Crowded schedule. Back soon. RLK.
Monday, December 8, 2014
Monday, December 1, 2014
Few remembered to history live a more obscure life than Elizabeth Everest. She was born in around 1832; she died in 1895. She never married, never had any children of her own; she wrote nothing, invented nothing, created nothing. She boasted no scientific achievement or artistic gift. Although a woman of deep faith, she was not a nun or any other kind of the formally Religious: she was, in fact, vehemently Low Church Anglican. She was truly not the least bit extraordinary, except in this:
She had a great deal of love in her.
She was born in Chatham, in the county of Kent; we know nothing of her early life. She was, by profession, a care-giver. She spent her thirties raising a girl named Ella Phillips, in a tiny town called Barrow-in-Furness, Cumberland. Having raised the girl to her teens, the girl’s father, an Anglican cleric, sadly released her from his service; but she took with her his references, which served her well to get a new position.
In 1875, one of England’s most noble families had need for a governess. The younger son of the Duke of Marlborough, a well known rake, had married a wealthy teenaged American, a young woman of great beauty but highly questionable morals. She had given birth "prematurely", seven months after the wedding, and, having done so, wanted nothing to do with being a mother.
The young lady – only a "mother" by convention and only a lady given her title by marriage – hired a wetnurse, who fed the child; when he was a month old, she hired Elizabeth Everest to care for him.
Having dropped the child with her, the child’s mother and her husband devoted themselves to a life of pleasure: balls and parties and soirees and all the entertainments that went with their set at the time. They consigned their child, a sickly redhead with a tendency to throw temper tantrums, to the nanny's care as they lived the 19th Century equivalent of ‘la vita loca’. As the years passed, the father became publicly prominent, a well known member of Parliament; she whom he called his wife spent her time throwing parties and seducing other men.
As the boy grew, the father abused the boy intellectually and verbally on those rare occasions he actually paid attention to the child. His mother gave herself to an endless series of high-ranking lovers and hardly noticed that the child even existed.
The parents called the nanny “Mrs. Everest” – an honorific offered all nannies, as she had never married. The boy addressed her as "Woom", from a baby-speech attempt to say the word “Woman".
“Woom” changed his diapers, offered him her arms for comfort, wiped his tears. She gave him all the love and parenting that his own parents should have given, but did not. She was his love, his caretaker, and shaped him in the ways of life in ways that his foolish, frivolous mother and cruelly insane father could not hope to do so. She was his confidante and he loved her dearly, in ways he never could his own mother and father, who viewed him with annoyance, cold indifference – or worse.
When the boy was seven, he was exiled to a series of boarding schools where he was abused and beaten; when he came home for holiday, he often found his parents gone – without warning – and spent his Chrismasses alone with his nanny and the other servants of the house.
The father was often in London, where he was prominent in Parliament; the mother was, in essence, wherever she wanted to be, which was generally the beds of rich, powerful and handsome men other than her husband, whom she came to actively loathe, as he – now ill with tertiary syphilis – treated her with the same callousness he did the boy.
Through all this, “Woom” was the boy’s light and his comfort, and she shaped him in ways his parents were incapable of doing. As the boy grew older, he had to cope with the bitter reality that his mad and cruel father would never love him, and that his mother – for all the nobility of her surroundings, an incontinent libertine with scores, or even hundreds, of lovers – could never be a mother for him.
The father's infection finally ended his life; he died in January 1895, when the boy was twenty. In June of that year Mrs. Everest fell ill with peritonitis. The youth--now a young man--rushed from his military training camp and was with her in her sister’s home in North London, where she passed away on July 3, 1895.
She was buried in Forest Park, London, and the young man erected a headstone over her grave. It stands to this day: “ERECTED TO THE MEMORY OF ELIZABETH ANN EVEREST, WHO DIED THE 3RD OF JULY 1895, AGE 62 YEARS.”
At the base of the stone is the simple addendum, visible if you scrape away the grass.
“...BY WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL”.
PS Yesterday was Winston's 140th birthday... remember her too.
Posted by (c)2014 Richard L. Kent, Esq. (MichiganSilverback at gmail dot com) at 12:36 PM
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Wit, wisdom, pseudonietzscheanistic aphorisms, and bad jokes.
* If you were to rewrite My Fair Lady so that Professor Higgins was (say) Condoleeza Rice and Eliza Doolittle was (say) named Rufus Willis.... but of course they'd never let you.
* Quote of the Day: "I made two mistakes in my time as President, and one of them is sitting on the Supreme Court." --President Dwight Eisenhower describing his misgivings about nominating Earl Warren, presumed to be a staunch conservative, to the Supreme Court, where Warren quickly showed he was very much aligned with the liberals Earl Warren was the man who sent the Japanese to American concentration camps.... and spent the rest of his life repenting it. At other people's expense. (Sometimes, as in Brown v. Board of Education, he actually got it right, though.)
* Every dollar not taxed is a personal abomination to a leftist.
* I keep getting flack from evolutionists because I’m a "creationist." (Yes, I’m looking at you, Charles Johnson of LGF.) Others flack me because I’m not a YOUNG EARTH creationist. Bah. I’m not interested in impressing the faithless. Me, I rely on the church that Christ personally founded. For all its faults, well, Catholicism is the worst church in the world except for all the alternatives.
* I keep hearing "Amnesty is unfair to people waiting in line!" So what? People get all upset about "illegal aliens voting." Yet they're eager to give a "vote" TO PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T EVEN COME HERE YET. If we decide to give a break to people already here as a matter of public good and public security, those waiting patiently in line get absolutely no say whatsoever. Hiding behind 'people waiting in line' is lower than sphagnum moss.
* I hear sneers at the word "amnesty" for illegals. Well the illegals are here because we murdered 55 million people, half of whom would be working adults now. The parents of the aborted *got* their amnesty!
* From Wikipedia: "During this spring frenzy, hares can be seen "boxing"; one hare striking another with its paws (probably the origin of the term "mad as a March hare"). For a long time, this had been thought to be intermale competition, but closer observation has revealed it is usually a female hitting a male to prevent copulation." Yeah, I know what that’s like.
* I'm a very bad Catholic–but I am not worried about the eternal effect of my missing Mass. Christ knows--literally--He has so much to pick from if He's looking for a reason to send me to the down escalator.
* I do poor people law. It sucks, but someone has to do it.
* I despise the concept of the "private prison." Imprisonment is a function that MUST NOT be commercialized. There were two judges in Philly who owned 50% in the very private prison they were sending juveniles to. They each got 20+ years (one 28 years). Oh, they were white, and 100% of the kids they sent were not.
* The bedrock of the anti abortion movement is the fundamental belief that men are responsible for their flies. I am not talking about Victorian notions. I'm talking about objective morality binding on all humans since the beginning of time. If you don't want to pay for a child, don't screw Mom. Men don't have to f---. If you do, it's called "assumption of the risk." If you don't want to face this choice, to paraphrase Monopoly: do not pass COME, do not expend $200,000.
* Lefties love conservatives who turn coat. Yeh, the Ron Reagan syndrome.
* GMO producers should be punished as terrorists, Russian MPs say (rt.com) He meant Kulaks of course. In the Russian tradition of how they treat productive corn growers.
* It sez here: I got Centaur! Which Mythical Creature Are You? (www.buzzfeed.) Humphrey Boggart.
Monday, November 24, 2014
|"This is the Palantir News Network."|
Did you know that Lord of the Rings talked about television news?
Well, not directly. But J.R.R. Tolkien wrote about it quite prophetically. This is most astonishing in that TV news hadn't really been invented yet. (The first experimental TV broadcasts began in 1936 at the Berlin Olympics, but all TV broadcasts were terminated from the start of WW2 to 1945 – after LOTR was completed.)
But yes, Lord of the Rings talked about it a great deal.
In the LOTR universe, the Elves had once created seven great powerful items – the Seeing Stones, or Palantiri: "Far-Seers" (tele-vision). They were connected to one another, so that an individual who looked into one could see individuals looking into others.
By the time of the events of LOTR, only four of the original seven Seeing Stones were still in existence: one was held by Sauron, the great villain; one was held by the evil wizard Saruman; one was held by Denethor, the Ruling Steward of Gondor. A fourth one, off stage, was kept hidden by the Elves, unused.
What is fascinating about this was that every individual who used a Seeing Stone is deceived by it.
Saruman reveals early on that he sees a great, huge army in place by the hand of Sauron, so great and huge that it cannot possibly be overcome by force. He falls into despair and is tempted by Sauron to betray the West and to become his own, Sauron's, servant. He is deceived by what he sees as the overwhelming strength of the Enemy.
Denethor, the lord of Gondor, sees the same forces, a huge army that he knows cannot be defeated through military force. He, too, falls into despair; not into treason, but into suicidal depression and madness, ordering the death of his own son and heir by fire, and suddenly and eventually his own spectacular death in the flames.
He too is deceived by what he sees as the overwhelming strength of the Enemy.
The Hobbit Peregrin Took took hold of a captured Seeing Stone and stared into it, wanting to gain knowledge and power in his own small way. He mind was captured and examined by Sauron, and he was subjected to a great and horrible terror by staring into it. He was deceived by his wish to know too much.
And Sauron himself, the great and powerful wizard, all wise – he himself was deceived by it!
Sauron saw Peregrin's mind in the Stone and thought that Saruman was torturing Pippin by forcing him to stare into it. He knew that some Hobbit, somewhere, had his Great Ring; he thought that Peregrin had it: and revealed to Pippin, unwittingly, his plans to destroy Gondor through force majeure. He was deceived by seeing in Pippin what he wanted to see, that is, Frodo, who truly had the Ring.
Finally, Aragorn declared himself King of Gondor by taking up the reforged sword Anduril and staring down Sauron through the Seeing Stone of Denethor. By this means he again deceived Sauron into making Sauron, think that he, Aragorn, was now bearing his Great Ring. Again, Sauron was deceived, and kept his eye on Aragorn, never watching his back door where the valiant Frodo and Sam crawled, ring in hand, to destroy it.
But Aragorn, too is deceived, or shown a lie by Sauron: he sees his great love, the elf Arwen, dead in her room (she lives).
Now why do the Palantiri deceive? Two reasons: for most viewers, the one who controls what is seen (i.e., Sauron) forces the viewer to see what he wants. Saruman and Denethor see overwhelming military force; Pippin sees torment and torture; Aragorn sees his love deceased. Their limited view, narrow focus and their preemption by the will of Sauron show the viewer what Sauron wants rather than the truth.
But it also deceives Sauron himself! -- by showing him what he wants to see: he wants to see the Ring Bearer, a hobbit; he sees a hobbit and sees the Ring Bearer. Even the Program Chief of this tiny TV network is deceived by his own vision device. (This is likely also one of the drawbacks of being an Evil Overlord; one tends not to trust one's trusted lieutenants and not hears contradictory advice. As Paul Simon put it, "The man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest... doo doo doo....")
So a Palantir is a dangerous tool indeed.
When the war is over, there are only two stones left; Sauron's is destroyed and the fourth one is removed from Middle Earth by ship. Both of those remaining stones are in the hands of the King of Gondor, and since they are colocated, they really do no good, and they are not noted as having any further effect on history. It is likely they were never used again.
Why? Aragorn knew:
Every single instance of the use of the Seeing Stone deceived the viewer, in almost every instance, to their self-destruction.
Now, these are not exactly original insights; they are well known to fans of the LOTR world.... so well known that they are given in the Wikipedia blog entry for Palantir, which I did not consult prior to writing the above.... although I will confess that I may well have read it some time previously. Nevertheless the points are valid. And the resemblance to the real world remain valid.
How does that relate to television news today?
Each of us now has a Seeing Stone in our living rooms: a TV set that can bring views of the world directly to our faces, our families, our children. Through it we can see scenes half a planet away, in close detail, repeated endlessly until it is drilled into our heads. Sometimes visions on that screen–the coffin of a martyred President, an aircraft demolishing a skyscraper–can haunt our dreams for a lifetime.
Can it be trusted as a source of the news, of what is most truly going on in the world?
My answer is a most decided no.
The problem with TV news is that it is supremely the product of the large organization that is necessary to bring it to your doorstep.
Every TV news company – NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, MSNBC, CNN – is an organization made up of thousands of individuals, from the bubble headed beach blonde who comes on at five down to the janitor lady pushing the broom when the lights are out. That organization is necessary because bringing the news from out there to here – a sight to a camera, a camera to a signal, a signal to a satellite, a satellite to the home office, where it is edited, transformed, shortened, edited again, put in context.... and turned into a two or three or four minute mini story with moving pictures, described to you by the aforementioned bleach blonde.... requires an organization.
And organizations are made up of people who need to eat.
TV news, therefore, is extremely dangerous. It must, must, be assumed by the wise viewer that almost every news story brought to you on TV is, to some extent or another, an organized lie.
Oh, not necessarily by intent. But the story requires hundreds of hands to make it happen. Those hundreds of hands have hundreds of mouths attached to them, not to mention those mouths' family member's mouths. It therefore requires vast amounts of money. To obtain that money, they must sell advertising. To sell advertising, they must get people to watch. To get them to watch, they must tell people what they want to hear! For if they don't people don't watch; if they don't watch, no money from advertisers. That simple.
Ergo and therefore, the news that is brought to your doorstep is brought to you in such a way that THEY (those who control the news) ... WHAT THEY THINK YOU WANT TO KNOW.
They don't bring stories that are 'too complicated for TV coverage' (like the budget deficit, the national debt, the massive sequestration of funds that will happen in January 2013, or any real details of the Obamacare package). They take complicated questions (should the USA fight in Iraq?) and turn them into simplistic 'grim milestones' like "Today the 8000th soldier died in Iraq."
They don't bring stories that will outrage their advertisers, or more importantly will outrage those who the advertisers are afraid of. For example, all stories about (say) "gay marriage" will support it (in order to avoid gay fascists from trying to force their advertisers to drop them).
They will not bring stories that go against what they themselves view as "obvious and true" such as (a) the Democrats being absolutely in favor of the little people or (b) the Republicans being the tools of nazis, white supremacists, or racists.
In order to find the truth of what you see on TV, you must supply an extremely careful and discerning eye. You must know the cant used by TV news broadcasters, must understand their ideological starting points, must look for the 'dog whistle' phraseology they use to transmit the real news, and look for the buried lede–the actual meaning of the story–which is forever given in the last 20% of the story.
In other words, you need to be in essence carefully trained to watch the TV news, otherwise you will be deceived.
If great and powerful wizards can be deceived by tiny screens, how much more vulnerable are the rest of us?
|Robert A. Heinlein. Smart man.|
I will admit to having a great hostility for the TV news.
I'm' an inveterate reader--and a trained intelligence analyst from my days in the Army. Reading (and writing about what I read) is what I *do.*
There is something deeply dangerous out of watching the news on TV as opposed to reading it.
An analyst can read a news story and fairly easily identify the deception and slant found in that story. You can look at the source (NY Times, WashPost, The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, etc.) and know immediately what kind of a slant you're going to get. If you read this stuff for a living, you can recognize who is trustworthy and who is not. You can read through a story and find the 'buried lede' fairly quickly, and you can extract poisonous deception (if you're trained to spot it) much as you can remove a bad mushroom or berry from a salad.
You can't do that with TV news. It goes directly through your forebrain into your emotional center with the pictoral impact; you watch the picture of the burning tank, the crashed plane, the yammering politico, or the bleach blonde, while the voice-over gives you the message approved by the corporate leadership of the news network. It is impossible to analyze, impossible (without great resources) to separate the wheat from the chaff--because it's neither wheat nor chaff, it's homogenized liquid with a significant, indeed deadly, poison thoroughly mixed within. You can't filter poison out of a poisoned drink!
I've been very fortunate: I live in a TV broadcast bowl; we can not receive broadcast TV in the precise spot where I live, and we do not have access to cable TV by choice. (I have three adolescent males in the house and if you think I'm going to have MTV vomit into my living room, think again!) Thus, I'm pretty much restricted to print news via the internet.
I much prefer it that way. It's easier to extract poisonberries from a salad than poison from a poisonberry drink. And I am able to live my life in blissful ignorance of the meaning of certain cultural phenomena (oh, like "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo," which I hadn't heard before Thursday).
There is a key scene in Orwell's 1984, where Winston Smith and his love Julia meet with O'Brien, the Inner Party member who they think will help them subvert the Party.
At the start of their meeting, Winston looks up and stares into the face of Big Brother on an oversized telescreen. O'Brien turns a switch, and the face disappears as the screen is disabled.
"You can turn it off!" says Winston in astonishment.
"Yes," O'Brien says. "We have that privilege."
Turn it off. You have that privilege.
A friend of mine sends the following:
Excellent essay. I only have broadcast TV and Internet entertainment services, not cable. I don't watch TV news, and don't miss it. This post recalls Madeleine Albright's statement to Newsweek a few years ago about how she missed the 1960's-1970's situation of all the nation having the same three evening news broadcasts (ABC, CBS, NBC). She said that gave us a common narrative, that we all started discussion with the same facts, etc. I thought: anathema sit! Good riddance to that! Let me consult multiple sources and think carefully and form my own judgment. I don't need networks, all of whom are controlled by secular postmodernist-autonomists, setting the terms of discussion. In fact, that situation is actively harmful.
The same was true of metropolitan newspapers, which IMO abused their power as the major print gatherer of local news and have eminently deserved their decline. For decades in my hometown, the liberal daily paper set the terms of political discussion in the county. The paper is still influential, but it IMO doesn't have the absolute control it used to. I say: good riddance! Bring me the news, but don't try to make us all Democrats.
Palantir, indeed. I do just fine without TV news.
As I was saying: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/19/Rasmussen-internet-over-TV
As I was saying: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/19/Rasmussen-internet-over-TV
Saturday, November 22, 2014
A very good and otherwise very sensible friend of mine, pissed off over ObAmnesty, just invoked the Declaration of Independence as justification for overthrowing Obama.
Sigh. Really, my dear friends.
We need some history here.
Let’s look at the list of George III's abuses that they cited in 1776 and see how many of them Obama has committed, shall we?....
||He has refused his assent to laws, the
most wholesome and necessary for the
||Yes, but so what? Unlike George III, we
GAVE him veto powers by electing him
President, like or not.
||He has forbidden his governors to pass
laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their
operation till his assent should be
obtained; and when so suspended, he has
utterly neglected to attend to them.
||Some laws–particularly Arizona’s anti-immigration acts–actually meet this
standard. (Whether it is good or bad it has
been suspended is another question.)
||He has refused to pass other laws for the
accommodation of large districts of
people, unless those people would
relinquish the right of representation in
the legislature, a right inestimable to
them and formidable to tyrants only.
||He has called together legislative bodies
at places unusual, uncomfortable, and
distant from the depository of their public
records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing
them into compliance with his measures.
||Nope. DC is a place usual, comfortable,
and near the depository of its public
records. Our representatives are fatigued,
yes, however, but not his doing.
||He has dissolved representative houses
repeatedly, for opposing with manly
firmness his invasions on the rights of the
||He has refused for a long time, after such
dissolutions, to cause others to be elected;
whereby the legislative powers, incapable
of annihilation, have returned to the
people at large for their exercise; the state
remaining in the meantime exposed to all
the dangers of invasion from without, and
||He has endeavored to prevent the
population of these states; for that
purpose obstructing the laws for
naturalization of foreigners; refusing to
pass others to encourage their migration
hither, and raising the conditions of new
appropriations of lands.
||Quite the opposite. Congress has done
precisely this. On the other hand, per the
Constitution, that’s Congress’s job.
||He has obstructed the administration of
justice, by refusing his assent to laws for
establishing judiciary powers.
||Nope. Nominating useless leftist loser
judges is NOT the same as obstruction as
Georgie 3 liked to do.
||He has made judges dependent on his
will alone, for the tenure of their offices,
and the amount and payment of their
||Nope. US Constitution prevents this.
||He has erected a multitude of new
offices, and sent hither swarms of officers
to harass our people, and eat out their
||Okay, got him on that one.
||He has kept among us, in times of peace,
standing armies without the consent of
||Nope. He’s actively tried to REDUCE the
military and standing armies, and so far
Congress has gone along with the gag.
||He has affected to render the military
independent of and superior to civil
||Nope. Quite the opposite.
||He has combined with others to subject
us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitution, and unacknowledged by our
laws; giving his assent to their acts of
||Well, this is arguably yes, if you believe
that citing the United Nations’s various
“Conventions” in court documents and so
||For quartering large bodies of armed
troops among us:
||Nope. They stay on base or in their own
||For protecting them, by mock trial, from
punishment for any murders which they
should commit on the inhabitants of these
||Nope. Although some might argue
Ferguson applies. (I don’t so argue!)
||For cutting off our trade with all parts of
||Hardly. Foreign trade is as lucrative as
||For imposing taxes on us without our
||Arguably yes, particularly through the
||For depriving us in many cases, of the
benefits of trial by jury:
||Nope, except for those schmoes at Gitmo,
and they aren’t Americans so they don’t
||For transporting us beyond seas to be
tried for pretended offenses:
||For abolishing the free system of English
laws in a neighboring province,
establishing therein an arbitrary
government, and enlarging its boundaries
so as to render it at once an example and
fit instrument for introducing the same
absolute rule in these colonies:
||Um, get back to me on this one if/when
Obama conquers Canada.
||For taking away our charters, abolishing
our most valuable laws, and altering
fundamentally the forms of our
||Giving 4 million poor Mexicans work
||For suspending our own legislatures, and
declaring themselves invested with power
to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
||Nope. Believe me if he could suspend the
next Congress, he would.
||He has abdicated government here, by
declaring us out of his protection and
waging war against us.
||He has plundered our seas, ravaged our
coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed
the lives of our people.
||He is at this time transporting large
armies of foreign mercenaries to
complete the works of death, desolation
and tyranny, already begun with
circumstances of cruelty and perfidy
scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous
ages, and totally unworthy of the head of
a civilized nation.
||Nobody believes this but overheated
Michigan Militia types.
||He has constrained our fellow citizens
taken captive on the high seas to bear
arms against their country, to become the
executioners of their friends and brethren,
or to fall themselves by their hands.
||He has excited domestic insurrections
amongst us, and has endeavored to bring
on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the
merciless Indian savages, whose known
rule of warfare, is undistinguished
destruction of all ages, sexes and
||The closest we could come if his peeps
are behind the agitation at Ferguson,
which I don’t believe for a nanosecond.
28 charges of which Obama has arguably committed two or VERY arguably committed four more.
In other words, get a grip peeps. Obama’s acts do not reach the point of calling for revolution!
Two more years.
We can wait two more years.
Posted by (c)2014 Richard L. Kent, Esq. (MichiganSilverback at gmail dot com) at 12:33 PM
Thursday, November 20, 2014
We are in for interesting times.
So let me explain from what I can glean so far what is going on.
(Note to the reader: to those unfamiliar with this blog, I should mention that I'm an immigration attorney of eleven years' standing, and before that I worked in DC for almost two decades. I know where the bodies are buried in this business.)
So. Here's my analysis.
As you know, our President, hallowed be his name, has--in spite of the raspberry given him by the electorate in last week's election--he has decided that the time has come to take the gloves off as regards amnesty.
And he's not doing it in some small mean way, either.
Yep, the President is going all-out. Going large--very large.
Chris Christie large. Jerrold Nadler large. Khloé Kardashian's butt large.
We're talkin' huge here.
With the waive of a magic wand, he is granting amnesty to four million people or thereabouts.
Is this the end of the world as we know it????
A lot of Republicans are completely outraged in principle, and they're not insane for being so. But many of my fellow GOPers have been acting like Aunt Pittypat with the vapors all week since Fox announced it had gotten a copy of the plan on Monday.
But. Everyone has been asking: What's Obama up to exactly?
I have been able to piece together a few points of the President's "Ten Point Plan," as described last week by Fox, which claimed to have gotten a copy of the plan.
From what I've been able to cobble from the Interwebs, the plan consists of at least the following:
* Expanded "Dream Act" relief. Short version: more kids and young immigrants get work cards, then Social Security cards, and possibly drivers' licenses--including many who didn't qualify for the first "Dream Act" relief.
(Long version: grants more relief under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA, or "Dream Act") program so that children that arrived AFTER the DACA deadline of June 2012 will also qualify for 'Deferred Enforced Departure' (DED), like the first bunch. DED lets you stay in the US with a work card, Social Security number, and driver's license, for the duration of the presidency of the President who grants it.)
* A second, new program that protects the parents of American citizen or green-card holding children who are 'living with them' qualifies for a program that parallels DACA. They get DED also.
* A third, new program that will shield those who have been "in the United States a very long time" (ten years? Five years?) even if they have no children here. They too will get DED.
* A fourth new program that will somehow shield some 250,000 agricultural workers from deportation. Don't know the details, but the head of the United Farm Workers spoke of it to the press last night.
* A hefty executive-mandated pay raise for ICE (and USCIS?) for "morale purposes." (Read: Consolation prize. It really, really sucks to work for ICE right now.)
That's five of the points. That leaves five more points. Your guess is probably as good as mine, but let me crystal-ball gaze for a minute. I will be perfectly willing to bet that it includes:
* Expanding the "I-601A Waiver" program. Short version: makes it easier for someone deported, or about to be deported, to return if they're married or have citizen kids.
(Longer version: This is complicated so hear me out. When someone gets deported and their family wants to bring them back, they're generally barred entry to the US for ten years. The family can get the bar lifted by filing something called I-601 and I-212 forms.... but they can't file it until AFTER (a) the person is deported and (b) the person has first been interviewed at the US Embassy. Costs about $1200 plus legal fees, which are high.
The present state of the law means someone deported, even if he has three autistic citizen children in the US or a wife with cancer, cannot reenter the US for at LEAST two to three years--that being how long it takes to process the papers. The I-601A waiver allows some (very few) individuals to file BEFORE they leave the US. This shortens their stay at home to a week or ten days. If they get it. It's VERY hard to qualify for. My guess is that Obama is going to expand the I-601A program.)
* Reorganizing the immigration office--US CIS--so that its workers can spend more time processing papers and less time going to mind-control political correctness seminars.
* Further computerization of the paperwork process. Details well known to immigration lawyers but rightfully of no interest to anyone else.
As for the other points, your guess is as good as mine at this point.First, we need to face facts. Conservatives may well hate this thing, but it is probably not unconstitutional or even, on its face, illegal. The authority to do this is inherent in the President's (or Homeland Security's) authority to grant DED to those individual groups deemed to need protection.
But. Is Deferred Action by the President, um, legal? Is it constitutional?
Is it impeachable???
To which I answer, yes, probably yes, and very probably no.
But. Is Deferred Action by the President, um, legal? Is it constitutional?
Is it impeachable???
To which I answer, yes, probably yes, and very probably no.
The Federalist Society, a VERY influential and relatively hard conservative organization in DC--just happened to have its annual legal convention last night at the Mayflower Hotel in DC. A panel there led by names well known to me found the President's actions "unprecedented," "troublesome," but not repeat not unconstitutional on its face.
If this is an accurate description of the discussion--if, I say, after all the source is the Huffington Post--then those screaming about the unconstitutionality of this move may be all wet. And believe me, if there was something obviously unconstitutional about it the Federalist Society, no spotted-owl-fan-club, would have found it.
Their argument: the President does indeed have wide powers of discretion in this matter and past presidents have exercised that power to a lesser degree. Since the solution that Obama offers is in the end objectionable, not constitutionally, but as a matter of policy, then the matter can and should survive court challenges. The difference here is not of kind but of degree.
I have no doubt that it will survive challenge when it eventually reaches The Supreme Kennedy. (I call him that because Justice Kennedy is the deciding vote on an otherwise-split 4-4 Supreme Court, and there's no doubt in my mind on this one he'll veer left.)
If the Federalist Society can hold its nose on this thing, it will--probably--survive legal challenges.
Add to that also: the Chamber of Commerce wants this. Which means that a lot of Republicans will do a smoke-and-mirrors kabuki dance without actually doing anything effective to stop it.
Let me tell you what it does not do. It does not grant "a blanket amnesty" to all and sundry. Not everyone who is here illegally will qualify for this benefit. It leaves out another ten to twenty million people. Those convicted of significant crimes (worse than driving without a license or drunk driving) are out of luck. And those who have been here too short a time, certainly less than five years, possibly less than ten, will not qualify for anything.
Upshot: From a conservative standpoint, it stinks. But it's not per se either unconstitutional nor illegal.
But can it be undone? Technically, yes. Politically? Um, we don't know.
(Is it impeachable? Answer: Don't be silly. The GOP is not going to risk ten years of Joe Biden. Next question?)
We're not going to shut down the government again. Last time we tried it -- last year -- we got a black eye and accomplished nothing but getting a video of Senator Cruz reading a children's book on the floor of the Senate. Forget it. Won't happen.
But as for the effects? The Corroding Effect On The Constitution? Yes, yes, I know it will Lead To The Decline of America Because Mexicans. Shrug. They said that after Brown v. Board in '54 also. Republicans need to be very careful how they oppose this thing; they don't want to hand the Democrats the racism club. Again.
Just remember that this affects five million people. Out of 320 million. We can survive this, quite well, thank you. And as for what they'll do to the job market? Just a hint, here: the ones that can work are working already.
Let me note again: we let most of these people come here. We didn't guard the border. Why? Because we didn't reproduce ourselves. If it weren't for Roe v. Wade, twenty-five million workers between the ages of 41 to 18 would now be in the work force. They're not because dead. They needed to be replaced. Well, we replaced them.... with illegal aliens. And there are only two things to do: assimilate them, or persecute them till they leave. And we're not going to persecute them. Sorry.
They are not here to do the work Americans won't do. They're here to do the work Americans can't do because they're dead.
And now, the bill is due.
I'll write more after tonight's speech.
Posted by (c)2014 Richard L. Kent, Esq. (MichiganSilverback at gmail dot com) at 8:53 AM
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Druze-born Israeli policeman Zidan Sayif died yesterday at an Israeli synagogue where terrorists murdered four rabbis at prayer.
His sacrifice preserved the lives of the survivors.
A true TR.
To quote the traditional benediction: May his memory be a blessing.
Posted by (c)2014 Richard L. Kent, Esq. (MichiganSilverback at gmail dot com) at 10:21 AM
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Wit, wisdom, pseudonietzscheanistic aphorisms, and bad jokes.
* It sez here: Are Democrats getting too liberal? (washingtonpost.com) That question was answered last week with a resounding "yes." Leftists ALWAYS overreach. The only question ever is: how much damage will they do before power is struck from their hands?
* The reason I fight Homeland Security is because after the next 9/11, Congress can, and probably will, turn IMMIGRATION COURT (a kangaroo system that can deport "them") into CITIZENSHIP COURT (a kangaroo court that can internally deport YOU, say, to Alaska). My job is to hold their feet to the fire.
* Demilitarize the cops. "More Mayberry, less Fallujah."
* It sez here: Nancy Pelosi to Accept Award Honoring Black-Hating Eugenicist Margaret Sanger (tpnn.com) The Joseph Mengele Memorial Medical Center voices its approval.
* Welcome to the German language: Mit hugeunreadablesesquipedelianwordscrammedtogetherunreadably with the verb at the end of a very long sentence finally coming.
* It sez here:An (Eastern, it figures) German city wants ‘green police’ to raid homes to enforce electric heater ban" (dailycaller.com) Not an idea lacking in German historical precedent.
* The leftist self-title "Coalition of the Ascendant" to be unbearably snobby and bears the seeds of its own destruction.... as the election just proved. "Coalition of the Ascendent"? Only in the sense of their noses.
* Basia Trzetrzelewska. Polish jazz singer from the 90s. Still has an awesome voice--but the old grey mare ain't what she used to be! (Google image a recent pic of her and, alas, you will understand.)
* Politics is showbusiness with live ammo. Statesmanship is politics with nukes.
* The first piece of genetically modified anything I ever saw was firefly genes added to a tobacco plant--resulting in (no shit) a glow-in-the-dark living tobacco plant. Cool, yet scary. I gots no trouble with DNA research given proper controls. What I fear in this department is the 'decentralization' of genetic research--when it becomes possible for the GE equivalent of script-kiddie hackers start mucking around with microbes' DNA in their garages. Remember, all we need to do is screw up ONE microbe and we're back in 1350. Yes, I have probably read "The Stand" once too many times.... yes, I *do* Fear the Reaper! Y. Pestis is not your friend!
* "....and He said 'Let the one of you who is without sin cast the first stone!'. And a rock came out of the mob and hit the woman square on the noggin. And Jesus said, 'Mother, I'm trying to make a point here....!'"
* Biden is no dummy.... for a dummy cannot speak. Alas.
* What came first, the chicken or the egg? Answer: The egg, laid by the last of the protochickens.
* Now, remember, bird, as soon as we get over the top of Mount Doom, you drop the ring into the lava. 'k? (Of course, nobody would have read THAT short story!)
* Which reminds me of the world’s shortest Star Trek episode, entitled "The Logical Thing To Do." Sarek: "you’re WHAT?" Amanda: "You heard me!" (Roll end credits.)
* It sez here: Sandra Fluke: ‘‘I’d rather be a captive Nigerian girl than touched by a Republican’’ duhprogressive.com Shudder. At least now the people of California have spoken, and Ms. Fluke has taken her rightful place somewhere insignificant on the ashheap of history. Good riddance.
* Accepting the specious* equating of opposition to gay marriage with anti-gay violence opens the door to persecution of religious believers because they will not submit to a bogus law. (*"Specious": lawyerese for "bullshit.")
* No matter how bad Obama is–and he is unimaginably bad–the next Democrat President will be even worse. Even Hillary.
* If Republicans were stuffing the ballot boxes the Democrats would turn the country upside down to stop it.
* You call the GOP obstructionist? Of course we are. We must be obstructionist to treason, madness and evil. Not to mention theft, plunder, and self-aggrandizement.
* PS if the people didn't want the GOP to obstruct they wouldn't have elected them.
* In the end, Obama but one of several items on the floor of the Augean Stables. Time to commence the river-diversion project.
* No, not buying that Jesus is coming here any time soon. If the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, then the Second Coming in the year 20,000 AD is still "soon" by the Cosmic scale. I’m not looking for Jesus to come here any time soon. (Much more likely I will go see HIM. But, alas, likely for no more than a few minutes.)
Posted by (c)2014 Richard L. Kent, Esq. (MichiganSilverback at gmail dot com) at 7:26 AM
Monday, November 17, 2014
Ladies ‘n’ germs, Mr. GREG SCHANKIN!
* A man in Florida has been sentenced to six months in prison for stockpiling weapons at a compound just 11 miles from Disney World. Eleven miles from Disney World? So . . . in the parking lot?
* Sesame Street turned 45 years old. If you are not familiar with it, Sesame Street is how we entertained our children before we could just hand them an iPhone.
* Things have changed on Sesame Street since 1969 when it first went on. The street itself is totally gentrified. It's all Muppet hipsters now. And Oscar's garbage can is a fair-trade coffee shop. Mr. Hooper's store is a Lululemon. Cookie Monster is gluten free.
* President Obama is in China. Also in China is evil Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. They're both in China at the same time. It's like running into your ex-girlfriend on vacation.
* "Sons of Anarchy" is the No. 1 show in its time slot. They were No. 2 but then they had the No. 1 show executed in an abandoned warehouse.
* Critics love "Sons of Anarchy." Critics have called the show "Hamlet on motorcycles," which is better than the original concept — "Macbeth on Segways."
* "Sons of Anarchy" takes place in a fictional California town filled with degenerates and endless mayhem. They had to choose between making it a fictional town in California or any real town in Florida.
* Last week was a great week for the great state of Texas. The last person being tested for Ebola has come back clean. So Texas is now Ebola free. This was a big week for them. They're now free of Ebola — and Democrats.
* Democrats in state legislatures are at their lowest level since the 1920s. President Obama has a can't-miss strategy to save the party in 2016. He's leaving.
* They say that the Taj Mahal casino in Jersey is about to close because unprofitable. Hmn. A casino called "Taj Mahal". I have often wondered if somewhere in India there is not a gambling establishment that looks just like the Lincoln Memorial.
* In an effort to boost ticket sales, the country's largest movie theater chain, Regal Entertainment, is adding motion, smells, wind, rain, and even bubbles to certain theaters — or you can go the cheaper route and watch Netflix on your phone in a car wash.
* PepsiCo is developing a Doritos Mountain Dew called Dewitos. I think I’ll wait until they come out with Diet Dewitos.
* It's unclear when Dewitos will be released. But if it does come out, stoners are going to have some very tough choices to make. Do I eat my Doritos or drink them?
* I'm working on a combination of Ruffles and Red Bull. It tastes like America at its worst.
* Amazon has a new digital assistant. It's their version of Apple's Siri. It's called Echo. They say it's going to revolutionize the way we loudly repeat ourselves at electronic devices.
* President Obama and Vladimir Putin were both in China attending the same economic summit this past week. Obama saw Putin and said, "After those midterms, it's nice to finally see a friendly face."
* Pepsi has a new Doritos-flavored Mountain Dew. No, we don't have an Ebola vaccine, but we do have the Doritos-flavored Mountain Dew.
* You know Kim Jong Un, the evil dictator of North Korea? Apparently, a guy in his inner circle used his ashtray while smoking and Kim Jong Un had him executed. I remember the same thing happened when a guy used Martha Stewart's personal lemon zester.
* President Obama is in China. Today he visited the kids who make our cellphones.
* Obama took a tour of the Great Wall of China and said, "We need one of these things around the White House." (Republicans in the party were more inclined to Texas.)
* A new book claims that Jesus had a wife and two kids. In other words, he suffered even more than we thought.
* And the Pharisee asked: "....which of the seven brothers was the woman’s husband in heaven?" Answered Jesus: "There is no marriage in Heaven." Pharisee: "There isn’t?" Jesus: "It’s Heaven. Like, duh."
Thththththtat’s all, fffffolks.....
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
VETERANS DAY 2014:
An Ignominious Glory: Heroes of the Desert One Fiasco, April 24, 1980
(Editor's note: 9/11/2012 was not the only embassy related disaster in American history. Here is its direct predecessor.....)
"Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
‘To every man upon this earth Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods?"
-Thomas Babingdon, Lord Macaulay
In the course of the Tattered Remnants series I have tried to bring attention to a few individuals who have stepped into the breach, sometimes without so much as a moment's warning or a single word of encouragement, and attempted to stand up and do what was right in the face of overwhelming force, danger and resistance, tothe cost even of their own self destruction.
I've deliberately passed over whole classes of individuals in this series, and for good reason. Generally speaking, I don't talk about politicians, who seem to have endless opportunities to pat themselves on the back or at least enrich themselves even if they start out as Tattered Remnants.
Likewise, I have tried to avoid including the military in my list of Tattered Remnants, even though those entering the military profession are almost always those that have the "TR nature." Sure, there are many who go into uniform because they're young and immature and need training to become adults; many others go in (at least in the United States) for the relatively comfortable salaries, guaranteed room-and-board, and the chance to see the world. But most of those of any nation who choose to wear their nations' uniform do so out of a love of country and a desire to contribute to their peoples' well-being.
But the military life also has its distinct rewards. On the whole, the military profession makes a point of compensating its best with a public honors. In the UK, great soldiers are granted titles and knighthoods (and sometimes even the crown); here in the USA, we cover them with medals. The military hero is also recognized in many other ways, from elaborate headstones and beautiful cemeteries, to patriotic public holidays (of which we have no less than three), and, for the very rarest of honors, the song. ("To the everlasting glory of the Infantry, shines the name, shines the name of Rodger Young!", goes one such famous ballad.)
It would be very easy for me to use any of a number of great military heroes to show the Tattered Remnant spirit in uniform. The obvious candidates are the Few who stopped the Luftwaffe over London in 1940. But, being cheerfully American, I might rather look to those who led us to victory at D-Day, or those Navy airmen who sank four Japanese carriers at Midway, or those Army warriors who liberated any of a hundred Nazi camps, or those Marines that stopped the Hun at Belleau Woods, or perhaps those of the 20th Maine who stopped the South at Little Round Top and saved the Union.
But the well known heroes are already honored (by definition).
I could, rather, look to the honorably defeated: history remembers the 300 at Thermopylae, the defenders at the Alamo, Chinese Gordon and his men at Khartoum (albeit our sympathies these days are with the Sudanese who killed them), the 400 or so at the Warsaw ghetto--to die in defense of one's nation, even in hopelessness and defeat, is not lacking in its own glories.
But what of those who seemingly pointlessly die in fubars, snafus, and operational botches? Who die self-defeated to the great humiliation of their nation?
Could it be that even they may be worthy of remembrance?
To illustrate the spirit of military self-sacrifice at its finest--to give ones life even in disasterous defeat--let me do honor to those who are apparently the greatest military failures known to us: those who died in what was viewed, at the time, as the most humiliating, devastating and, yes, embarrassing of American defeats. They died in a military blunder far from home and far from help, doomed by poor preparation by layers of command far above their own. The mission that they went on was a fiasco by every possible measure, and they were self-defeated without the enemy even knowing that they were present.
For in so dying they brought about, in the following years, our most amazing victory, that which came over the Soviet Union. Their sacrifice lay in being a casualties to bad planning, bad equipment, and insufficient training: deficiencies which, as a result, were largely remedied in the years that followed (if only just in time).
The disaster rings down now, lo, these thirty years later. For the disaster at Desert One remains, to this day, a disgrace and an embarrassment to the United States: and yet without it, we might not have bloodlessly won the Cold War. By this defeat we saved the world from a nuclear holocaust.
BACKGROUND OF THE DESERT ONE FIASCO
A. Some History, Ancient and Modern
Once upon a time, a very, very long time ago, there was a country known as "Persia", a corruption of the name "Fars," which is one of its provinces (much as the Netherlands is also known by the name "Holland"). The name Iran is, however, associated with the word "Aryan," the ancient horse-people that conquered the preliterate world; the country took this name in the 1930s, when "Aryanism" was held in respect by, er, certain countries.
The ancient Persians conquered Babylon and their great king, Cyrus, returned the People of Israel to their homeland. In the centuries that followed, the Zoroastrian/pagan Persians were the great Eastern enemies of the Roman empire and on occasion even captured Roman Emperors in battle. It was against the Persians that Marcus Crassus, the wealthy third member of the Roman First Triumvirate, fell in battle in Iraq. Later, the Persians played a major role in the spread of Islam to their east, into India and the Turkic lands of central Asia.
But sometimes empires strike out. By the early 1920s, the old Qajar dynasty of the Iranian imperial line was in its final days. The last Shah of the old dynasty was ineffective and weak, and was presently replaced in all but name by the head of his guard, one Reza Khan. Reza took the name Pahlavi, and having forced the old Shah into exile, was declared Reza Pahlavi, "Shahanshah", King of Kings, or Emperor.
The new Shah ruled, well, imperially, per his title. His goal was the modernization and development of his country. To that end, he needed funds, and to get those funds he entered into agreements with British and American oil companies. However, those oil interests became deeply entrenched, as he soon found. He turned to Germany's influence to counter that of the Western powers.
When, in 1941, the darkest days of the War against the Nazis, Shah Reza tried to expel the Westerners. This was intolerable; soon the British and the Soviets together worked to expel Shah Reza Pahlavi and replace him with his then youthful son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was in his 22nd year.
It was necessary at that time to take that step, as the railroad through Iran to Russia was vital to supplying the Soviet war effort against Nazi Germany, and suppressing Nazi influence in Iran was imperative. However, it deepened Western control over the leadership of that nation, deeply resented both by Iran's political and intellectual classes as well as by its Islamic institutions. The long term consequences of this act continue to play themselves out to this day.
In 1953, the Emperor, no longer a youth, was overthrown by the prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, who favored nationalizing the oil companies and expelling the British and Americans. Again, this was intolerable; Iran bordered Stalinist Russia and a rapproachment with them was also unacceptable. So US and British intelligence agencies arrested Mossadegh, and restored Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to his throne, where he sat secure for another quarter century.
B. The Iranian Revolution
In the late 1970s, the imperial Iranian regime was on its last legs. Although it held thousands of political prisoners, a broad coalition of opponents of the regime–including Islamic clerics, Communist intellectuals, and liberals advocating a westernized democracy–united against the Shah. Iranian university students world wide made a nuisance of themselves while massive street demonstrations in Tehran and elsewhere demonstrated the Shah's weakening hold.
Between pressure from the streets, the general weakening of Western will, the feckless Carter administration in Washington, and the Shah's own deteriorating health due to cancer, the Shah's political backing buckled and, in February 1979, he fled his country. He eventually came to the United States so that his cancer could be treated.
The new revolutionary regime in Iran took control on his departure. It was at first a coalition, but as time progressed clearly a regime of Islamist supremacists united in the desire to create a totally Islamist state was in place. The transitional regime was itself overthrown and those former revolutionaries who supported a democratic or socialist course for the country were quickly arrested.
All power was soon given over to the Grand Ayatollah, Imam Ruhollah Khomeini. Iran was now nominally a republic (resembling that of United States!--a lefthanded complement that the Iranians could never acknowledge). It was, however, a sham, created to give a figleaf of popular authority to religious autocracy, even if some of its institutions were nominally democratic.
The powers that be in the West, in particular President Jimmy Carter, could not make heads or tails out of the new regime. They looked at it through the lens of the long struggle with the Soviets and it fit none of their preconceived notions. It wasn't communistic or socialist, which pleased them somewhat; nevertheless, they had no comprehension that with the Khomeini regime a new, or perhaps a resurrected ancient, enemy of the West was arising. Every attempt by Carter and his cohorts to reach out to the new regime failed for reasons clear to us now but bewildering to them.
In short, the Iranian revolutionaries took their faith absolutely literally and made every decision on that basis. And Jimmy Carter and his crew, who only nominally understood their own Christian faith, could not understand this new Islamic mindset that confronted them.
They did not comprehend what the goals of the regime were: in short, that the Islamists who now ruled Iran wanted nothing less than the overthrow of Western style democracy everywhere and its replacement by absolutist Islamic teachings and Islamic law in the Shiite tradition.
The Iranian fundamentalists, for their part, looked at the world under the impression that God Himself wanted them to destroy the West and could not themselves understand anything about Western life that could be viewed positively, as 'freedom', to them, meant only 'freedom to sin'. This mutual lack of comprehension led to endless blundering in the days ahead.
C. The Hostage Crisis
The United States got a forewarning of what was to come during the revolution of February 1979, when students briefly occupied the US embassy. That occupation ended quickly; the students were expelled by government forces intent on keeping some sort of Western structure to their nation.
As a consequence of this incident, the US reduced its personnel footprint in Iran to an absolute minimum, but still there remained on the order of fifty or so diplomatic personnel on station in Iran. They remained in place as the Carter administration desired to have a continuous source of information and intelligence on developments in Iran–a not irrational choice, given the entirely new developments that Iran was currently undergoing. However, of the three CIA officers in place, none spoke Farsi.
On November 4, 1979, the embassy was again occupied by a mob of several hundred students. The US diplomatic personnel, as well as a handful of US citizens who were in the embassy on business, were taken hostage; many were paraded blindfolded before a mob and television cameras in what is today an indelible image of American humiliation.
Carter and his administration was already reeling from post-Vietnam self-doubt, "stagflation" (a combination of inflationary monetary policies and low growth stemming from overtaxation) and a national lassitude and loss of faith in the American mission that is now known as "The Malaise". Carter and his team were confounded by the challenge before them.
For the first few weeks following the taking of the hostages, it appeared likely that a diplomatic solution could be found. Most of the women and African American hostages were freed early on; one other was freed in July 1980 after he fell ill. The remaining 52 hostages remained in Iranian custody in various conditions of torment (at worst) or harassment and deliberate annoyance (at best) for the whole of the 444 day crisis.
A series of negotiations were undertaken, and they had a pattern: an Iranian diplomat would suggest this or that solution, Carter would agree with it, plans would move forward... and then, at the last minute, the Ayatollah Khomeini would veto the deal. Then two weeks later, the cycle would renew itself. And Carter kept falling for it, like Charlie Brown attempting to boot Lucy's football.
D. The Bear In The Woods: The Soviet Factor
There was also a general darkening of the geopolitical picture worldwide. While the American government became fixated on the Iranian difficulty, the geriatric leaders of the Soviet Union had problems of their own. In what was later seen as the beginning of the second Russian revolution, the Soviet leadership under the senescent Leonid Brezhnev, which only five years earlier had celebrated the pinnacle of its imperium when South Vietnam was conquered, itself began to crack. Its regime in Afghanistan began to totter and the extremists in power there seemed to be on the verge of being overthrown.
As a result, the Soviets, on December 21, 1979–-only weeks after the embassy was taken in Tehran–-took over Afghanistan and executed its president for incompetence, placing a puppet regime in power. A long, cruel war followed in which up to one million Afghans died over the next nine years. In the US, it was feared that the Soviet thrust into Afghanistan was preparatory to a possible lunge into Iran and thence to the oil fields in the Middle East.
But Afghanistan was not the only troubled area that confronted the Soviet leadership. In Poland, the Solidarity trade union movement presented Eastern Europe with its first challenge to Soviet authority since the Czechoslovakian invasion of 1968. In Britain, The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, took power and presented the Soviets with the first British leader since Churchill who understood that strength, not weakness, was necessary when confronting Soviet aggression. At the same time, the newly elected Polish pope, Karol Woytila, John Paul II, confronted the Soviets with a spiritual force, radically different than that of the Ayatollahs, that it could not easily contain.
Thus the Soviets were facing unprecedented internal challenges to their authority which made them extremely dangerous. And President Carter, after years of naive acceptance of Soviet good intentions, imposed sanctions on the Soviets. Following the Afghan invasion, he embargoed the sale of American grain to the Soviets; furthermore, he boycotted the Moscow Olympics, cut cultural ties, and started the military buildup which in later years would be called the "Reagan Buildup."
The world was sliding toward conflict, and the continued hostage crisis could not long be borne. It was in this atmosphere that the plan to rescue the hostages began to take form.
E. Operation Eagle Claw: The Rescue Operation
As the winter of 1979 melted into the spring of 1980, Carter's standing nationwide dropped dramatically. He hid out in the White House while his hold even on the Democratic nomination for president slipped. Opponents to his weak willed administration coalesced around Edward Kennedy; only Teddy's ineffectual defense of his ambition before a television interviewer saved the United States from another Kennedy Administration.
In the face of this, Carter decided that only a heroic rescue of the hostages could allay doubts as to his leadership and abilities to lead the Western World. He therefore gave the order for the United States military to assemble a strike team to penetrate deep into Iraq, free the 53 hostages, and bring them home again. Had he accomplished this, he would have very likely been reelected, and the entire history of the end of the 20th Century would have been dramatically changed.
But there was much to be overcome. Where the Iranians did not necessarily have day to day surveillance over the American fleet that had gathered in the Gulf, the Soviets did, through trawlers that shadowed the American fleet. They saw that American aircraft carriers held helicopters topside–the identities of which were known by sight by any analyst worth his salt. We knew this--and this caused our first blunder.
For the helicopters topside on American aircraft carriers were RH-53D Navy minesweeping helicopters, intended not for long range missions–but for close-in surveillance. This range limitation was caused by a simple fact: the RH-53D were incapable of in flight refuelling. But replacing the helicopters with something that could have been refueled in flight would have alerted the Soviet trawlers–and through them, the Iranians–that a rescue mission was offing.
The plans, therefore, required that the copters stop somewhere between the aircraft carriers and the rescue points in Tehran to be refueled. They chose a spot in the middle of the South Iranian desert; this spot would be given the name Desert One.
The second mistake grew from interservice rivalry stemming from the prestige of the mission. All who participated in the planning process knew that, if it were successful, it would rank with the great Western military triumphs of the 20th Century: the liberation of the Entebbe raid on July 4, 1976; the American landings at Inchon, Korea in 1950; even the American invasion of D-Day.
Accordingly, all the different services wanted a piece of the action, and one of the medals that would no doubt be awarded to all and sundry once the hostages returned in triumph. Therefore, every service had to have a place in the picture. And it was this mutual competitiveness for glory, medals and Defense budget funding in future years that engendered a cross-hatched command structure that degraded planning and operations tremendously.
The third mistake that was made was overly tight secrecy. The plan was so secret that nobody below the four-star level had the slightest clue as to what was really going on. As such, as each section of the team was separately trained, the parts were expected to mesh together perfectly when nobody had had a chance to rehearse as a team prior to the launching of the mission itself. As it developed, the rescue team trained separately from the pilots, who trained separately from the mechanics, who trained... etc. As things went forward, the fact that nobody had worked together prior to the commencement of the mission doomed it from the very beginning.
The fourth and final mistake was made at the highest levels, by President Carter himself. Out of either caution in the face of Soviet expansionism or, what can (charitably) be called an undue aversion to the use of force, he decreed that the unit sent to rescue the hostages must be no larger than the absolute bare minimum required for success. Given that 50 or more hostages were held, they required six helicopters to carry out the mission, for fewer were unable to carry the men and women held by the Iranians. But President Carter would only allow a maximum of eight copters, allowing for a cushion of two for the mission to go forward. More copters would have made the mission a possible success, but would have required more refuelling craft.
Teams scouted out areas forward to prepare the way. Desert One was identified by CIA officers on the ground; a second landing zone, designated Desert Two, was also chosen outside of Tehran proper for the hostages to join the copters once they were extracted from the embassy by a hidden team of warriors secreted in place on the ground. Other well-laid plans were in place using ground agents of the CIA and other organizations, awaiting the arrival of the eight helicopters.
F. The Fateful Day: April 24, 1980
Early in the morning of that fateful day, the rescue force took off from their respective starting points: four fix-winged aircraft left from Egypt, followed by eight helicopters leaving the U.S.S. Nimitz and other carriers in the Persian Gulf.
The first helicopter went down two hours into the mission when an indicator light showed a malfunction with the blades. Rather than risk continuing the mission in an incapable aircraft, a second copter landed with the troubled craft and took the crew on board. The eight copters were now down to seven.
Secondly, a low level 'haboob' – a sandstorm, the existence of which was unknown to the copter pilots – caused an electrical malfunction to another copter, which abandoned the mission and returned to the Nimitz. The mission was now down to the bare minimum of six helicopters. One more and the mission would have to be abandoned.
The six helicopters rendezvoused with the four fix winged aircraft. Two of them carried out refuelling functions and per plan left Desert One for Egypt. During preflight inspections, however, one of the remaining six helicopters displayed a bad indicator light, showing that that helicopter was not fit for the remaining flight to the rescue point at Desert Two. The ground commander determined that the mission could not possibly go forward with five helicopters and the mission was scrubbed. Word was transmitted back to the White House, which responded immediately, affirming the scrub order. Word went down for the mission to be abandoned.
Then the crowning disaster struck. One of the helicopters, changing positions prior to departure, moved forward and then crashed into a C-130 refuelling craft on the ground. Eight men were killed instantly in the conflagration. The survivors left, leaving the corpses of the dead and the wreckage of the destroyed aircraft on the ground.
It seemed at that time that it was the end of the military pretensions of the United States. Eight burned corpses, three burned aircraft, and half-destroyed abandoned helicopters holding classified documents identifying American CIA operatives and sympathizers in Iran were left behind in the sands of Desert One. Eight Americans and, accidentally, one Iranian civilian, lay dead in the sand.
G. Aftermath of the Disaster
The corpses of the dead were taken to Tehran and put on display by the Revolutionary Government of Iran.
The American national humiliation that followed caused a side effect that was most unexpected: the revival and return to respectability of both American patriotism in popular culture and of the United States military, which, in the five years following the fall of Saigon, had been an object of derision and loathing among most young Americans of those days.
Prior to the Iranian disaster, to 'wind up in the Army' was the booby prize of American youth culture; a military career was to be avoided at all costs. Furthermore, Vietnam veterans faced a national shunning that even included employment discrimination–eventually requiring Federal legal action to prevent.
But in the days that immediately followed the Iran disaster, military service began once more to be seen as a fundamentally good thing, a way to contribute, not merely a place to spend one's career for lack of anything better to do. The quality of those enlisting shot up dramatically and shortfalls in enlistments, endemic in those days, began to abate.
The national aversion to patriotic displays also began to abate as well. In the late 1970s, again as a result of the Vietnam experience, Americans, and especially young Americans, tended to stifle any patriotic displays in public. Such ceremonies such as the Pledge of Allegiance had largely disappeared from classrooms, and events such as Memorial Day parades saw their attendance drop. When Superman (The Movie) was released in 1978, in the scene where he told Lois Lane that "I am here to fight for truth.... justice... and the American way!" loud snickers were heard in the audience.
After the Iran debacle, the combination of national shame and rage at the Iranian clerics caused a backlash. At first, the displays of the new patriotism were crude; there was a sudden appearance of Mickey Mouse t-shirts with Mickey displaying his middle finger with one hand and holding an American flag with another. A general aversion to things Iranian followed--not Islamic, but Iranian–which showed America's fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of the new difficulty facing us.
However, the most important development lay in the new, general cultural acceptance of a need for a military buildup. Only seven years after the end of the draft, the Carter administration laid the groundwork for a new draft. Registration was now being required for those turning 18 in 1979. This requirement was accepted without a qualm as millions of young American males filled out their draft registrations in the spring of 1980. Only half a decade after Vietnam, there were no draft protests.
As the spring progressed it was generally seen that the Jimmy Carter brand of 'Detente' in the face of Soviet aggression and weakness in the face of a new fascism was unacceptable to the American people, and they turned to the Republican candidate for President: the self-same Ronald Reagan who had been derisively mocked at Woodstock as "Ronald Ray-Gun (zap)". In November 1980, Reagan decisively beat Carter in the Presidential election and a new era commenced.
The Iranian fascination with taunting Jimmy Carter, however, was itself distracted by historical developments. In mid-1980, Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, decided that he saw military weakness in his larger neighbor and, in September, ordered an invasion into the western provinces of Iran. The Iranians, now facing a major land war from a neighbor, decided that the United States was less important a threat than the Iraqis, and they turned away from the "hostage crisis."
The election of Reagan in November 1980 was noticed in Iran and both sides saw an opportunity to put an end to the whole affair. As a "goodwill gesture," the 52 remaining American hostages and the bodies of the dead American soldiers from Desert One were released and returned to the United States as Reagan took his oath of office. The "Hostage Crisis" was over after 444 days.
THE ROLL OF HONOR
Eight men died in the Desert One fiasco. Their names were:
Major Richard L. Bakke, USAF, born 13 May 1948
Sergeant John D. Harvey, USMC, born 30 May 1958
Corporal George N. Holmes, Jr., USMC, born 20 July 1957
Staff Sergeant Dewey L. Johnson, USMC, born 26 May 1948
Major Harold L. Lewis Jr., USAF, born 26 February 1945
Technical Sergeant Joel C. Mayo, USAF, born 26 October 1945
Major Lyn D. McIntosh, USAF, born 11 October 1946
Captain Charles T. McMillan, USAF, born October 4, 1951
A headstone stands today at Arlington National Cemetery in memory of their sacrifice:
IN HONOR OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES WHO DIED DURING AN ATTEMPT TO RESCUE AMERICAN HOSTAGES HELD IN IRAN
It's a very small monument, not much, really.
They deserve better. There is a very real chance that, in sacrificing their lives, these men, and the band of brothers who served with them, made possible American victory in the Cold War, as their loss highlighted the paper tiger that was the American military in 1980.
It might even be said that lives brought about the election of an American President who was able to bring the Cold War to a victorious end. (The thought of Jimmy Carter facing off against the wily and evil Yuri Andropov, the butcher of Budapest, does not bear thinking about.)
Churchill's honoring of the Few can now, in retrospect, be given to the eight who died--as well as to the others who served in a futile and disasterous mission, made glorious now only with thirty years' perspective.
God rest and remember them all.
COUNTERPOINT - THE AYATOLLAHS RUHOLLAH KHOMEINI & SADEGH KHALKHALI
Although America remembers 9/11 as the gravest insult that America ever suffered since Pearl Harbor, there was one event associated with the rescue attempt that still stinks in the nostrils among those who remember that time. For after the disaster, ayatollahs of Iran showed a vengeful barbarism unmatched these thousand years.
The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini ordered that the wreckage left behind by the American hostage rescue attempt be used to humiliate the United States; he understood the particular care and affection that Americans have for their deceased soldiers. So he ordered his subordinates, foremost among them the "Hanging Ayatollah," Ayatollah Sadagh Khalkhali, to desecrate the American casualties.
Khalkhali was a man of remarkable vengeance and bitter hatreds. He was the point man for the ayatollas' dirty work; he it was that executed large numbers of 'enemies' of the Islamist regime. He also destroyed many public monuments, including the tomb of the Shah's father. Wikipedia tells the following story about him:
Khalkhali is famous for ordering the executions of Amir Abbas Hoveida, the Shah's long time prime minister ..... according to one report, after sentencing Hoveida to death, "pleas for clemency poured in from all over the world and it was said that Khalkhali was told by telephone to stay the execution. Khalkhali replied that he would go and see what was happening. He then went to Hoveida and either shot him himself or instructed a minion to do the deed. 'I'm sorry,' he told the person at the other end of the telephone, 'the sentence has already been carried out.'"After the rescue mission, Khalkhali ordered the corpses of the dead American servicemen be brought to Tehran; before television cameras he reached into the canvas body bags and extracted burned limbs and skulls of the good men who died trying to rescue their fellow Americans. He gloated as he displayed these dead things: the lifeless limbs of honorable men who died in the best of causes, even if inexpertly carried out; each one, even the lowest ranking, far greater a man than he could ever be.
Americans remember with rage and pain the insult of 9/11. Furthermore, history is replete with barbarians displaying the corpses of their enemies. But there is something particularly dark, even Satanic, about the behavior of these Men of God on this occasion.
And yes, they were Men of God of a sort, which actually damns them deeper. Ayatollahs are the "archbishops" of Shiite Islam; they are men, according to their own beliefs, annointed by God to bring their people closer to Him through better observance of the Islamic faith. And yet they committed what can only be called an act of self-befoulment in this display, waving around charred limbs and skulls in an act of savagely primitive triumphalism.
In the written history of man, this clerical abomination has only one parallel: the so-called Synodus Horridus, the Cadaver Synod of the deceased Pope Formosus, carried out in 897 AD by Pope Stephen, seventh of that name, Formosus' immediate successor. Stephen placed the corpse of the dead pope on a throne--probably the darkest and most depraved act in the history of mediaeval Christianity. This is the level to which the Ayatollahs had sunk.
Americans surely wish the names of these two men be erased, but then we are biased.
History, however, has its own way of making its judgment known.
In 1989, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini died, and at what is euphemistically called his "first funeral", a deranged mob dragged his corpse from his coffin and trampled it underfoot.
The Ayatollah Khalkhali lived until 2003, dying at last in the holy city of Qom; the cause of death, a diseased heart.