Soviets tried to kill Pope
Agence France Presse is reporting that the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981 - which almost did kill him - was ordered by the old Soviet KGB, the "Committee for State Security." Comments Civil Commotion,

This has been rumored for a long while, of course, and it is totally believable. It was John Paul II who went to Poland during Lech Walesa?s Solidarity uprising, defying the old Soviet Union to stop him, and kicked-off the disintegration of the USSR.

In fact, the Vatican and President Ronald Reagan's administration closely coordinated subverting the Communist government of Poland, the Pope's home country. That came after the assassination attempt, of course, since Reagan entered office only in 1981.

However, the man who took the name John Paul II when elected Pope had been a staunch anti-communist resister in Poland for years. In the early 1970s,

... Karol Cardinal Wojtyla emerged as a strong advocate of human rights and promoted an independent intellectual life. In 1974 Communist Party ideologue Andrej Werbian called the Cardinal "the only real ideological threat in Poland."

Wojtyla is, of course, John Paul's Polish name. Wojtyla was elected Pope in 1978, just before the Solidarity workers' movement was gaining its steam, led by electrician Lech Walesa.

In August 1980 [Walesa] led the Gdansk shipyard strike which gave rise to a wave of strikes over much of the country with Walesa seen as the leader. The primary demands were for workers' rights. The authorities were forced to capitulate and to negotiate with Walesa the Gdansk Agreement of August 31, 1980, which gave the workers the right to strike and to organise their own independent union.

If any one event had helped to create the psychological climate in which Solidarity trades union emerged, it was the visit of Pope John Paul II to his homeland in June 1979. From the moment that the Pope knelt in Warsaw's airport to kiss the ground, he was cheered wildly by millions of Poles. John Paul never criticized the Communist regime directly, nor did he have to: his meaning was plain enough. "The exclusion of Christ from the history of man is an act against man," he told an enormous outdoor congregation in Warsaw. With that hardly veiled allusion to Communism, a deafening roar of approval filled the great city square. Says a Polish bishop of that day: "The Polish people broke the barrier of fear. They were hurling a challenge at their Marxist rulers."

During the August 1980 defiance of the communist authorities, the Lenin shipyard functioned as the emotional center of an extraordinary national movement. Festooned with flowers, white and red Polish flags and portraits of Pope John Paul II, the plant's iron gates came to symbolize that heady mixture of hope, faith and patriotism that sustained the workers through their vigil. ...

Then in January 1981 Pope John Paul received Walesa at the Vatican and met with him privately for thirty minutes, an unusual honor for a layman of the Church.

In May of that year, Mehmet Ali Agca, an escaped Turkish killer, shot John Paul twice while the Pope was riding in his "Popemobile," a convertible he used to wave to crowds while standing as the vehicle moved along. According to AFP's wire report,

New documents found in the files of the former East German intelligence services confirm the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II was ordered by the Soviet KGB and assigned to Bulgarian agents, an Italian daily said on Wednesday. ...

Bulgaria then handed the execution of the plot to Turkish extremists, including Mehmet Ali Agca, who pulled the trigger.

It's doubtful that Agca ever knew who actually was paying him. In December 1983, John Paul met with Agca in prison.

"We talked for a long time. Ali Agca is, as everyone says, a professional assassin. Which means that the assassination was not his initiative, that someone else thought of it, someone else gave the order," he wrote.

"During the entire conversation, it was clear that Ali Agca was burdened by the question: How did it happen that the assassination was unsuccessful? He did everything that was necessary, he took care of the tiniest detail of his plan. But still the victim avoided death. How could this have happened?"

Agca had shot John Paul in the arm and the abdomen. John Paul himself said that divine intervention had steered the latter bullet away from his vital organs. He has never said whom he thought was behind the plot to kill him, but did attribute the attempt to convulsions of "the 20th century ideologies of force." In 2002, however, John Paul said that he did not believe there was a Bulgarian connection to his assailant.

by Donald Sensing, 3/30/2005 03:33:00 PM. Permalink |   

Linkagery for 3-30-05
A few links for this morning.

The Truth About Living Wills - Michelle Malkin posts results of some university research that shows even a properly-executed living will is not all it's cracked up to be.

Medical futility - Who has the power to decide?, by Anne Federwisch in the July 2, 1998, edition of Nurseweek.

Triumph, Betrayal, Acceptance, Hope, by Robin Burk on Winds of Change. I know Holy Week has ended, but this is a Holy Thursday post worth reading. Sorry I didn't put it up earlier.

Brave Men and Women Winning the War on Terror - Chuck Simmins recounts some true stories of, well, American heroes of the war on terrorsm.

by Donald Sensing, 3/30/2005 07:16:00 AM. Permalink |   

BlogNashville is coming May 6
If you haven't registered for BlogNashville, there are still slots open.

Now that I have registered, I am sure there will be a stampede!

Here's the schedule. Here's a running list of registrants so far. Heavy blogging names there folks - I mean, besides mine. . . .

by Donald Sensing, 3/29/2005 08:24:00 PM. Permalink |   

New, non-Blogger backup site online
I have switched my backup site off Blogger to ParticleBlog. ParticleBlog is not feature-rich enough for me to use it for my main site, but as a quick and easy backup it works fine. It was also very easy to set up - far easier than WordPress - and for someone starting out blogging who is (justifiably) leery of relying on Blogger, I recommend it. The price is right, too - free.

Henceforth, when Blogger is down, as it was for much of today, just click on backup site in the masthead, above, and there you go. I can manually edit in a notice to that effect on this page as well.

by Donald Sensing, 3/29/2005 07:51:00 PM. Permalink |   

Theocracy in action?
Glenn Reynolds comments on the argument between Jeff Jarvis and High Hewitt on whether federal intervention into the Terri Schiavo case amounts to "theocracy in action." Jeff says yes, Hugh says no. Glenn agrees with Hugh:

Hugh's right that it's hard to ascribe the Congressional legislation to "theocrats" when it was supported by Tom Harkin (and Ralph Nader!). There's much more going on than that; this is a matter on which all sorts of people, of all sorts of persuasions, can be found on both sides.

On the other hand, here's some advice, very similar to advice I gave to the antiwar movement: If you don't want to be confused with a movement led by theocrats, don't let actual theocrats be seen as your spokesmen. It may be impossible to shut Randall Terry up -- though if I were Karl Rove, I would have tried really hard -- but he needs to be loudly and regularly denounced as a nut. Otherwise you're in the same boat as lefties who don't want to be identified with Ward Churchill, but happily use him when they want to draw a crowd.

Which is a good point. But consider also:

More than two-thirds of Americans who identify themselves as evangelical Christians oppose the action by the Congress and the president in interjecting the federal courts into the Schiavo tragedy. The cited poll is six days old, so the numbers may have shifted some, but I doubt they've dropped below the 50 percent level.

I would think this mitigates against a "theocratic" foundation for the Congress' action.

by Donald Sensing, 3/29/2005 07:08:00 PM. Permalink |   

Over at Camp Lejeune
Just after Sunday's final Easter service, my mom and dad drove me to the Nashville airport where I hopped a jet to Raleigh-Durham airport. Raleigh is the capital of North Carolina; Durham is about 20 miles northwest. The airport is named after both cities, but there is no municipality called, "Raleigh-Durham," as I have heard sports announcers say.

My wife and two at-home children had driven there last Tuesday. Durham is my wife's hometown and they stayed with her dad. Friday they drove to Camp Lejeune to pick up our Marine son, Pfc. Stephen Sensing, who was getting the weekend off for Easter.

Stephen had set up a tour of the AAV ramp (for us Army types, the motor pool) for them. My son Thomas took some video with my new JVC GR-D72 digital video camera. (Here is what an AAV is and what it's for.)

Here are some grabs off the video of a pretty sharp looking Marine!

A former Marine left a comment in another post that driving one of these things is like "driving a house." Here are two shots of the inside.



This is the interior compartment where the infantrymen ride.



This is the driver's compartment, viewed from the rear.
Stephen's uncle drove him back to Lejeune Monday. We drove home all day and arrived back after suppertime.

by Donald Sensing, 3/29/2005 05:41:00 AM. Permalink |   

One Sunday morning long ago
Says the Gospel of John:

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.’

Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes.

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet.

They said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping?’ She said to them, ‘They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.’ When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus.

Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?’

Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, ‘Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.’

Jesus said to her, ‘Mary!’

She turned and said to him in Hebrew, ‘Rabbouni!’ (which means Teacher).

Jesus said to her, ‘Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”’

Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord’; and she told them that he had said these things to her. John 20:1-18

Will Willimon, one of my favorite Methodist authors, tells of an interview he gave to a student reporter for the Duke University campus newspaper. Easter was approaching. So was Spring Break, which ended on Easter weekend that year.
“I'm doing a story on fun things to do during Spring Break,” said the student-reporter, “and thought it would be cool to mention the Chapel.”

“Okay,” said the Reverend Willimon.

“Dr. Willimon,” the student said, “what is the goal of Easter?”

Willimon said he had no ready answer. A horrible thought went through his mind – an image of a headline, “Preacher says Easter is pointless.”

When people arrive this morning at their churches they will come by automobile and then sort of lumber to their seats. None of us will come running. None of us will run toward Easter - which is curious because, according to the Gospel of John, there was a great deal of running around the first Easter. First Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and, finding the stone rolled away and the tomb empty, ran away. She didn’t know about Jesus’ resurrection yet; she figures someone had swiped the body and she wants to know where they took it. So in the pre-dawn darkness she runs to tell the other disciples that Jesus' body is gone.

She meets Peter and the beloved disciple. She tells them Jesus is missing, and they run, too. But they run towards the tomb instead of away from it. Moreover, it appears they race each other to the tomb. They see the grave wrappings and believe. What they believe isn’t really clear, but we’re talking about Mary at the moment. The disciples leave the scene.

Mary lingers and comes upon a man whom she assumes is the gardener. Maybe he moved the body. It’s worth a try, so she asks him whether he did.

Someone pointed out to me once that there is an unclothed gardener in this story somewhere. Either that or Jesus found an extra set of work clothes in the tool shed. If it was a TV movie, the scene would cut to a bound and gagged gardener, wearing only a pair of boxer shorts with polka-dots on them, his wrists taped together, lying behind the rose bushes. A screenwriter might dress Jesus in a flannel work shirt and bib overalls. Mary sees a man in such clothes and figures he must be what he appears to be. She judges him by his clothes.

Such thoughts remind me of how we dress Jesus in our own minds. We "remember" Jesus, we "remember" the Gospel story, we "remember" first century Palestine dressed up in cloak after cloak of church tradition and two millennia of misunderstanding and ideological interpretation. We freeze Jesus into a postcard picture, and never let him out. We might as well be wrapping him up in yards and yards of graveclothes. “This is where you belong, Jesus, and this is how you're expected to behave!”

We certainly don’t expect Jesus to dress like a gardener! We’ve got him typecast wearing a robe and sandals. And there is Mary, never expecting to see Jesus in a vertical position again, looking like a working stiff rather than . . . just a stiff. Even after she discovers who this apparent gardener really is, she doesn’t realize that things have changed. He is no longer Jesus of Nazareth, not really, but has become the Christ, the Risen One. She calls him teacher when he is now Savior. She reaches out to hold him but he pushes her away. She tries to pull him back to the way things were, but he can’t go back. The old relationship he had with her and the others isn’t possible any more. The Christ would not worry about protocol or dress codes. He would appear to his disciples, but he wouldn’t hang out with them any more.

Jesus has been raised from the dead, and he's different. Okay, we can live with that, I can even preach it. But not so easy to accept that because Jesus is different now, we have to be different, too. That’s scary.

We can imagine the half-naked gardener, looking frantically for anything that resembles his old, familiar overalls. But Jesus has taken his old, stained grubbies away. Such it is for us. We have been washed in the blood of the lamb now, and are supposed to have put on new clothes of righteousness. We mustn’t go scrounging around for those old comfortable clothes, because Christ has taken them away.

Ever since, say, four-thirty a.m. that first Easter morning, we have been raised to new life. We have become new persons, a white-robed member of the heavenly choir, and the old stained grubbies don't fit any more. It doesn't matter how hard you try to go back to the way things used to be. Those old clothes don't fit. You have a new identity now. You are an Easter person. You died to you old life, and now you live in a new one. And that is really good news!

by Donald Sensing, 3/27/2005 05:53:00 AM. Permalink |   

What about Terri's Schiavo's soul?
John E., whose aunt has been diagnosed in PVS for 12 years, asks in an email:

Does Terri Schiavo, my aunt, or other people in a clinical PVS, still have a soul? ... If Terri Schiavo can't think because her brain is irreparably damaged and has in fact shrunken and, literally, died off, is she still "alive" in either a physical or metaphysical sense? Hence, is removing her feeding tube not simply permitting her body to finally rest along with the soul that departed her long ago?

The concept of the soul is almost universal among human cultures. While the idea of survival after physical death is nearly universal, the idea of individual, personal survival after death is not. Some cultures, mostly in the Far East, believe that the ultimate fate of a human soul is to become wholly merged with a universal consciousness.

In our western culture, the idea of the soul has been most strongly shaped by Greek philosophy. In the ancient Mediterranean world, the Greeks were generally acknowledged to be the most refined, educated and sophisticated people. In education, no one rivaled them but the Jews. Greek religion was less stringent than Judaism and didn’t require anything as drastic as circumcision to practice. Rome at the peak of its power openly plagiarized Greek religion and philosophy.

I point this out because Christianity did not survive in the Jewish homeland. It came to thrive in lands that were dominated by Greek ways of thinking and Greek world views. The post-apostolic church was a time historians call the time of the Church Fathers, lasting from about 100 – 325. It was when the survival of the church was uncertain. The church was consistently and sometimes vigorously persecuted by the Romans. It was frequently torn within by theological dispute. A supremely serious challenge for the Church Fathers was to establish a unified Christian doctrine so that Christian faith and practice would not lose their distinctiveness, while persuading the political powers that the Christian religion was sensible, reasonable and theoretically coherent.

The Church Fathers were not Jews. Greek was either their native or early second language. They had been schooled in Greek schools and trained in Greek ways. When they argued in favor of Christianity, they argued using Greek ways of thinking to authorities who would accept no other ways. In Christian theology the Greek world view supplanted the Hebrew–Jewish world view and has remained dominant to our day. For example, during the Protestant Reformation Martin Luther theologically aligned himself with Saint Augustine to argue against Catholic doctrine, which was mostly derived from Thomas Aquinas. Augustine had seen the world through Plato’s eyes and Aquinas had seen it through Aristotle’s eyes. The Reformation was, to a significant degree, a major salvo in the centuries-old series of broadsides that Greek philosophers and their successors hurled at one another.

Led by Luther, most Protestants have followed Plato’s doctrine that soul and body are distinct orders of reality. Implicit in much Protestant teaching is that the body entraps the soul, so that upon death the soul is blissfully released to travel to its true home in heaven. Catholicism emphasizes a greater closeness between the soul and the body. Catholic thought holds that the soul is an incomplete substance. It has a natural aptitude and need for existence in the body, in conjunction with which it makes up the unity of human nature. But both Protestantism generally and Catholicism officially maintain that the death of the body releases the soul to exist independently in its eternal reward.

While the Greeks had a very strong idea of the soul, the Hebrews’ and Jews’ concepts of the soul were much less developed and in fact, less important to them.

The word "soul" has a very different meaning for the biblical writers from the understanding that we usually assign to it. The Hebrew word often translated as “soul” basically means "breath," and is often used simply to designate "a living being" (not always a human, sometimes an animal). The Hebrew word, along with its New Testament Greek equivalent, can mean "life," and even "person" or "self." Both the Hebrew and the Greek words used in the Bible can stand for the unity of personality, since the Jews conceived of human beings as a unity, rather than as a duality of body and soul. In fact, there is no distinctive word for "body" in Hebrew; one is not needed because there is no separate part of a human being, distinct from that person's "soul," that needs to be so distinguished.

In the New Testament, Paul uses "body" as a collective noun for the unity of the flesh and soul. He never makes a hard and fast distinction between the two. The biblical view of human being is we are whole persons with no part detachable. We do not have bodies, we are bodies. We are flesh-in-unity-with-soul. (Derived from "Soul," in The Abingdon Dictionary of Theology.)

So what happens to us when we die?

Paul calls death an enemy of humanity and of God. Paul declares that death is a cosmic power which defeats and destroys human beings. To die is to cease to exist. We think more like Greek philosophers than Jewish prophets, so we tell one another that death is really just passing into another realm of existence. We fool ourselves that the persons we bury somehow are not really dead. We tell mourners at funerals that their loved one is in a better place. We imagine that our deceased loved ones "look down from heaven."

Unfortunately, none of that is biblical. In the Bible, death is the destruction of the entire person. When we die, we really are dead. Our bodies eventually disappear in decay. Yet for the Jews and Jesus and the apostles, the fact of death was not the major issue, bad as they recognized death to be. The issue was not death, but extinction. English philosopher John Locke used the phrase, "perpetual perishing," to describe the deepest problem – the fact that nothing actually lasts. All that exists seems eventually to fade into nothingness: "The dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten" (Eccl 9:5b).

Jesus taught that it is not human destiny to disappear into nothingness. He said,

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going (John 14:1-7).

Paul is most emphatic that, "Neither death, nor life, . . . nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

God does not stop being God simply because we die. That means that God’s power, God’s will to save and God’s love remain fully in force at the moment we die and after. We can face death with certain confidence that God's care endures beyond the grave. Both Jesus and Stephen (the first Christian martyr, killed by stoning)committed their spirits to God. They gave over to God all that they were, the entire unity of existence the world knew as Jesus of Nazareth or as Stephen of Jerusalem.

Like them, we may live in the certain knowledge that God's care and love for us does not cease just because we breathe no more. The Psalmist wrote that he could rejoice and rest secure because he knew God would not abandon him to the grave.

We die in God’s grace. Though dead, we are not abandoned. We are not forgotten by God to oblivion. The promise of Christian faith is the resurrection. The thrust of Jesus’ and the apostles’ teachings is not that we continue to live after death, but that we will live again after we die. By the power of God we will live again in the resurrection yet to come. We know this because Jesus Christ lived and died and was resurrected. Paul knew Jesus' resurrection was the first of the general resurrection yet to come. Jesus Christ is God's bond and proof that God will accomplish what God promises: that we will live again, and forever, after we die. God, having created us once, will re-create us again.

Endnote: One of the theological difficulties inherent in applying biblical guidance to modern medicine is that, by standards of biblical days, even a feeding tube is high technology. The ancient peoples almost without exception believed that death occurred when the heart stopped beating (Islamic law still says so). That's still true today, of course - or is it? We can, after all, keep someone's heart beating by technology even when there are no other significant signs of life. So we moderns have generally decided that the death of the brain is the death of the person.

If one believes, as I do, that the Bible teaches that the death of a human being is the destruction of his/her totality of existence, then the question of when the soul is "released" from the body is moot, because the body is not a container which holds the soul (as Neal Boortz wrote in Townhall.com earlier this week).

Please note before you flood my inbox or comment box: I well understand that some passages of Scripture can be cited to support the idea that the soul departs the body at death and exists independently of the earthly body. Trust me, I do get that, I have studied the passages, and for many years believed it myself. I am not trying to get anyone to change his/her mind. I am simply answering, as best I can, a question asked me.

But my theology in this matter has some good company - Martin Luther, for example, who said that after death there is a timeless period of "soul sleep" until the general resurrection. In one's subjective experience, then, the next moment of awareness after death is the resurrection. In this way it makes perfect sense to say that when one dies s/he goes immediately to be with the Lord because, as far as the person is concerned, that's what happened. Subjectively, one passes instantly from death to new life.

Update: Joe Katzman, founder of Winds of Change, is one of my earliest blog buddies; he and I have exchanged many emails on many subjects over the last couple of years. Joe has posted and excellent essay in response to this post of mine, called "Hasidic Wisdom: Death and Memory." Quoting Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan,

"We know that God is ominiscient. He knows all and does not forget. God knows every thought and memory that exists in our brains. There is no piece of information that escapes His knowledge.

What, then, happens when a man dies? God does not forget, and therefore all of this information continues to exist, at least in God's memory.

....We may think of something existing only in memory as being static and effectively dead. But God's memory is not a static thing. The sum total of a human personality may indeed exist in God's memory, but it can still maintain identity and self-volition, and remain in an active state. ...

This sum total of the human personality existing in God's memory is what lives on after a man dies."

This very much mirrors some contemporary Christian process theology, which is founded in neither Hebraic nor Greek thought. I even used the idea in a sermon once:

Every computer user knows that the hard drive of a computer is liable to fail without warning, to die, in other words. (In fact, that’s how we put it when some mechanical device fails. "My car died," we say.) So computer users back up the data on the hard drive, say onto magnetic tape. If you have a current backup, your hard drive’s death causes only temporary distress. You can take the dead hard drive out and smash it to pieces with a hammer if you want. You install a new hard drive and restore the data off the backup tape onto it. Nothing is lost. All the information is restored perfectly. The new hard drive is indistinguishable from the old one. No one can tell the difference between the old one and the new one.

God remembers us perfectly. And God will perfectly restore every "backed up" detail of who we are into our resurrected bodies in the age to come.

The computer analogy seemed to make a lot of sense to many of my folks.

Read all of Joe's essay!

by Donald Sensing, 3/26/2005 08:58:00 AM. Permalink |   

"We gotta get out of this place . . ."
Maybe the insurgents in Iraq have been listening to songs by The Animals, or maybe it's just the editors at the Financial Times: "Iraq's insurgents 'seek exit strategy'."

Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.

Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.

What was it Musab al Zarqawi said? Something about "Democracy is suffocation!" So it seems.

We gotta get out of this place
If it's the last thing we ever do
We gotta get out of this place
'cause girl, there's a better life for me and you.

But surrender quick, fellas, to have any life at all. Don't wait until you meet a Kentucky National Guardswoman!

by Donald Sensing, 3/25/2005 05:27:00 PM. Permalink |   

Terri Schiavo FAQs
Not that it will change anyone's mind, but blog Football Fans for Truth has a lengthy and well-written FAQ page on the Terri Schiavo case that I recommend everyone read - the whole thing.

Update: Also spend some time reading "Abstract Appeal, the first web log devoted to Florida Law & the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals." There are many posts explaining, for example, what "de novo" means and what are the rules of evidence on Florida law regarding hearsay.

There is also a link to the PDF document of Federal District Court Judge James Whittemore's denial of the Schindler's latest request to restore Terri's feeding tube while their federal claims are litigated, which was issued early this evening.

by Donald Sensing, 3/25/2005 04:57:00 PM. Permalink |   

Pastoring families of the hopelessly ill
Some of you have questioned whether I am truly Christian because of my position on the Terri Schiavo case. This speaks volumes because it is not I or my ideological allies who are casting people into the outer darkness because they disagree. The speed at which some of you have reached to condemn me - in the most literal way, since as a not-true-Christian I am obviously Hellbound - reveals much more about your spiritual condition than mine.

I assure you that there is not one pastor in this country who does not deal with end-of-life issues much more frequently than any of us would like. With very rare exceptions, we have all helped families cope with invocations of living wills or terminality absent them. We all understand the heart-wrenching moments these cases entail and the deep distress the families endure. Next of kin, especially those empowered by law or power of attorney to make decisions on behalf of a loved one who cannot, experience true agonies of the soul in seeing their loved ones slip away in stages.

But the idea that the only truly Christian position is to keep someone alive by artificial means against his/her will when every medical opinion is that there is no hope for recovery is repugnant. The pastoral task in these situations is not blindly to conform to the wishes of parents, spouses or children of the patient. While the pastor must provide compassion, support and empathy, s/he must of all persons involved be ruled less by emotion and most by reason. Often, only the pastor can be the integrator of family history, the patient's wishes (whether explicit or implicit), the grief of the family and the opinions of the doctors.

This is itself an enormous burden for a pastor, but we remember that we "can do all things through him who strengthens us." At bottom, all these cases in all their sorrows come to be matters of faith - faith that the doctors are skilled and truthful, faith that there is a hope for the stricken even if death comes, and faith that for those who love the dying that life will continue worthwhile come what may.

That expression of faith can be the most difficult of all for a pastor to shepherd a family through, because one task of care in faith is helping people understand that hope does not die along with the loved one. There often comes a time when we need to explain, as gently but as clearly as possible, that life can be grasped so tightly that it precludes trust in a gracious God who provides throughout both our life and our death, and that letting a loved one pass into eternity, as heart-hollowing as it is, is in some cases an affirmation of faith and hope rather than their denial.

If you think that Terri's case is not medically hopeless or that she never really expressed a desire not to be kept alive in her condition, then before you flame me (which I will ignore anyway), I would ask you to read my post The Schiavo Great Divide, which is a prequel to this one.

by Donald Sensing, 3/25/2005 12:10:00 PM. Permalink |   

The Schiavo great divide
It's obvious that arguments about Terri Schiavo fall into two main camps.

On the one hand are people who believe that the removal of Terri's feeding tube has been railroaded through the courts by hostile, adulterous husband Michael, who deperately wants Terri dead so he can make off with untold riches in newly-unhindered settlement money and life insurance. Michael, of course, actually injured Terri himself in the first place. Furthermore, Terri's condition is actually much better than a dozen or so doctors have testified under oath; their diagnosis that Terri is in a permanent vegetative state is simply wrong and the Florida courts have willfully ignored or rejected all evidence to the contrary. Likewise, the courts' rulings - that Terri herself had stated more than once, before her injury, that she would not want to be kept alive in such a condition - are unjust, flawed and based on bogus testimony by Michael and the two other persons who testified that they had heard Terri say so.

Hence, Terri is about to be murdered in a moral, if not technically legal, sense. Therefore, any measure is justified in restoring her feeding tube, including federal intervention or, as Gov. Jeb Bush was considering yesterday, taking Terri into state custody.

On the other hand are people who trust that the PVS diagnosis is valid, having been confirmed multiple times, that the Florida courts followed both the letter and intent of Florida law governing such cases, including ruling that the burden of proof was met in showing that Terri had uttered statements that she would not want to be kept alive in her condition. People on this side may agree that Michael Schiavo is no paragon of virtue, but also acknowledge that allegations regarding his actions and motives were exhaustively explored by investigators and the courts and that no facts were found sufficient either to implicate him as a cause of Terri's condition or to impeach his testimony about Terri's pre-injury statements or the testimony of the other five persons who so testified.

This group believes that the Florida courts have handled this case properly, if not perfectly, and that there is no justification for federal intervention or unilateral executive intervention by Gov. Bush.

Not everyone in either camp cleaves to every point of the descriptions I make, but most substantially do as far as I can tell. We need to acknowledge that these two camps cannot be reconciled.

Obviously, as some of you are so shocked to learn, I place myself in the second group. According to America's talk-radio pontificator-in-chief, Rush Limbaugh, I am therefore both "liberal" and "in love with a culture of death," not to mention that I "want Terri Schiavo to die."

Characterizing adherents of my position that way certainly came as a surprise to radio host Neal Boortz, whose latest book is entitled, The Terrible Truth About Liberals, and who wrote on Townhall.com that he agrees the tube should have been removed. Rush's claim also excommunicated Nashville radio host and former Republican candidate for Congress Steve Gill, who said on his show yesterday that the removal of the tube was correct.

Let me try to restate my position as clearly as I can:

Matters relating to situations such as these have always been governed under state laws. As a resident of Tennessee, I have no standing to tell the people of Florida that their laws are either unjust or incorrectly applied by their state courts. I may believe that, or not, but I have no standing to intervene in the internal affairs of another state by means of the federal government.

The notoriety of the Terri Schiavo case does not give me that justification.

Doubtless some of you will protest that I am binding myself by needless, cold-hearted legalism and that in order to conform to mere federalist principles I am willing to let Terri be cruelly murdered by judicial fiat.

To which I reply in three parts:

1. Terri is not being murdered. The Florida courts found, in multiple rulings, that Terri had met the requirements of Florida law for a living will. I have no legal standing to overturn that ruling. Lacking any independent means to assess the validity of the evidence or judges' rulings, it is not possible for me logically or coherently to run roughshod over years and years of judges' conclusions reached in open hearings in which all sides were given unfettered opportunity to state their cases and cross-examine witnesses. The courts' rulings were not fiat nor were they perverse.

Please do not start filling my comment box and email with "But what about" objections. These objections are not the ones Terri's parents are raising through their lawyers, which in my mind speaks volumes about their worth.

Everything I have learned about this case leads me to conclude that Terri's condition is irreversible and that she had legitimately expressed a desire not to be kept alive in such a state even if only by a feeding tube rather than full-up "life support" as typically defined. That's where the facts lead, and to conclude otherwise is to engage in fantasy, to reinvent the facts and circumstances of the past 15 years for reasons that frankly seem to have little to do with Terri or her family, and almost everything to do with reinforcing one's own self-image or political position - especially that the courts can't be trusted and Florida courts most of all.

2. I consider the right of a person to determine the extent of his or her own medical treatment to be too valuable to be shattered simply because this case has become notorious - and I assure you, that is the only reason anyone is interested in it outside Terri's actual family. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of cases where persons are unable to nourish themselves but have pre-determined that they do not want to be fed by a tube, and therefore they die. Shall Terri's so-called advocates butt into them as well? (My own grandmother was one of them, nine years ago.)

Therefore, not only do I have no legal basis to intervene in Florida's procedures, I have no moral standing to trump Terri's personal decision, even if I disagree with it, or to barge into the tragedy for her family that it entails, except to offer prayers and empathy for the ordeal they are having to endure.

3. I stand by my earlier claim that there is no case to be made for federal intervention. As Glenn Reynolds says,

I'm quite astonished to hear people who call themselves conservatives arguing, in effect, that Congress and the federal courts have a free-ranging charter to correct any injustice, anywhere, regardless of the Constitution.

Furthermore, it is worth considering the words of Justice Antonin Scalia in his concurring opinion in Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 1990, a landmark case that closely mirrors the Schiavo case:

[T]he federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide - including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.

The text of the Due Process Clause does not protect individuals against deprivations of liberty simpliciter. It protects them against deprivations of liberty "without due process of law." To determine that such a deprivation would not occur if Nancy Cruzan were forced to take nourishment against her will, it is unnecessary to reopen the historically recurrent debate over whether "due process" includes substantive restrictions.

This is an important opinion because Cruzan's case was almost identical with Schiavo's, and also because Scalia dismissed the idea that personal autonomy - for Cruzan as well as Schiavo, the right to refuse treatment including a feeding tube - was much relevant at all, living will or not. But he went on to explain,

I assert only that the Constitution has nothing to say about the subject. To raise up a constitutional right here, we would have to create out of nothing (for it exists neither in text nor tradition) some constitutional principle whereby, although the State may insist that an individual come in out of the cold and eat food, it may not insist that he take medicine; and although it may pump his stomach empty of poison he has ingested, it may not fill his stomach with food he has failed to ingest. Are there, then, no reasonable and humane limits that ought not to be exceeded in requiring an individual to preserve his own life? There obviously are, but they are not set forth in the Due Process Clause. What assures us that those limits will not be exceeded is the same constitutional guarantee that is the source of most of our protection - what protects us, for example, from being assessed a tax of 100% of our income above the subsistence level, from being forbidden to drive cars, or from being required to send our children to school for 10 hours a day, none of which horribles is categorically prohibited by the Constitution. Our salvation is the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the democratic majority to accept for themselves and their loved ones what they impose on you and me. This Court need not, and has no authority to, inject itself into every field of human activity where irrationality and oppression may theoretically occur, and if it tries to do so, it will destroy itself.

Here I stand, I can do no other.

Update: See also my posts, "Pastoring families of the hopelessly ill," and the United Methodist Church's doctrinal statement on "Faithful Care for Persons Suffering and Dying," which fills in some of the theological space about my position on this issue.

by Donald Sensing, 3/25/2005 09:46:00 AM. Permalink |   

UMC on "Faithful Care for Persons Suffering and Dying"
Updated - see bottom of post

The United Methodist Church's doctrine on care of the dying is online. Highlights, as pertaining to persons suffering terminally ill or unrecoverable conditions:

As human interventions, medical technologies are only justified by the help that they can give. Their use requires responsible judgment about when life-sustaining treatments truly support the goals of life, and when they have reached their limits. There is no moral or religious obligation to use them when the burdens they impose outweigh the benefits they offer, or when the use of medical technology only extends the process of dying. Therefore, families should have the liberty to discontinue treatments when they cease to be of benefit to the dying person. However, the withholding or withdrawing of life sustaining interventions should not be confused with abandoning the dying or ceasing to provide care. Even when staving off death seems futile or unreasonably burdensome to continue, we must continue to offer comfort care -- effective pain relief, companionship and support for the patient in the hard and sacred work of preparing for death.

Historically, the Christian tradition has drawn a distinction between the cessation of treatment and the use of active measures by the patient or care-giver which aim to bring about death. If death is deliberately sought as the means to relieve suffering, that must be understood as direct and intentional taking of life, whether as suicide or homicide. This United Methodist tradition opposes the taking of life as an offense against God's sole dominion over life, and an abandonment of hope and humility before God. ...

The complexity of treatment options and requests by physicians for patient and family involvement in life-prolonging decisions require good communication. Pastoral-care givers can bring insights rooted in Christian convictions and Christian hope into the decision-making process. If advance directives for treatment, often called "living wills," or "durable powers of attorney" are contemplated or are being interpreted, the pastoral-care givers can offer support and guidance to those involved in decision-making. They can facilitate discussion of treatment options, including home and hospice care.

Decisions concerning faithful care for the suffering and the dying are always made in a social context that includes laws, policies, and practices of legislative bodies, public agencies and institutions, and the social consensus that supports them. The social context of dying affects individual decisions concerning treatment and care and even the acceptance of death. Therefore, pastoral-care givers must be attentive to the social situations and policies that affect the care of the suffering and dying and must interpret these to patients and family members in the context of Christian affirmations of faithful care. ...

To insure faithful care for the suffering and dying it is recommended that United Methodists:

1. Acknowledge dying as part of human existence, without romanticizing it. In dying, as in living, mercy and justice must shape our corporate response to human need and vulnerability.

2. Accept relief of suffering as a goal for care of dying persons rather than focusing primarily on prolonging life. Pain control and comfort-giving measures are essentials in our care of those who are suffering.

3. Educate and equip Christians to consider treatments for the suffering and the dying in the context of Christian affirmations of God's providence and hope. This should be done especially through preaching and adult Christian education programs addressing these issues.

4. Train pastors and pastoral care-givers in the issues of bio-ethics as well as in the techniques of compassionate companionship with those who are suffering and dying.

5. Acknowledge, in our Christian witness and pastoral care, the diverse social, economic, political, cultural, religious and ethnic contexts around the world where United Methodists care for the dying.

Also, the site addresses living wills:

Forms for each state are offered free of charge, online by The National Hospice and Paliative Care Organization, a nonprofit organization based in Arlington, Virginia.

Click here to request a directive form via email.

You may also call the HelpLine at 800/658-8898 and a form will be mailed to you.

- Please indicate the state or states for which you are seeking advance directives,

- Your mailing address.

If you don't have a living will, this seems a good place to start. I would encourage you to consult your own pastor or rabbi and even a lawyer before finalizing it.

Update: Sojourners' editor Julie Polter comments on "End-of-Life Ethics."

Christian tradition calls us to give special care and attention to the weakest in our community, and to view life as sacred in a way that is not diminished by illness or disability. On the other hand, most Christians believe that the everyday miracle that is our body is not the sum total of our existence. Death, the inevitable surrender of the physical being, is in another way just a step in the life of faith.

In Christ we not only have life, but a new kind of life. The cross stands at the center of our relationship with God and one another. At the Easter cross is where the Advent proclamation, “God with us,” was made completely true. God is not merely with us in suffering; God is especially with us in suffering. We affirm that it is our duty to live for God for the entire time God gives us. At the same time, because we have the assurance of the empty tomb, life is not to be grasped so tightly that it precludes trust in a gracious God who provides throughout both our life and our death. In my view this dialectic means that we neither hasten death nor cling to hopeless measures to prolong life.

by Donald Sensing, 3/24/2005 02:29:00 PM. Permalink |   

Holy Thursday
Luke 22

Now the festival of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was near. The chief priests and the scribes were looking for a way to put Jesus to death, for they were afraid of the people. Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot, who was one of the twelve; he went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers of the temple police about how he might betray him to them. They were greatly pleased and agreed to give him money. So he consented and began to look for an opportunity to betray him to them when no crowd was present.

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and prepare the Passover meal for us that we may eat it."

They asked him, "Where do you want us to make preparations for it?"

"Listen," he said to them, "when you have entered the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him into the house he enters and say to the owner of the house, 'The teacher asks you, 'Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?'' He will show you a large room upstairs, already furnished. Make preparations for us there." So they went and found everything as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal.

When the hour came, he took his place at the table, and the apostles with him. He said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God."

Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes." Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

"But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!" Then they began to ask one another, which one of them it could be who would do this.

A dispute also arose among them as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest. But he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

"Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

And he said to him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death!"

Jesus said, "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you have denied three times that you know me."

He said to them, "When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?"

They said, "No, not a thing."

He said to them, "But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was counted among the lawless'; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."

They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." He replied, "It is enough."

He came out and went, as was his custom, to the Mount of Olives; and the disciples followed him. When he reached the place, he said to them, "Pray that you may not come into the time of trial." Then he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, knelt down, and prayed, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done." Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength. In his anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground.

When he got up from prayer, he came to the disciples and found them sleeping because of grief, and he said to them, "Why are you sleeping? Get up and pray that you may not come into the time of trial."

While he was still speaking, suddenly a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him; but Jesus said to him, "Judas, is it with a kiss that you are betraying the Son of Man?"

When those who were around him saw what was coming, they asked, "Lord, should we strike with the sword?" Then one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear.

But Jesus said, "No more of this!" And he touched his ear and healed him.

Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple police, and the elders who had come for him, "Have you come out with swords and clubs as if I were a bandit? When I was with you day after day in the temple, you did not lay hands on me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness!" Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house.

But Peter was following at a distance. When they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. Then a servant-girl, seeing him in the firelight, stared at him and said, "This man also was with him."

But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know him."

A little later someone else, on seeing him, said, "You also are one of them."

But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"

Then about an hour later still another kept insisting, "Surely this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean."

But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are talking about!" At that moment, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed. The Lord turned and looked at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, "Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly.

Now the men who were holding Jesus began to mock him and beat him; they also blindfolded him and kept asking him, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?" They kept heaping many other insults on him. When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council.

They said, "If you are the Messiah, tell us."

He replied, "If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I question you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God."

All of them asked, "Are you, then, the Son of God?"

He said to them, "You say that I am."

Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!"

by Donald Sensing, 3/24/2005 01:59:00 PM. Permalink |   

A good illustration of the horizontal military
In my May 2003 essay, "Technology beyond belief," I wrote,

The American military has a huge battlefield advantage simply because it is characteristically American. Compared to almost all the rest of the world’s militaries, ours is remarkably informal. Rank is important, make no mistake, but there is a much higher level of collegiality among officers and NCOs than civilians imagine. Moreover, the US military is near-ruthlessly results oriented and so is much quicker to jettison unworkable procedures or methods than others. Commanders are generally thirsty for their subordinates to discern better ways of getting things done, and reward initiative. ...

The American military is the best educated in the world, and this reinforces the ability of differing ranks to work together as co-professionals rather than superior-inferior. It’s not so easy for a colonel to feel terribly snooty over a platoon sergeant when both certainly have BA degrees and the odds are not bad that both will have MA degrees as well. ...

All this serves to “flatten” how America’s military communicates, plans, resources and conducts all it programs and operations. The military is much more horizontally than vertically integrated.

As if to prove my point, here are the recent, verbal orders of Gen. James E. Cartwright, USMC, Commanding General, United States Strategic Command, as relayed by a staff member who heard them from the general's mouth:

"The metric is what the person has to contribute, not the person’s rank, age, or level of experience. If they have the answer, I want the answer. When I post a question on my blog, I expect the person with the answer to post back. I do not expect the person with the answer to run it through you, your OIC, the branch chief, the exec, the Division Chief and then get the garbled answer back before he or she posts it for me. The Napoleonic Code and Netcentric Collaboration cannot exist in the same space and time. It’s YOUR job to make sure I get my answers and then if they get it wrong or they could have got it righter, then you guide them toward a better way…but do not get in their way."

Well, like I said.... BTW, did you notice that a four-star general is blogging? True, it is a very specialized blog, but I do wonder how blogging technology is changing the way professional-class organizations communicate internally.

by Donald Sensing, 3/23/2005 09:53:00 PM. Permalink |   

Meanwhile, back in the world
With all the attention directed at the Schiavo case, including here, Iraq news has been displaced. Herewith some links:

Austin Bay writes that Iraq is "A War We Are Winning."

Collect relatively isolated events in a chronological list and presto: the impression of uninterrupted, widespread violence destroying Iraq. But that was a false impression. Every day, coalition forces were moving thousands of 18-wheelers from Kuwait and Turkey into Iraq, and if the "insurgents" were lucky they blew up one. However, flash the flames of that one rig on CNN and, "Oh my God, America can't stop these guys," is the impression left in Boise and Beijing.

Saddam's thugs and Zarqawi's klan were actually weak enemies -- "brittle" is the word I used to describe them at a senior planning meeting. Their local power was based on intimidation -- killing by car bomb, murdering in the street. Their strategic power was based solely on selling the false impression of nationwide quagmire -- selling post-Saddam Iraq as a dysfunctional failed-state, rather than an emerging democracy.

He also writes,

Even as late as January 15, 2005, if you took a “tactical” (day by day, body count, or incidents count, etc) perspective, the Iraq situation could look very bleak. If you, however, (1) understood what Saddam’s thugs and Zarqawi’s klan are, what they have to offer, their methods, their weaknesses, and their lack of political appeal (understood why Iraqis really hate these people); (2) understood our “cities” operational plan (for Ramadi, Samarra, Fallujah, and Mosul, etc); (3) appreciated the strengths of the Allawi government instead of solely concentrating on its weaknesses; and (4) understood the revolutionary appeal of democracy (part of this is having faith that Arabs and Kurds can run their own affairs) then– you saw the coalition and Free Iraq were on their way to winning strategically.

Belmont Club has two parts asking, "Is the Iraqi Insurgency Dying," part one and part two.

Lance in Iraq writes, "Incoherent hippies invade Centennial Park."

OOTB comments on a raid on an insurgency camp by US and Iraqi forces that killed dozens of bad guys.

by Donald Sensing, 3/23/2005 05:21:00 PM. Permalink |   

The Judge speaks
This morning FoxNews Channel legal consultant, former Judge Andrew Napolitano, confirmed every point I have made about the legal status so far. He was interviewed live on WWTN's Phil Valentine Show, based here in Nashville. Napolitano described himself on the air as "fiercely" pro-life and said that "if I were king" he would remove Michael Schiavo from guardianship, make Terri's parents guardian and order the feeding tube restored.

But he also said that the relevant transcripts, which he has examined, reveal that the Florida courts ruled that it was Terri's actual desire, based on testimony by Michael Schiavo and others, all of whom were cross-examined, that she had legitimately expressed a desire not to be kept alive in the medical condition she came into.

As for the Congressional bill, Napolitano said there is no legitimate federal interest in this case whatsover. He went on to say that the 14th Amendment does not apply because first, due process under law has been followed because - as I wrote above - the legal situation is that the removal of the feeding tube violates Terri's wishes, not Michael's. Second, he said there is no case to be made that her protections under federal law have been violated.

Napolitano didn't discuss the fact the Florida law allowed for acceptance in this case of hearsay testimony that Terri had expressed a desire not to be kept alive in her present condition. I see no argument with the fact that the law has been proven by this case to be a severely bad one, but it still defines the situation for her case.

Update: Terri's parents' plea to the entire 11th Circuit Court to hear their appeal has been denied by the court. The Schindlers are expected to appeal now to the US Supreme Court, whom almost every court-wacher expects to decline. However, only four of the Supremes need to vote to hear the case in order to compel the Court to hear it.

The Florida legislature is now debating a bill that would make a state government agency the legal guardian of Terri Schiavo. But according to Andrew Napolitano this afternoon, that will not change the basic fact of the case, namely, that the judiciary ruling is (as I have described) that the removal of the feeding tube is Terri's - not her guardian's - desire. Changing guardians does not affect that fact.

He also said that assertions that Michael Schiavo is either responsible for Terri's injury or worsening it have in fact been "exhaustively pursued" and that court records show this. Such allegations have been found to be without merit. As James Joyner wrote,

Nothing I've seen indicates that he was anything but devoted to his late wife when she was alive. If he's telling the truth--and judges have repeatedly found no reason to find otherwise--then he's merely carrying out her expressed wish not to be kept alive in a form completely unrecognizable to her. For him to be treated as an evil man trying to off his wife for the money is despicable.

No one has to like it, but no one can pretend that there are the enormous gaps in the record that can be suddenly filled in by desperate appeals.

FoxNews reported today that every doctor who has actually examined Terri, whether retained by Michael Schiavo, the courts, or the Schindlers, has concluded that she is in an irreversible PVS.

Update: The Fla. legislature rejected the bill, which was strongly endorsed by Gov. Jeb Bush.

by Donald Sensing, 3/23/2005 10:23:00 AM. Permalink |   

British troops issued blank ammo in Iraq
That according to The Independent:

British troops in Iraq have been supplied with blank rounds instead of live ammunition, one of a catalogue of failures during the occupation that have put their lives at risk, according to a hard-hitting report to be published this week.

The whole article is archived on the site now, but it goes on to say,

The influential Commons Defence Select Committee said that a key logistical shortcoming is the armed forces' "inability to provide body armour and medical supplies in sufficient quantities" to troops in combat zones.

The Committee's will release a report on "post-conflict operations" on March 24 that will describe a "shambolic
organisation since the war." And while the Committee has only praise for the British army's professionalism during the fighting, it says that "woeful intelligence" left soldiers unprepared for the postwar insurgency.

The report also says that most soldiers were ill-prepared for the role of civilian-type policing missions.

Except for the part about blank ammo, this doesn't seem like a bad report, overall.

by Donald Sensing, 3/22/2005 07:45:00 PM. Permalink |   

Some Schiavo links
No commentary on my part here, just links.

Joe Gandelman has a running linkfest.

UCLA law Professor Stephen Bainbridge says,

Now that Congress has approved the legislation to give federal courts jurisdiction over the Terry Schiavo case, I am finding myself oddly unable to reach a definitive assessment of that action. As I see it, Congress' act implicates four first principles I hold dear:

The culture of life
Limited government
Federalism
The rule of law

Unfortunately, I do not see how we can reconcile the four in this case.

Another law prof, Ann Althouse, says,

I've taken the position that the statute is constitutional, and I do think that. Congress has power to define federal jurisdiction ... [but] Congress acted in a bold, emotive fashion that showed too little respect for the serious, hard work of state courts.

Okay, a little commentary. District Court Judge Whittemore declined today to order Terri's feeding tube restored. Sean Hannity said on the radio today that Terri's parents, the Schindlers, immediately filed a notice to appeal to the 11th Circuit Court. There is, he indicated, little chance that the 11th Circuit Court will overturn Judge Whittemore. If so, there is even less chance that the Supreme Court will hear the case, since SCOTUS has already declined to hear three similar cases, according to Hannity.

That, said Sean, throws the Schindlers' whole recourse to the Florida legislature, which is, of course, where it belongs in the first place.

That raises a further question, though. The legislature cannot simply legislate away the years of state court rulings relevant to this case. That would be effectively vetoing the courts' rulings, which the legislature has no authority to do. And if they try, then wouldn't Michael Schiavo have a valid complaint that his due process protections under the 14th Amendment would be violated?

As I understand the status quo, the state courts have ruled that Michael Schiavo was truthful when he said Terri had expressed a desire not be kept alive by artificial means if she became incapacitated. According to my readings, this oral expression is as valid under Florida law as a written living will. It's beyond arguing now that Mr. Schiavo was lying because the courts have ruled otherwise. (At this late date any attempt to overturn those rulings is simply futile.)

Hence - legally speaking (and we're way past speaking about this medically now) - the withdrawal of the feeding tube is Terri's desire, not, strictly speaking, her husband's. That means that - again, legally speaking - an order to restore the tube violates her rights to determine the extent of her medical care and in fact deprives her of her rights of due process.

I'm not arguing that is how things should be, I am saying that is how things are. I admit that my analysis is an armchair one, but I think it's accurate.

by Donald Sensing, 3/22/2005 07:02:00 PM. Permalink |   

A call for more federal intrusion
I always enjoy reading Bill Hobbs' site. He and I live in the same town. You'd think we'd get together and have lunch or something, but alas, we never have.

Like me, Bill is a latecomer to writing about the Terri Schiavo case. He starts off well, echoing my own thoughts,

I have not written about the Terri Schiavo case because it is too complex, too multilayered, and too steeped in unknown or unknowable facts for me - indeed for most people - to have a fully informed opinion.

I don't know - and neither do you - if Michael Shiavo is trying to murder his wife or trying to fulfill her stated wishes for just such a scenario. I don't know what Terri Schiavo would want - and neither do you - because she didn't tell us via a living will. We have only the word of her husband who assures us that his wife once said she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way, and we have her parents, who love their daughter and desire only to care for her.

I do know that the Congress did the wrong thing, intervened where it had no Constitutional right, and solved nothing.

I posted yesterday that I opposed federalizing this case. I understand the moral/religious issues involved, but like Bill, I see no federal interest in it (but the Congress did not act unconstitutionally, just unwisely).

But in reading the rest of Bill's post, I think his cure is worse than the ailment. Having denounced the Congress' move to federalize legal jurisdiction for appeals by Terri's parent, Bill actually proceeds to call for an even more heavy-handed federal role in Americans' health care:

I would like to see Congress pass and the President sign a second law - call it the Terri Schiavo Living Will Act of 2005 - that would require all Americans age 18 and up have a signed, notarized, legal living will, and update it every five years. The law also would require courts, doctors and families to follow the directives of a patient's living will without deviation. [italics added-DS]

As I commented on Bill's post, there is presently no legal requirement for someone to have even a post-mortem will. How on earth can a conservative support a federal mandate requiring a living will? Smacks of nanny-ism government to me.

None of this - Terri's present case or Bill's proposed remedy - is federal business. If the Congress should have stayed out of Terri's case - a point Bill and I agree on - then it has no business micromanaging who has what kind of will.

We used to think our government is one of delegated powers, but apparently almost no one believes that anymore. I know of nothing in the Constitution that grants the Congress the authority to require me to have a will of any kind. I do not presently have a living will. That may be stupid, but correcting the stupidity of 300 million Americans is simply not the Congress' business and is beyond its ability, anyway. That kind of intrusion has no logical end.

Yes, the Schiavo case is a mess and Terri almost certainly will become a victim thereby. Yes, it is a tragedy all around. But that doesn't make it a federal matter.

In a comment to his own post, Bill wrote,

Some commenters have raised the objection that Congress doesn't have the authority to mandate every American have a living will. I disagree. I think it would fit nicely under "provide for the general welfare."

But everything you can think of fits under that rubric. Congress could pass a law prohibiting anyone from weighing more than 110 percent of NIH recommendations - hey, why not? It "provides for the general welfare." The idea that the Founders had in mind federal micromanagement of personal decisions when they signed the Consitution is just untenable.

Update: Commenter Dougger on Bill's post makes this point (no direct permalink exists):

The Constitution does NOT specify that the Congress sets the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Appellate jurisdiction is NOT one of the enumerated powers of Congress in the Constitution.

Article 1 section 8 of the constitution states that "The Congress shall have the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court". This does not allow the Congress to set jurisdiction, only to establish the appellate courts.

Article 3 section 2 states that "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, treaties made..." This establishes the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts as limited to Constitutional matters and Federal law (which must also pass Constitutional muster).

Thus the law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush is unconstitutional.

Interesting. I would assume there could be convoluted arguments about what matters of "equity" are in relation to this case - the 14th Amendment comes to mind in relation to deprivation of life. But if Dougger's argument is valid then it undercuts Congress's action even more, except that no one is going to make a case out of it.

Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.:

To simply say that the 'culture of life,' or whatever you call it means that we don't have to pay attention to the principles of federalism or separation of powers is certainly not a conservative viewpoint.

Food for thought.

by Donald Sensing, 3/22/2005 04:14:00 PM. Permalink |   

My imaging solutions
I wrote earlier this month about my digicam distress and redux. I last posted that I had decided to replace my ancient Minolta X-700 (35mm SLR, 1983 vintage), VHS-C videocam and my cyber-ancient Kodak 2.0 MP digicam with

either a Nikon N75 or Minolta Maxxum 70 35mm camera,

a Canon ZR200 digital videocam.

I had decided against buying another digital still camera, preferring to go retro and use film for "keeper" shots and the old Kodak digicam for web shots and snapshots.

But I changed my mind when I saw the Canon A510 digital still camera with 4X optical zoom. It's only 3.2MP (its sibling A520 is 4MP). The A510 is the first consumer-priced digicam I've seen that offers both full-automatic operation and nearly-complete manual controls. I spent quite awhile fooling with it in a store and was very impressed with its very short shutter lag and quick shot-to-shot time. Also, it uses SD cards, of which I already have three, and AA batteries.

So that's joining my lineup next month. This month I bought a Maxxum 50 Quartz Date 35mm camera and a JVC G-DR72 digital videocam.

. . .

I stepped down to the Maxxum 50 from the 70 to save a few bucks for the Canon. The Maxxum arrived yesterday and it is really sweet. To go from manual SLRs to modern motor-drive, fully automatic models is like jumping from a Model T to an STS. And the Maxxum can be set for wholly manual operation, too. It's not more compact than my X-700, but it is much lighter. The 28-100mm zoom lens is much lighter and smaller than my old 28-105 lens. And my old-but-pristine skylight filter fits it, too.

I opted for the JVC videocam over the Canon based on reviews. JVCs, as it happens, are renowned for their low-light usability. Since I shoot a lot of video indoors (holidays and such) that was important to me. It came last week, but I haven't used it much yet. It is certainly far more compact than the JVC VHS-C camera it is replacing.

So my "digicam distress" is now cured. (Man, that Maxxum is nice. . . I can't wait for the A510.)

by Donald Sensing, 3/22/2005 07:38:00 AM. Permalink |   

An amazing game finish
Since Wake Forest did a giant belly flop in double OT to lose to West Virginia in the NCAA roundball tourney, I am forced to place my alumnus hope in Vanderbilt in the NIT. Tonight they played Wichita State in the second round, at Vandy's Memorial Gymnasium.

WSU dropped a short bucket to tie the score with three seconds left in regulation. Vandy called a timeout to plan their play. What they did was so amazing that I can recall something similar happening maybe twice in all the games I have ever watched.

I recorded it to my hard drive from the 10 p.m. newscast. It's MPEG-1 format, 1.4 megs. Click to play or right click to save: Vandy video.

(I'm not sure how long I'll leave the video up; bandwidth usage will determine.)

by Donald Sensing, 3/21/2005 10:50:00 PM. Permalink |   

This will focus your mind
Two grabs from tonight's evening local newscast -

This is from video taken by an airline passenger, showing flames roaring from the engine assembly under the wing. I didn't note other details except that the plane landed safely.

This private sailing yacht went aground and then awash. The passengers abandoned ship when rescuers came near, and were pulled by jetskis to safety.



by Donald Sensing, 3/21/2005 10:48:00 PM. Permalink |   

Did Peggy lead them wrong?
Republicans make a federal case out of Terri Schiavo, but they're wrong all around

In referring to the Terri Schiavo case, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan wrote that "If Terri Schiavo is killed, Republicans will pay a political price."

There is a passionate, highly motivated and sincere group of voters and activists who care deeply about whether Terri Schiavo is allowed to live. Their reasoning, ultimately, is this: Be on the side of life. ...

The supporters of Terri Schiavo's right to continue living have fought for her heroically, through the courts and through the legislatures. They're still fighting. They really mean it. And they have memories. ...

A final note to the Republican leadership in the House and Senate: You have to pull out all the stops. You have to run over your chairmen if they're being obstructionist for this niggling reason and that. Run over their egos, run past their fatigue. You have to win on this. If you don't, you can't imagine how much you're going to lose. And from people who have faith in you.

Last night first the Senate and then the House passed legislation entitling Terri's parents to appeal to U.S. District Court. President Bush signed the bill into law at 1:30 this morning. Terri's parents imediately filed - the federal court concerned is open 24/7 - where,

U.S. District Judge James Whittemore issued no immediate decision after holding a two-hour hearing to consider a request from Terri Schiavo's parents to reinstate their 41-year-old daughter's feeding tube three days after it was withdrawn.

And there the matter sits as of this writing. Judge Whittemore is expected to rule tomorrow.

But back to Peggy. Was she right? Today ABC News released its poll on the question.

Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain. ...

The public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today.

That legislative action is distinctly unpopular: Not only do 60 percent oppose it, more — 70 percent — call it inappropriate for Congress to get involved in this way. And by a lopsided 67 percent-19 percent, most think the elected officials trying to keep Schiavo alive are doing so more for political advantage than out of concern for her or for the principles involved.

But, as James Joyner observes, "My guess is that the 28% is much, much more intense in their belief than the 63%." I think that's true - and Peggy obviously would agree. I don't agree with those who say the new bill is unconstitutional, since the Constitution specifies that the Congress sets the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The newly-born advocates of states' rights are transparently insincere since they're several decades too late raising their voices.

But I am uneasy about the Congress's and the president's action. I don't know enough about Terri's condition to evaluate whether she is beyond hope of recovery, but presumably her doctors and the courts have weighed all the information. They're not infallible by any means, but they are also "the only game in town" to make an evaluation. There is no independent corroboration that Terri would want to be disconnected, as husband Michael Schiavo asserts. And Mr. Schiavo is no admirable character here; as James Taranto wrote, it is

... unreasonable to let Mr. Schiavo have it both ways. If he wishes to assert his marital authority to do his wife in, the least society can expect in return is that he refrain from making a mockery of his marital obligations. The grimmest irony in this tragic case is that those who want Terri Schiavo dead are resting their argument on the fiction that her marriage is still alive.

Yet the Republicans' actions in pushing through federal relief for Terri's parents makes me as uneasy as the Democrats' obvious hypocrisy about the federalist issues the legislation raises.

No one can wish Terri dead. And God knows none of us wish ourselves ever to be in the position of either her husband or her parents. But there is no perfect justice to be had in this world, and tragically this fact sometimes means death comes sooner rather than later. A smell of political opportunism pervades the Republicans' actions here. But as I wrote more than a year ago, the Republican party, like the Democrats, are big-government activists who have (like the Democrats) adopted a foundational philosophy that America is a problem to be fixed, and Americans are a people to be managed. While I see the medical, moral and theological issues involved in Terri's case, I fail to see the federal issue that warrants Congressional action.

by Donald Sensing, 3/21/2005 07:42:00 PM. Permalink |   

Which grunts bear the brunt?
Last week an acquaintance mentioned to me that in conversation that "the Marines have borne the brunt of the fighting in Iraq." Is that true? I knew that the Army had suffered more casualties in absolute numbers, but what about the ratio of KIA to number deployed in Iraq? I didn't have any information at the time.

Here's the latest:

Just over than two-thirds (66.8 percent) of all troops killed have been from the Army, including the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. Regular Army troops comprise 21 percent of the total force in Iraq and Reserve Components 24.3 percent, meaning that the total Army accounts for 45.3 percent of the American forces there. (Army Reserve Components have suffered 16.1 percent of all KIAs.)

The regular Army alone has suffered just over half (50.7 percent) of combat deaths. This means that the RA has suffered KIAs 2.41 times greater than proportional (2.41:1). Including the RC drops that ratio down to 1.47:1.

In contrast, the Marines comprise 11.6 of the total force in Iraq and have suffered 29.9 percent of the combat deaths, a ratio of 2.57:1.

So in one way, the Army has borne the brunt of the casualties because two-thirds of all KIAs have been Army. But the Marines have suffered a higher percentage of KIAs than the Army.

Yet we can't stop there because the differing roles and missions of the two services skew the data. Unlike the Army, the Marines have no theater-level logistic capability or responsibility. The Army - and only the Army - is responsible for ground logistics at theater level for all the services. That means that the Marines in Iraq have been able, in a real sense, to send a higher tooth-to-tail ratio of units to Iraq than the Army because the Army shouldered a lot of their logistic load.

As James Joyner points out, the fact that the bulk of Army RC units deployed are support units accounts for their lower casualty rate (one would expect, after all, combat units to suffer more KIA than support units). If the Marines had to deploy logistic units in the same relative ratio as the Army, then their proportional KIA rate would be lower than it is.

Another thing that raises the Marines' ratio is that their combat vehicles are much less survivable than the Army's. The Marines' armored personnel carriers - the AAV and the LAV - are much more vulnerable than the Army's Bradley or its new Stryker. I know that the Marines have been up-armoring both vehicles, but they still won't take the hits that the Army's vehicles will. This made a real difference two years ago, when the Marines battled their way to Baghdad.

So who has borne the brunt of battle? If you are one of the casualties or a family member thereof, the question is a stupid one: you did or your loved one did. But in a broader view, the question is not merely academic or emotive. The casualty data support the conclusion that the Army has borne the brunt, quite lopsidedly. That accounts for what I pointed out here, that the Army is now predominant among the armed forces in influence and - critically importantly - budgeting, and likely to stay that way for a long time.

by Donald Sensing, 3/21/2005 03:32:00 PM. Permalink |   

Europe trending gloomy
Europe watchers have known for a long time that the continent is heading toward a demographic cliff. I reported almost two years ago, for example, that

One study by William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution in Washington, predicts that the median age in the United States in 2050 will be 35.4, only a very slight increase from what it is now. In Europe, by contrast, it is expected to rise to 52.3 from 37.7. The likely meaning of this "stunning difference," as the British weekly The Economist called the growing demographic disparity between Europe and the United States, is that American power - economic and military - will continue to grow relative to Europe's, which will also decline in comparison with other parts of the world like China, India and Latin America.

That post pointed out some hard realities for Europe to face, among them:

The leveling and looming inversion of the worker to retiree ratio,

A steady lowering of the age at which Europeans retire. Governments' suggestions to raise the pension-eligibility age are strongly resisted.

"In reality, a legal retirement age of 80 is what we should aim at," Erich Streissler, an Austrian economist, wrote in a newspaper article.

But more than half of men across Europe stop working between age 55-65.

Comes now Eurobserver with more grim news:

The European Commission's paper, to be published on Thursday (17 march), points to the serious consequences of an ageing population on Europe's economies.

In terms of the workforce, the EU will need to exceed its target employment rate of 70 percent because of the rate that people will drop out the job market. The working age population is expected to fall by almost 21 million in the next three decades.

The paper points out that whilst immigration can help the situation, it is "no substitute for economic reforms", including modernising the pension systems, raising the retirement age and getting more people into jobs. [link]

Now, most of this is old news to Euro-watchers, but this line caught my eye:

... the EU will need to exceed its target employment rate of 70 percent

Here in the USA, voters start talking about a regime change in Washington when the unemployment rate drops much below five percent, but in the EU, the unemployment target rate is 30 percent! To be fair, that target is an aggregate EU-wide figure that includes member states that were formerly communist, states that have a very high unemployment rate now. Yet even in industrialized France, the unemployment rate for 2003 (last year data are available) is 9.6 percent, a rate not seen in America even in the "malaise" days of Jimmy Carter's waning days in office, when the jobless rate topped at 7.7 percent.And that is a perfect segue to the next point. Tim Blair reports,

How far behind the US is Europe? They're still in the disco era:

The US economy is 20 years ahead of that of the EU and it will take decades for Europe to catch up, according to an explosive new study published on Friday.

The survey, unveiled by pan-EU small business organisation Eurochambres, is intended as a sharp wake-up call for EU leaders as they gather on 22 March for a summit on how to boost growth and jobs in the EU economy.

The EU's current performance in terms of employment was achieved in the US in 1978 and it will take until 2023 for Europe to catch up, the report shows.

As the EC's report points out, Europeans simply are not having enough children to energize the economy and immigration can't fill the gap.

Heck, Europeans aren't having enough children for the continent simply to stay European!

Driven largely by prosperity and freedom, millions of women throughout the developed world are having fewer children than ever before. They stay in school longer, put more emphasis on work and marry later. As a result, birth rates in many countries are now in a rapid, sustained decline.

Never before -- except in times of plague, war and deep economic depression -- have birth rates fallen so low, for so long.

What was once regarded universally as a cherished goal -- incredibly low birth rates -- have in the industrial world at least suddenly become a cause for alarm. With life expectancy rising at the same time that fertility drops, most developed countries may soon find themselves with lopsided societies that will be nearly impossible to sustain: a large number of elderly and not enough young people working to support them. The change will affect every program -- from health care and education to pension plans and military spending -- that requires public funds.

There is no longer a single country in Europe where people are having enough children to replace themselves when they die. Italy recently became the first nation in history where there are more people over the age of 60 than there are under the age of 20. This year [1998 - DS] Germany, Greece and Spain will probably all cross the same eerie divide. [link]

This trend - trend? it's a runaway train now - has been decades in the making and won't be reversed by a Commission study, which also addressed the issue:

More babies wanted
Europeans have fewer children than they would actually like, according to the report, which also argues that public authorities should provide better conditions for Europe's citizens in terms of family benefits, child care or parental leave provisions.

Of the five largest member states, only Britain and France are set to grow in population in the coming years, while in some countries, the population will start falling by 2015, with a drop of more than 10-15 percent by 2050.

Across the EU, only Ireland, France and Denmark approach the fertility rate necessary to renew the population.

Europe's future is not bright, but alarming.

Update: Dr. Stanley Tillinghast emails,

I believe that the 70% employment figure in today's post does NOT mean 30% unemployment. Unemployment, as you know, is based on the number of people seeking work or working. I think the 70% employment figure means that 70% of the working-age population is working--not staying at home and NOT seeking employment. In other words, there need to be more housewives out there working! Of course, that means they would be even less likely to have babies....

Good point, and it illustrates the "two steps forward, three back" problem Europe faces. They need more births, but that takes women out of the work force - and for longer than it does here, because of Europe's generally very generous labor-welfare rules. But taking women from the work force also decreases the tax revenue the state needs to continue propping up its welfare system.

Let us assume for argument's sake that the welfare-near-crisis states achieved a substantial jump in birth rates starting next year. They will probably go broke sooner than they will now because it will be basically 20 years before next year's babies become taxpayers and for those two decades they simply increase the welfare load by using government-provided services.

Can Europe bail water faster than the gunwales will go awash? I don't think so, but I hope I'm wrong.

by Donald Sensing, 3/21/2005 07:16:00 AM. Permalink |   

Sermon for Palm Sunday
My sermon for today, Palm Sunday 2005, is now online.

by Donald Sensing, 3/20/2005 05:04:00 PM. Permalink |   

General's son kidnaped
An Iraqi general, that is, and how his freedom was gained is breathtaking. First:

[One] evening I spent as I do an increasing number - sitting with a couple of Iraqi officers - a Colonel and a General - Hassan and Ashraf - in their shared apartment, knocking back strong Arak while watching scantily-clad girls on Arabic music videos. Ashraf, especially, is a character. Wounded eleven times before winning his disability discharge from the old Iraqi Army, he's now back into government service. After a few hard drinks he'll strip down to his underwear and display his various scars. "This one from mortar. This one from AK. This one from sniper. This one from tank shell." The latter is a particularly gruesome long mark, stretching up his inner thigh up to a point that I was glad he had left covered. Anyway, we had a good night, went through a bottle or so of the hard stuff, and I taught them about the American A-B-C-D bra-size system, using examples from the TV.

The next morning - this morning - the colonel came into my office. He looked out of sorts, but then I wasn't feeling too great either.

"How are you," I asked him.

"Not good." He said. Before I could make some joke about Arak, he continued "General Ashraf's son, he has been kidnapped."

That was posted on Sunday, March 6. Skip ahead now to Tuesday 3/15:

The kidnappers called regularly with threats and ultimatums. Ashraf, in turn, called his friend Colonel Hassan often, and as I passed by on one occasion I could hear his sobs on the other end of the phone.

One time the kidnappers called up, and said "We want more money or we will kill your son."

Ashraf pleaded: "Please, I'm not a rich man, I don't have much money. You can take everything I have, just give me back my son."

"No. What you have is not enough. If you don't get more, we will take your son to Ramadi and videotape his beheading."

"Fine. Take my son to Ramadi. Cut of his head. I will take all the money I have collected for his ransom and use it to throw a big party after his funeral."

This bold reply caught the kidnappers off guard. There was a pause, then, "Uh, we'll call you back later."

Two days later Ashraf's son was released.

Man, that Ashraf is one tough hombre in body and soul. And he's one of the good guys. All this from "I Should Have Stayed Home... Two guys working in Iraq doing their best to clue you in on the ground truth."

by Donald Sensing, 3/19/2005 07:13:00 PM. Permalink |   

Attacks drop to 10/day from 25
So says Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, commanding general of First MEF in Iraq, speaking about the number of daily attacks in Sunni-dominated western Iraq. And only one or two of the daily attacks kill or injure US troops or damage US equipment. Last November, the area experienced 25 attacks per day.

Which accords with developments related here.

by Donald Sensing, 3/19/2005 07:01:00 PM. Permalink |   

Online tributes
Like many others, I linked awhile back to this moving online tribute to American troops overseas. Via Winds of Change, I now learn that the host has several highly view-worthy tributes available.

by Donald Sensing, 3/19/2005 06:12:00 PM. Permalink |   

It's alive!
As Blogger has apparently been resurrected - how appropriate for the season - I have resumed posting here rather than my backup site.

I spent some time this morning attempting to export Blogger's files and archives into WordPress, unsuccessfully. I have also had some intriguing emails with Chris Lansdown of Powerblogs, a blogging solution that has a lot of appeal. I still would like to leave Blogger but I don't want to jump from the frying pan into the fire. Powerblogs is very attractive, and I'll continue to explore it.

But having been burned on Blogger since March 11, I still consider it to be ....

I'm just saying, ya know?

by Donald Sensing, 3/19/2005 03:45:00 PM. Permalink |   

British private awarded Victoria Cross
A commenter pointed out that the links herein are bollixed. I don't know why, and I'll correct them later Sunday.

Via Amendment XIX I learned that British army Pvt. Johnson Beharry has been awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest military award of the British armed forces. After reading his story, A. XIX's writer concludes,

One more thing, next time someone says that we went into Iraq "unilaterally" I am going to suggest they have a talk with Private Beharry.

Part of Beharry's citation reads,

As the lead vehicle of the platoon he was moving rapidly through the dark city streets towards the suspected firing point, when his vehicle was ambushed by the enemy from a series of rooftop positions.

During this initial heavy weight of enemy fire, a rocket-propelled grenade detonated on the vehicle's frontal armour, just six inches from Beharry's head, resulting in a serious head injury.

Beharry then lost consciousness as a result of his wounds

Other rockets struck the turret and sides of the vehicle, incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew.

With the blood from his head injury obscuring his vision, Beharry managed to continue to control his vehicle, and forcefully reversed the Warrior out of the ambush area. The vehicle continued to move until it struck the wall of a nearby building and came to rest. Beharry then lost consciousness as a result of his wounds.

The BBC's comprehensive story is here. He's an amazing man, still recovering from head wounds sustained in June 2004 during the second action for which he was cited.

Here's a link to an information site about the Victoria Cross itself, which links to this page, from which we learn,

Beharry is the first recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest military decoration for valour in the British and Commonwealth armed forces, since the posthumous awards to Lieutenant Colonel 'H' Jones and Sergeant Ian John McKay for service in the Falklands War in 1982. He is the first living recipient of the VC since Keith Payne and Rayene Stewart Simpson, both Australian, for actions in Vietnam in 1969, and the first living recipient of the VC in the British Army since Rambahadur Limbu, a Gurkha, in the Indonesian Confrontation in 1965. He joins only 13 other living recipients of the VC.

Beharry is a native of Grenada who emigrated to Britain in 1999.

This Canadian site has some interesting information about the medal as well, for example we learn that Canadians have been awarded more VCs, in proportion to recipient-countries' populations, than any other country. There was a street in Winnipeg on which three VC recipients resided, leading the city to change the street's name to Valour Road. There are only two living Canadian recipients, each of whom receive a $300 per year from the government for their service.

Each VC is made of bronze "from Chinese cannons captured from the Russians at the siege of Sebastopol during the Crimean War, large ingots of which are stored at an army depot near London."

Another piece of VC trivia I learned way back when - only one VC was awarded to a pilot for actions during the Battle of Britain. My research assistant, Mr. Google, confirms this. Jumped by German BF109 fighters, Flight Lieutenant James Nicolson faced a fearsome ordeal.

Four cannon shells hit Flight Lieutenant Nicolson's [Hurricane fighter] aircraft. One destroyed the perspex hood subsequently damaging his left eye and temporarily blinding him with blood. The reserve petrol tank was also struck along with his left leg. The Hurricane was now ablaze with the instrument panel melting, his hands blistering from the heat and his trousers on fire

Whilst preparing to bale out, a BF110 appeared in front of him. He slid back into his burning cockpit and continued flying the Hurricane after the enemy. Closing in, Nicolson opened fire and although the BF110 took evasive action to avoid the bullets, it was sent crashing into the sea

Finally baling out of his stricken aircraft, Nicolson had sustained severe burns to his hands, parts of his face, his eyelid was torn and his foot badly wounded. His ordeal however, was not quite over

While descending towards the ground some Local Defence Volunteers (LVD), under orders, opened fire with rifles at what they believed to be enemy parachutists. Pilot Officer King had his parachute badly damaged and plummeted to his death. Flight Lieutenant Nicolson, in great pain, landed alive with further wounds received from shotgun pellets

He was rushed to The Royal Southampton Hospital where he made a full recovery and returned to active duty during late 1941.

Amendment XIX points out that posters have been put up on the London Underground telling the stories of VC recipients.

The unique tribute is the idea of the descendant of Duncan George Boyes from Cheltenham who was awarded the Victoria Cross aged 17 in 1865.

His great great nephew Chas Bayfield said: "The stories are so inspirational I thought people should know them.

Would be a good idea to do around American cities, depicting Medal of Honor recipients.

by Donald Sensing, 3/19/2005 10:27:00 AM. Permalink |   

Is this for real?
Have you seen the ESPN ad where a pro roundball player shoots baskets from one end of the court to the other, one shot right after another?

You can see the basketball dropping toward the hoop. But next time you see the ad, note that at no time does the frame show the ball all the way. The ball leaves the frame for the middle third of its arc.



Yes, it is an astonishing feat - if real. It seems real, but the player makes five such shots in a row. What do you think - is this "live or Memorex"?

by Donald Sensing, 3/18/2005 08:55:00 PM. Permalink |   

If Monty Python ran the AP...

... they couldn't do better than this, reported by OpinionJournal:

The Associated Press plans to offer its member newspapers "two different leads for many of its news stories," reports Editor & Publisher, the news industry trade magazine:

"The concept is simple: On major spot stories--especially when events happen early in the day--we will provide you with two versions to choose between," the AP said in an advisory to members. "One will be the traditional 'straight lead' that leads with the main facts of what took place. The other will be the 'optional,' an alternative approach that attempts to draw in the reader through imagery, narrative devices, perspective or other creative means."

The E&P piece concludes with these examples:

Traditional

MOSUL, Iraq (AP)--A suicide attacker set off a bomb that tore through a funeral tent jammed with Shiite mourners Thursday, splattering blood and body parts over rows of overturned white plastic chairs. The attack, which killed 47 and wounded more than 100, came as Shiite and Kurdish politicians in Baghdad said they overcame a major stumbling block to forming a new coalition government.

Optional

MOSUL, Iraq (AP)--Yet again, almost as if scripted, a day of hope for a new, democratic Iraq turned into a day of tears as a bloody insurgent attack undercut a political step forward.

On Thursday, just as Shiite and Kurdish politicians in Baghdad were telling reporters that they overcame a major stumbling block to forming a new coalition government, a suicide attacker set off a bomb that tore through a funeral tent jammed with Shiite mourners in the northern city of Mosul.

I am imagining John Cleese or Eric Idle reading the "optional" section. As others have noted from time to time, the real news often sounds more and more like Scrappleface or The Onion.

by Donald Sensing, 3/18/2005 04:28:00 PM. Permalink |   

Terri Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed

Congressional leaders issued the subpoenas after failing to enact legislation allowing federal courts to review the case. Through five years of hearings and appeals, the Florida courts have ruled in Michael Schiavo's favor and the U.S. Supreme Court has refused three times to intervene.

Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, said the U.S. Congress has no authority in the case.

"The state does not own Mrs. Schiavo's body and Congress cannot simply order her to remain alive contrary to her medical treatment wishes and court order," Felos said.

Well, Mr. Felos seems confused to me. I agree that the subpoena ploy was quite a stretch, but what the House's legislation would have done is permit Terri's parents to seek relief in federal court. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the authority to establish the jurisdiction of federal courts, so despite Mr. Felos's protestation, the Congress was not trying to assert "ownership" over Terri's body.

Second, Felos flat lied when he said that for Terri to remain alive is "contrary to her medical treatment wishes." Terri had no living will and there is not a scintilla of evidence that Terri herself ever indicated what she would want in such circumstances. That's precisely why this case has dragged on in Florida courts for seven years.

Chris Short is by-the-moment blogging this case in a single, updated post.

by Donald Sensing, 3/18/2005 04:00:28 PM. Permalink |   

The most brazen scam I've seen yet

Dear Paypal customer,
 
As part of our security measures, we regularly screen activity in the
PayPal system. We recently noticed the following issue on your account:
A recent review of your account determined that we require some
additional information from you in order to provide you with secure service.

 

Case ID Number: PP-069-680-616

 

For your protection, we have limited access to your account until
additional security measures can be completed. We apologize for any
inconvenience this may cause.
 
To restore your account access please send a fax to (347) 287-6958 with
following information:
 
1. Valid Photo ID.
2. First Name and Last Name from your credit card.
3. The scanned copy front and back of your credit card.
4. Credit Card Number.
5. Expiration Date.
6. Cid/Cvv2 (Last 3 digits located on the back of your credit card)
7. PIN (Your 4 digit number used in ATM transactions)
 
We appreciate your understanding as we work to ensure account safety.
 
In accordance with PayPal's User Agreement, your account access will
remain limited until the issue has been resolved. Unfortunately, if
access to your account remains limited for an extended period of time,
it may result in further limitations or eventual account closure.
We encourage you send a fax to (347) 287-6958 as soon as possible to
help avoid this.
 
To review your account and some or all of the information that PayPal
used to make its decision to limit your account access, please visit the
Resolution Center. If, after reviewing your account information, you
seek further clarification regarding your account access, please contact
PayPal by visiting the Help Center and clicking "Contact Us".
We thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please
understand that this is a security measure intended to help protect you
and your account. We apologize for any inconvenience.
 
Sincerely,
PayPal Account Review Department
 
PayPal Email ID PP522

by Donald Sensing, 3/18/2005 03:01:00 PM. Permalink |   

Linkgary for 3-08-05

• Bill Roggio emails that he has posted "a pretty detailed rebuttal to Brian Dunn's claim that China will invade Taiwan.  It is pretty long but I believe it is worth the look. Mr. Dunn does not look at the US military strengths and how China would be unable to maintain a logistical bridge to Taiwan, for starters."
• James Joyner writes that the unexpected downside of armoring Humvees is that they become more prone to rollovers and several soldiers have been killed that way. I would say that dodging a RPG or IED is exactly the maneuver in which a rollover is more likely.
• Great stuff on Instapundit on how badly the insurgents are actually losing in Iraq. A key factor: Saudi bin Laden and Jordanian  al Qaeda -in-Iraq commander al Zarqawi are increasingly being seen by Iraqis as the foreign invaders. Quoting Strategy Page:
• Iraqi popular opinion has turned against terrorism in a big way. Apparently the key event was the revelation that Osama bin Laden had appointed Abu Musab al Zarqawi as "Emir" (leader) of al Qaeda efforts in Iraq and commanded him to go forth and kill big-time. But as suicide bombing attacks increasingly failed to reach American targets, and killed Iraqis instead, it appeared that a Saudi (bin Laden) was telling a Jordanian (Zarqawi) to kill Iraqis. This attitude never made headlines, but it slowly spread among Sunni Arab Iraqis over the last year. . . .
• Roger Simon says that if we had invaded Europe it would have cheered them up. Heh!

More later.

by Donald Sensing, 3/18/2005 10:24:15 AM. Permalink |   

Blogger starting to get some heat

Blogger has become the Mordor of the blogosphere
But the question is whether they will care. First stop: Bezahlt(dot)Org, who points out that Blogger's Status Page had a notice posted on March 11 (a week ago) that the service was aware of the "stability problems" with Blogger and was working to correct them (a week ago, I remind you).

Most of these problems were caused by an increased amount of load on the blogger.com application servers. We have addressed this problem by increasing the number of machines that serve the site. However, there is more work to do. In addition to bringing on more machines and completing additional capacity planning, we are also working to identify and correct problematic database queries. These queries are poorly optimized and lead to the increased load that jeopardized the service in the past few days.

As a Blogger user, I completely understand how unacceptable the performance has been in the past few days and it is the focus of the engineering team to fix these issues.

[T]he endless server death spirals of the last few days are notable. ...

What accounts for this? The utter lawlessness that has infected Blogger combined with, according to Blogger's Blogger Buzz, a "shortage of electricity."

I'm sorry, but the last time I looked at Google, the owner of Blogger, the company's market cap was in the billions, and its rep for hiring only the brightest undimmed. So what accounts for Blogger? True, Blogger is free, but that's just part of Google's 'Engulf and Devour While Not Being Evil' business plan.

You get what you pay for, you say? True enough as far as it goes, but it seems to me that a "free service" that sucks in millions of people and is poised to suck in millions more, needs to take better care of its space lest it become seen as a kind of content Ponzi scheme.

And he shows how Blogger's own pages indicate that somehow, Spamblogs seem to be doing fine while the rest of us manage to post unreliably, if at all. (I have learned that I cannot count on any post I write actually appearing on my site, including this one. This morning I have experienced the publish page telling me that my post published 100% complete, only to find it does not appear on the site, nor on the "edit" page's index of posts.)

Yes, this service is free, so one might say I have no right to complain. I would reply that Blogger is now worth every cent I pay for it. I fact, though, my mere presence as a user, if not actually a "customer" in the traditional sense, is actually money to Google, for that is one way Google's market cap and stock price are determined. In a word, Blogger/Google needs me worse than I need it. And as I have said before, as soon as I can do so I will flee Blogger like Hobbits running from Mordor.

by Donald Sensing, 3/18/2005 09:52:00 AM. Permalink |   

"Brigades of death" are AWOL
"Brigades of death" are AWOL
A year ago today I posted about how the Abu-Hafs al-Masri/al-Qaeda Brigades

delivered a letter to a London Arabic-language newspaper overnight, saying: "Learn your lesson, you lackeys of America, the brigades of death are at your gates . . . Our brigades are now preparing for a fresh strike. Will it be the turn of Japan, America, Italy, Britain, the al-Sauds, Australia . . .?"

I don't recall this ever happening. It occurs to me that reading al Qaeda's threats are like listening to high school boys talk about romantic entanglements - those who don't actually do anything brag the most.

by Donald Sensing, 3/18/2005 09:28:00 AM. Permalink |   

Site may be down til early Friday
All you nightowls out there, I am going to try a reconfiguration overnight of the site. So if it look like gibberish -- well, how would tnat be different than usual -- hang tight until tomorrow.

by Donald Sensing, 3/17/2005 11:19:00 PM. Permalink |   

I've set up a backup site
Until Jan. 1, 2003, I did not have an off-Blogger host. My Blogspot site is still there, but I changed its files' location months ago to my own server. Its address is http://www.donaldsensing.com/blogspot. Perhaps two years of posts have made it difficult, somehow, for Blogger to publish to the root directory of www.donaldsensing.com. But it's hard to put a lot of stock in this hypothesis since a number of other Blogger users have expressed the same difficulty as I.

Anyway, I have set up http://www.donaldsensing.com/blogspot as a backup to this site and have added a link to the masthead at the top of the page. Please do not change your Blogroll as donaldsensing.com remains the main site, which I am working to transfer to another blogging package.

by Donald Sensing, 3/17/2005 10:54:00 PM. Permalink |   

Why do we need legislatures?
Read Antonin Scalia's speech about Constitutional misuse by judges. It's all readworthy, but these excerpts are my target for now:

I am one of a small number of judges, small number of anybody: judges, professors, lawyers; who are known as originalists. Our manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people. ... I do believe however, that you give the text the meaning it had when it was adopted. ...

Although it is a minority view now, the reality is that not very long ago, originalism was orthodoxy. Everybody, at least purported to be an originalists. If you go back and read the commentaries on the Constitution by Joseph Story, he didn’t think the Constitution evolved or changed. He said it means and will always mean what it meant when it was adopted. ...

[He spends some time exposing the fallacies of interpreting the Constitution as a "living" document, then -]

If you believe however, that the Constitution is not a legal text, like the texts involved when judges reconcile or decide which of two statutes prevail, if you think the Constitution is some exhortation to give effect to the most fundamental values of the society as those values change from year to year. If you think that it is meant to reflect, as some of the Supreme Court cases say, particularly those involving the Eighth Amendment, if you think it is simply meant to reflect the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society, if that is what you think it is, then why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers? What do I know about the evolving standards of decency of American society? I’m afraid to ask.

If that is what you think the Constitution is, the Marbury v. Madison is wrong. It shouldn’t be up to the judges, it should be up to the legislature. We should have a system like the English. Whatever the legislature thinks is constitutional is constitutional. They know the evolving standards of American society, I don’t. So in principle, it’s incompatible with the legal regime that America has established.

I addressed this topic in my post, "Alice in Wonderland" judges - also with quotes from Scalia. Alice in Wonderland is, of course, a much more mature work than generally given credit, rather than the simple children's story it's now recalled to be. As I put it then,

Treating the various [state or federal] constitutions as living documents rather than directive documents brings our legal system into its own Alice in Wonderland, where power, not justice, is the point:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more or less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.'

If, as Scalia says is happening, judges can simply decide the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean, and overturn legislative acts or mandate new acts (as happened last year in Massachussetts), then why do we need legislatures at all? Lety us go all the way and submit ourselves to the fiat-rule of judges and be done with it.

See also commentary by James Joyner.

by Donald Sensing, 3/17/2005 10:11:00 PM. Permalink |   

Linkagery for 3-17-05

Brian Dunn, va Glenn Reynolds, says that China is preparing to invade Taiwan in 2008 or not long afterward. Chilling.

Joe Gandelman:

In early 1973, a few months before he died, my grandfather Abraham Ravinsky opened for the last time a old, yellowing, musty smelling photo album.

"You see this one, Joey?" he said, pointing to a picture of a child. "He was killed by Hitler."

Then he'd point to a group shot of family members, all wiped ot "by Hitler." This man who had survived the Czar's pogroms in Russia, and gotten to the U.S. right the Communists (who he hated) took power later learned that many of his beloved, left-behind relatives had been murdered by the Nazis or died in concentration camps. But his beloved wife Rose, and daughters Ruth, Anne and Helen were safe in the U.S. and he raised his family here.

There's more, read it all.

Candles that smell like Jesus !

The new and improved Friends of Democracy site is back.

Robert Hayes of Blogger News network, who lived in Iran in the days of the Shah, emails,

The uprisings we're getting wind of have the feel of revolution, not just discontent. I have an original analysis here.

Some good news from Afghanistan.

USMC vet links to a 188-photo slideshow from March 14's Lebanese Independence Demonstrations. "Straight form a Lebanese’s blog, up-close & personal pics…really give you a feel for it that rooftop AP/UPI/etc photos cannot."

"What's Special About This Number?" - interesting factoids about numbers for those interested in things arithmetical.

by Donald Sensing, 3/17/2005 09:45:00 PM. Permalink |   

Army returns to pre-eminence among the services
The US Army has returned to the status of the "first among equals" of the US armed forces. That according to Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D., Chief Operating Officer of the Lexington Institute Adjunct Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University. This is one of the four major trends in US defense posture. The other three:

* Transformation as envisioned four years ago is faltering, and it will continue yielding to emerging political and technological realities in the years ahead.

* The national-security space program is bankrupt, and new approaches to intelligence gathering will gradually eclipse it.

* More generally, the future of intelligence-gathering isn't what it used to be, and that means both opportunities and problems for those seeking business there.

All this from The Braden Files, which is one of the jewels of the 'sphere and needs a much wider readership than it enjoys.

by Donald Sensing, 3/17/2005 07:53:00 PM. Permalink |   

Marine news update
Sooner or later, all Marines go to Iraq

My Marine son, Stephen, arrived at Camp Lejeune last weekend after completing AAV training at Camp Pendleton. He has completed all his initial-entry training now and is assigned to A Co., 2nd AAV Battalion. All the other companies in his battalion are deployed.

His company will head to Twenty-Nine Palms in June for pre-deployment training for Iraq. He'll get two weeks off in August for leave, then head to The Rock in September.

Stephen called this week with a question posed by his squad leader, a corporal who had promised a day off to the first Marine who could explain why the Star of David appears on the dress swords carried by Marine NCOs.

I told Stephen I didn't know the answer, but my research assistant, Mr. Google, would. I found the answer on the US Naval Academy web site. The star is not actually the Star of David, though its design of interlocking triangles is the same (see here). It is the Star of Damascus, a 1,000-year-old symbol of an ancient guild of sword makers. The Damascus star today symbolized that the sword is made with steel conforming to the Damascus standard. So Stephen was the first with the answer but hasn't yet learned when he gets his day off.

by Donald Sensing, 3/17/2005 04:43:00 PM. Permalink |   

No avail
I have tried and tried to get Blogger to republish-all as required for WordPress to import its files. The content files are already on my server, of course, but the catch is that you have to substitute some specialized code for the Blogger template, then repub-all, then import.

No dice. Blogger either simply refuses to repub or it just grinds and grinds and grinds but never advances past 0% finished.

So I have switched the template back hoping that (1) this post will actually publish (I am not optimistic) and (2) when it does the page appearance will revert from the basic ASCII coding that my conversion attempts had made.

I'll try again to convert either eafly tomorrow or Saturday.

by Donald Sensing, 3/17/2005 04:13:00 PM. Permalink |   

Francisco Franco and Blogger are still dead
I have done everything required to transfer this blog to WordPress except export all files from Blogger. It simply will not do a successful repub with template changes required by WordPress. So far this morning I have received zero responsiveness for any task from Blogger, so I am highly pessimistic that this post will publish at all.

by Donald Sensing, 3/17/2005 06:38:00 AM. Permalink |   

Molasses in winter
It's getting so hard to post on Blogger that it's put a real crimp in my volume here. It takes forever for the posting page to load, and even longer for the post to actually get published. Half the time it doesn't publish at all, just drags for 10 minutes and then informs me there's an error while wiping the post's text out, thus:

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.

It has done this trying to upload this very post, so I'm not sure I'll ever get it published. When I backspace to the "create" page, my text is gone. Fortunately, I learned long ago always to copy and paste the final text into another document.

I don't host on Blogspot, but on Navmonkey.net. It's not the host's fault, it's Blogger. It is time for this blog to have another solution, but it sure won't happen until April, since I'm pretty busy between now and Easter.

Note: between the time I clicked to open the "create" page for this post and the time it opened was more than five minutes. Anyone else having this problem?

Update: I have now been trying to publish this post for the first time for more than 30 minutes. The thought occurs to me that one part of the problem is that this blog's archives have become very large - more than two years' worth. I also have a small, non-public blog that I use to post various communications for my Marine son. It publishes with no problems. So maybe my blog is just now too large for Blogger to handle well. Just guessing here.

... Now it's been 40 minutes plus.

by Donald Sensing, 3/15/2005 01:44:00 PM. Permalink |   

Molasses in winter

It's getting so hard to post on Blogger that it's put a real crimp in my
volume here. It takes forever for the posting page to load, and even longer
for the post to actually get published. Half the time it doesn't publish at
all, just drags for 10 minutes and then informs me there's an error while
wiping the post's text out, thus:

The page cannot be displayed

The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be
experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser
settings.

It has done this trying to upload this very post, so
I'm not sure I'll ever get it published. When I backspace to the "create"
page, my text is gone. Fortunately, I learned long ago always to copy and
paste the final text into another document.

I don't host on Blogspot, but on Navmonkey.net. It's not the host's fault,
it's Blogger. It is time for this blog to have another solution, but it sure
won't happen until April, since I'm pretty busy between now and Easter.

Note: between the time I clicked to open the "create" page for this post and
the time it opened was more than five minutes. Anyone else having this
problem?

Update: I have now been trying to publish this post for the
first time for more than 30 minutes. The thought occurs to me that one part
of the problem is that this blog's archives have become very large - more
than two years' worth. I also have a small, non-public blog that I use to
post various communications for my Marine son. It publishes with no
problems. So maybe my blog is just now too large for Blogger to handle well.
Just guessing here.

by Donald Sensing, 3/14/2005 01:31:00 PM. Permalink |   

Well, this just stinks
.

Number three-ranked Wake Forest just got treated like a rag by NC State, who mopped up the floor with the beleagured Deacs in tonight's ACC Tourney game.

Wake is my undergrad alma mater, enjoying one of its best seasons ever. It started the season ranked no. 1 and held it until shortly after the NIT Preseason tournament.

Wake was playing without Chris Paul, who was sitting out a one-game suspension imposed by Deacs Coach Skip Prosser for striking an NC State player in the groin in their season-ending matchup five days ago. It was an expensive blow, for tonight the Deacs never seriously challenged the Wolfpack and spent the last quarter of the game being outplayed at every turn. It didn't help that Wake's charity stripe percentage was pathetic, at one point only six of 15.

Earlier today, no. 2 UNC survived a hard-charging unranked Clemson team to advance. Clemson has already knocked over defending ACC Tourney champ Maryland and led UNC by 13 with only about seven minutes to go. But the Heels pulled it together to surpass Clemson by seven by the buzzer.

Next up tonight, no. 5 Duke tackles Virginia. I'm gonna go waaaay out on a limb here and predict that Sheshefski's boys will advance.

by Donald Sensing, 3/11/2005 08:08:00 PM. Permalink |   

Well, this is a new one
A man shot by police after (allegedly) lunging at them with a knife is suing the police for shooting him three times instead of two.

Plaintiff William Tolway's suit says that he was "under control" after being hit the second time and that additonal shots, one of which also struck him, were "unlawful."

The case law on police use of firearms, especially in self defense, is so well established that this case doesn't have a chance. If one wonders why police aren't using non-lethal technologies like tasers more to subdue suspects, it's because there is very little case law for those devices. The lawsuit environment is wide open for claims of collateral injuries. Most departments just don't have the money to defend such a suit or train all their officers on the new stuff. And officers are understandably wary of literally putting the lives on the line for a newfangled geegaw that has little or no track record in the real-crime environment.

by Donald Sensing, 3/11/2005 05:40:00 PM. Permalink |   

UAW vs. USMC
Support the troops? Nope, not the UAW. There's a Chevy van in my driveway, but this kind of UAW stunt almost makes me decide never to buy an "American" automobile again.

Speaking of cars, I am reminded of the bumper sticker which read, "If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it's in English, thank a soldier."

The moral vacuity of this UAW chapter beggars belief in a time when Marines are fighting and some dying to defend the American political and social system that makes the existence of unions possible. I don't recall that unions were organizing and collective bargaining in Talibania, which we now know as the free and democratic Afghanistan.

Update: It seems that certain bumper stickers cause all sorts of people to go bananas.

Update: Blackfive reports that national UAW President Ron Gettelfinger is a former Marine. Gettelfinger called the Marine commander and told him that he just reversed the policy.

by Donald Sensing, 3/11/2005 02:50:00 PM. Permalink |   

What can bring Red and Blue together?
The online petition to the FEC about it upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking governign political activity on the internet.

When diverse sponsors such as Morra Aarons of JohnKerry.com and FoxNews analyst Michelle Malkin are there, it's worth looking at. I signed on this morning. If you blog, you should, too. And if you don't blog, you should sign anyway: these rights are your rights as well as anyone else's. If the government usurps them from bloggers, they are usurping them from non-bloggers. Our free speech rights are the common birthright of all Americans.

So go sign!

by Donald Sensing, 3/11/2005 11:23:00 AM. Permalink |   

New firepower
"Ciao" finally to be said to Signor Beretta's lousy pistol?

Fred Ray of Asheville, NC emails of "some very cool stuff in the pipeline" for our troops. It seems the move among the battle-experienced military is back to larger-caliber firearms. Says Fred, "Special Operations Command is going back to large-caliber bullets for knockdown power, and sharpshooters and DMs are using the M-14, and the army is looking at the 6.8mm" round for its next infantry rifle, up from the M16-series' 5.56mm bullet.

In fact, according to Armed Forces Journal, combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have pronounced the 5.56mm round so worthless that they are pushing the next standard rifle, the still-in-development XM-8, to be upgunned to a 6.8mm.

But even before the Army orders its first batch of XM-8s, soldiers and Marines are voicing concerns over these prospective standard-issue weapons. It's not that the XM-8 won't be a quantum improvement over the M16 - AFJ shooters had nothing but high praise for the new weapon's design and dependability during a test-firing opportunity earlier this year, and preliminary reports from Army tests bear out their impressions.

The basic problem with the XM-8 is the same shortcoming plaguing M-4s and M-16 variants, particularly those with barrels shorter than 20 inches. The anemic 5.56mm round, which was well-suited for the close-in engagements that typified firefights in Vietnam, lacks the stopping power needed at longer ranges and against an enemy that has recently discovered the benefits of body armor.

In response, members of the U.S. special operations community began experimenting with a larger bullet - a 6.8-by-43mm round. Along with the work of industry backers, their efforts attracted the attention and support of weapons developers at U.S. Special Operations Command (SoCom). So it should come as no surprise that XM-8 manufacturer Heckler & Koch is ready to produce M-8s designed to fire that round (or something other than the 5.56) if that's what the Army or SoCom wants.

The Beretta M9, 9mm pistol is also universally reviled among infantrymen.

But the military's quest for increased stopping power isn't limited to assault weapons. Standard-issue 9mm Beretta pistols also are in disfavor. Users report a broad range of reliability problems with those sidearms, which entered service in 1987. Some of the problems are undoubtedly the result of years of wear and tear, but there also are strong feelings within the military's ranks that a 124-grain 9mm slug just isn't up to the demands of modern combat. That's why SoCom, the Army and the Marine Corps all are flirting with various types of .45-caliber pistols; the much heavier (185-230 grain) .45 ACP slug is renowned for its knockdown punch.

I have long denounced the 9mm pistol, starting from the day they took away my M1911A1, .45 ACP pistol. I wrote last year of an incident that proved its worthlessness in battle:

More proof that the Beretta M9 automatic pistol that is the standard issue to American troops, firing NATO-standard 9mm ball round, is almost as much of a threat to our own troops as to the fedayeen enemy:

In another incident, one of my guys got hit (luckily, in the plate of the vest he was wearing) with a 9X19 pistol round at close range. He immediately returned fire with his M9 (issue 9X19 hardball) and hit the guy five times close to the body midline. All hits were above the waist: one in neck. The bad guy was still able to close the distance, grab my guy, and try to choke him. MP came up and pumped two 12ga rounds (00Bk) into the bad guy him at pointblank range. That finally ended the fight.

For auto combat pistols there is no peer of the .45-caliber ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) for knockdown power. There is only one handgun superior to it, the .357-magnum, but this is a revolver round and the Army gave up issuing revolvers about 100 years ago; handling them is too unwieldy in battle. ...

I used to tell my troops that they would not need their weapons until they needed them real bad. This is urgently true with a handgun because that means the enemy is very close. Pistols are practically a principal weapon in urban fighting because they can be pointed more quickly than any other firearm. Close range gunfighters require maximum lethality to be standing at the end of the fight.

The 9mm just does not cut it. The Army should buy new .45 pistols (there being many models more modern than the old M1911A1) and re-adopt it as the standard sidearm.

I haven't changed my mind.

by Donald Sensing, 3/11/2005 10:26:00 AM. Permalink |   

The Apocalypse upon us?
So asks the famously right-wing John Hawkins of, what else, Right Wing News:

Some of you may have noticed my new advertiser: the United Nations Foundation. Now, I must admit, it seems very odd to me that the UN is advertising on RWN. In fact, it's kind of like the KKK buying an ad at the ADL website. You know -- who would imagine it? But, I am a capitalist and since my taxes are used in part to pay UN dues, I figure I'm getting at least $65 of my own money back by selling them an ad.

Now some of you may be wondering: Hawkins, are you going to be as hard on the UN now that they're buying advertising from you?

Well -- the truth is, folks, they are an advertiser, so I need to show them a little deference and ease up.

Yah, shoor, John, I can tell from the rest of your post that you're "easing up."

BTW, the same outfit bought an ad on my site (see left) also. Unlike John, I rarely write about the UN, so I don't have near the ethical dilemma he does. Or doesn't.

by Donald Sensing, 3/11/2005 10:21:00 AM. Permalink |   

Whom does the First Amendment serve?
According to the results of this poll, most journalists think that the First Amendment to the US Constitution exists to serve journalists rather than all Americans. The online poll, posted by JournalismJobs.com, shows that more than half of the respondents (who can be safely assumed to be mostly journalists) think that blogers should not enjoy the same legal protections as journalists.

In fact, no one can define what a journlist is because no one can define what journalism is. Unlike the professions of law or medicine, for example, there is no distinctive training or education required to be a reporter (what "journalists" used to be called because that's all they actually do) and there is no mandatory licensing process. Individual news outlets may have internal requirements for education or credentials, but there is no industry-wide standard as there is for nearly every other profession.

Journalism is not really a profession at all. It is a craft or a vocation, but not a profession. The myth that journalism is a distinctive profession was pondered by Mediachannel.org, which asked the question, "What is a journalist?" and answered thus:

Most mainstream journalists don't acknowledge how their own ideologies (or the pressures of their employers) guide their work. Yet they are considered "real journalists" because of their insider status and where they stand in the pecking order of some media combine. However, note that in a world of so many diverse publications, multimedia outlets and Web sites, more and more people are defining themselves as journalists and in some instances even reinventing aspects of journalism, as with the Indy Media Centers. Outsiders have always fought to be recognized and validated. The late I. F. Stone, for one, virtually alone, went after the U.S. government's Vietnam polices with a small newsletter. History now considers him a media hero. A new Indian website is battling corruption by exposing it. "Private Eye," a satirical magazine in London, has long been an outlet for unsourced, anonymous insider dish 'n' dirt on the media business. It's not traditional "balanced" reporting but most journalists read it and love it. There are many more such examples.

Trying to hijack the First Amendment to gain special protections of one poorly-definable class of employment is, as Bill Hobbs - a former newspaper reporter turned blogger - observes, not the way to gain friends among the American people.

American journalists have lost the respect of the American people over the past two decades. Telling millions of Americans who blog - and the millions more who will be blogging soon - that the First Amendment is the exclusive preserve of journalists hardly seems a way to get it back.

I doubt it will sink in, though. I wrote a lot more about this here.

by Donald Sensing, 3/11/2005 10:01:00 AM. Permalink |   

Richard Nixon, Dan Rather and more Richard Nixon
They say great minds think alike, but do cartoonists have great minds? They sure seem to think alike - check out this collection of editorial cartoons on Dan Rather's departure. Some consistent themery throughout, wouldn't you say?

BTW, I just made up the word "themery," and I like it, sort of like "strategery." You have my permission to use it.

by Donald Sensing, 3/11/2005 09:55:00 AM. Permalink |   

Brit C-130 was downed by SAM, terrorist video now said authentic
I posted video grabs on Jan 31 of a terrorist video purporting to show a surface-to-air missile (SAM) being launched at a distant British C-130 cargo plane, then the subsequent crash and wreckage.

At the time the video was said by "experts" to have been substantially faked. But now the British Ministry of Defense has concluded,

A missile fired by insurgents from the ground probably destroyed an RAF Hercules C-130 cargo plane in Iraq with the loss of 10 British special operations servicemen, an interim report by Ministry of Defence accident investigators has revealed. ...

The board of inquiry ruled out the possibility that the Hercules, which was supplying a special-operations base north of Baghdad, was blown up by an on-board bomb or an explosion caused by an accident with bombs or ammunition on board. ...

In a written Commons statement yesterday, Mr Hoon said the inquiry team had ruled out a number of possibilities. "These are bird strike, lightning strike, mid-air collision, controlled flight into the ground, wire-obstacle strike, restriction in the aircraft's flying controls, cargo explosion, engine fire, sabotage (including the use of an improvised explosive device) and aircraft fatigue."

The implications were so serious that MoD sources refused to confirm the altitude at which the Hercules was flying when it was brought down. ...

A video said to show footage of an insurgent firing two missiles and the plane crashing was shown on al-Jazeera television, but was thought to be faked. The findings suggest the MoD's fears have been realised and it depicted a real strike, even if it had been re-enacted. ...

Nine RAF members and one Army SAS soldier died in the attack.

by Donald Sensing, 3/9/2005 07:55:00 AM. Permalink |   

Linkagery for 3-9-05

Steven Den Beste has finally answered the question, "What is the sound of One Hand Clapping?"

I have received emails from time to time asking why I, a Methodist minister, named my site after the classic Buddhist riddle. Here's why, but the answer Steven's link gives to the question is different than the answer I had in mind when I named the site. Hint: the answer I had in mind was, "It is the sound of silence."

Who's afraid of democracy? These guys.

Katharine Ham emails a link to "a new kid on the think tank block. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research debuted its Web site this week. TCPR is part of State Policy Network, and its president is Drew Johnson, a former policy analyst for the National Taxpayers Union and American Enterprise Institute."

Joseph Braude writes in TNR of "Climate Change: Why the Internet will change Arab politics--and how it already has."

Ever wonder how guided missiles are guided? This 90-second training tape makes it crystal clear! Really!

Henry Copeland, aka "Mr. Blogad," has some commentary about "the ad the networks don't want you to see," which is running here at the top left. The ad is from the United Church of Christ. Says Henry,

Though we work with a growing list of religious blogs, both Christian and Jewish, this is, as far as I know, the first time a church has bought blogads. (This is also the first time I've seen a blog post written about a major blogad buy by the buyer.)

The blogads are part of the church's attempt to end-run the TV networks who have rejected the church's ad.

Henry also posted to the UCC's own site.

The Army Times has a short list of military bloggers.

Prof. Norman Geras continues to explain the Iraq War in a five-part series well worth the long time it will take to read.

Speaking of the collateral effects of the Iraq war, teh UK Independent asks, "Was Bush right after all?" and lists the democratic changes stirring in the Middle East.

by Donald Sensing, 3/9/2005 07:45:00 AM. Permalink |   

No, I haven't dropped off the earth
Other duties have pulled me away from blogging for the past few days. The rest of the week looks pretty crammed, too, so posting will be light probably until Monday 3/14.

Thanks to all who left comments or emailed about camera matters. I carefully consider all your advice. Now, if you'd all only agree with each other . . . .

And btw, Blogger is getting worse every day in responsiveness and speed. As I write this line, I have been trying to get this posted uploaded for more than 20 minutes. That's had some to do with less posting, too.

by Donald Sensing, 3/8/2005 10:18:00 PM. Permalink |   

Remember Rule Number 6!
"Don't take yourself so darned seriously!"

by Donald Sensing, 3/8/2005 06:22:00 PM. Permalink |   

Digicam distress redux
I posted last week about buying a new digital camera for a trip later in the spring. At the time I wanted a reasonably high resolution digital camera with full-motion video capability and SD card storage.

Since then I've gone blind reading about all the models that kind readers left comments about, as well as a lot of other research. My conclusions are thus:

If it's video I want, then it's a video camera I need. The memory requirements for decent video onto an SD are daunting. If I want to come home with more than mere minutes of video, then I need to use a real video camera. I have a very good VHS-C camera, but the thought of lugging it around the islands makes my head hurt.

So my first decision is to buy a digital video camera. As of today, my preference is the Canon ZR200.

That doesn't solve the still-picture problem, though. For stills, I could continue to use my Kodak 2.0MP cam with 3X optical zoom and SD storage. In fact, I bought just today a new 512MB SD card for $29 after rebate and instant savings. On a 2MP cam, that card alone will store about 600 shots.

But I'd like higher quality photos than 2MP. Yet it makes no financial sense to spend $300-plus to get another digital camera with nothing but more resolution. Three-X is still the most common optical zoom out there. There are a number of higher zoom factors coming along now. The Canon S1 IS has 10X and is image stabilized, no less. Lumix also offers high zoom, and so does Kodak, for than matter.

Yet one thing I learned in all this research: TANSTAAFL. Improved performance in one area of these cameras means there was a tradeoff somewhere else. Typically, reviews of these cameras point out that the low-light performance is not very good. Most of my photos are made indoors, which means in low light (it's a complaint I'd offer about my Kodak, too). Since I have to live with the camera after this vacation, I need one that makes it easy to live with.

So my decision is to be retro and revert back to 35mm photography:

. . .

Nikon N75, Minolta Maxxum 70

I will purchase either a Nikon N75 or a Minolta Maxxum 70. The former can be easily had with a 28-80mm zoom and the latter with a 28-100mm zoom. MSRP on the Nikon is much higher than the Minolta but there is a Nikon rebate on and the street prices are much lower than MSRP.

I have had two Minoltas for more than 20 years that I bought new. My first was an XG-1 and the second an X-700. The X-700 was one of the first program cameras on the market, IIRC. You had only to set the film speed and focus; the camera set the aperture and shutter. But it didn't have "modes" as modern cameras do. All it would do is meter the light without regard whether you were shooting in a museum or a mountaintop.

I used the X-700 all through my assignment in Germany and in some deployments I made. It was no lightweight, but it was built like an Abrams tank. It was so highly regarded, in fact, that Minolta continued to sell them until 2001. It was a great camera for its time but the modern day offers much more capable cameras for not a lot of money.

One reason I decided to revert to 35mm is that the resolution, color faithfulness and versatility of film still outmatches digital cams. I know someone out there will take issue with this, but I stand my ground. I admit that in resolution, digital cams are catching up. But in camera versatility and color reproduction, they still lag significantly. (Note for record: I did not shop or research any digital SLRs. "No tengo el dinero, senor.")

If there is a scene or situation for which I want the immediate gratification of digital shot, well, I still have the Kodak.

by Donald Sensing, 3/7/2005 02:47:00 PM. Permalink |   

Rubber dog carcasses
What are they used for?

Among the examples of the new realism in training: At Fort Polk, rubber dog carcasses are positioned around the mock villages to simulate a common method insurgents use to hide bombs.

There are a lot of changes in the Army's basic training, the first training all Army recruits undergo. The linked article says there is much more weapons training and more live firing. The live firing is Iraq-oriented, with moving targets and ambush targets that must be engaged with angry iron.

The Army has begun using "live fire" drills at Fort Jackson, S.C., its largest basic training post, to teach recruits how to survive ambushes on convoys and to counterattack guerrilla fighters. In the new exercises, recruits ride in open-air, 5-ton trucks and fire live ammunition at pneumatic pop-up targets. In most basic training before now, troops shot only at stationary targets on a firing range. The Army will expand the drills to all five of its basic training bases by spring.

I trained recruits at Ft Jackson in the early 80s, and the recuits then didn't get to shoot nearly this much, and what shooting they did was much more "set piece" than this.

There's more:

The Army has transformed Fort Polk, La., into a simulation of Iraq, converting 18 training sites there into replicas of Middle Eastern towns and villages. It has contracted with hundreds of Iraqi-Americans to portray insurgents, police and religious leaders in combat exercises. The role players are a mix of Arabic-speaking Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds from Houston, Detroit and Washington.

I wobnder whether the tensions these Iraqi groups have with each other in Iraq are found among the expatriates role-playing in La.?

The article doesn't say much about such changes to Marine boot camp, but does mention that Iraq-bound Marines get specialized combat training. As for Marine boot camp, it has always been oriented significantly toward forming recruits into the Marine culture, which is not very war specific. So my guess is that the Iraq-specific training of the type Army recruits are now getting is not done so much in Marine boot camp as later along

by Donald Sensing, 3/4/2005 08:53:00 PM. Permalink |   

Too great to believe in?
Is the Gospel of Christ too great even for Christians to believe in?

Consider John's story of the woman at the well, retold for today's world (you can't imagine how - click here).

Here is one conservative Christian's reaction. What's yours?

by Donald Sensing, 3/4/2005 06:47:00 PM. Permalink |   

Short!
One Hand Clapping's Camp Pendleton correspondent, Pfc. Stephen Sensing, returned from a week of field firing training at the Amphinious Assault Vehicle School this afternoon and emailed me this pic via his cell phone.

This is the classic "I'm short" pose that's been been around since Achilles slew Hector outside the walls of Troy. For the uninitiated, it means that you have only a little time left before being transferred to another post or base - you are a "short timer," hence from the top of your boots to your chin is no distance at all.

Stephen departs Pendleton one week from today for his permanent assignment to Camp Lejeune, NC. We won't get to see him en route, but he will spend the weekend with his grandfather in Durham, and his uncle will take him to Lejeune on Monday week to report in.

Semper Fi, son!

by Donald Sensing, 3/4/2005 06:26:00 PM. Permalink |   

AWOL?
Sorry for the light posting - I have not been home much, and when I am I am pretty busy taking care of Other and Third Hand Clapping, who are now both sick (my wife is doing better, though).

And off again shortly; back online tonight, I hope.

by Donald Sensing, 3/3/2005 05:55:00 PM. Permalink |   

Digicam distress
I want a new digital camera for a trip to Hawaii that Other Hand Clapping and I will take in late spring to celebrate our 25th anniversary. I already have a Kodak 2.0MP model that I bought in November 2003. I like it, but its resolution is too low for me now and it's too bulky to slip comfortably into a pocket.

Here's the features I want:

3.0 - 4.0 megapixels. I don't see the need for 5 MP or more, since I have never had a print made of the size the high MP rates support.

Video with sound is a must, perferably 30 fps, but not leess than 15 fps.

Fast shutter-release time after pressing the button - the lag on my Kodak drives me nuts.

SD card expansion - I already use SD cards and I don't want to juggle other media.

AA batteries strongly preferred, as I already use rechargeable AA batts for the Kodak.

I have been examining the web sites of Nikon and Canon. Both brands habe stout adherents. When I was a hobby film photographer, I used Minoltas, but their digicams underwhelm me. Pentax seems to have a rep as a flimsy camera, and Olympus uses XD cards. HP's cameras' TFT screens seem to have a rep as breaking very easily. So it's almost certainly either a Canon or Nikon.

The Nikon Coolpix 3700 is a year old now (maybe more) but has received strong reviews and user evals all along. Nikon is probably phasing it out, since there is a $100 rebate for the camera. I have read much more about Nikons than Canons, so if anyone has words of wisdom about the relative merits, please leave a comment (not email, please). (And please don't try to talk me into an SLR or high-res P&S;, it ain't gonna happen. As Jose Jimenez once said, "No tengo el dinero, senor.")

BTW, Amazon has a page that indicates how many pix at different resolutions SD cards of various sizes can store. Obviously, you can never have too much memory. I read somewhere awhile back that digital photographers would be wise not to use one or two large-capacity SD cards, but a number of smaller-capacity cards, since cameras have been known to eat cards. It's never happened to me, though.

And here's a page with links to some digicam review sites. Pbase.com has photos posted from different cameras that enable one to compare.

by Donald Sensing, 3/2/2005 04:53:00 PM. Permalink |   

Free Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream
Today only, Baskin-Robbins and Yahoo have teamed up to celebrate Yahoo's 10th birthday. You can get a coupon for a free scoop of B-R ice cream - today only.

by Donald Sensing, 3/2/2005 02:22:00 PM. Permalink |   

Celebrating 25 years
If you ever get the chance not to be married in a blizzard, take it.

Twenty-five years ago this afternoon I gave myself in marriage to the former Catherine Elizabeth Stephens of Durham, NC. Saturday, March 1, 1980 was a day to remember for more than one reason - the temperatures the whole last week of February had been in the 60s, but during the night of Feb. 29 the mercury nosedived. At 10 a.m. the first I was having breakfast with my best man, my younger brother, Will. It began snowing as we ate.

Our wedding was scheduled for 3 p.m. We delayed it 15-20 minutes to give people more time to make the trip through the four or five inches that had fallen. A lot of folks wisely opted to stay home, but we still had a pretty good crowd. Fortunately, the reception was held in the church, too. We had the world's fastest reception as guests jammed a piece of cake down their throats, gulped some punch, kissed the bride, shook my hand and zipped out the door, where the storm had never abated.

My car was untouched because, it was later reported to me, when my "friends" went outside to "decorate" it, their shaving cream froze. So did they, making them abandon this time-hallowed wedding day tradition.

I had intended to drive to Savannah after the wedding, but had quickly discarded that idea when the snow started falling. I spent a little while on the phone getting reservations at a local hotel right after breakfast. So I drove my new bride there after leaving the church.

We checked in and dropped out luggage in our suite. Since it was about 5:30 we decided to go on and have dinner. So we went back downstairs and crossed the lobby to the restaurant. We had a modest dinner and watched the blizzard wail outside. When we stepped back into the lobby we discovered it was absolutely packed with people. The RDU airport had been shut down by the storm and all the people were seeking rooms because their flights had been canceled.

Directly ahead of us were my older brother, Andy, and his wife and some other out-of-towners from the wedding. They didn't know we were there, it was fate. Mustering all my military training, I determined that we would have to infiltrate back to the elevators across the lobby. We almost made it. Andy espied us and called to us. Rather stupidly, we went over, where he informed me that if there were no more rooms by the time he and Suzanne got to the desk, they were going to crash with us.

He was joking, of course (well, I think so) but even so, I related to my dear brother in extremely unambiguous terms exactly what I thought of that idea. But no worries anyway, for they did get a room. Cathy and I wound up going to their room and playing cards for awhile before retiring for the evening.

The snow continued to fall and fall. We didn't even try to venture out on Sunday. The snow finally abated midday Sunday after dropping 11-12 inches and the skies cleared. The airport reopened and all those people got out of my hotel. Monday I dug my car from the blown snow and we decided to bag Savannah and head for New Orleans, where we had a great time.

Now why, you may ask, am I sitting here writing about this on the very night of my 25th anniversary? Because life goes on and sometimes life intrudes into other plans. Cathy unfortunately came down extremely ill the night before last with a virus that's making its miserable way around these parts. She has been bedridden for two days, sick as a dog.

So for our 25th anniversary I took her some soup and gave her some medicine and prayed for her health. We're long past the time when we're disappointed we cannot "celebrate" the night by going to a nice restaurant and exchanging gifts and having private times. After 25 years, to minister to her in sickness, not just health, is a form of celebration. She is sleeping now. Simply to be there and give her care is, somehow, a fitting commemoration of this Silver Anniversary. For really, all we can give one another is our love and charity, and what better time than this day?

In the name of God,
I, Donald, take you, Catherine, to be my wife,
to have and to hold
from this day forward,
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
until we are parted by death.
This is my solemn vow.

That's what I said 25 years ago today. I meant it then, I mean it now, and when my love is well I will so vow to her again.

by Donald Sensing, 3/1/2005 10:04:00 PM. Permalink |   

My eyes have had it
I have no idea why this has occurred, but about a week ago I noticed that my vision was blurrier. Normally, this would mean I needed a new eye exam and new eyeglasses. I've worn eyeglasses since 2000 (maybe 1999, I don't recall) and had started using reading glasses a couple of years before.

But I just got a new prescription on Jan. 7, and my new eyeglasses were delivered a couple of weeks later. Why, all of a sudden, was my vision blurry through them when my vision had been crystal sharp using them since they had arrived?

The mystery deepens: my distance vision, blurred and astigmatic before I got glasses years ago (which is why I got them, of course) has been restored. Now anything more than a few feet away is in fine focus. I have reverted to using reading glasses for close-in work (at +2.0 power, I'm afraid) but for just getting around, I have stopped using or needing glasses altogether. 'Tis a mystery.

by Donald Sensing, 3/1/2005 07:47:00 PM. Permalink |   

Iwo Jima and Iraq - how similar?
Re-examining Iwo Jima - was the battle unnecessary?

Glenn Reynolds links to Stephen Green's essay comparing and contrasting the battle for Iwo Jima with the war in Iraq. Overall, it's a pretty good essay and made me re-examine some aspects of the battle.

Stephen correctly observes that when the attack on Iwo was planned, none of the planners knew about the Manhattan Project and so thought the war would end only after Japan was invaded and subdued, which they thought would take well into 1946. The invasion was scheduled for the fall of 1945.

Stephen says the entire rationale for invading Iwo was to provide an emergency landing strip for B-29s returning from bombing mission over Japan. This is a widely-accepted view, and one that until I re-studied the history, one that I held myself. Yet according to Robert S Burrell. writing in "The Journal of Military History," Oct. 2004 (text here), pre-invasion planners never considered the idea of using Iwo as am emergency strip.

Stephen recounts the horrific casualties the Marines suffered taking Iwo Jima, especially the 6,821 killed. Then he says that "Iwo ended up as a net loss" of lives killed in action versus aircrew lives saved.

One account of the battle says that by the war's end the strip had saved the lives of 30,000 airmen, more men than were killed and wounded taking the island. In fairness, the 30K figure is the high estimate, based on the fact that 11 men crewed a B-29 and no one knows for certain how many bombers landed there. A lower estimate is that 2,220 bombers landed, making the number of airmen saved about 24,420. Either way, it's more than the number of Marines who died taking the island.

One of the repulsive things (of many) about war is the sanguinary calculus like that of comparing the number of Marines who died with the number of airmen saved and then trying to answer, was it worth it. Would the families of the Marines say yes, and would the airmen say no?

Be that as it may, Burrell's article about the battle makes me doubt that Iwo Jima was invaded to provide an emergency bomber strip. That it turned out to be one was a happy bonus to the island's seizure. Seizing the sirstrip was indeed the objective (there was nothing else of interest on the island) but it's intended use was principally not as an emergency base for Superfortresses but as a base for American long-range fighters to escort B-29s over Japan.

But fighter operations the Army Air Force had envisioned for Iwo Jima never panned out. Iwo Jima was about 750 miles from the main Japanese island of Honshu, where most B-29 targets were. A round-trip mission from Iwo was thus 1,500 miles. Theoretically, a P-51D Mustang could fly 2,000 miles unrefueled, but in practice from Iwo such ranges were mostly unobtainable because of air maneuvering over Japan and the fact that winds to and from Japan were often extremely strong, requiring fuel use that the fighters couldn't spare. In fact, a number of fighters were lost from weather alone. As well, the P-51 had primitive navigation equipment, even for its day, making the fighters' ability to link up with the bombers difficult and fuel consuming.

One of the greatest limiting factors of fighter escorts from Iwo was the human factor. The B-29 was heated and pressurized. Compared to the unheated, unpressurized P-51, the bomber crews sat in secure comfort. The punishment on the fighter pilots' bodies was compounded by the extremely high altutudes they flew to escort the bombers, usually more than 30,000 feet. This was several thousand feet higher than fighter pilots flew in Europe, escorting B-17 and B-24 bombers. The round trip from Iwo to Japan and back was nine hours, most of which was spent in a physically battered state.

A grand total of only 10 escort missions were flown from Iwo Jima before the whole idea was scrapped. And yet fighter escort was practically the sole reason the Marines were sent to take the island.

It can be argued - and has, by some historians - that the "emergency airfield" rationale for invading Iwo Jima was post-war rationalization for the attack. The first bomber to use Iwo Jima did make an emergency landing while the battle still raged. Newsreel crews filmed the landing, servicing and subsequent takeoff of the bomber, and these reels, shown in stateside theaters, did more than anything else to cement the notion that Iwo Jima was invaded just for that purpose. But the pre-invasion planning documents don't address this facet.

There is also the fact that of the 2,000-plus bombers that landed on Iwo, probably only a small minority were making actual lifesaving landings. So the figure of 24K-30K airmen "saved" is suspect to begin with. Most of the bomber landings on Iwo were made during training flights, scheduled refuelings or to await the passing of bad weather over the target in Japan. Of the true emergency landings, there can be little doubt that a large number of the planes would have made it back to Marianas, since the B-29 could fly with only two engines running, even if the engines were on the same wing.

So was the invasion of Iwo Jima actually necessary? Burrell says no, and documents why all the explanations for its necessity don't hold up.

That makes Stephen Green's thesis harder to uphold:

We went into Iwo Jima for one reason, but got multiple benefits for doing so.

Set aside that the "one reason" for the invasion - emergency landing strip - wasn't the actual reason. There were in fact very few benefits otherwise for seizing the island. Its utility as a fighter base and bomber staging area was very limited and turned out to be superfluous to the rest of the war.

But Stephen says of the invasion of Iraq,

We went into Iraq hoping to bring revolutionary change to the Arab people, who have suffered under odious regimes.

Reading the news this week, it looks like our efforts in Iraq are paying off.

It does look like that, indeed, but I think the Iwo Jima comparison is rather suspect.

Endnote: Stephen also says that "Iwo Jima helped teach us how to deal with kamikazes." Well, no, that was Okinawa.

by Donald Sensing, 3/1/2005 05:31:00 PM. Permalink |