studies teachers, and art history professors. Let us spend ( less than what we spend to poorly educate high school students in DC) part of the cost of educating them for free in NY and California, and offer the same art history and archeology courses we offer here. And let us give the education free, just as we would if they were illegally in the US, but in this case we will put the advantage of a progressive education back into the citizens who just want a better life, in Mexico.

After all, if it is good and desirable here, why not in Mexico?

At the same time, let’s gear up to train skilled tradesmen that we need so desperately. And once a student completes education that we offer to become a welder or other tradesmen, in their home country, then let us offer them a fast track work visa to come here and fill those jobs. Of course, Mexico may not want trained welders to go.

mc 5

But instead of drawing people here, and asking taxpayers to pay for them to receive the same failing education here that our own children must, in many cases, endure, let us educate them there, and permit them to come here if, and when, that education makes them a desired commodity. Not that progressive politicians or the NEA (I apologize if any of you had a stroke reading this) would ever permit this to happen. But isn’t the fact that we know they would not even consider it very telling?

While we are about it, let’s also take all public funding away from universities. Today. Let us give it back to taxpayers with children ready to get a post-secondary education. And let them spend that money as they will, instead of incurring huge debts, and let the market dictate who sinks or swims.

Unaccompanied minors ride atop the wagon of a freight train, known as La Bestia (The Beast) in Ixtepec

Perhaps colleges will see the bucks going to welding schools, and rethink the number of administrators and basket weaving professors they are able to pay. Perhaps they will decide college is not a place for them to have permanent employment, and 18 year olds to have fun, but instead a place to prepare 18 year olds to be productive 22 year old citizens. Of the United States. Or even Mexico.

DOUG SMITH: TWO GOVERNORS – TWO IDEOLOGIES – ONE FUTURE

22 Feb

Hence, the molding of the 20th century as we know it…

doug smith

FSP regular contributor, author and historian Doug Smith

main seal gov seal new jersey

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was a professor of logic and natural theology at Bowdoin College in Maine. Chamberlain taught himself the Greek required to attend Bowdoin, and was proficient in Latin, Greek, German, Arabic, Hebrew and Syriac. He felt very deeply that slavery was wrong, and that good men needed to stand against the secession of the southern states as it would perpetuate the institution of slavery and weaken the Union.

Granted a 2 year sabbatical with pay by the college to travel in Europe, he instead joined the Maine militia. He was offered a Colonelcy by the Governor, but asked to be given a lower rank instead, since he “had much to learn.” He was commissioned as a LTC under Col Adalbert Ames, in the 20th Maine Regiment.

JLC 1

By the time of Gettysburg, Chamberlain was a full Colonel, and CO of the 20th. Assigned the extreme left flank of the Union line at Little Round Top, he led his men to a stubborn victory over the Alabamians attacking, charging with bayonets after his regiment, reduced in size by casualties and out of ammunition, was again attacked. His actions turned the tide of battle for Gettysburg, and the Civil War. Lee never again mounted offensive actions after those 3 bloody days in July.

For his actions at Gettysburg, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was awarded the Medal of Honor, and was promoted to Major General. Wounded 6 times in the course of the war, once so badly that his obituary was prepared, Maj-Gen Joshua L Chamberlain was the officer selected by Lt-Gen U.S Grant to receive the surrender of the Army of Northern VA.  As the Confederates passed and surrendered their weapons he ordered Federal troops to salute their defeated enemy.

JLC 2

Returning to Bowdoin after the war, he was elected Governor of Maine 4 times. Declining to live in the state capitol, he commuted the 36 miles to Augusta and lived in his home across from Bowdoin College. After 4 terms as Governor, he was appointed President of Bowdoin College, and taught nearly every course the college offered at one time or another.

He spent his final years writing about his memories of the Civil War. In 1914, 50 years after the wounds at Petersburg that nearly killed him, he finally died of complications from his war injuries.

As Governor Chamberlain died, another Governor was busily promising and assuring Americans that they would not become involved in the Great War in Europe, which would come to be called World War 1.

JLC 3

Woodrow Wilson lectured for a year at Cornell, then taught Greek and Roman history at Bryn Mawr. In 1887, he signed a 3 year contract to remain at Bryn Mawr, but in 1888, broke his contract to move to Wesleyan. Later elected as President of Princeton, he was a lecturer in Constitutional Law who was openly contemptuous of the Constitution and advocated for a parliamentary system with greater power vested in the President.

New Jersey Democrat party bosses pushed Wilson’s candidacy in 1910 for Governor. His candidacy was opposed by many who felt that he was an inexperienced newcomer and not ready to be Governor. Events would bolster their argument. Elected in 1910, he served 2 years before seeking the Presidency. When the GOP split the vote between Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, Wilson a neophyte with only 2 years in office, won with only 41% of the vote.

WW1

Wilson’s 1st term was noted for regulation of business, increased racial segregation of government, the establishment of the income tax, and of the Federal Reserve. Toward the end of his term, WW1 broke out in Europe. Wilson tried to broker a peace in 1916, but neither side was interested and the effort failed. He went on to run for reelection on the platform “He kept us out of the war”, promising the American public “It is a war with which we have nothing to do, whose causes cannot touch us.”

Yet, mere months after his reelection, Wilson went to Congress to ask for a declaration of war on Germany, against overwhelming popular opposition to American involvement. Despite his attempts to broker peace, he seemed unaware that the war had ground down to a bitter draw, with neither side gaining ground, and both sides, while rejecting his plan, ready to call an end to the war.  The entrance of America on the side of the English and French stiffened their resolve to continue, and extended the war by years.

WW 2

Furthermore, Wilson bent to the British requests to pour American troops in as cannon fodder, causing millions of deaths.  Wilson’s bumbling diplomatic efforts also led him to press Russia to remain in a war which was enormously costly and unpopular there. The direct result of his actions was the Communist revolution and the rise to power of Lenin.  Once the war was won, at the cost of millions of lives, the Allies, emboldened by the addition of America to their side, insisted on the punitive treaty of Versailles, which led in a few decades to the rise of Hitler and another world war for America.

WW 3

Two Governors. Two Professors.

One an intelligent, brave, but humble man who accomplished much, without fanfare, or hubris, fought in a war for oppressed people and left a hero’s legacy.

The other a proud man convinced he was right, who discouraged blacks from applying while President of Princeton, was an apologist for the Ku Klux Klan, and naively led the nation into world war and tumultuous foreign relations.

What, I wonder, would be the shape of the 20th century had the humble Governor of Maine lived another few years, and given his final service to his country as its President?

Doug Smith: DESERTION AND OTHER LITTLE ‘FOIBLES’

28 Jan

WHAT 21ST CENTURY PRECEDENT WILL THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SET?

doug smith

Regular FSP contributor, author and historian, Doug Smith

The US has not executed a deserter since WW2.  Deserters who simply go AWOL or overstay leave, and are caught or turn themselves in years later, are usually treated with disdain.  They are given prison sometimes, and a Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge from the service.  The military does not spend time or manpower trying to find them.

However, as in the case of Pvt Eddie Slovick, who was executed, circumstances alter cases. He deserted in combat, refused to return to his unit, and put his refusal in writing.  It was a matter of good order and discipline, and his stupidity, that got him shot.

slovick 1slovick

So what about Bowe Bergdahl? Let s settle one thing right up front. He was given Sgt stripes as a matter of course for being a POW. He did not earn them. He was a POW because he deserted. I am not going to call him Sergeant.  So, about Mr. Bergdahl.

Hasn’t he suffered enough by being in captivity?  That is irrelevant. Suppose the robber who puts a gun in your face in the bank wrecks your car, which he stole, running from the cops and loses a leg. So what?  His injuries were the result of his own bad acts.  They do not lessen his responsibility for robbing you with a gun and destroying your car. And you would not be content with his consequences if you were the victim.

So, too, if a soldier deserts his post, lays down his weapon, and is subsequently captured, his guilt is not lessened.  Neither is his effect on good order and discipline.

Wouldn’t it be better to simply boot him out of the Army with a less than honorable discharge and make it all go away? Better for President Obama, perhaps, who is invested in him being a good guy? But not better for good order and discipline.

In the case of Bergdahl, the details of his desertion make it particularly egregious.

bergdahl 1bergdahl

He was vocal about his disaffection for the Army and the war, and his sympathy with the enemy, for some time before he actually deserted. He put down his weapon and made plans to desert and try to find the enemy, so this was not a spur of the moment thing. He did not “snap” and regret it at once. Also, he was deployed in a forward area, and deserted while on guard in a combat area.

As a result of his actions and the circumstances, the Army had to assume he was lost or captured, and in danger. So they sent out patrols to search for him.  Troops died in those operations, lured in and ambushed by the enemy knowing they were coming to look for this deserter.  The enemy and the Army had the situation of knowing that a troop went to the enemy as a blow to morale. (That the enemy did not receive him, that we know of, as a friend, is just bad planning on his part and not an extenuating circumstance.)

The results of his actions are as important to the case as his intent.

Remember, too, that he was a volunteer. He did not get drafted and then suffer PTSD from his war experiences.  He also had other options. If he felt morally opposed to the war and the Army, he could have gone to his CO and said so, refusing to fight.  He would still face disciplinary actions, possibly prison, and certainly a less than honorable discharge.  But he would not have deserted in the face of the enemy, and, by all appearances, tried to go over to the enemy.

obama and parentsobama and parents 2

No, what he did was a truly bad act for a soldier. He deserted his post, and his comrades, and attempted to find and join the enemy.  That is the worst thing a comrade in arms in combat can do.  The Army, and the United States, should make a stern example of him and make it clear how totally unacceptable this was.

Should they shoot him? Well, that is for a General Court Martial to decide.  I would fill it with front line Officers and NCO s, and abide by their decision as to his punishment. If they shoot him, it would be just, since he put lives at risk, cost lives, and showed pusillanimous behavior in the face of the enemy.  (That is military speak for cowardice). If they hold with long standing tradition, and do not, then he should at least serve a long prison sentence, forfeit all pay and benefits, and receive a dishonorable discharge.  Send a message.

My guess is that if the Army resists the pressure from the President to overlook his little foibles, Obama will issue a pardon regardless of the sentence, arguing that his captivity was suffering enough. He will be wrong about that, just as he was wrong to trade 5 bad actors back in action against us for one bad actor from our side.

Doug Smith: I’m not impressed with apologists for our enemies

14 Jan
“Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.”

doug smith

I heard it from the left throughout the Cold War regarding the Russians.  If we understood them a little better, we would see what nice folks they really are. After all, they are just failed Communists. They really are not doing it right, you see. If WE were doing Communism, we would get it right and it would really be a worker’s paradise.  There are no Gulags, no mass starvation, and no Russian troops fomenting wars on 3 continents.  Khrushchev was misquoted when he said “We will bury you. “

In the 1960s, many of these folks said “We can work with the Soviets.” President Kennedy’s response to them was “Let them come to Berlin!”

ds 1

It is easy, cheap, and cowardly to empathize and memorialize victims, while avoiding confrontation with the barbarian aggressors.  It costs little to pile flowers and candles at a makeshift shrine. It costs a bit more to go after murderers and kill them.

Now the current enemy, and the current apology du jour, are for Muslim terrorists.

Now, the apologists try to make the argument that anyone who commits an act of violence in the guise of a Muslim terrorist is just a bad Muslim.  Never mind that they tell us loudly that they are Muslims. Never mind that they are venerated by Muslims in the street after their noisy demise. If the apologists, who are usually not Muslims, could only explain it to them, things would be fine.  That is not what they are really about.

I am reminded of the scholar who argued passionately that the Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by another Greek of the same name.

ds 2

People can argue themselves into the most absurd points of view, laying all common sense aside.

The other talking point is that Muslims practice a philosophy of peace, and we should never fight back against it. Charles Martel would be amused at that point of view.

Charles Martel was the bastard son of a minor politician, who by virtue of his strength and military ability , rose to power in 8th century( what would become, )  France.  In his time, Muslim conquest, begun just after the death of Mohammed in the late 7th Century, had spread for 100 years to include most of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain.   The depredations were brutal, and Martel looked at the situation in Iberia (Spain) with alarm.

In his judgment, it would not be possible to hold back this coming invasion of the Frankish kingdoms with the usual Middle Ages response of calling the men up for service after the harvest. He would need a standing army; trained, fed and supported, and ready at a moment’s notice. He could supplement it with call ups, but either he would have his standing Army, or Gaul would fall to the Saracens (Muslims.)

(Indeed, from the hindsight of history, it is likely that had Martel not prevailed, the Muslim conquest would have swept across Europe, even into England.  In fact, the Reconquista of Iberia, i.e. the retaking of Spain from the Muslim conquerors, took 7 centuries.  It was finally completed early in 1492. Now where have I heard that date before? )

ds 3

However, Charles Martel did not fail. He confiscated properties of the Church, and used it to feed his soldiers.  (This got him in a bit of hot water with the Church, but since he subsequently stopped the invading Muslims, all was forgiven.) By the time of the Battle of Tours, Oct 10, 732, he had 80,000 heavy infantry under his command. He soundly defeated the invading Abdul Rahman, leaving over 10,000 dead, including Rahman himself. This was the high water point of the Muslim advance into Europe until Suleiman in 1529.

So, what is the point of this brief history lesson?  In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris last week, it has become fashionable to march with arms linked, and wear a T shirt that says, I am Charlie Hebdo.  Empathy with the victims. If you attack them, you attack me.  That has a certain “We are the World “appeal to some, I suppose.  Still, Charles did not wander around Tours wearing a tunic emblazoned with “I am Bordeaux.” (A city the Muslim invaders sacked and looted, just prior to meeting Charles) Instead, he earned the appellation “Martel” (The Hammer) for the way he hammered his enemy, and drove them back, and out of France.

He did not wear a black arm band, nor did he stand with his head held high and defy the attackers with flowers.  Instead, he recognized the coming threat, took steps to prepare for them, and met them at Tours and shattered them.  Even he was surprised that after the 1st day of battle, the survivors simply dropped all their loot and ran for home.  But run they did, and the Battle of Tours ranks as one of the 15 most important battles in history.  The history of Europe for the next 1500 years, and the history of America turned on the outcome of that battle, and the deeds and life of that one man, who was supposed to have faded into obscurity.

So, I’ll empathize with the French.  (For all the jokes about the French Army surrendering every morning, just in case there is an enemy close enough to hear them, I’m glad they came in the 1700s to help us.) I’ll empathize with a brave and bold Frenchman as well

ds 4 ds 5

But I don’t want to say to the French, or the terrorists, “Hey, I’m just as brave as the last victims.”  I want to say, if your choice is to be barbarians, then look to your lives.

We are not Charlie Hebdo.

We are Charles Martel.

Doug Smith: TANSTAAFL – “There is no ‘free lunch'”

7 Jan

What lie behind us and what lies before us is overshadowed by ‘what lies within us’

doug smith

TANSTAAFL….

So the other day, among my other junk mail, I got a check. Now we are all looking for that million dollar check in the mail, and I’ll bet the creamer in my next cup of coffee many of you out there have gotten this same check.

It was a sign and spend check, free money, for $15,000. Free money. So easy. Just sign it, and spend it, and take care of Christmas. Except of course, it was not free at all. It was a loan, initiated if I were foolish enough to sign that check, and the usurious rate of 29% interest. The bills would be coming in about now.

nfl 1

Now it got me to pondering whether the old adage is right. “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. “ (TANSTAAFL) Robert Heinlein immortalized the saying as the national motto of a group of independent minded stubborn cusses on the moon, who had a nasty habit of paying their debts, and working for what they got. (And distrusting government, but that is, perhaps, another article.)

Where did the notion of a free lunch come from? Actually beer halls and bars used to use the “free lunch” as a hook to bring patrons into their bar. Of course, that lunch was not free at all, or you’d be paying 3 cents instead of a nickel for that beer. Or those 4 beers. The mark up on the nickel beers they sold you, in return for a free lunch, was such that they could give you all the sandwiches you cared to eat as long as you were buying their beer and still make money off of you.

nfl 2

For some, there is that deep seated “beat the system” urge to get something for free. Those who have gambled in Vegas can tell you that the house always wins, if you keep playing. The free lunch bars always win. And the free lunch politicians always win. TANSTAAFL. You pay more for the beer than your lunch is worth, you may win $100 bucks on blackjack, then lose it back on roulette, and politicians who pay you off with your money get elected, then, to your dismay, pay their promised free lunch to you by making you pay more taxes on your food. Even the free part. Wow, that doesn’t seem quite fair, does it?

Of course, if you keep the basic principle in mind, then it is fair. For then you will never fall for the long con that promises something for nothing. TANSTAAFL. Nothing in this world is free. If someone is offering you something for free, hold on to your wallet: he is picking your pocket.

nfl 3

Governors are wavering toward the promise of free money in the form of subsidies for ACA approved policies which are so overpriced no one can afford them. If they play ball with the Fed, they get the money, and their constituents can afford the Unaffordable Affordable Care Act policies. For a while. Except, guess what? The government has no money, and produces no goods or services. So, where does it get the money to give to the states to give to the people to pay for an overpriced, unaffordable, and unwanted insurance policy? Here’s a hint: you are about to get your W-2 in the mail. That s right campers, you pay for the largess of the overly generous politicians. You pay in higher taxes. Have fun come April 15. You pay in reduced buying power of your dollar as the government prints money by the Trillions. Money that doesn’t exist. Money that devalues your dollar every day. If you or I did it, it would be counterfeiting, and a federal crime, punishable by a huge fine and 25 years in prison. Enemies have used counterfeiting as a weapon to devalue and undermine the economy of countries with whom they are at war. But as the government and the Fed does it, you simply get the bill.

Haven’t seen that bill come in the mail? Run to the grocery store and try to buy a piece of beef. Wonder why you are paying half again what you were 6 years ago? That is your bill for all the freebies the government is handing out.

nfl 4

We see it in our schools as well. The School Building Authority offers millions to local school boards to build new buildings, but no one cent to maintain existing buildings. Not surprisingly, School Boards react like a good drug addict, selling moms false teeth and wedding ring to qualify for that 16 million dollar freebie. Except, of course, remember our rule about freebies? Who pays for them? TANSTAFL.

I was unsurprised recently to read of a local county school board preparing to build a new building. They were going to purchase a new piece of land for it at a cost of $300,000. Since the property was owned by one of the board members, she graciously recused herself from voting on whether or not to buy it. Conflict of interest, you say? Well perhaps it was. That never occurred to me. I’m sure no school board politicians would personally benefit from the millions of public largess intended for the good of the voters, and the children of their county. Oh wait, remember our rule? Where do freebies come from? And who do they ultimately benefit?

nfl 5

TANSTAAFL. It’s a good word. Remember it. And remember the fellow who insists he wants to give you or your neighbor’s freebies has already planned how he is going to pick your pocket to do it.

But there just ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

DOUG SMITH: The Pacifist, Part 2: The Fighting Quakers

31 Dec

Right to fight or fight for right?

doug smith

Note from the editor:  This is the second in a series of columns by author and historian, Doug Smith, where he contrasts varying views on pacifism and the potential historical impact.

pacif a

There is a High School in Philadelphia whose mascot is “The Fighting Quakers.”  That makes me smile, just as any good oxymoron.  I’m not picking on Quakers, nor is this about the history of real “fighting Quakers”, but it helps to illustrate where the rubber meets the road in radical pacifism.

Last time I began to look at militant pacifist Albert Einstein.  Einstein held the belief of pacifism.  But he was also burdened with knowledge.  He understood, better than most in the 1930s, the incredible force available in atomic power and weapons.  Yet why did he, an avowed pacifist, embark on a course that ended with the dawn of the atomic age?

einstein 1

There is actually a long history for his thought process. In colonial days in America, supplying guns to Indian tribes was a controversial method of war.  Guns increased their danger to the colonists. So, depending on whether you were a British General wanting to enlist their help, or a Colonial Governor wanting to ensure the safety of citizens or settlers, giving them advanced weapons might be a good or bad thing.

pacif 1

In the run up to WW2, America supplied poorer or less advanced nations with weapons (and other material for fighting or surviving) to oppose the advance of the totalitarian NAZI regime. Likewise, in response to Japanese aggression and atrocities in China and Burma, the US held back from supplying oil to fuel their war machine and economy.

This raises the question of why one would choose to make it easier or harder for another people to wage war.  Why, indeed?  Nations, and individuals, ultimately act from a sense of their own best interest.  Moral considerations may or may not apply, but we do not choose to starve when we may eat, shiver when we may be warm, or suffer when we may be in comfort, as a matter of normal daily living. An individual, or a group, may make choices that cause them to be hungry, cold, and uncomfortable for a time, for adequate cause. But this is not the choice they would make for their lifetime, given the chance to have the better way.  So too, our choices about other peoples or nations are rooted in self-interest.

pacif 2

The world has a long and sordid history of bandits and megalomaniacs who want to impose their rule on the world, and reap the benefits and resources of those they subjugate.  From the Khans, to the Caliphs, to Napoleon, to Hitler, our history is strewn with hundreds of millions of violent deaths, and countless millions more living in the misery born of the mad dreams of these men.

Einstein had to make his moral struggles within the context of the somewhat pathological pacifist movement in England of the post WW1 era.  The popular notion was that WW1 was totally unjustified, and that English involvement was as well, and that, by extension, all war was always unjustified.  As Rebecca West noted in Black Lamb and Gray Falcon, “The Idea of Self-Preservation Was as jealously guarded from the Young as the Facts of Sex Had Been in Earlier Ages”.  A transcript from the trial of a British conscientious objector, being questioned by a military officer, before the battle of the Somme is enlightening.

pacif 3pacif 4

“If I hit you, would you not hit me back?” he asked.

“No,” Bert replied.

‘Then suppose the Germans got here, and those dear to you were in danger, would you stand by and see them ripped to pieces and not raise a sword in opposition?’

Bert: “I would certainly not strike them down. No man is justified in taking life.”

“But,” the official went on, “if you could save 500 poor women and children by fighting, would you not help them?”

Bert: “I would do my best to save life, but not by taking life.”

“So you would run away?” demanded his adversary, believing he had trapped Bert into an admission of cowardice.

“Certainly,”

pacif b

Sort of takes your breath away, doesn’t it?  That is militant pacifism.  Even if faced with the situation of knowing women and children were about to be brutalized and killed, this hardcore pacifist would not lift a sword, raise a gun, or even (in his case, peel a potato that might be fed to a soldier.)

Now, in this context, Einstein looked at the atrocities of the Nazis, the brutal aggression, and pictured them with atomic weapons.   He had a choice to make.

Do I peel this potato, or not?

Who contributes more to peace and prosperity, then?

The radical pacifist refuses to peel a potato for a soldier, stands by and prays for peace as Germans slaughter 10s of millions, but will not sully his conscience by shooting one German soldier to save 500 Jewish children.

The soldier grips his gun, swallows his fear, and says no.  Not on my watch. Not past me. Not while I can breathe and fight you. I will not let you do this.

pacif 6

Consider this.  What would the world look like if everyone outside of Germany and Japan had been like the pacifist in 1939? Now, what would it look like if everyone was like the soldier?

What is the result of partial steps, like cutting off the oil to Japan? And what does it mean to accept being hungry, cold, and uncomfortable, and putting your life between aggressors and the innocent?

Einstein chose to peel that potato. Many others chose a soldier’s lot.  Many died, and yes, many killed, to prevent Hitler’s vision of the world, backed up by long range missiles and atomic weapons.

The pacifist who can truly say, and mean, I will stand by and not kill you, even though it means you kill  my wife and children is not going to survive. His instincts are such that he and his kind will die out in a generation.  His thinking and actions have a form of morality, but lack the substance.

That they survive at all is a debt they owe to the soldier.

pacif c

The American soldier, sailor, airman, and marine has done more to further the cause of peace than all the pacifists ever whelped.

War has been the norm in all but 230 of the past 3500 years of civilization.  Those who are prepared to do violence to preserve their home and family, and equally prepared to let men live at peace, if they so choose, are to me, much more on the moral high ground than the pacifist who will let an innocent die or suffer to avoid violence.

DOUG SMITH: MORALITY AND THE PACIFIST

26 Dec

Which perspective will history favor?

From the FSP moderator:  This is the first of a series of columns in which author and historian, Doug Smith, offers contrast between varying positions of an age-old question of morality: “Turn the other cheek” or “an eye for an eye”?

doug smith

Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight, but Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.

Hilaire Belloc

pac 1

I am fascinated with the question of how pacifists come to the decision never to fight.   I struggle to overcome my own fight of flight instinct.  When I am challenged, or threatened, those impulses make me want to seek safety by running, or by hurting the threat before it can hurt me.  Oh, who am I kidding? I just want to hurt them before they can hurt me.  With time and maturity, I learned to check those impulses with a soft response.  On other occasions, they led me to charge into a fight I had little chance of winning.

I admit to being in conflict when I was a Cold War sailor on a Nuclear Attack Submarine.

nuke subnuke sub 2nuke sub 3

If we carried out our primary mission, many sailors would die at once in a radioactive cloud of steam.   I empathized with those Russian sailors who faced the same risks as we did.  They knew, as we did, how the weapons deployed against us could either vaporize us, or, in a near miss, crack our hulls and send us plunging to the dark, cold bottom of the ocean, dying somewhere along the way down.  It was impossible to truly wish that death on another Submarine sailor, even our enemy.

We all hoped it might never happen to either of us.

On the other hand, I am certain that if the orders came, they were mere minutes from them sending nuclear death toward our cities or our fleets, or even us.  There would be no hesitation.  On the contrary, we would run in our skivvies and socks to battle stations.   We would be manning phones while pulling on our shirts, plotting targets while we tied our shoes, preparing weapons, and updating position data as we zipped our trousers.  We would launch quickly as we had a firing solution, hopefully before they could do the same to us, or to New York, or Washington, or our own home towns.

We had nothing in particular against those young Russian boys a few miles from us. None of us were particularly anxious for a war, nor were any, well most of us, homicidal.  But our job was to kill them, and kill them we would.

Now this brings me to Albert Einstein.  An avowed pacifist, he once said

“I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war.”

pac 2pac 5

Yet his name is right there in any history of the atomic bomb along with Robert Oppenheimer. Einstein, as much as anyone, formed the Cold War battlefields into which we sailed.  Einstein’s involvement was not simply theoretical, although his theories did lead, by inevitable progression to the mushroom clouds over Trinity and Japan.

He also used his influence as a renowned scientist to write a series of letters to FDR, urging him to launch the Manhattan Project and develop atomic weapons.  An odd undertaking for a pacifist, is it not?  So what made the difference for Al?  Hitler absorbed Austria and began a war of acquisition in Europe.  There was abundant evidence of the brutality and cruelty of the Nazis, as well as indications his scientists doing research in Deuterium that could lead to their development of an atomic bomb.

“My pacifism is an instinctive feeling, a feeling that possesses me because the murder of men is disgusting. My attitude is not derived from any intellectual theory but is based on my deepest antipathy to every kind of cruelty and hatred.”

Albert Einstein

pac 4pac 3

(Einstein lied, people died! There were no WMD s in Germany. )

Maybe Einstein was in love with the idea of pacifism, until his own ox was gored.  Then he abandoned it all in a magnificent fashion.  He is hardly the first pacifist to discover in a bloody lip, or family, or country, that perhaps there ARE things worth fighting, and killing, and dying for.  Or that while dying for one’s country may be fine and noble, killing for one’s country is harder, more bitter in the mouth, yet more necessary when facing truly evil men.

He just happens to be the one whose revelation ushered in the Atomic Age.

So, when was he wrong? When he was a pacifist and would fight for peace?

And when was he right? When he was the intellectual and moral force behind the light of 10,000 suns bursting over the New Mexico desert?

An excellent question.  Stay tuned.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Doug Smith: Bos Johnson leaves a legacy of integrity, honesty

7 Dec

FSP moderator:  While this column has a local flavor, historian Doug Smith takes us on a journey to a time when honesty and integrity were virtuous parts of journalism.  I think you’ll enjoy this piece and the photo gallery.

doug smith

Dec. 07, 2014 @ 12:01 AM

 bozboz 1

I remember television. I was born in 1955, the first generation growing up with television, Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Cartoon. I grew up with fuzzy, black-and-white images, the test pattern, “This just in” and “Film at 11.” They really did develop “film” for the 11 o’clock news. And, they had Bos Johnson.

When Bos started on WSAZ, I was a kid, bored by the news, but not by Mr. Cartoon. I grew up watching Jule Huffman. But Bos meant the news and I didn’t care. I ate ice cream while Dad watched, and I heard that familiar voice say, “This is Bos Johnson, from Huntington. Good night.”

mr. cartoon 1 mr. cartoon 2captain 2captain 1

When I was 8, one story touched me. I watched, stunned, as we heard our President was dead; as a little boy tried to be brave while his daddy’s body passed; as millions said a tearful goodbye. And again, that familiar voice,

“This is Bos Johnson, from Huntington. Good night.”

jfk 1 jfk 2

Then there were reports from Da Nang, Saigon, and Hanoi. Boys little older than me were going to fight in mud and heat, halfway round the world in Vietnam. They were coming back hurt, broken, or not at all. Dad was glued to the reports on the war. I remember asking “Are we really in a war?” but I can’t remember Dad’s answer. But I realized that soon I would be old enough to go off with them. And I started to watch the news with him. Amid all this, I heard that familiar voice:

“This is Bos Johnson, from Huntington. Good night. ”

denang 1 denang 2

There came that awful day for all of Huntington, when the plane crashed, killing our Marshall football team, our friends and our innocence. A wound opened in all of us. At the end of that day, for once, that familiar voice failed him.

That night, Bos could not say the words. It was OK, Bos; we didn’t have words either. The broadcast day just ended.

mu1 mu2

In my senior year Watergate was the news. Our familiar voice asked the first question in the last press conference for Richard Nixon: “Mr. President, will you resign?” A week later President Nixon did just that. Soon afterward, I joined the Navy and left Huntington. I heard, for nearly the last time, “This is Bos Johnson, from Huntington. Good night.”

Two years later, while I was half a world away, Bos Johnson retired from WSAZ.

watergate 1 watergate 2

I came home again and was glad to see Bos, along with his wife Dottie, briskly debating the issues of the day in a different format. A more weathered Bos, but still that same familiar voice that narrated so much of my life was there one more time.

And now, sadly, he is gone.

For decades of honest reporting, the integrity you brought to a new industry, and setting the bar for quality reporting in our small corner of Almost Heaven, thank you.

So, from all of us here in the Huntington viewing area, back to you, Bos Johnson, reporting from Heaven, good night.

boz 2

Doug Smith joined the Navy in Huntington, WV, and served aboard the Nuclear Fast Attack Submarine USS Gato, SSN 615,
and as an Instructor at the Naval Submarine School in Groton, Connecticut, where he achieved the rank of Chief Petty Officer.
He also served as a tour guide and docent at the Submarine Force Library and Museum.  He is an avid student of history, and writes on subjects touching military and political history of the United States.

DOUG SMITH: LYING – A CULTURAL PHENOMENA

2 Dec

lieslies 2

Not that you lied to me, but that I no longer believe you, has shaken me

Friedrich Neitzche

Lying doesn’t matter. It’s ok, especially if you are telling a lie in order to further something you believe. Even if what you believe is also a lie. Any of us can say anything we want, and it never matters. There are no consequences for being an untruthful person. That is the lesson of modern America.

twanna 1twanna 2

In 1988, a 15 year old girl in New York created a story about being raped, assaulted, and smeared with feces by a gang of white men. A civil rights huckster named Al Sharpton accused a police officer who had recently committed suicide and a prosecutor named Steven Pagones. When asked what proof he had, Sharpton huffed “I have Tawana Brawley’s words.”

The NY Attorney General had a security guard from the lawyers “advising” Brawley who testified before the grand jury that they all knew from the start she was lying. As it turns out, none of them had anything but a sensational story, with racial overtones, which brought them a lot of attention. Tawana Brawley made up the story to cover being out late with her boyfriend.

Steven Pagones sued for defamation of character, and was awarded 85,000, which Sharpton did not pay. It was paid for him by Johnny Cochran and other supporters.

Brawley is a nurse in Florida.   She was ordered to pay 450,000 in damages, but refused until 2013 when a judge ordered her wages garnished. 26 years after the fact she has paid less than 4, 000 dollars

Today, Sharpton is worth millions. (Even counting the 1.2 mill in back taxes he refuses to pay. Someone call Lois Lerner. ) He gets paid 6 figures by MSNBC. He has been to the White House 85 times. Not bad for a boy Pentecostal preacher from Brooklyn. Guess the Gospel was not paying him so well. Hate, it seems, sells better.

Dorian Johnson began the mythical story “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.” Given the way of things. It will be in history books in 20 years. The problem of course, is that it never happened.

michael brown 1 michael brown 2

Reports proved  that Brown was not shot in the back, did not have his hands up, and had been shot at close range on one hand (consistent with Wilson’s story about a struggle for his gun in the patrol car). He also had enough THC in his body to cause hallucinations.

Johnson has not been charged in the robbery, or for his false reports.

bill 1 bill 2

Bill Clinton’s now infamous “I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Miss Lewinsky” is the stuff of legend.  Impeached, but not convicted, he is still the Grand Old Man of the Democrats.

Barack Obama: Keep your plan and 6 years of lies, and his consequences?  The Democrats lost both Houses of Congress, but not him.  The GOP withheld funding, then caved. He is very unpopular, which no longer matters.

Brawley, Sharpton, Clinton, Obama, Johnson, all liars; all without consequence, apparently better off for the lie than without it.

Lesson for our culture: Lie.

Truth doesn’t matter. Truth and integrity are outdated social mores.

“That I know longer believe you, has shaken me.”  And it has shaken our society, not for the better.

DOUG SMITH: THE ODOR OF MENDACITY

19 Nov

An Obama consistency: An odiferous approach to governing.

doug smith

There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity …You can smell it. It smells like death,”

Big Daddy, in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Not surprisingly, to anyone who has not been in a coma since 2008, Barack Obama lied about immigration reform.

lie 6

Candidate Obama in 2008 promised to “put comprehensive immigration reform back on the nation’s agenda during my first year in office.”

Then in March 2009, President Obama said it was “a serious concern, but not an urgent one.”

In June, “I want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now.”

By August, his words had changed to:

“And what we’ve said is in the fall when we come back, we’re going to complete health care reform. We still have to act on energy legislation that has passed the House … We still have financial regulatory reform that has to get done … That’s a pretty big stack of bills.”

In March 2011, President Obama said “the nation’s laws are clear enough that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform to my appropriate role as president.”

Now, it seems, he is about to act, albeit illegally, when he could have done so legally – and not “now” in 2009, but “five years from now” in 2014.

lie 2

One wonders, why now? He could have done it with a Democrat majority in both Houses from 2009 to 2010. Could it be that he also knew that to do so would cost him so much political capital that the Affordable Care Act, which cost so much, would have failed? Was he worried about 2010? No, as he told the Dems, who lost in a landslide, no worries, you’ve got me now!

He may have been worried about 2012. Because it seems likely this would have made him a one term President.

Whatever his reasons then, he clearly lied to the supporters.

So why now?

Well, now his feelings are hurt because he has been roundly rejected by the American public. He is in a mood to punish the voters for not liking him. He is in a mood to pick a fight with the GOP.

He is a Leftist, so it is all about how he feels, never what he does. Bill Clinton can feel your pain, and that is supposed to be enough. He never worked as hard in his life as he did on this. The fact that he was talking about a failure did not matter, he FELT right. And so back to Barack. He is hurt and angry, and his feelings dictate his actions. He also feels, (never reasons), that, since the voters can no longer punish Him (sorry Mary Landrieu), the GOP options to fight back are:

  1. Talk angrily
  2. Sue him
  3. Cut funding
  4. Impeach him

Now, he doesn’t care how angrily they talk. They don’t like him. He doesn’t like anyone But HIM, and doesn’t care what they may say. Let them talk.

lie 4

Sue him. ( Hahahahaha) That is funny. He has been sued. He has had federal judges issue orders, which he has roundly ignored. What is a lawsuit? If you are going to violate the Constitution, why would you worry what a court says? Even if courts rule against him, it will likely take until he is out of office, or nearly so, for SCOTUS to give the final ruling on the question anyway.

Cut funding? Yes. A legitimate, and intended tool of Congress to force compliance or negotiation with a President. But, history shows him that if they don’t give him everything he wants, in the Trillions, he can balk and let the government shut down, and they will get the blame for it. Of course, should it happen after January, he won’t have Harry Reid to shield him. He will have to veto a budget that defunds his actions, or defunds the ACA, and let the government shut down. But so what? He doesn’t care. He still thinks the press will blame the GOP. He wants what he wants, and to him, that is a law. He is betting they won’t have the stomach for the fight.

Impeach him? He is willing to bet the store, or more properly, the country, that the political will does not exist to impeach him. He is convinced that as egregious as his actions may be, and as much harm as they may cause, the bar for impeaching the first black President is impossibly high. In any event, he is convinced that the GOP will not have the stomach for it in the next 2 years.

He may be right. But he should not be. The legitimate roles of the Congress to check an overreaching Executive should always be on the table. Remember Civics class? Checks and balances. The balance was in November. He has gone too far, and his policies are rejected. The country wants him to moderate his actions. But he will not, if the will to check him does not exist.

Barack Obama is governing like a petulant child. In November, the voters said, loudly, let’s have the adults take charge again.

Here’s hoping they do.

lie 5