Gravity http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/ http://rpc.technorati.com/rpc/ping Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:52:48 +0200 http://www.blog.ca en 1.0 http://www.blog.ca http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/ 3D Map Of The Galaxy http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/07/13/3d-map-of-the-galaxy-20657153/ Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:26:01 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>One Billion Stars, 30,000 Light Years, And Petabytes Of Data John Foley A mission by the European Space Agency to measure and map the Milky Way promises to give astronomers a precise, detailed, and three-dimensional view of our galaxy. The five-year project will generate more than a petabyte of data on the makeup, position, motion, and other characteristics of a billion stars. The European Space Agency (ESA) launched its data-collecting satellite—equipped with two telescopes, photon detectors, video processing unit, Sun shield, and other instruments—on December 19. In early January, the satellite, called Gaia, arrived at a point in space 1.5 million kilometers from Earth known as “L2,” from which it will carry out its surveillance of the Galaxy. Gaia will measure the spectra and light intensity of stars and determine their velocity using distances and motions. It will look for planets (by detecting “tiny wobbles” in a host star’s position), exploding stars, failed stars known as brown dwarfs, asteroids, comets, and “Planet X,” a hypothetical tenth planet in our solar system. In doing so, ESA’s satellite will generate huge volumes of data. “It will single handedly increase the data we possess about where stars are located in space by thousands of times compared to all previous such measurements in history,” writes the Boston Globe. The Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium, a group of more than 400 scientists at institutions across Europe, will use the data to study the solar system, galactic astronomy, cosmology, and more. “The data processing ground segment is a fundamental element of the mission,” according to ESA. The astrometry data collected by Gaia will augment scientific observations made by powerful ground-based telescopes. The University of Cambridge’s Institute of Astronomy recently reported that new evidence shows that older stars are in the inner regions of the Milky Way and younger stars in the outer regions, lending support to theories that “our galaxy grew from the inside-out.” The Italian National Institute of Astrophysics (Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, INAF), with the support of the Italian Space Agency (ASI), is using Oracle ORCL +1.07% Database and Oracle Enterprise Manager to support this research. INAF is responsible for managing the astronomical data generated by the satellite, which will be stored at the Italian Data Processing Center. How much data are we talking about? The mission is expected to perform 100 billion elementary observations, resulting in a petabyte (a thousand terabytes) of data. INAF and ALTEC—which supplies engineering and logistic services to the International Space Station and operates the Italian Data Processing Center—have developed a technology infrastructure based on three instances of Oracle Database (for development, production and archiving) for the mission. INAF is using Oracle Advanced Compression to squeeze all that data to manageable sizes and to lower costs and shorten backup times. “Our activity within the Gaia mission will provide a huge volume of information, a very precious heritage of astronomical data that will have to be stored for the whole 21st century and beyond,” said Roberto Morbidelli (INAF), Scientific Operation Manager at the Italian Data Processing Center. Xavier Verhaeghe, Vice President of Technology and Big Data with Oracle EMEA, said the INAF’s choice of Oracle’s platform will demonstrate the feasibility of managing petabytes of data. That’s an important proof point as more organizations move in the direction of such massive data stores. (For more on the trend toward supersize databases, see “As Big Data Explodes, Are You Ready For Yottabytes?”) 3D Map Of The Galaxy Even with the vast scope of this mission—mapping a billion stars over five years—Gaia is only scratching the surface of what’s out there. The Milky Way contains more than 100 billion stars. Gaia stands for Global Astrometric Interferometer for Astrophysics, reflecting a design decision early in the project to use a single wave-measuring interferometer. As it turns out, ESA didn’t actually use that technique, but the name stuck. The satellite will record the position, brightness, and color of every “celestial object” within view. In fact, it will measure them repeatedly. That way, astronomers will be able to calculate the distance, speed, and direction of motion of the objects and chart variations in their brightness. You may need to get out a physics textbook to fully grasp other aspects of the mission. Gaia will allow for the testing of Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, the space-time continuum, and gravitational waves, according to ESA. The mission will result in a 3D map of the Milky Way that plots stars to a distance of 30,000 light years. An earlier star-mapping ESA mission called Hipparcos—launched in 1989 and concluded a few years later—recorded about 118,000 stars at distances of 300 light years. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/S. Stolovy (SSC/Caltech) Uploaded by, but not written by, Louis Sheehan</p> 20657153 2015-07-13 20:26:01 2015-07-13 20:26:01 open open 3d-map-of-the-galaxy-20657153 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Mistakenly thought to be .... http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/07/04/mistakenly-thought-to-be-20637123/ Sat, 04 Jul 2015 06:17:13 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>F249W252 F250W252 F93W252 F141W252 F181W252 F27AH F27T30F87 F87W186W30 F12W22W178 F27T24F12 W252B15F202 W252B15F204 F148W236W1W29 F202W236W1W29 F204W236W1W29 F91AH F56W176 F58W154 F58 Louis Sheehan F56T4F58 W103B1I F133T77F157 F133W112 F133T3F34 F34W24W124W74 F251W24W124W254 F45T6F157 F45AH </p> 20637123 2015-07-04 06:17:13 2015-07-04 06:17:13 open open mistakenly-thought-to-be-20637123 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan Reflections on Stress and Long Hours on Wall Street JUNE 1, 2015 Andrew Ross Sorkin [Louis Sheehan] http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/06/16/reflections-on-stress-and-long-hours-on-wall-street-june-1-2015-andrew-ross-sorkin-louis-sheehan-20552607/ Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:16:51 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Reflections on Stress and Long Hours on Wall Street JUNE 1, 2015 Andrew Ross Sorkin Earlier this year, a 22-year-old first-year analyst at the Goldman Sachs office in San Francisco was feeling overwhelmed by the all-nighters and 100-hour workweeks. The analyst, Sarvshreshth Gupta, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania who was born in New Delhi, told his father, Sunil, “This job is not for me. Too much work and too little time.” In March, against his father’s wishes, Mr. Gupta quit. However, a week later, “By a quirk of fate, he was asked by his company to reconsider his resignation and under pressure from me, he rejoined,” his father wrote in an essay. Others at Goldman said he asked for his job back. When Mr. Gupta returned, he was originally put on a reduced schedule, and the firm had him meet with its employee assistance counselors about dealing with work-life balance issues and the stress of the job. DealBook Older ‘DealBook’ Columns In A.I.G. Case, Surprise Ruling That Could End All Bailouts JUN 15 Mergers Might Not Signal Optimism JUN 8 Many on Wall Street Say It Remains Untamed MAY 18 Main Street Portfolios Are Investing in Unicorns MAY 11 Berkshire’s Warren Buffett Shows His Teddy Bear Image Has Tough Side MAY 4 See More » Soon, however, Mr. Gupta, who worked in Goldman’s telecommunications, media and technology group, was working flat-out again as the firm’s deal business became busier and busier. About 2:40 a.m. on April 16, Mr. Gupta called his father in India. “He calls us and says, ‘It is too much. I have not slept for two days, have a client meeting tomorrow morning, have to complete a presentation, my V.P. is annoyed and I am working alone in my office,’ ” his father wrote. “I got furious. ‘Take 15 days leave and come home,’ I said. He quipped, ‘They will not allow.’ I said, ‘Tell them to consider this as your resignation letter.’ ” Mr. Gupta told his father that he would work for another hour, then head to his home a half-mile from the office, and return in the morning. Later that morning, at 6:40, Mr. Gupta was found in the parking lot next to his apartment building on the corner of Sacramento Street and Brooklyn Place and was declared dead, according to police officials. He apparently fell from the building. The San Francisco medical examiner’s office is conducting an investigation and has yet to officially declare a cause of death. Mr. Gupta’s death, one of numerous unexpected deaths or suicides of young bankers over the last year, has caused a new round of reflection and re-evaluation by Goldman and other Wall Street firms about their work policies just two weeks before a new class of college interns descend on the industry for the summer. Just last week, Thomas J. Hughes, a 29-year-old banker at Moelis & Company, was found dead with drugs in his system after falling from a building in Manhattan. “The only explanation is that I know he’s been working very hard and has been under a lot of pressure,” Mr. Hughes’s father told The Daily Mail. “His work did not leave much time for enjoyment, but that’s the nature of the assignment that he chose.” An investigation is pending to determine the official cause of death. For more than a month, Mr. Gupta’s death has largely remained held in confidence among a small group of his colleagues and family. After Mr. Gupta’s death, David Solomon, Goldman’s co-head of investment banking, and John S. Weinberg, a vice chairman, flew to San Francisco to speak with a small group of the bank’s employees and discuss the firm’s approach to work-life balance. The firm held a small memorial service for Mr. Gupta, who was universally liked by his colleagues and whom several said was so good at his job that he had become one of the “go-to” analysts. Indeed, his proficiency and work ethic appear to have led to him to take on a large workload. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story “We are saddened by Sav’s death and feel deeply for his family,” Goldman said in a statement. “We hope that people will respect the family’s expressed desire for privacy during this difficult time.” Mr. Gupta’s father wrote an essay about his son’s death, which he posted on Medium and later removed. In an email, Mr. Gupta’s father said, “At this time, the grieving family does not wish to speak to the press.” He said his essay about his son was intended for “the grieving family and a means of dealing with my deep anguish and catharsis.” Of course, it is always difficult to directly link a death or possible suicide to work conditions. Other factors can be in play, like family problems, medical issues or a history of depression. And in Mr. Gupta’s case, the cause of his death remains undetermined. Still, the string of deaths on Wall Street appears to rise above the level of simple coincidence. Last February, Fortune ran an article titled: “Is there a suicide contagion on Wall Street?” Continue reading the main story RECENT COMMENTS Constitution First 12 days ago High suicide jobs go along with high pay, or the potential to attain high pay.No free lunch. We all make choices in life. Some people are... acd 12 days ago As a top performer, I always liked watching the bosses blood boil when I told him it is going to have to wait until tomorrow because I am... Jen 12 days ago My husband has been in the business for years. He's currently at credit Suisse and they have no such policy on Saturdays or emails. The... SEE ALL COMMENTS Studies have suggested that financial service employees are at higher risk than those in many other industries. According to the National Occupational Mortality Surveillance, individuals who work in financial services are 1.5 times more likely to commit suicide than the national average. The highest suicide rates in the United States are among doctors, dentists and veterinarians. It is possible that the finance industry attracts more people with depression, just as it is possible that the pressure-cooker work environment overwhelms some people who have been high achievers their entire lives. It could be a tragic combination of multiple factors. Wall Street has always thrived, in part, on its eat-or-be-eaten culture. Would curbing its competitive nature cut into its success? Most top Wall Street firms have sought to change their work policies for young investment bankers in recent years, in part to combat some of the problems and because they are increasingly in heated competition with Silicon Valley for top talent and are seeking to make themselves more attractive. Goldman, for example, has required that analysts take Saturdays off. Credit Suisse, too, has made employees take Saturdays off, with employees instructed to avoid even email. Bank of America has instituted a policy that requires analysts to “take four days off a month” on the weekends. And JPMorgan Chase has said that one weekend a month should be protected. Many of those steps were taken after a 21-year-old intern died at Bank of America Merrill Lynch’s London office in summer 2013 after reports indicated he had pulled three consecutive all-nighters. The official cause of death was epilepsy. As the economy has heated up and the deal-making market has improved, however, young bankers are once again working long hours. Perversely, young analysts now say that having Saturdays off has often added to their stress because late nights on Sundays have become the norm. Some banks, like Goldman, are also taking new steps, like introducing more efficient software and technology to help young analysts do their work more quickly. And investment banks say they are hiring more analysts to help balance the workload. That may help. But as long as young analysts are expected to work 80 to 100 hours a week, invariably some run the risk of finding themselves in a situation they cannot handle. With new classes of such analysts arriving each year, it is incumbent on the industry to make sure it is doing everything possible to make sure that no one is too overwhelmed. Correction: June 3, 2015 The DealBook column on Tuesday, about Wall Street’s reflections on stress and work hours after the unexpected deaths and suicides of some young employees, misstated the age of Sarvshreshth Gupta, a Goldman Sachs analyst who was found dead in San Francisco in April. He was 22, not 24. The column also misstated the time of a call he made to his father on April 16, the day of his death. It was about 2:40 a.m., not just after midnight. And the column misspelled, in some editions, the name of the company that employed Thomas J. Hughes, a young banker who was found dead in Manhattan last week after falling from a building. It is Moelis, not Moeis. Michael J. de la Merced contributed reporting. A version of this article appears in print on June 2, 2015, on page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Reflections on Stress and Hours on Wall St. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe -- Posted, but certainly not written by Louis Sheehan</p> 20552607 2015-06-16 16:16:51 2015-06-16 16:16:51 open open reflections-on-stress-and-long-hours-on-wall-street-june-1-2015-andrew-ross-sorkin-louis-sheehan-20552607 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan In A.I.G. Case, Surprise Ruling That Could End All Bailouts [Posted but not written by Louis Sheehan] http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/06/16/in-a-i-g-case-surprise-ruling-that-could-end-all-bailouts-posted-but-not-written-by-louis-sheehan-20551199/ Tue, 16 Jun 2015 05:39:17 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>In A.I.G. Case, Surprise Ruling That Could End All Bailouts JUNE 15, 2015 Continue reading the main story For years, critics of the bailouts during the financial crisis argued that the rescue efforts weren’t harsh enough. The chief executives of failing institutions should have lost their jobs. Shareholders should have suffered more pain. Taxpayers should have received substantial compensation for the risk they took. All that did come to pass in one case: the bailout of theAmerican International Group, the large insurer and symbol of the crisis. Yet on Monday, a judge in Washington decidedthat the government’s actions were too severe, and the rescue was illegal. When the Federal Reserve propped up A.I.G. in September 2008, unlike its approach with most of the big banks, it threw out the company’s chief executive and took control of 79.9 percent of the company, nearly wiping out many of its shareholders. Taxpayers got all of their money back, and then some, receiving a profit of more than $20 billion. Continue reading the main story RELATED COVERAGE Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chief of A.I.G., argued that the Fed overstepped its bounds. Ex-A.I.G. Chief Wins Bailout Suit, but Gets No DamagesJUNE 15, 2015 But in a stunning ruling, Judge Thomas C. Wheeler of the United States Court of Federal Claims said on Monday that those terms were too “draconian.” In other words, he suggested taxpayers should have offered A.I.G. a more generous deal. The judge’s decision could have far-reaching consequences should another financial crisis occur — and if history is any guide, one will. Legal experts say that the ruling, coupled with certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law enacted after the crisis, makes it unlikely the government would ever rescue a failing institution, even if an intervention was warranted. Should that happen, and the government decides it is handcuffed by the law from any intervention, taxpayers can thank Maurice Greenberg, the company’s former chief executive and one of its largest shareholders. He sued the government on behalf of shareholders, contending its takeover was illegal and unfair to investors. The judge largely sided with Mr. Greenberg, confounding many legal experts who considered the case a long shot. A federal judge had previously thrown the case out of court, calling Mr. Greenberg’s accusations “worthy of an Oliver Stone movie.” DealBook Older ‘DealBook’ Columns Mergers Might Not Signal OptimismJUN 8 Reflections on Stress and Long Hours on Wall StreetJUN 1 Many on Wall Street Say It Remains UntamedMAY 18 Main Street Portfolios Are Investing in UnicornsMAY 11 Berkshire’s Warren Buffett Shows His Teddy Bear Image Has Tough SideMAY 4 See More » However, Judge Wheeler had a more sympathetic ear than his peers. He determined that the takeover of A.I.G. was orchestrated to “maximize the benefits to the government and to the taxpaying public.” Contrary to the conventional wisdom — and common sense — he said that goal was troubling. “The government’s unduly harsh treatment of A.I.G. in comparison to other institutions seemingly was misguided and had no legitimate purpose,” he wrote. Still, the judge did not award any monetary damages to Mr. Greenberg, making it a moral victory, but not an economic one. Mr. Greenberg had sought $40 billion and has spent millions bringing his case. Judge Wheeler determined that Mr. Greenberg and the other shareholders did not suffer any economic damage because “if the government had done nothing, the shareholders would have been left with 100 percent of nothing.” The judge cited John Studzinski, vice chairman of the Blackstone Group and an adviser to A.I.G., who had instructed the board to accept the government’s offer in 2008, telling the room of directors: “Twenty percent of something [is] better than 100 percent of nothing.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story Inexplicably, that line of logic did not extend to the judge’s ruling that the government had unfairly taken advantage of A.I.G. by requiring tough loan terms, including the equity stake and a 12 percent interest rate. “No matter how rationally A.I.G.’s board addressed its alternatives that night, and notwithstanding that A.I.G. had a team of outstanding professional advisers, the fact remains that A.I.G. was at the government’s mercy,” the judge wrote. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court in Manhattan, who had previously thrown out the case, had said that the claim that A.I.G.’s board was under the control of the government was specious. By the logic of Mr. Greenberg’s case, the judge had written, “a loan shark whose usurious interest rate is agreed to by a small business so that it may stay afloat could equally be said to have had actual control over that business so as to compel its agreement to a loan.” Continue reading the main story RECENT COMMENTS Ronald Cohen 15 minutes ago If the Government were to re-enact the Bank Holding Company Act and enforce the antitrust laws to prevent over concentration in particular... bill 19 minutes ago Golly, so we might have to break up the biggies after all! Downright un-American, right? AO 19 minutes ago The government has no right to interfere with the wishes and actions of the 1%. SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT Dennis Kelleher, president and chief executive of Better Markets, an advocacy group for financial reform, called Judge Wheeler’s ruling perplexing. “The court bizarrely expressed repeated sympathy for A.I.G. while failing to properly weigh the economic wreckage suffered by the American people,” Mr. Kelleher said in an email. “It’s the U.S. taxpayers that have been victimized here by A.I.G. when it acted recklessly, precipitated the crash of the financial system, took a $185 billion bailout, and then gave bonuses to some of the very same people who irresponsibly sold the derivatives that blew up the company.” Judge Wheeler’s analysis, in comparing how A.I.G.’s rescue was handled relative to the big banks, appears to ignore the realities of the regulatory oversight rules at the time. The judge criticized the government for taking control of A.I.G. while not doing so for the banks. But the Fed did not have regulatory oversight of A.I.G., which is an insurance company, and therefore couldn’t maintain the same kind of control it did over the banks. Similarly, the judge criticized the Fed for creating a trust to hold the shares of A.I.G. because the Fed technically can’t own equity in companies. “The creation of the trust in an attempt to circumvent the legal restriction on holding corporate equity is a classic elevation of form over substance.” The government was sticking to its guns on Monday. “The court confirmed today that A.I.G. shareholders were not harmed by those actions,” the Treasury Department said in a statement. “We disagree with the court’s conclusion regarding the Federal Reserve’s legal authority and continue to believe that the government acted well within legal bounds.” While the ruling is likely to be appealed, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court, the head-scratching decision will undoubtedly have an effect on future bailouts, intended or unintended. Hester Peirce, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, who is reportedly among the candidates for a Republican seat on the Securities and Exchange Commission, wrote last year that if Mr. Greenberg prevailed in his case, “it would strike a blow to too-big-to-fail by adding to the bailout calculus the specter of subsequent courtroom payouts to allegedly aggrieved shareholders.”</p> 20551199 2015-06-16 05:39:17 2015-06-16 05:39:17 open open in-a-i-g-case-surprise-ruling-that-could-end-all-bailouts-posted-but-not-written-by-louis-sheehan-20551199 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Validation (drug manufacture) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/06/13/validation-drug-manufacture-from-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-20545702/ Sat, 13 Jun 2015 07:28:39 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Validation (drug manufacture) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Posted by Louis Sheehan This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (May 2013) In the pharmaceutical, for medical device, food, blood products, biological products, tissue, establishments, clinical trials conducting institutions, validation is a process of establishing documentary evidence demonstrating that a procedure, process, or activity carried out in production or testing maintains the desired level of compliance at all stages. In Pharma Industry it is very important apart from final testing and compliance of product with standard that the process adapted to produce itself must assure that process will consistently produce the expected results.[1] Here the desired results are established in terms of specifications for out come of the process. Qualification of systems and equipment is therefore a part of process of validation. It is a requirement of food and drug, pharmaceutical regulating agencies like FDA's good manufacturing practices guidelines. Since a wide variety of procedures, processes, and activities need to be validated, the field of validation is divided into a number of subsections including the following: Equipment validation Facilities validation HVAC system validation Cleaning validation Process Validation Analytical method validation Computer system validation Packaging validation Cold chain validation Similarly, the activity of qualifying systems and equipment is divided into a number of subsections including the following: Design qualification (DQ) Component qualification (CQ) Installation qualification (IQ) Operational qualification (OQ) Performance qualification (PQ) Contents [hide] 1 History 2 Reasons for validation 3 Validation Master Plan 4 The validation process 5 Computer System Validation 6 Scope of Computer Validation 7 Risk Based Approach To Computer Validation 8 Product life cycle approach in validation 9 See also 10 References 11 Sources History[edit] The concept of validation was first proposed by two Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials, Ted Byers and Bud Loftus, in the mid 1970s in order to improve the quality of pharmaceuticals.[2] It was proposed in direct response to several problems in the sterility of large volume parenteral market. The first validation activities were focused on the processes involved in making these products, but quickly spread to associated processes including environmental control, media fill, equipment sanitization and purified water production. The concept of validation was first developed for equipment and processes and derived from the engineering practices used in delivery of large pieces of equipment that would be manufactured, tested, delivered and accepted according to a contract[3] The use of validation spread to other areas of industry after several large-scale problems highlighted the potential risks in the design of products. The most notable is the Therac-25 incident.[4] Here, the software for a large radiotherapy device was poorly designed and tested. In use, several interconnected problems led to several devices giving doses of radiation several thousands of times higher than intended, which resulted in the death of three patients and several more being permanently injured. In 2005 an individual wrote a standard by which the transportation process could be validated for cold chain products.[citation needed] This standard was written for a biological manufacturing company and was then written into the PDA's Technical Report # 39, thus establishing the industry standard for cold chain validation. This was critical for the industry due to the sensitivity of drug substances, biologics and vaccines to various temperature conditions. The FDA has also been very focused on this final area of distribution and the potential for a drug substances quality to be impacted by extreme temperature exposure. Reasons for validation[edit] FDA, or any other food and drugs regulatory agency around the globe not only ask for a product that meets its specification but also require a process, procedures, intermediate stages of inspections, and testing adopted during manufacturing are designed such that when they are adopted they produce consistently similar, reproducible, desired results which meet the quality standard of product being manufactured, such procedures are developed through the process of validation. This is to maintain and assure a higher degree of quality of food and drug products. Validation is "Establishing documented evidence that provides a high degree of assurance that a specific process will consistently produce a product meeting its pre-determined specifications and quality attributes.".[5] A properly designed system will provide a high degree of assurance that every step, process, and change has been properly evaluated before its implementation. Testing a sample of a final product is not considered sufficient evidence that every product within a batch meets the required specification Validation Master Plan[edit] The Validation Master Plan is a document that describes how and when the validation program will be executed in a facility. Even though it is not mandatory, it is the document that outlines the principles involved in the qualification of a facility, defines the areas and systems to be validated and provides a written program for achieving and maintaining a qualified facility with validated processes. It is the foundation for the validation program and should include process validation, facility and utility qualification and validation, equipment qualification, cleaning and computer validation. The regulations also set out an expectation that the different parts of the production process are well defined and controlled, such that the results of that production will not substantially change over time. The validation process[edit] Figure 1: Traditional Qualification Process (adapted from the typical V-Model) The validation scope, boundaries and responsibilities for each process or groups of similar processes or similar equipment's must be documented and approved in a validation plan. These documents, terms and references for the protocol authors are for use in setting the scope of their protocols. It must be based on a Validation Risk Assessment (VRA) to ensure that the scope of validation being authorised is appropriate for the complexity and importance of the equipment or process under validation. Within the references given in the VP the protocol authors must ensure that all aspects of the process or equipment under qualification; that may affect the efficacy, quality and or records of the product are properly qualified. Qualification includes the following steps: Design qualification (DQ)- Demonstrates that the proposed design (or the existing design for an off-the-shelf item) will satisfy all the requirements that are defined and detailed in the User Requirements Specification (URS). Satisfactory execution of the DQ is a mandatory requirement before construction (or procurement) of the new design can be authorised. Installation qualification (IQ) – Demonstrates that the process or equipment meets all specifications, is installed correctly, and all required components and documentation needed for continued operation are installed and in place. Operational qualification (OQ) – Demonstrates that all facets of the process or equipment are operating correctly. Performance qualification (PQ) – Demonstrates that the process or equipment performs as intended in a consistent manner over time. Component qualification (CQ) – is a relatively new term developed in 2005. This term refers to the manufacturing of auxiliary components to ensure that they are manufactured to the correct design criteria. This could include packaging components such as folding cartons, shipping cases, labels or even phase change material. All of these components must have some type of random inspection to ensure that the third party manufacturer's process is consistently producing components that are used in the world of GMP at drug or biologic manufacturer. There are instances when it is more expedient and efficient to transfer some tests or inspections from the IQ to the OQ, or from the OQ to the PQ. This is allowed for in the regulations, provided that a clear and approved justification is documented in the Validation Plan (VP). Figure 2: OPQ Validation Process (adapted from the typical V-Model) This combined testing of OQ and PQ phases is sanctioned by the European Commission Enterprise Directorate-General within ‘Annex 15 to the EU Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice guide’ (2001, p. 6) which states that: "Although PQ is described as a separate activity, it may in some cases be appropriate to perform it in conjunction with OQ." Computer System Validation[edit] This requirement has naturally expanded to encompass computer systems used both in the development and production of, and as a part of pharmaceutical products, medical devices, food, blood establishments, tissue establishments, and clinical trials. In 1983 the FDA published a guide to the inspection of Computerized Systems in Pharmaceutical Processing, also known as the 'bluebook'.[6] Recently both the American FDA and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency have added sections to the regulations specifically for the use of computer systems. In the UK, computer validation is covered in Annex 11 of the EU GMP regulations (EMEA 2011). The FDA introduced 21 CFR Part 11 for rules on the use of electronic records, electronic signatures (FDA 1997). The FDA regulation is harmonized with ISO 8402:1994,[7] which treats "verification" and "validation" as separate and distinct terms. On the other hand, many software engineering journal articles and textbooks use the terms "verification" and "validation" interchangeably, or in some cases refer to software "verification, validation, and testing (VV&T)" as if it is a single concept, with no distinction among the three terms. The General Principles of Software Validation (FDA 2002) defines verification as "Software verification provides objective evidence that the design outputs of a particular phase of the software development life cycle meet all of the specified requirements for that phase."[8] It also defines Validation as "Confirmation by examination and provision of objective evidence that software specifications conform to user needs and intended uses, and that the particular requirements implemented through software can be consistently fulfilled". The software validation guideline states: “The software development process should be sufficiently well planned, controlled, and documented to detect and correct unexpected results from software changes." Annex 11 states "The validation documentation and reports should cover the relevant steps of the life cycle." Weichel (2004) recently found that over twenty warning letters issued by the FDA to pharmaceutical companies specifically cited problems in Computer System Validation between 1997 and 2001.[9] Probably the best known industry guidance available is the GAMP Guide, now in its fifth edition and known as GAMP5 published by ISPE (2008).[10] This guidance gives practical advice on how to satisfy regulatory requirements. Scope of Computer Validation[edit] The definition of validation above discusses production of evidence that a system will meet its specification. This definition does not refer to a computer application or a computer system but to a process. The main implications in this are that validation should cover all aspects of the process including the application, any hardware that the application uses, any interfaces to other systems, the users, training and documentation as well as the management of the system and the validation itself after the system is put into use. The PIC/S guideline (PIC/S 2004) defines this as a 'computer related system'.[11] Much effort is expended within the industry upon validation activities, and several journals are dedicated to both the process and methodology around validation, and the science behind it.[12][13][14][15] Risk Based Approach To Computer Validation[edit] In recent years, a risk-based approach has been adopted within the industry, where the testing of computer systems (emphasis on finding problems) is wide-ranging and documented but not heavily evidenced (i.e. hundreds of screen prints are not gathered during testing). Annex 11 states "Risk management should be applied throughout the lifecycle of the computerised system taking into account patient safety, data integrity and product quality. As part of a risk management system, decisions on the extent of validation and data integrity controls should be based on a justified and documented risk assessment of the computerised system." The subsequent validation or verification of computer systems targets only the "GxP critical" requirements of computer systems. Evidence (e.g. screen prints) is gathered to document the validation exercise. In this way it is assured that systems are thoroughly tested, and that validation and documentation of the "GxP critical" aspects is performed in a risk-based manner, optimizing effort and ensuring that computer system's fitness for purpose is demonstrated. The overall risk posed by a computer system is now generally considered to be a function of system complexity, patient/product impact, and pedigree (Configurable-Off-The-Shelf or Custom-written for a certain purpose). A lower risk system should merit a less in-depth specification/testing/validation approach. (e.g. The documentation surrounding a spreadsheet containing a simple but "GxP" critical calculation should not match that of a Chromatography Data System with 20 Instruments) Determination of a "GxP critical" requirement for a computer system is subjective, and the definition needs to be tailored to the organisation involved. However in general a "GxP" requirement may be considered to be a requirement which leads to the development/configuration of a computer function which has a direct impact on patient safety, the pharmaceutical product being processed, or has been developed/configured to meet a regulatory requirement. In addition if a function has a direct impact on GxP data (security or integrity) it may be considered "GxP critical". Product life cycle approach in validation[edit] Validation process must account for developmental procedures adapted for qualification of a drug product right from its research and development, reasons for adapting best fit formula, and procedure for manufacturing, each step is required to be justified and monitored in order to provide a good quality food and drug product, while applying for prequalification audit US FDA gives emphasis on product life cycle approach as well See also[edit] Good Automated Manufacturing Practice (GAMP) Verification and Validation Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention and Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme Regulation of therapeutic goods United States Pharmacopeia References[edit] Jump up ^ Validation definition and FDA, Regulatory agencies guidelines requirement Accessed 27 Feb 2014. Jump up ^ Agalloco, J. (1995). "Validation: an unconventional review and reinvention". Validation: an unconventional review and reinvention 49 (4): 175–179. Jump up ^ Hoffmann, A., Kahny-Simonius, J., Plattner, M., Schmidli-Vckovski, V., & Kronseder, C. (1998), 'Computer system validation: An overview of official requirements and standards', Pharmaceutica Acta Helvetiae, vol. 72, no. 6, pp. 317–325. Jump up ^ Leveson, N. G. & Turner, C. S. (1993), 'An investigation of the Therac-25 accidents', Computer, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 18–41. Jump up ^ FDA (1987). "Guidelines on General Principles of Process Validation". Jump up ^ FDA (1983). "Guide to Inspection of Computerised Systems (The Blue Book)". US Food and Drug Administration, Maryland, USA. Jump up ^ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland (1994). "ISO 8402:1994: Quality management and quality assurance—Vocabulary". Jump up ^ "General Principles of Software Validation; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff" (PDF). US FDA. 2002. Retrieved February 27, 2013. Jump up ^ Weichel, P. (2004). "Survey of Published FDA Warning Letters with Comment on Part 11 (21 CFR Part 11)". Journal of Validation Technology 11 (1): 62–66. Jump up ^ ISPE (2008). "GAMP5: Risk Based Approach to Computer Compliance". International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineers, Tampa, FL. Jump up ^ PIC/S (2004). "Good Practices for Computerised Systems in Regulated "GXP" Environments, Report PI 011-2". Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention, Geneva. Jump up ^ Smith, H. G. (2001). "Considerations for Improving Software Validation, Securing better assurance for less cost". Journal of Validation Technology 7 (2): 150–157. Jump up ^ Tracy, D. S. & Nash, R. A. (2002). "A Validation Approach for Laboratory Information Management Systems". Journal of Validation Technology 9 (1): 6–14. Jump up ^ Lucas, I. (2003). "Testing Times in Computer Validation". Journal of Validation Technology 9 (2): 153–161. Jump up ^ Balogh, M. & Corbin, V. (2005). "Taming the Regulatory Beast: Regulation vs Functionalism". Pharmaceutical Technology Europe 17 (3): 55–58. Health Canada Validation Guidelines Akers, J. (1993), 'Simplifying and improving Process Validation', Journal of Parenteral Science and Technology, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 281–284. ASTM E2537 Guide for Application of Continuous Quality Verification for Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing EMEA (1998), EUDRALEX Volume 4 – Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use : Good Manufacturing Practice, European Medicines Agency, London European Commission Enterprise Directorate-General (2001), Final Version of Annex 15 to the EU Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice, Qualification and Validation, Brussels. European Commission Enterprise Directorate-General. US FDA: Guideline on general principles of Process Validation Part 11: Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures,Code of Federal Regulations Garston Smith, H. (2001), 'Considerations for Improving Software Validation', Journal of Validation Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 150–157. IT Pharma Validation Europe: News and Updates on Computer System Validation and Infrastructure Qualification – e.g. EudraLex Volume 4 – Annex 11 computerised systems – revision January 2011 Lopez, Orlando (2002), “21 CFR Part 11 – A Complete Guide to International Compliance,” published by Sue Horwood Publishing Limited. McDowall, R. D. (2005), 'Effective and practical risk management options for computerised system validation', The Quality Assurance Journal, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 196–227. Parker G, (2005) ‘Developing Appropriate Validation and Testing Strategies’ Presented for Scimcon Ltd at the Thermo Informatics World Conference. North America. Powell-Evans, K. (1998), 'Streamlining Validation', Pharmaceutical Technology Europe, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 48–52. Segalstad, S.H (2008), ‘International IT Regulations and Compliance: Quality Standards in the Pharmaceutical and Regulated Industries, John Wiley & Sons , pp. 157 – 178. Swartz, M. (2006) ‘Analytical Instrument Qualification’, Avanstar [online], available at: http://www.advanstar.com/test/pharmascience/pha-sci_supp-promos/phasci_reg_guidance/articles/Instrumentation1_Swartz_rv.pdf (Accessed 29 March 2009). Validating Software used for the Pharmaceutical Industry. (2007). Retrieved July 6, 2009, from http://www.plainsite.net/validation/validation.htm WHO Technical Report Series, No. 937, 2006. Annex 4. Appendix 5. 2006 Wingate, G.A.S. (2004), 'Computer Systems Validation: Quality Assurance, Risk Management, and Regulatory Compliance for the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Industry', Interpharm Press. </p> 20545702 2015-06-13 07:28:39 2015-06-13 07:28:39 open open validation-drug-manufacture-from-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-20545702 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan 5.30.15 Louis Sheehan http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/06/01/5-30-15-louis-sheehan-20489121/ Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:44:28 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Dodgers' anger boils over in St. Louis again 2d Mark Saxon, ESPNLosAngeles.com 582 Shares Email Print Comment ST. LOUIS -- A.J. Ellis was standing less than 10 feet from where Matt Kemp had stood eight months earlier, bristling with frustration and delivering a measured, yet pointed message with strikingly similar chords. Kemp spoke out after the Los Angeles Dodgers’ Game 3 loss in the National League Division Series here last October, calling umpire Dale Scott’s strike zone “terrible.” Now, Kemp is gone but the simmering frustration goes on for the Dodgers when they reach the wide banks of the Mississippi. Dodgers starter Mike Bolsinger continued his solid work, allowing two runs in six innings on Friday night. AP Photo/Billy Hurst Ellis, usually an even-keeled sort, blasted umpire Mike Winters’ strike zone in the wake of Friday night’s 3-0 loss to the St. Louis Cardinals, a game in which Ellis was ejected in the seventh inning. Either the Cardinals get all the calls in their stadium, John Lackey is the darling of umpires everywhere, or the Dodgers find it exceptionally frustrating to play in St. Louis nowadays. Or, could it be a little bit of each? The Dodgers certainly weren't in a magnanimous mood after they slipped out of first place for the first time since April 15. Lackey, aging but still feisty, frustrated the Dodgers and, once again, they couldn’t contain their frustration with the umpire as it was happening. Dodgers manager Don Mattingly was tossed by Winters a half-inning earlier, after Andre Ethier was rung up at a key moment on a pitch that appeared to be a bit below the knees. What set Ellis over the top was that, after he complained about a pitch as Dodgers reliever Paco Rodriguez was walking Matt Carpenter, Winters told him it was about his “presentation” of the ball. Ellis has typically not ranked highly in the art of pitch framing, one of the emerging fields of study in baseball. “It’s almost like he was admitting it was a strike and then putting the onus on me,” Ellis said. “There are people on blogs and websites who can critique my framing, but I’m not going to take that from an umpire, because it’s not their job to do that. It’s their job to make a call on what comes through a strike zone.” Winters, through a Cardinals spokesman, declined to discuss the confrontation, calling it “about balls and strikes.” Ellis suggested Major League Baseball listen to the exchange since Winters was miked up as part of the broadcast on MLB Network. The Dodgers felt like Winters’ strike zone was all over the place, which is a pretty good description of their offense right now. They averaged barely a run per game over an eight-game stretch that ended Sunday, then broke out for 16 runs in three games against the Atlanta Braves, then came here and fell back into the same old rut. Only three Dodgers got as far as second base Friday night. “I don’t know if we’ve gotten spoiled from earlier on, when we were able to put up runs, runs, runs,” Mattingly said. “I don’t think any of us expected that to continue, but I do think we’ve hit a little bit of a lull.” The proliferation of runs might have been more surprising than the lull considering the Dodgers are saddled with injuries. They’ve been without their starting corner outfielders, Yasiel Puig and Carl Crawford, their hot-hitting catcher, Yasmani Grandal, and one of their key hitters off the bench, Scott Van Slyke. That doesn’t even mention the pitching injuries, which include two-fifths of the starting rotation and two setup relievers. “We are who we are right now,” Mattingly said. “I think that’s just how we have to win with our personnel right now.” It’s hard to imagine the Dodgers can rely on Mike Bolsinger to continue to be this good. He went into Friday’s start with a 0.71 ERA in his first four starts of the season, numbers that put him up there with some Dodgers greats -- Fernando Valenzuela and Don Sutton -- for getting out of the gate on the run. Friday, there were some signs that the magical pixie dust is wearing off. Bolsinger fought his way through six innings, but without his good breaking ball, he was probably fortunate to allow only two runs considering St. Louis had 10 baserunners against him. “It could have turned out really ugly. I remember looking up at the board and they had left six guys on base,” Bolsinger said. “I definitely pride myself in that and, hopefully, just keep this thing rolling.” Considering the Dodgers haven’t scored a run in a road game since May 10 -- that spans only four games -- it’s probably more about getting this thing rolling.</p> 20489121 2015-06-01 02:44:28 2015-06-01 02:44:28 open open 5-30-15-louis-sheehan-20489121 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan 1 Ceres http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/05/25/1-ceres-20458029/ Mon, 25 May 2015 03:31:20 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Ceres 1 NASA Releases Best Images Ever of “Alien Lights” on Ceres Brian WuMay 22, 2015 10:05 PM EDT Posted on May 25, 2015 by masterkan Louis Sheehan http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/6578/20150522/nasa-releases-best-images-alien-lights-ceres.htm NASA has released the most detailed and clear images of the mysterious lights on the dwarf planet Ceres, but unfortunately the agency is no closer to explaining exactly what they are. The Dawn probe took the image above from a distance of 4,500 miles and they are the most detailed images ever taken of the tiny planet that wasn’t meant to be. The bright spots on Ceres have so far completely stumped scientists working on the mission, who have only offered up speculations about their origin. “Dawn scientists can now conclude that the intense brightness of these spots is due to the reflection of sunlight by highly reflective material on the surface, possibly ice,” said Christopher Russell, principal investigator for the Dawn mission from the University of California, Los Angeles. Dawn will move even closer to Ceres on June 6, closing in on the dwarf planet at a distance of 2,700 miles in an effort to discover whether or not volcanic activity is present or not. Scientists continue to hope as Dawn moves closer and closer to largest object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, that it will also be able to uncover more of the mystery surrounding these “Alien Lights.” Dawn was first launched in September 2007 with a mission of studying two of the three known protoplanets in the asteroid belt, Vesta and Ceres. Dawn’s first stop was at Vesta arriving in orbit on July 16, 2011, where it spent 14 months surveying Vesta before leaving for Ceres in late 2012. It entered orbit around Ceres on March 6, 2015 where it caught the first ever image of Ceres that showed the mysterious bright spots. Dawn is the first NASA craft to use ion propulsion, which enabled it to enter and leave orbit of multiple celestial bodies. Previous crafts, such as the Voyager program, used conventional drives which restricted them to only flybys. Dawn made history being the first spacecraft to visit a dwarf planet and the first craft to orbit more than one body in space. Dawn will remain in orbit until the conclusion of its mission spending months studying the dwarf planet and is expected to remain there orbiting the dwarf planet long after the Dawn mission has come to a completion. Dawn was launched with the hopes of learning more about other bodies in our solar system and how our solar system was formed billions of years ago.</p> 20458029 2015-05-25 03:31:20 2015-05-25 03:31:20 open open 1-ceres-20458029 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan 8.03 8 prep pitches http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/05/09/8-03-8-prep-pitches-20325348/ Sat, 09 May 2015 05:18:04 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>8.03 When a pitcher takes his position at the beginning of each inning, or when he relieves another pitcher, he shall be permitted to pitch not to exceed eight preparatory pitches to his catcher during which play shall be suspended. A league by its own action may limit the number of preparatory pitches to less than eight preparatory pitches. Such preparatory pitches shall not consume more than one minute of time. If a sudden emergency causes a pitcher to be summoned into the game without any opportunity to warm up, the umpire-in-chief shall allow him as many pitches as the umpire deems necessary. Louis Sheehan</p> 20325348 2015-05-09 05:18:04 2015-05-09 05:18:04 open open 8-03-8-prep-pitches-20325348 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan 8.04 http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/05/09/8-20325339/ Sat, 09 May 2015 05:16:52 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>8.04 When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.” The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball. The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire. More baseball rules. Louis Sheehan</p> 20325339 2015-05-09 05:16:52 2015-05-09 05:16:52 open open 8-20325339 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan title-20325331 http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/05/09/8-05-if-there-is-a-runner-or-runners-it-20325331/ Sat, 09 May 2015 05:15:52 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when -- (a) The pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make such delivery; Rule 8.05(a) Comment: If a lefthanded or righthanded pitcher swings his free foot past the back edge of the pitcher’s rubber, he is required to pitch to the batter except to throw to second base on a pick-off-play. (b) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first base and fails to complete the throw; (c) The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base; Rule 8.05(c) Comment: Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base. If a pitcher turns or spins off of his free foot without actually stepping or if he turns his body and throws before stepping, it is a balk. A pitcher is to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base but does not require him to throw (except to first base only) because he steps. It is possible, with runners on first and third, for the pitcher to step toward third and not throw, merely to bluff the runner back to third; then seeing the runner on first start for second, turn and step toward and throw to first base. This is legal. However, if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then immediately and in practically the same motion “wheels” and throws to first base, it is obviously an attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step directly toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk. Of course, if the pitcher steps off the rubber and then makes such a move, it is not a balk. (d) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play; (e) The pitcher makes an illegal pitch; Rule 8.05(e) Comment: A quick pitch is an illegal pitch. Umpires will judge a quick pitch as one delivered before the batter is reasonably set in the batter’s box. With runners on base the penalty is a balk; with no runners on base, it is a ball. The quick pitch is dangerous and should not be permitted. (f) The pitcher delivers the ball to the batter while he is not facing the batter; (g) The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher’s plate; (h) The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game; Rule 8.05(h) Comment: Rule 8.05(h) shall not apply when a warning is given pursuant to Rule 8.02(c) (which prohibits intentional delay of a game by throwing to fielders not in an attempt to put a runner out). If a pitcher is ejected pursuant to Rule 8.02(c) for continuing to delay the game, the penalty in Rule 8.05(h) shall also apply. Rule 8.04 (which sets a time limit for a pitcher to deliver the ball when the bases are unoccupied) applies only when there are no runners on base. (i) The pitcher, without having the ball, stands on or astride the pitcher’s plate or while off the plate, he feints a pitch; (j) The pitcher, after coming to a legal pitching position, removes one hand from the ball other than in an actual pitch, or in throwing to a base; (k) The pitcher, while touching his plate, accidentally or intentionally drops the ball; (l) The pitcher, while giving an intentional base on balls, pitches when the catcher is not in the catcher’s box; (m)The pitcher delivers the pitch from Set Position without coming to a stop. PENALTY: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk. APPROVED RULING: In cases where a pitcher balks and throws wild, either to a base or to home plate, a runner or runners may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled at his own risk. APPROVED RULING: A runner who misses the first base to which he is advancing and who is called out on appeal shall be considered as having advanced one base for the purpose of this rule. Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern. However, certain specifics should be borne in mind: (a) Straddling the pitcher’s rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk. (b) With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base. Pulling together a compendium of baseball rules. -- Louis Sheehan</p> 20325331 2015-05-09 05:15:52 2015-05-09 05:15:52 open open 8-05-if-there-is-a-runner-or-runners-it-20325331 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan 8.06 http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/05/09/8-20325319/ Sat, 09 May 2015 05:14:02 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Louis Sheehan ... collection of baseball rules 8.06 A professional league shall adopt the following rule pertaining to the visit of the manager or coach to the pitcher: (a) This rule limits the number of trips a manager or coach may make to any one pitcher in any one inning; (b) A second trip to the same pitcher in the same inning will cause this pitcher’s automatic removal; (c) The manager or coach is prohibited from making a second visit to the mound while the same batter is at bat, but (d) if a pinch-hitter is substituted for this batter, the manager or coach may make a second visit to the mound, but must remove the pitcher. A manager or coach is considered to have concluded his visit to the mound when he leaves the 18-foot circle surrounding the pitcher’s rubber. Rule 8.06 Comment: If the manager or coach goes to the catcher or infielder and that player then goes to the mound or the pitcher comes to him at his position before there is an intervening play (a pitch or other play) that will be the same as the manager or coach going to the mound. Any attempt to evade or circumvent this rule by the manager or coach going to the catcher or an infielder and then that player going to the mound to confer with the pitcher shall constitute a trip to the mound. If the coach goes to the mound and removes a pitcher and then the manager goes to the mound to talk with the new pitcher, that will constitute one trip to that new pitcher that inning. In a case where a manager has made his first trip to the mound and then returns the second time to the mound in the same inning with the same pitcher in the game and the same batter at bat, after being warned by the umpire that he cannot return to the mound, the manager shall be removed from the game and the pitcher required to pitch to the batter until he is retired or gets on base. After the batter is retired, or becomes a base runner, then this pitcher must be removed from the game. The manager should be notified that his pitcher will be removed from the game after he pitches to one hitter, so he can have a substitute pitcher warmed up. The substitute pitcher will be allowed eight preparatory pitches or more if in the umpire’s judgment circumstances justify. </p> 20325319 2015-05-09 05:14:02 2015-05-09 05:14:02 open open 8-20325319 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan New York Times June 11, 1864 The Kentucky Raid http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/05/03/new-york-times-june-11-1864-the-kentucky-raid-20266806/ Sun, 03 May 2015 18:55:26 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>June 11, 1864 THE KENTUCKY RAID; Ordnance Train Attacked A Member of the Legsislature Killed. Later Lexington Entered by a Part of Morgan's Band The Rebels Whipped by Gen.Burbridge. The Repetitions of History. Nomination of Aaron H. Cragin, for United States Senator, from New-Hampshire. The Sixth Ohio Volunteers LOUISVILLE, Ky., Friday, June 10. The ordnance train from Frankfort, yesterday, was attacked near Bagdad, by a rebel force under JENKINS. Mr. SHANKS, a Union member of the Kentucky Legislature, was killed in the encounter. Railroad men think that the train may have returned safely to Frankfort, as its engine was reversed immediately upon the attack, and the cars proceeded toward Frankfort. A car of armed soldiers which proceeded up the road last night, to learn the extent of the disaster, has not returned, and we have no telegraphic communication with Frankfort since yesterday afternoon. CINCINNATI, Friday, June 10. Posted by Louis Sheehan. Not written by Louis Sheehan Gen. BURBRIDGE, who has been following the rebels since they left Pound Gap, came up with them yesterday at Mount Sterling and whipped them handsomely. A portion of MORGAN's command entered Lexington at 2 o'clock this morning, burned the Kentucky Central Railroad depot, robbed a number of stores, and left at 10 o'clock in the direction of Georgetown and Frankfort. BURBRIDGE followed them. SECOND DISPATCH. CINCINNATI, Friday, June 10. One of MORGAN's men, captured at Maysville, reports that the force in Kentucky is immediately under the command of Gen. MORGAN, Col. ALSTON and Col. SMITH; that the total force is about 3,000, a large portion of them dismounted cavalry. They entered the State at Pound Gap, preceded by a scouting party under EVERRELLE to pick up horses for their dismounted men, passed through Hazel Green, Owingsville and Flemingsburgh, and took Maysville without resistance, robbing its citizens of money and other valuables. The farms of Union men were stripped of horses, while those of rebel citizens were protected. EVERELLE left Maysville on Wednesday for Mount Sterling, at which place it is thought MORGAN's men are concentrating, with the intention of attacking Lexington. The position of affairs in the central part of the State to-day is not known, as communications are broken with Lexington. It is thought that the intention of the rebels is to destroy all the railroads possible, and to make their exit through Central Kentucky and Middle Tennessee. The Kentucky Central Railroad is being repaired. Trains will run to Cynthiana to-morrow. Gen. HOBSON left Covington to-day, to open communications with Lexington. To the Editor of the New-York Times: "History repeats itself." "And there is no new thing under the sun." For the original of the Cleveland Convention, see 1st Samuel, 22d chapter, 2d verse: "And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a Captain over them: and there were with him about four hundred men." A CONSTANT READER. CONCORD, Friday, June 10. The Republican members of the Legislature met in caucas last night, and nominated AARON H. CRAGIN, of Lebanon, for United States Senator, in place of Mr. HALE. There were four ballotings. On the first ballot G.M. Marston had 59; A.H. Cragin, 58; Amos Tuck, 37; John P. Hale, 27; J.M. Edwards, 19; and five scattering. On the fourth ballot the whole number was 201; Mr. A.H. Cragin had 126; Mr. Marsten, 75. NASHVILLE, Friday, June 10. The Sixth Ohio Volunteers will arrive to-day, en route to the North, to be mustered out of service. Copyright 2015 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Back to Top </p> 20266806 2015-05-03 18:55:26 2015-05-03 18:55:26 open open new-york-times-june-11-1864-the-kentucky-raid-20266806 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan A prior life http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/05/03/a-prior-life-20265726/ Sun, 03 May 2015 07:10:04 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Amazing -- Louis Sheehan Albert G. Jenkins From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Albert Gallatin Jenkins AGJenkins.jpg Representative Albert G. Jenkins Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia's 11th district In office March 4, 1857 – March 3, 1861 Preceded by John S. Carlile Succeeded by John S. Carlile Personal details Born November 10, 1830 Cabell County, Virginia Died May 21, 1864 (aged 33) Battle of Cloyd's Mountain Political party Democratic Military service Allegiance Confederate States of America Service/branch Confederate States Army Rank Confederate States of America General.png Brigadier general Battles/wars American Civil War: Battle of Cloyd's Mountain (DOW) Albert Gallatin Jenkins (November 10, 1830 – May 21, 1864) was an attorney, planter, representative to the United States Congress and First Confederate Congress, and a Confederate brigadier general during the American Civil War. The commander of a brigade of cavalry from what would become West Virginia, he was mortally wounded at the Battle of Cloyd's Mountain near Dublin, Virginia. Contents [hide] 1 Early life and career 2 Civil War 3 Memorialization 4 See also 5 Notes 6 References 7 External links Early life and career[edit] Jenkins was born to wealthy plantation owner Capt. William Jenkins and his wife Jeanette Grigsby McNutt in Cabell County, Virginia, now West Virginia. At age fifteen, he attended Marshall Academy. He graduated from Jefferson College in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, in 1848 and from Harvard Law School in 1850. Jenkins was admitted to the bar the same year and practiced in Charleston, before inheriting a portion of his father's sprawling plantation in 1859. He was named a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Cincinnati in 1856, and was elected as a Democrat to the Thirty-fifth and Thirty-sixth United States Congresses. Civil War[edit] Jenkins' grave in the Confederate plot at Spring Hill Cemetery in Huntington, West Virginia With the outbreak of the Civil War and Virginia's subsequent secession, Jenkins declined running for a third term and resigned from Congress in early 1861. He returned home and raised a company of mounted partisan rangers. By June, his company had enrolled in the Confederate Army as a part of the 8th Virginia Cavalry, with Jenkins as its colonel. By the year's end, his men had become such a nuisance to the Federals in western Virginia that military governor Francis H. Pierpont appealed to President Abraham Lincoln to send in a strong leader to stamp out the rebellion in the area. Early in 1862, Jenkins left the army to become a delegate to the First Confederate Congress. He was appointed brigadier general August 1, 1862, and returned to active duty. Throughout the fall, his men performed well, continuing to harass Union troops and supply lines, including the vital Baltimore & Ohio Railroad. In September, Jenkins's cavalry raided northern Kentucky and now West Virginia. They briefly entered extreme southern Ohio near Buffington Island, becoming one of the first organized Confederate units to enter a Northern state. In December, Robert E. Lee requested that Jenkins and his men transfer to the Shenandoah Valley. After spending the winter foraging for supplies, he led his men on a raid in March 1863 through western Virginia. During the Gettysburg Campaign, Jenkins' brigade formed the cavalry screen for Richard S. Ewell's Second Corps. Jenkins led his men through the Cumberland Valley into Pennsylvania and seized Chambersburg, burning down nearby railroad structures and bridges. He accompanied Ewell's column to Carlisle, briefly skirmishing with Union militia at the Battle of Sporting Hill near Harrisburg. During the subsequent Battle of Gettysburg, Jenkins was wounded on July 2 and missed the rest of the fighting. He did not recover sufficiently to rejoin his command until autumn. He spent the early part of 1864 raising and organizing a large cavalry force for service in western Virginia. By May, Jenkins had been appointed Commander of the Department of Western Virginia with his headquarters at Dublin. Hearing that Union Brig. Gen. George Crook had been dispatched from the Kanawha Valley with a large force, Jenkins took the field to contest the Federal arrival. On May 9, 1864, he was severely wounded and captured during the Battle of Cloyd's Mountain. A Union surgeon amputated Jenkins' arm, but he never recovered, dying twelve days later. He was initially buried in New Dublin Presbyterian Cemetery. After the war, his remains were reinterred at his home in Greenbottom, near Huntington, West Virginia. He was later reinterred in the Confederate plot in Spring Hill Cemetery in Huntington. Memorialization[edit] Green Bottom, Jenkins's home, is currently being restored as a museum. Jenkins's home, Green Bottom, has been restored and is now a museum run by the West Virginia Division of Culture and History.[1] In 1937, Marshall University constructed Jenkins Hall, naming it in honor of the distinguished Confederate cavalry officer. In 2005, a monument to General Jenkins was erected in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, commemorating his service during the Gettysburg Campaign.[2] See also[edit] Portal icon American Civil War portal List of American Civil War generals Alberta Gallatin Jenkins Notes[edit] Jump up ^ The Jenkins Plantation Museum Jump up ^ Camp Curtin Historical Society and Civil War Round Table References[edit] Evans, Clement A., ed. Confederate Military History: A Library of Confederate States History. 12 vols. Atlanta: Confederate Publishing Company, 1899. OCLC 833588. Tagg, Larry. The Generals of Gettysburg. Campbell, CA: Savas Publishing, 1998. ISBN 1-882810-30-9. Warner, Ezra J. Generals in Gray: Lives of the Confederate Commanders. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1959. ISBN 0-8071-0823-5. External links[edit] Congressional biography West Virginia Division of Culture and History biography Ghosts of Green Bottom [show] v t e Louis Sheehan </p> 20265726 2015-05-03 07:10:04 2015-05-03 07:10:04 open open a-prior-life-20265726 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan Battle of Carlisle http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/05/03/battle-of-carlisle-20265720/ Sun, 03 May 2015 07:03:37 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Battle of Carlisle From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Battle of Carlisle Part of Gettysburg Campaign Date July 1, 1863 Location Pennsylvania Carlisle & Carlisle Barracks 40.2011°N 77.1845°W[citation needed]Coordinates: 40.2011°N 77.1845°W[citation needed] Result Inconclusive (Confederate withdrawal) Belligerents United States USA (Union) Confederate States of America CSA (Confederacy) Commanders and leaders William F. Smith Maj. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart Strength PA & NY state militia (~1,000 men) 3 cavalry brigades, e.g.: Maj. Gen. Fitzhugh Lee's brigade Casualties and losses 1 KIA, 12 wounded 8 casualties [show] v t e Gettysburg Campaign The Battle of Carlisle was an American Civil War skirmish [1] in Pennsylvania on the same day as the Battle of Gettysburg, First Day. Stuart's Confederate cavalry briefly engaged Union militia under Maj. Gen. William F. "Baldy" Smith at Carlisle and set fire to the Carlisle Barracks. Stuart's cavalry withdrew and arrived at the Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day, to the annoyance and concern of Gen. Robert E. Lee.[need quotation to verify] After Carlisle was settled in 1741, the Carlisle Barracks military post was established nearby in 1757 and had an antebellum United States Army Cavalry School (e.g., Captain Stoneman’s four companies had a Civil War encampment at Horner’s Mill on May 6, 1861.)[1] By June 1863 the barrack's cavalry had been "withdrawn to Harrisburg".[2] At the end of the month, Confederate troops of Lt. Gen. Richard S. Ewell's Second Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia a few days earlier. On June 27, 1863, Ewell stopped at Carlisle en route to Harrisburg and requisitioned supplies, forage, and food from the populace. Ewell, as well as some of his officers, had been stationed at the Carlisle Barracks prior to the Civil War when they were still members of the United States Army. He paused in Carlisle while sending his cavalry under Brig. Gen. Albert G. Jenkins towards the Susquehanna River and Harrisburg. After resting much of his infantry overnight, Ewell moved northward in his quest to seize the state capital. After the Confederates left in response to an order from Lee to concentrate near Gettysburg, Carlisle had been reoccupied by Baldy Smith and a small contingent of New York and Pennsylvania militia from the Department of the Susquehanna, dispatched by the department commander, Maj. Gen. Darius N. Couch. The 32nd and 33rd Pennsylvania Volunteer Militia, Landis's Philadelphia militia artillery battery, and a company of the 1st New York Cavalry formed Smith's force. Stuart's raid During the early evening of July 1, Stuart led two brigades of cavalry, at the end of their raid into Maryland and Pennsylvania, to Carlisle to look for supplies and to attempt to ascertain the whereabouts of Ewell's troops.[3][verification needed] A third brigade, under Wade Hampton, remained behind in York County to guard a train of 125 captured Federal supply wagons. Instead of finding Ewell, Stuart encountered Smith's militiamen. Despite having a large numerical advantage, Stuart's troopers were too exhausted from a month of campaigning to attack the town outright, and Stuart initially feared that the enemy troops were veterans from the Army of the Potomac.[need quotation to verify] After learning that Smith's men were only militia, Stuart sent Maj. Gen. Fitzhugh Lee into Carlisle with a white flag, telling Smith to either evacuate the town or clear out the women and children. Smith replied that he had already done the latter, and refused to surrender. Stuart's horse artillery under Captain James Breathed then began bombarding the town. After shelling Carlisle for several hours, Stuart received word that fighting had broken out to the southwest at Gettysburg between the main armies. Unable to take the town by force, Stuart disengaged, having ordered his troops to set on fire the Carlisle Barracks. Stuart's troops started moving towards the fighting at Gettysburg about 1:00 am on July 2, 1863. In addition to minimal Union and Confederate casualties, a lumber yard and the town gas works were destroyed after being set fire. However, Stuart's delay at Carlisle impacted his ability to rendezvous with Lee's main army. Louis Sheehan mrely posted this in an effort to collect information about the Civil War.</p> 20265720 2015-05-03 07:03:37 2015-05-03 07:03:37 open open battle-of-carlisle-20265720 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan 71 Years Ago FDR Dropped a Truthbomb That Still Resonates Today http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/04/12/71-years-ago-fdr-dropped-a-truthbomb-that-still-resonates-today-20233633/ Sun, 12 Apr 2015 17:23:57 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>71 Years Ago FDR Dropped a Truthbomb That Still Resonates Today —By Marianne Szegedy-Maszak| Sun Apr. 12, 2015 6:00 AM EDT Louis Sheehan did not write thi ... someone else wrote it. Only posted by Louis Sheehan. President Franklin D. Roosevelt broadcasts a speech in 1943. George R. Skadding/AP When was the last time you heard an American politician invoke Franklin Delano Roosevelt's policies as models to be emulated? Democrats avoid him because his New Deal policies seem to embody the tax-and-spend, overbearing, and intrusive central government that always puts them on the defensive. And why would a Republican bother with Roosevelt when they believe that Obama is so much worse? Sunday is the seventieth anniversary of FDR's death on April 12, 1945. Since anniversaries are always good opportunities to reflect on the past, I reread one of Roosevelt's speeches that I somehow still remember studying in college. It was his penultimate State of the Union Address, which he delivered on January 11, 1944, and the one in which he outlined a "second Bill of Rights"—a list of what should constitute basic economic security for Americans. click here Advertise on MotherJones.com The world was still at war. Roosevelt had returned in December from meeting Stalin and Churchill at the Tehran Conference where the three leaders discussed not only the final phase of the war, but also how Europe would be divided after the conflict was over. The worst of the Great Depression was over, remedied in large part by the wartime economy. Roosevelt, who was starting his fourth term and was sick with the flu, decided not to go before Congress. Instead, he delivered the address from the White House. Across the country, people could tune in on their radios and hear their president speak. Looking at his speech again, I was struck by how he grapples with so many of the same issues that we do now. Here he is on the domination of special interests: [W]hile the majority goes on about its great work without complaint, a noisy minority maintains an uproar of demands for special favors for special groups. There are pests who swarm through the lobbies of the Congress and the cocktail bars of Washington, representing these special groups as opposed to the basic interests of the Nation as a whole. They have come to look upon the war primarily as a chance to make profits for themselves at the expense of their neighbors—profits in money or in terms of political or social preferment. And whose interests should our representatives in Congress represent? Roosevelt reminds them: And I hope you will remember that all of us in this Government represent the fixed income group just as much as we represent business owners, workers, and farmers. This group of fixed income people includes: teachers, clergy, policemen, firemen, widows and minors on fixed incomes, wives and dependents of our soldiers and sailors, and old-age pensioners. They and their families add up to one-quarter of our one hundred and 30 million people. They have few or no high pressure representatives at the Capitol. Then he gets to the reason for why this is usually referred to as his "Second Bill of Rights" speech. In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted...a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation; the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; the right to a good education. Today, many politicians oppose the sorts of policies Roosevelt was suggesting here: the minimum wage, the Affordable Care Act, the expansion of Social Security, and a more generous student loan program. Who would have the nerve to frame them not as hopes, or matters of "fairness" but as basic "rights" that should at least be legislated but possibly even enshrined in the Constitution? Here is where Roosevelt's argument gets really interesting. He does not just present this Economic Bill of Rights as a question of fairness or some dreamy utopian ideal of equality. He sees them as a fundamental to national security: All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being. America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world. In the decades that followed, Americans became obsessed with national security issues. Any politician can demonize an opponent, curtail some fundamental right, or snag some cash for a contractor by invoking "national security." But national commitments to economic security for the middle class and the poor are rarely contextualized as national security issues. At least, not in the United States. Our leaders are quick to connect poverty in other parts of the world with national security concerns. In his introduction to a September 2002 National Security Strategy document, presented a year after the attack on the World Trade Center, George W. Bush stated that, while poverty does not directly lead to terrorism, "poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders." We tend to look elsewhere for evidence of the dire consequences of poverty and income inequality. But with the Great Depression a very recent memory, Roosevelt knew that what we did in the world mattered less if we did not do the right thing at home. Maybe it's time to focus on that connection again. S</p> 20233633 2015-04-12 17:23:57 2015-04-12 17:23:57 open open 71-years-ago-fdr-dropped-a-truthbomb-that-still-resonates-today-20233633 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan King Cotton http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/04/12/king-cotton-20232598/ Sun, 12 Apr 2015 03:21:16 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Cotton Diplomacy In The Civil War Almost unanimously, Southerners believed they could use cotton to lure England and France into recognizing the Confederacy. Since the administration of Jefferson Davis wanted to avoid any appearance of international "blackmail," the Confederate Congress never formally approved an embargo, but state governments and private citizens voluntarily withheld the crop from the market in hopes of causing a "cotton famine" overseas. Theoretically, widespread shortages would shut down European mills, forcing governments to recognize and perhaps come to the military aid of the Confederacy, or to declare the Union blockade ineffective and disregard or break it in order to reopen Southern ports. The "King Cotton" mentality was seriously flawed, not the least in overestimating the value of "white gold." First, a bumper crop in 1860 had glutted the marketplace, lowering prices and allowing mill owners to stockpile. Cotton prices did rise sharply late in 1861, but workers, not owners, suffered from the effects of unemployment. Producers, drawing from their reserves, did not feel the pinch until late in 1862, and within a year imports from India, Egypt, and Brazil sufficiently replaced Southern cotton. Second, Davis, never an astute diplomat, failed to recognize how much Europe feared the possibility of war with the U.S. Private European citizens and industrialists invested in speculative ventures tenuously backed by Southern cotton securities, but their governments would not antagonize the North by recognizing the Confederacy for the sake of guaranteeing those investments or increasing supplies of the staple. Further, Southern society tied cotton inseparably to slavery, and England, the example Napoleon Ill would follow, led the abolitionist movement in the world community. Europe's wait-and-see attitude hardened into unassailable neutrality after the Southern armies suffered reverses beginning at Gettysburg, and Davis and his supporters realized the cotton strategy had failed as a diplomatic tool. They had unwisely hoarded their one great asset and undermined their best chance of financing the war. Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" edited by Patricia L. Faust This Page last updated 02/16/02 Louis Sheehan DID NOT write this. </p> 20232598 2015-04-12 03:21:16 2015-04-12 03:21:16 open open king-cotton-20232598 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan You are here: Home » A Gettysburg Hero’s Irish Memorial June 21, 2010 | 4 Comments A Gettysburg Hero’s Irish Memorial http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/04/10/you-are-here-home-a-gettysburg-hero-s-irish-memorial-june-21-2010-4-comments-a-gettysburg-hero-s-irish-memorial-20230954/ Fri, 10 Apr 2015 22:45:39 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>You are here: Home » A Gettysburg Hero’s Irish Memorial June 21, 2010 | 4 Comments A Gettysburg Hero’s Irish Memorial A recent post brought you news of the unveiling of a memorial in Carrick-On-Suir, Co. Tipperary to Captain John Lonergan who won the Medal of Honor at Gettysburg. A follow-up visit has allowed some photos of the memorial to be posted and also provides a backdrop for a more detailed look at Lonergan’s actions in this momentous battle. John Lonergan was born in 1837 at Sir John’s Road, Carrick-On-Suir, Co. Tipperary. His family emigrated to the United States in 1848 where he was active in the Fenian movement both prior to and following the Civil War. Lonergan became a Captain of Company A, 13th Vermont Regiment, a nine-month unit that was organised in October 1862. They spent much of their service on guard duty but joined the main body of the Army of the Potomac in time for its greatest battle at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in July 1863. The 13th Vermont arrived at the battlefield on the evening of the first day (July 1st) as part of Brigadier-General Stannard’s 3rd Brigade (2nd Vermont Brigade) of Major-General Abner Doubleday’s 3rd Division. They were part of Major-General Reynolds I Corps. The 13th Vermont’s first major action of the battle took place on the second day (July 2nd), when the regiment were positioned in support of artillery at Cemetery Hill. While stationed here they received an urgent request to rescue a Federal Battery in General Hancock’s section of the line that had been abandoned and was about to be taken by the Confederates. The Vermont men counterattacked and drove the enemy back, in the process recapturing the guns. Having accomplished this the 13th Vermont and Captain John Lonergan’s Company A continued their advance and charged as far as the Emmittsburg Road, where two Confederate artillery pieces were captured. Not content with this, Lonergan and his men then surrounded the Roger’s House which contained a large number of Confederate troops, and forced them to surrender. Despite the heavy fighting that they experienced the 13th Vermont’s role in the battle was not over, as they were to play an important part in the repulse of the Confederate advance on the final day (July 3rd), which has gone down in history as ‘Pickett’s Charge’. The 13th Vermont had arrived at Gettysburg with a strength of some 636 men. They were to lose 10 men killed, 103 wounded and 10 missing (a percentage loss of 19%) during the course of the fighting (Bicheno 2001). Following the battle John Lonergan’s pivotal role in the 13th Vermont’s success on Gettysburg’s second day was acknowledged, as he was the recipient of the Medal of Honor for his actions. The citation indicated that the award was presented as a result of Lonergan’s gallantry in the recapture of four guns, as well as the capture of two additional enemy guns and a number of prisoners. The memorial on the street where he was born in Carrick-On-Suir was officially unveiled on May 8th last. It is in a prominent position on one of the main routes into the town, and is a fitting tribute to the Tipperary native. References & Further Reading Bicheno, Hugh 2001. Gettysburg Clarke, Albert 13th Vermont Infantry History Congressional Medal of Honor Society Share this: EmailFacebook3RedditStumbleUponTwitter4LinkedInGoogleTumblrPinterestPress ThisPocket Related Unveiling of Captain John Lonergan Memorial In "Battle of Gettysburg" Fenian Casualties at Gettysburg In "Battle of Gettysburg" Upcoming Speaking Engagements In "Update" Tags: Gettysburg, Irish History, John Lonergan, Memorial, Tipperary, Vermont Categories: Battle of Gettysburg, Fenians, Medal of Honor, Pennsylvania, Tipperary, Vermont AUTHOR: Damian Shiels I am an archaeologist based in Ireland, specialising in conflict archaeology. View all posts by Damian Shiels → Follow Irish in the American Civil War Follow Irish in the American Civil War via Social Media ← 69th Pennsylvania Marker at GlendaleMyles Walter Keogh Memorial → 4 Comments on “A Gettysburg Hero’s Irish Memorial” Reply Peter PattenMarch 23, 2014 at 10:27 pm # The bulk of the company were Irishman recruited off the marble quarries at West Rutland. My ggrandfather John Patten was a prime candidate for lieutenancy in the company but lacked the literacy skills. The position went to fellow parish of Ardstraw native David McDevitt. The other lieutenant was Wexford man John Sinnott who was killed at Gettysburg Reply Damian ShielsMarch 27, 2014 at 10:26 am # Hi Peter, Thanks for this- I wonder was your g-grandfather fortunate to miss out on that position give the dangers associated! I must say you have really opened my eyes over the past few months to the real wealth of Irish diaspora history in Vermont, it is remarkable. Kind Regards, Damian. Damian. Reply Mike McCarthyDecember 15, 2014 at 10:36 pm # My ancestors were Sinnotts from County Wexford. Are the parents and parish of John Sinnott known? Thanks Reply Damian ShielsDecember 17, 2014 at 11:55 am # Hi Mike, I am not sure- Peter do you have access to that information? Damian. Posted by Louis Sheehan </p> 20230954 2015-04-10 22:45:39 2015-04-10 22:45:39 open open you-are-here-home-a-gettysburg-hero-s-irish-memorial-june-21-2010-4-comments-a-gettysburg-hero-s-irish-memorial-20230954 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Union Blockade http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/04/09/union-blockade-20227890/ Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:36:36 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Louis Sheehan posted but did not write this. Part of the American Civil War An 1861 characterized map of the Union blockade, known as Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan. Date 1861 - 1865 Location Southern United States, Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico Result Union victory, successful blockade of the South. Belligerents United States United States (Union) Confederate States of America Confederate States Commanders and leaders United States Abraham Lincoln Confederate States of America Jefferson Davis Theaters of the American Civil War The Union blockade in the American Civil War was a naval strategy by the United States to prevent the Confederacy from trading. The blockade was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln in April 1861, and required the monitoring of 3,500 miles of Atlantic and Gulf coastline, including 12 major ports, notably New Orleans and Mobile. Many attempts to run the blockade were successful,[1] but those ships fast enough to evade the Union Navy could only carry a small fraction of the supplies needed.[2] These blockade runners were operated largely by British citizens, making use of neutral ports such as Havana, Nassau and Bermuda. The Union commissioned 500 ships, which destroyed or captured about 1,500 blockade runners over the course of the war. Contents [hide] 1 Proclamation of blockade and legal implications 1.1 Recognition of the Confederacy 2 Operations 2.1 Scope 2.2 Blockade service 2.3 Blockade runners 3 Impact on the Confederacy 3.1 Confederate response 4 Major engagements 5 Squadrons 5.1 Atlantic Blockading Squadron 5.2 North Atlantic Blockading Squadron 5.2.1 Commanders 5.3 South Atlantic Blockading Squadron 5.3.1 Commanders 5.4 Gulf Blockading Squadron 5.4.1 Commanders 5.5 East Gulf Blockading Squadron 5.5.1 Commanders 5.6 West Gulf Blockading Squadron 5.6.1 Commanders 6 See also 7 References 8 Bibliography 9 Further reading 10 External links Proclamation of blockade and legal implications[edit] On 19 April 1861, President Lincoln issued a Proclamation of Blockade Against Southern Ports:[3] Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein comformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States: And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States: And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session, to deliberate and determine thereon: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of Nations, in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the Commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable. And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth. Recognition of the Confederacy[edit] In his Memoirs of Service Afloat, Raphael Semmes contended that the announcement of a blockade carried de facto recognition of the Confederate States of America as an independent national entity since countries do not blockade their own ports but rather close them.[4] Under international law and maritime law, however, nations had the right to stop and search neutral ships in international waters if they were suspected of violating a blockade, something port closures would not allow. In an effort to avoid conflict between the United States and Britain over the searching of British merchant vessels thought to be trading with the Confederacy, the Union needed the privileges of international law that came with the declaration of a blockade. However, by effectively declaring the Confederate States of America to be belligerents —rather than insurrectionists, who under international law were not eligible for recognition by foreign powers— Lincoln opened the way for European powers such as Britain and France to recognize the Confederacy. Britain's proclamation of neutrality was consistent with the Lincoln Administration's position —that under international law the Confederates were belligerents— and helped legitimize the Confederate States of America's national right to obtain loans and buy arms from neutral nations. The British proclamation also formally gave Britain the diplomatic right to discuss openly which side, if any, to support.[1] Operations[edit] Scope[edit] A joint Union military-navy commission, known as the Blockade Strategy Board, was formed to develop plans for seizing key Southern ports to utilize as Union bases of operations to expand the blockade. It first met in June 1861 in Washington, D.C., under the leadership of Captain Samuel F. Du Pont.[5] In the initial phase of the blockade, Union forces concentrated on the Atlantic Coast. The November 1861 capture of Port Royal in South Carolina provided the Federals with an open ocean port and repair and maintenance facilities in good operating condition. It became an early base of operations for further expansion of the blockade along the Atlantic coastline,[6] including the Stone Fleet. Apalachicola, Florida, received Confederate goods traveling down the Chattahoochee River from Columbus, Georgia, and was an early target of Union blockade efforts on Florida's Gulf Coast.[7] Another early prize was Ship Island, which gave the Navy a base from which to patrol the entrances to both the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay. The Navy gradually extended its reach throughout the Gulf of Mexico to the Texas coastline, including Galveston and Sabine Pass.[8] With 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of Confederate coastline and 180 possible ports of entry to patrol, the blockade would be the largest such effort ever attempted. The United States Navy had 42 ships in active service, and another 48 laid up and listed as available as soon as crews could be assembled and trained. Half were sailing ships, some were technologically outdated, most were at the time patrolling distant oceans, one served on Lake Erie and could not be moved into the ocean, and another had gone missing off Hawaii.[9] At the time of the declaration of the blockade, the Union only had three ships suitable for blockade duty. The Navy Department, under the leadership of Navy Secretary Gideon Welles, quickly moved to expand the fleet. U.S. warships patrolling abroad were recalled, a massive shipbuilding program was launched, civilian merchant and passenger ships were purchased for naval service, and captured blockade runners were commissioned into the navy. In 1861, nearly 80 steamers and 60 sailing ships were added to the fleet, and the number of blockading vessels rose to 160. Some 52 more warships were under construction by the end of the year.[10][11] By November 1862, there were 282 steamers and 102 sailing ships.[12] By the end of the war, the Union Navy had grown to a size of 671 ships, making it the largest navy in the world.[13] By the end of 1861, the Navy had grown to 24,000 officers and enlisted men, over 15,000 more than in antebellum service. Four squadrons of ships were deployed, two in the Atlantic and two in the Gulf of Mexico.[14] Blockade service[edit] Blockade service was attractive to Federal seamen and landsmen alike. Blockade station service was considered the most boring job in the war but also the most attractive in terms of potential financial gain. The task was for the fleet to sail back and forth to intercept any blockade runners. More than 50,000 men volunteered for the boring duty, because food and living conditions on ship were much better than the infantry offered, the work was safer, and especially because of the real (albeit small) chance for big money. Captured ships and their cargoes were sold at auction and the proceeds split among the sailors. When Eolus seized the hapless blockade runner Hope off Wilmington, North Carolina, in late 1864, the captain won $13,000 ($196,023 today), the chief engineer $6,700, the seamen more than $1,000 each, and the cabin boy $533, compared to infantry pay of $13 ($196 today) per month.[15] The amount garnered for blockade runners widely varied. While the little Alligator sold for only $50, bagging the Memphis brought in $510,000 ($7,690,149 today) (about what 40 civilian workers could earn in a lifetime of work). In four years, $25 million in prize money was awarded. Blockade runners[edit] The Confederate blockade runner SS Banshee in 1863 While a large proportion of blockade runners did manage to evade the Union ships, as the blockade matured, the type of ship most likely to find success in evading the naval cordon was a small, light ship with a short draft—qualities that facilitated blockade running but were poorly suited to carrying large amounts of heavy weaponry, metals, and other supplies badly needed by the South. To be successful in helping the Confederacy, a blockade runner had to make many trips; eventually, most were captured or sunk. Nonetheless, five out of six attempts to evade the Union blockade were successful. During the war, some 1,500 blockade runners were captured or destroyed.[1] Ordinary freighters were too slow and visible to escape the Navy. The blockade runners therefore relied mainly on new steamships built in Britain with low profiles, shallow draft, and high speed. Their paddle-wheels, driven by steam engines that burned smokeless anthracite coal, could make 17 kn (31 km/h; 20 mph). Because the South lacked sufficient sailors, skippers and shipbuilding capability, the runners were built, commanded and manned by British officers and sailors. Private British investors spent perhaps £50 million on the runners ($250 million in U.S. dollars, equivalent to about $2.5 billion in 2006 dollars). The pay was high: a Royal Navy officer on leave might earn several thousand dollars (in gold) in salary and bonus per round trip, with ordinary seamen earning several hundred dollars. Blockade runner SS A.D. Vance, captured by the Union Navy and recommissioned as Advance The blockade runners were based in the British islands of Bermuda and the Bahamas, or Havana, in Spanish Cuba. The goods they carried were brought to these places by ordinary cargo ships, and loaded onto the runners. The runners then ran the gauntlet between their bases and Confederate ports, some 500–700 mi (800–1,130 km) apart. On each trip, a runner carried several hundred tons of compact, high-value cargo such as cotton, turpentine or tobacco outbound, and rifles, medicine, brandy, lingerie and coffee inbound. Often they also carried mail. They charged from $300 to $1,000 per ton of cargo brought in; two round trips a month would generate perhaps $250,000 in revenue (and $80,000 in wages and expenses). Blockade runners preferred to run past the Union Navy at night, either on moonless nights, before the moon rose, or after it set. As they approached the coastline, the ships showed no lights, and sailors were prohibited from smoking. Likewise, Union warships covered all their lights, except perhaps a faint light on the commander's ship. If a Union warship discovered a blockade runner, it fired signal rockets in the direction of its course to alert other ships. The runners adapted to such tactics by firing their own rockets in different directions to confuse Union warships.[16] In November 1864, a wholesaler in Wilmington asked his agent in the Bahamas to stop sending so much chloroform and instead send "essence of cognac" because that perfume would sell "quite high". Confederate patriots held rich blockade runners in contempt for profiteering on luxuries while the soldiers were in rags. On the other hand, their bravery and initiative were necessary for the nation's survival, and many women in the back country flaunted imported $10 gewgaws and $50 hats as patriotic proof that the "damn yankees" had failed to isolate them from the outer world. The government in Richmond, Virginia, eventually regulated the traffic, requiring half the imports to be munitions; it even purchased and operated some runners on its own account and made sure they loaded vital war goods. By 1864, Lee's soldiers were eating imported meat. Blockade running was reasonably safe for both sides. It was not illegal under international law; captured foreign sailors were released, while Confederates went to prison camps. The ships were unarmed (the weight of cannon would slow them down), so they posed no danger to the Navy warships. One example of the lucrative (and short-lived) nature of the blockade running trade was the ship Banshee, which operated out of Nassau and Bermuda. She was captured on her seventh run into Wilmington, North Carolina, and confiscated by the U.S. Navy for use as a blockading ship. However, at the time of her capture, she had turned a 700% profit for her English owners, who quickly commissioned and built Banshee No. 2, which soon joined the firm's fleet of blockade runners.[17] In May 1865, CSS Lark became the last Confederate ship to slip out of a Southern port and successfully evade the Union blockade when she left Galveston, Texas, for Havana.[18] Impact on the Confederacy[edit] The Union blockade was a powerful weapon that eventually ruined the Southern economy, at the cost of very few lives.[19] The measure of the blockade's success was not the few ships that slipped through, but the thousands that never tried it. Ordinary freighters had no reasonable hope of evading the blockade and stopped calling at Southern ports. The interdiction of coastal traffic meant that long-distance travel depended on the rickety railroad system, which never overcame the devastating impact of the blockade. Throughout the war, the South produced enough food for civilians and soldiers, but it had growing difficulty in moving surpluses to areas of scarcity and famine. Lee's army, at the end of the supply line, nearly always was short of supplies as the war progressed into its final two years. When the blockade began in 1861, it was only partially effective. It has been estimated that only one in ten ships trying to evade the blockade were intercepted. However, the Union Navy gradually increased in size throughout the war, and was able to drastically reduce shipments into Confederate ports. By 1864, one in every three ships attempting to run the blockade were being intercepted.[20] In the final two years of the war, the only ships with a reasonable chance of evading the blockade were blockade runners specifically designed for speed.[21][22] The blockade almost totally choked off Southern cotton exports, which the Confederacy depended on for hard currency. Cotton exports fell 95%, from 10 million bales in the three years prior to the war to just 500,000 bales during the blockade period.[1] The blockade also largely reduced imports of food, medicine, war materials, manufactured goods, and luxury items, resulting in severe shortages and inflation. Shortages of bread led to occasional bread riots in Richmond and other cities, showing that patriotism was not sufficient to satisfy the daily demands of the people. Land routes remained open for cattle drovers, but after the Union seized control of the Mississippi River in summer 1863, it became impossible to ship horses, cattle and swine from Texas and Arkansas to the eastern Confederacy. The blockade was a triumph of the Union Navy and a major factor in winning the war. Confederate response[edit] CSS David engaging New Ironsides on 5 October 1863, during the blockade of Charleston. The Confederacy constructed torpedo boats, tending to be small, fast steam launches equipped with spar torpedoes, to attack the blockading fleet. Some torpedo boats were refitted steam launches; others, such as the CSS David class, were purpose-built. The torpedo boats tried to attack under cover of night by ramming the spar torpedo into the hull of the blockading ship, then backing off and detonating the explosive. The torpedo boats were not very effective and were easily countered by simple measures such as hanging chains over the sides of ships to foul the screws of the torpedo boats, or encircling the ships with wooden booms to trap the torpedoes at a distance. One historically notable naval action was the attack of the CSS H. L. Hunley, a hand-powered submarine launched from Charleston, South Carolina, against Union blockade ships. On the night of 17 February 1864, Hunley attacked Housatonic. The Housatonic sank with the loss of five crew; the Hunley also sank, taking her crew of eight to the bottom. Major engagements[edit] The first victory for the U.S. Navy during the early phases of the blockade occurred on 24 April 1861, when the sloop Cumberland and a small flotilla of support ships began seizing Confederate ships and privateers in the vicinity of Fort Monroe off the Virginia coastline. Within the next two weeks, Flag Officer Garrett J. Pendergrast had captured 16 enemy vessels, serving early notice to the Confederate War Department that the blockade would be effective if extended.[23] Early battles in support of the blockade included the Blockade of the Chesapeake Bay,[24] from May to June 1861, and the Blockade of the Carolina Coast, August–December 1861.[25] Both enabled the Union Navy to gradually extend its blockade southward along the Atlantic seaboard. In early March 1862, the blockade of the James River in Virginia was gravely threatened by the first ironclad, CSS Virginia in the dramatic Battle of Hampton Roads. Only the timely entry of the new Union ironclad Monitor forestalled the threat. Two months later, Virginia and other ships of the James River Squadron were scuttled in response to the Union Army and Navy advances. The port of Savannah, Georgia was effectively sealed by the reduction and surrender of Fort Pulaski on 11 April.[26] The largest Confederate port, New Orleans, Louisiana, was ill-suited to blockade running since the channels could be sealed by the U.S. Navy. From 16–22 April, the major forts below the city, Forts Jackson and St. Philip were bombarded by David Dixon Porter's mortar schooners. On 22 April, Flag Officer David Farragut's fleet cleared a passage through the obstructions. The fleet successfully ran past the forts on the morning of 24 April. This forced the surrender of the forts and New Orleans.[27] The Battle of Mobile Bay on 5 August 1864 closed the last major Confederate port in the Gulf of Mexico. "The Battle of Mobile Bay" by Louis Prang. In December 1864, Union Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles sent a force against Fort Fisher, which protected the Confederate's access to the Atlantic from Wilmington, North Carolina, the last open Confederate port.[28] The first attack failed, but with a change in tactics (and Union generals), the fort fell in January 1865, closing the last major Confederate port. As the Union fleet grew in size, speed and sophistication, more ports came under Federal control. After 1862, only three ports—Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina; and Mobile, Alabama—remained open for the 75-100 blockade runners in business. Charleston was shut down by Admiral John A. Dahlgren's South Atlantic Blockading Squadron in 1863. Mobile Bay was captured in August 1864 by Admiral David Farragut. Blockade runners faced an increasing risk of capture— in 1861 and 1862, one sortie in 9 ended in capture; in 1863 and 1864, one in 3. By war's end, imports had been choked to a trickle as the number of captures came to 50% of the sorties. Some 1,100 blockade runners were captured (and another 300 destroyed). British investors frequently made the mistake of reinvesting their profits in the trade; when the war ended they were stuck with useless ships and rapidly depreciating cotton. In the final accounting, perhaps half the investors took a profit, and half a loss. The Union victory at Vicksburg, Mississippi, in July 1863 opened up the Mississippi River and effectively cut off the western Confederacy as a source of troops and supplies. The fall of Fort Fisher and the city of Wilmington, North Carolina, early in 1865 closed the last major port for blockade runners, and in quick succession Richmond was evacuated, the Army of Northern Virginia disintegrated, and General Lee surrendered. Thus, most economists give the Union blockade a prominent role in the outcome of the war. (Elekund, 2004) Squadrons[edit] The Union naval ships enforcing the blockade were divided into squadrons based on their area of operation.[29] Atlantic Blockading Squadron[edit] The Atlantic Blockading Squadron was a unit of the United States Navy created in the early days of the American Civil War to enforce a blockade of the ports of the Confederate States. It was originally formed in 1861 as the Coast Blockading Squadron before being renamed May 17, 1861. It was split the same year for the creation of the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron and the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron. North Atlantic Blockading Squadron[edit] The North Atlantic Blockading Squadron was based at Hampton Roads, Virginia, and was tasked with coverage of Virginia and North Carolina. Its official range of operation was from the Potomac River to Cape Fear in North Carolina. It was tasked primarily with preventing Confederate ships from supplying troops and with supporting Union troops. It was created when the Atlantic Blockading Squadron was split between the North and South Atlantic Blockading Squadrons on 29 October 1861. After the end of the war, the squadron was merged into the Atlantic Squadron on 25 July 1865.[29] Commanders[edit] Squadron Commander From To Flag Officer Louis M. Goldsborough 18 September 1861[30] 4 September 1862 Acting Rear Admiral[30] Samuel Phillips Lee 5 September 1862[30] 11 October 1864 Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter 12 October 1864 27 April 1865 Acting Rear Admiral[30] William Radford 28 April 1865[30] 25 July 1865 South Atlantic Blockading Squadron[edit] The South Atlantic Blockading Squadron was tasked primarily with preventing Confederate ships from supplying troops and with supporting Union troops operating between Cape Henry in Virginia down to Key West in Florida. It was created when the Atlantic Blockading Squadron was split between the North and South Atlantic Blockading Squadrons on 29 October 1861. After the end of the war, the squadron was merged into the Atlantic Squadron on 25 July 1865. Commanders[edit] Squadron Commander From To Rear Admiral Samuel Francis Du Pont 18 September 1861[30] 5 July 1863 Rear Admiral John A. Dahlgren 6 July 1863[30] 25 July 1865 Gulf Blockading Squadron[edit] The Gulf Blockading Squadron was a squadron of the United States Navy in the early part of the War, patrolling from Key West to the Mexican border. The squadron was the largest in operation. It was split into the East and West Gulf Blockading Squadrons in early 1862 for more efficiency. Commanders[edit] Squadron Commander From To Flag Officer William Mervine 6 May 1861 21 September 1861 Flag Officer William McKean 22 September 1861 20 January 1862 East Gulf Blockading Squadron[edit] The East Gulf Blockading Squadron, assigned the Florida coast from east of Pensacola to Cape Canaveral, was a minor command.[31] Commanders[edit] Squadron Commander[32] From To Flag Officer William McKean 20 January 1862 3 June 1862 Flag Officer James L. Lardner 4 June 1862 8 December 1862 Acting Rear Admiral Theodorus Bailey 9 December 1862 6 August 1864 Captain Theodore P. Greene (commander pro tem) 7 August 1864 11 October 1864 Acting Rear Admiral Cornelius Stribling 12 October 1864 12 June 1865 West Gulf Blockading Squadron[edit] The West Gulf Blockading Squadron was tasked primarily with preventing Confederate ships from supplying troops and with supporting Union troops along the western half of the Gulf Coast, from the mouth of the Mississippi to the Rio Grande and south, beyond the border with Mexico. It was created early in 1862 when the Gulf Blockading Squadron was split between the East and West. This unit was the main military force deployed by the Union in the capture and brief occupation of Galveston, Texas in 1862. Commanders[edit] Squadron Commander[32] From To Rear Admiral David Farragut 20 January 1862 29 November 1864 Commodore James S. Palmer 30 November 1864 22 February 1865 Acting Rear Admiral Henry K. Thatcher 23 February 1865 12 June 1865 See also[edit] Portal icon American Civil War portal Union Navy Confederate Navy Blockade runners of the American Civil War Blockade mail of the Confederacy Bibliography of American Civil War naval history References[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b c d "Lincoln biography". Americanpresident.org. Retrieved June 8, 2010. Jump up ^ Wyllie, 2007 p.184 Jump up ^ "History Place". History Place. Retrieved June 8, 2010. Jump up ^ "Jenkins essay". Wideopenwest.com. Retrieved June 8, 2010. Jump up ^ Time-Life, page 29. Jump up ^ Time-Life, page 31. Jump up ^ "National Park Service". nps.gov. Retrieved June 8, 2010. Jump up ^ Dead link Jump up ^ Soley, James Russel, The Blockade and the Cruisers Jump up ^ Davis, Kenneth C.- Don't Know Much About The Civil War. ISBN 0688118143 Jump up ^ "Blockade essays" (PDF). Retrieved June 8, 2010. Jump up ^ Appletons' annual cyclopaedia and register of important events of the year: 1862. New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1863. p. 604. Jump up ^ http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/maritime/navy.htm Jump up ^ Time-Life, page 33. Jump up ^ The Civil War in North Carolina – Google Books. Books.google.com. Retrieved June 8, 2010. Jump up ^ http://www.jcs-group.com/military/war1861fringe/running.html Jump up ^ Time-Life, page 95. Jump up ^ "Galveston ''Weekly News'', April 26, 1865". Nautarch.tamu.edu. July 3, 2000. Retrieved June 8, 2010. Jump up ^ Land and Liberty I: A Chronology of ... – Google Books. Books.google.com. Retrieved June 8, 2010. Jump up ^ http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_american_civil_war09_waratsea.html Jump up ^ Bulloch, James Dunwody (1884). The secret service of the Confederate States in Europe, or, How the Confederate cruisers were equipped. G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York. p. 460. Jump up ^ Merli, Frank J. (1970). Great Britain and the Confederate Navy, 1861-1865. Indiana University Press, Indiana. p. 342. ISBN 0-253-21735-0. Jump up ^ Time-Life, page 24. Jump up ^ "National Park Service". nps.gov. Retrieved June 8, 2010. Jump up ^ "National Park Service". nps.gov. Retrieved June 8, 2010. Jump up ^ NPS.gov, National Park Service Summary Siege of Fort Pulaski Jump up ^ NPS.gov, National Park Service Summary Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philips Jump up ^ "Amphibious Warfare: Nineteenth Century". Exwar.org. Retrieved June 8, 2010. ^ Jump up to: a b From Cape Charles to Cape Fear: the ... – Google Books. Books.google.com. Retrieved June 8, 2010. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Civil War Desk Reference, p.550. Jump up ^ Anderson, 1989 p.118 ^ Jump up to: a b Civil War Desk Reference, p.551. Bibliography[edit] Anderson, Bern (1989). By Sea and by River The Naval History of the Civil. Da Capo Press, New York. p. 342. ISBN 978-0-615-17222-4. Url Browning, Robert M., Jr. (1993). From Cape Charles to Cape Fear. The North Atlantic Blockading Squadron during the Civil War. University of Alabama Press. p. 472. Url —— (2002). Success is All That Was Expected. The South Atlantic Blockading Squadron during the Civil War. Washington DC: Brassley's. p. 123. ISBN 1-57488-514-6. Url Buker, George E. (1993). Blockaders, Refugees, and Contrabands: Civil War on Florida's Gulf Coast, 1861–1865. University of Alabama Press. p. 235. Url Coker, P. C., III (1987). Charleston's Maritime Heritage, 1670–1865: An Illustrated History. CokerCraft Press. p. 314. Url Elekund, R.B.; Jackson, M.; J.D., Thornton (2004). The 'Unintended Consequences' of Confederate Trade Legislation. Eastern Economic Journal. p. 123. Fowler, William M. (1990). Under Two Flags: The American Navy in the Civil War. p. 123. ISBN 0-393-02859-3. Greene, Jack, (1998).Ironclads at War Combined Publishing Surdam, David G., (2001).Northern Naval Superiority and the Economics of the American Civil War University of South Carolina Press Time-Life Books, (1983)The Blockade: Runners and Raiders. The Civil War series Time-Life Books, ISBN 0-8094-4708-8. Vandiver, Frank Everson, (1947).Confederate Blockade Running Through Bermuda, 1861–1865: Letters And Cargo Manifests, primary documents Wagner, Margaret E., Gallagher, Gary W. and Finkelman, Paul ed.,(2002) The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference Simon & Schuster, New York. ISBN 978-1-4391-4884-6 Wise, Stephen R. (1991). Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War. Univ of South Carolina Press. p. 403. ISBN 0-87249-554-X. Url Wyllie, Arthur (2007). The Confederate States Navy. Lulu.com. p. 466. ISBN 978-0-615-17222-4. Url1 Url2 Wynne, Nick & Cranshaw, Joe (2011). Florida Civil War Blockades History Press,Charleston, SC, ISBN 978-1-60949-340-0. Further reading[edit] Calore, Paul (2002). Naval Campaigns of the Civil War. McFarland. p. 232. Url Tucker, Spencer (2010). The Civil War Naval Encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 829. ISBN 978-1-59884-338-5. Url External links[edit] National Park Service listing of campaigns Book review: Lifeline of the Confederacy Unintended Consequences of Confederate Trade Legislation The Hapless Anaconda: Union Blockade 1861–1865 Sabine Pass and Galveston Were Successful Blockade-Running Ports By W. T. Block Civil War Blockade Organization David G. Surdam, Northern Naval Superiority and the Economics of the American Civil War ISBN 1-57003-407-9 "The Egotistigraphy", by John Sanford Barnes. An autobiography, including his Civil War Union Navy service on a ship participating in the blockade, USS Wabash, privately printed 1910. Internet edition edited by Susan Bainbridge Hay 2012 </p> 20227890 2015-04-09 04:36:36 2015-04-09 04:36:36 open open union-blockade-20227890 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Darius N. Couch http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/04/06/darius-n-couch-20223209/ Mon, 06 Apr 2015 03:22:35 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Darius N. Couch From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Darius Nash Couch Darius N. Couch - Brady-Handy.jpg Portrait of Darius Couch by Mathew Brady or Levin C. Handy taken in 1861 or 1862. Born July 23, 1822 Putnam County, New York Died February 12, 1897 (aged 74) Norwalk, Connecticut Place of burial Mount Pleasant Cemetery, Taunton, Massachusetts Allegiance United StatesUnited States of America Union Louis Sheehan Service/branch Artillery, Infantry Years of service 1846–55, 1861–65 Rank Union army maj gen rank insignia.jpg Major General Commands held II Corps, Army of the Potomac Department of the Susquehanna 2nd Division, XXIII Corps Battles/wars Mexican-American War Seminole Wars American Civil War Signature Darius N Couch signature.svg Darius Nash Couch[1] (July 23, 1822 – February 12, 1897) was an American soldier, businessman, and naturalist. He served as a career U.S. Army officer during the Mexican-American War, the Second Seminole War, and as a general officer in the Union Army during the American Civil War. During the Civil War, Couch fought notably in the Peninsula and Fredericksburg campaigns of 1862, and the Chancellorsville and Gettysburg campaigns of 1863. He rose to command a corps in the Army of the Potomac, and led divisions in both the Eastern Theater and Western Theater. Militia under his command played a strategic role during the Gettysburg Campaign in delaying the advance of Confederate troops of the Army of Northern Virginia and preventing their crossing the Susquehanna River, critical to Pennsylvania's defense. He has been described as personally courageous, very thin in build, and after Mexico of frail health.[2] Contents 1 Early life and career 2 American Civil War service 2.1 Seven Pines 2.2 Fredericksburg 2.3 Chancellorsville 2.4 Gettysburg 3 Postbellum career and death 4 See also 5 Notes 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links Early life and career Couch [3] was born in 1822 on a farm in the village of Southeat in Putnam County, New York, and was educated at the local schools there.[4] In 1842 he entered the United States Military Academy at West Point, graduating four years later 13th out of 59 cadets. On July 1, 1846, Couch was commissioned a brevet second lieutenant and was assigned to the 4th U.S. Artillery.[5] Couch then saw action with the U.S. Army during the Mexican-American War, most notably in the Battle of Buena Vista on February 22–23, 1847. For his actions on the second day of this fight, he was brevetted a first lieutenant for "gallant and meritorious conduct." After the war ended in 1848 Couch began serving in garrison duty at Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia. The following year he was stationed at Fort Pickens, located near Pensacola, Florida, and then in Key West. Couch next participated in the Seminole Wars during 1849 and into 1850.[6] Fort Johnston in March 2008; Couch was stationed there in 1851 and 1852. Returning to garrison duty, later that year Couch was sent to Fort Columbus in New York Harbor, and in 1851 Couch was involved in recruiting at Jefferson Barracks located on the Mississippi River at Lemay, Missouri. Later in 1851 he returned to Fort Columbus, and then was ordered to Fort Johnston in Southport, North Carolina, staying there into 1852, and next in garrison at Fort Mifflin in Philadelphia until 1853.[6] Couch then took a one-year leave of absence from the army from 1853 to 1854 to conduct a scientific mission for the Smithsonian Institution in northern Mexico. There, he discovered the species that were known as Couch's Kingbird and Couch's Spadefoot Toad.[7] Upon his return to the United States in 1854, Couch was ordered to Washington, D.C., on detached service. Later that year he resumed garrison duty in Fort Independence at Castle Island along Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. Also in 1854 he was stationed at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and would remain there into the following year. On April 30, 1855, Couch resigned his commission in the U.S. Army. From 1855 to 1857 he was a merchant in New York City.[6] He then moved to Taunton, Massachusetts, and worked as a copper fabricator in the company owned by his wife's family. Couch was still working in Taunton when the American Civil War began in 1861.[7] American Civil War service At the outbreak of the Civil War, Couch was appointed commander of the 7th Massachusetts Infantry on June 15, 1861, with the rank of colonel in the Union Army. That August he was promoted to brigadier general with an effective date back to May 17. He was given brigade command in the Military Division then Army of the Potomac that fall, and Couch was given divisional command in the VI Corps in the following spring.[8] From July 1861 to March 1862 he helped train and then maintain the defenses of Washington, D.C.. He participated in the Peninsula Campaign, fighting in the Siege of Yorktown on April 5–May 4 and the Battle of Williamsburg the following day.[6] Seven Pines Map of 1862's Battle of Seven Pines Couch led his division during the Battle of Seven Pines on May 31 and June 1, 1862. In this engagement his corps commander, Brig. Gen. Erasmus D. Keyes, ordered Couch's division and that of Brig. Gen. Silas Casey forward of the Union defensive line, Couch's men right behind those of Casey. This placed the IV Corps in an isolated position, vulnerable to attack on three sides; however poorly coordinated Confederate movements allowed Couch and Casey to partially prepare entrenchments for impending the assault. As the fighting continued throughout May 31 both Couch and Casey were slowly driven back, with their right flank units in the most peril. At this time Couch counterattacked with his old 7th Massachusetts Infantry and the 62nd New York Infantry in an attempt to bolster that side, however he did not succeed and was forced back, as was the rest of the Union IV Corps by nightfall.[9] Couch continued to lead his division during the 1862 Seven Days Battles that followed, fighting in the Battle of Oak Grove on June 25 and the Battle of Malvern Hill on July 1. Later in July Couch's health began to fail, prompting him to offer his resignation. The army commander, Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, refused to send it to the U.S. War Department, and instead Couch was promoted to major general, to date from July 4. Couch was involved in the Maryland Campaign that fall, although absent from the Battle of Antietam on September 17.[10] Fredericksburg On November 14, 1862, Couch was assigned command of the II Corps, and he led it during the Battle of Fredericksburg as part of Maj. Gen. Edwin V. Sumner's "Right Grand Division".[5] In this fight Couch's corps contained three divisions, led by Brig. Gens. Winfield S. Hancock, Oliver O. Howard, and William H. French.[11] Early on December 12 infantry from his corps attempted to support the Union engineers' efforts to lay pontoon bridges across the Rappahannock River and into the town. When Confederate fire repeatedly prevented this, and a heavy artillery bombardment failed as well, the decision was made to send small groups of soldiers in pontoon boats across to dislodge the defenders. This amphibious assault was executed by one of Couch's brigades under Col. Norman J. Hall (3rd Brigade, 2nd Division - 19th & 20th Massachusetts, 7th Michigan, 42nd & 59th New York, & 127th Pennsylvania) which finally succeeded in driving out the Confederates.[12] Darius Couch's II Army Corps attacks during the 1862 Battle of Fredericksburg As the Union soldiers entered a smoldering Fredericksburg they began to sack the city, forcing Couch to order his provost guard to the bridges and collect the loot. The next day his corps was ordered to attack the Confederate position at the base of Marye's Heights above Fredericksburg. To better watch his men's progress Couch entered the town's courthouse and climbed its cupola, where he could see French's division advancing. As they approached the Confederate defenses, Couch could see his men taking very heavy fire and easily repulsed, described "as if the division had simply vanished." Hancock's division followed that of French, meeting the same fate with high casualties as well. Howard, who was to go in next, was with Couch as Hancock's division attacked. Briefly through the smoke they could see the mounting casualties, and Couch reportedly said "Oh, great God! See how our men, our poor fellows, are falling."[13] Couch ordered Howard to march his division toward the right and possibly flank the Confederate defenses his other two divisions had failed to dislodge. However the terrain did not permit any force marching from Fredericksburg towards Marye's Heights to attack anywhere other than at the stone wall along its base. When Howard's men attacked they were crowded back to the left, meeting the same resistance and were repulsed. As other Union soldiers followed the II Corps in, Couch ordered his artillery to move into the field and blast the Confederates at close range. When his own artillery chief protested exposing the gun crews in this fashion, Couch stated that he agreed but it was necessary to slow the Confederate fire in some way. The cannon stopped about 150 yards from the stone wall and opened fire, but quickly lost most of their crews and did little to slacken the enemy fire. During this Couch moved slowly along his line of men, who were on the ground firing as best they could until nightfall.[14] Recounting the attack on the heights on December 13, Couch wrote after the war: The musketry fire was very heavy & the artillery fire was simply terrible. I sent word, many times, to our artillery on the right of Falmouth that they were firing into us & tearing our own men to pieces. I thought they had made a mistake in the range. But I learned later that the fire came from the guns of the enemy on their extreme left.[15] In the attack Couch's force suffered heavily, as did the rest of the Right Grand Division. He reported the II Corps sustained over four thousand casualties during the Fredericksburg Campaign. French's division lost an estimated 1,200 soldiers and Hancock around 2,000. Howard lost about 850 men, 150 of which were hit on December 11 supporting the engineers at the river.[16] That night the Union wounded remained in the field, and Couch wrote after the war what he saw: "It was a night of dreadful suffering. Many died of wounds & exposure, and as fast as men died they stiffened in the wintry air, & on the front line were rolled forward for protection to the living. Frozen men were placed for dumb sentries."[15] Chancellorsville Following the Union defeat at Fredericksburg and the inglorious Mud March in January 1863, the commander of the Army of the Potomac—Couch's immediate superior—was again replaced. Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside was relieved and Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker named to his place. Hooker reorganized the army and drew up plans for a new campaign against the Army of Northern Virginia. He wished to avoid attacking the Confederate defenses at Fredericksburg and flank them out of position, thereby fighting on more open ground. After the reorganization Couch continued to lead the II Corps, with his divisions commanded by Hancock and French (both now major generals) and Brig. Gen. John Gibbon at the head of Howard's former division, a total of about 17,000 soldiers.[17] During the ensuing Chancellorsville Campaign Couch was the senior corps commander, making him Hooker's second-in-command. In late April, Hooker began moving his corps across the Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers, ordering two of Couch's divisions to entrench and defend the Banks's Ford crossing of the Rappahannock and detach Gibbon's 5,000 men to remain at the Union camp back at Falmouth on April 29. The following day Couch had cleared the ford and was marching toward Chancellorsville. In the afternoon of May 1 Hooker—normally quite aggressive—cautiously slowed his marching army, and soon he stopped their movement altogether, despite some success against the Confederates and the loud protests of his corps commanders. Couch sent Hancock's division to bolster the Union men already engaged and informed Hooker they could handle the enemy in front of them. However, Hooker's orders stood; march back into the positions they held the previous day and assume a defensive posture. Couch complied and ordered Hancock's division to form a rear guard as they withdrew. As Hancock formed his men, Couch could see Confederate artillery aiming for the massed Union columns, and he told his staff "Let us draw their fire." The group of mounted officers clustered around a clearing where the enemy cannon could easily view them, thus attracting their fire and sparing the marching infantry; Couch and his staff also went unharmed. By nightfall the Union soldiers were busy fortifying the ground. Couch formed his divisions behind the XII Corps in roughly the center of Hooker's line.[18] Couch's force defending against the attacks of Maj. Gen. Lafayette McLaws in the morning of May 3, 1863, during the Battle of Chancellorsville By late afternoon on May 2, Hooker's line was hit on the right (the XI Corps led by Howard) by Confederates under Lt. Gen. Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson, and despite resisting the XI Corps was routed and ran toward Chancellorsville. The remaining corps tightened into a "U" shaped formation by May 3, and Confederate artillery began shelling their positions, including Couch's men. At about 9 a.m. that day Hooker was stunned by enemy fire when a shell hit the pillar he was leaning on, temporarily incapacitating him within an hour. At that time Hooker turned command of the army over to Couch, and through consulting with a "groggy" Hooker it was decided to withdraw the army to defensive lines to the north, with the other commanders (except an embarrassed Howard) strongly advocating an attack instead.[19] Gettysburg Darius Couch as a major general in the Union Army. Couch requested reassignment after quarreling with Hooker. He commanded the newly created Department of the Susquehanna during the Gettysburg Campaign in 1863.[20] Fort Couch in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, was constructed under his direction and was named in his honor. Assigned to protect Harrisburg from a threatened attack by Confederates under Lt. Gen. Richard S. Ewell, Couch directed militia from his department to skirmish with enemy cavalry elements at Sporting Hill, one of the war's northernmost engagements.[21] Couch's militia then joined pursuing Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia into Maryland after the Battle of Gettysburg. Confederates again invaded Couch's Department of the Susquehanna in August 1864, as Brig. Gen. John McCausland burned the town of Chambersburg.[22] In December, Couch returned to the front lines with an assignment to the Western Theater, where he commanded a division in the XXIII Corps of the Army of the Ohio in the Franklin-Nashville Campaign and for the remainder of the war. Couch finished his military service after the Carolinas Campaign in 1865. Postbellum career and death Couch Gravesite in Mount Pleasant Cemetery Couch returned to civilian life in Taunton after the war, where he ran unsuccessfully as a Democratic candidate for Governor of Massachusetts in 1865. He later briefly served as president of a mining company in West Virginia. Couch moved to Connecticut in 1871, where he served as the Quartermaster General, and then Adjutant General, for the state militia until 1884. In 1888 he joined the Aztec Club of 1847 by right of his service in the Mexican War. He also joined the Connecticut Society of the Sons of the American Revolution in 1890. He died in Norwalk, Connecticut. He was buried in Mount Pleasant Cemetery in Taunton. See also Portal icon Connecticut portal Portal icon Military of the United States portal Portal icon Biography portal Portal icon United States Army portal Portal icon American Civil War portal List of American Civil War generals List of Massachusetts generals in the American Civil War Massachusetts in the American Civil War Notes Couch's middle name was undoubtedly Nash, although a middle initial of "S" has appeared in reports and is listed that way in Dupuy, Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography, p. 194. Gambone, Major-General Darius Nash Couch, p. 51. The correct pronunciation is /ˈkaʊtʃ/ "couch", not /ˈkoʊtʃ/ "coach", according to biographer Gambone, Major-General Darius Nash Couch, p. 1 footnote reads "According to family members , the proper pronunciation is Couch as in Ouch, not Cooch as is sometimes suggested. Warner, Generals in Blue, p. 95. Eicher, Civil War High Commands, p. 186. "Aztec Club of 1847 site biography of Couch". aztecclub.com. Retrieved 2009-10-21. Heidler, Encyclopedia of the American Civil War, p. 505. Dupuy, Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography, p. 194; Eicher, Civil War High Commands, p. 186. Eicher, Longest Night, pp. 276-78. Aztec Club of 1847 site biography of Couch; Warner, Generals in Blue, p. 95; Dupuy, Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography, p. 194. Eicher, Longest Night, p, 396. Catton, Army of the Potomac: Glory Road, pp. 35-39. Catton, Army of the Potomac: Glory Road, pp. 42, 50, 53, 55-56. Catton, Army of the Potomac: Glory Road, pp. 56, 58-59. Alexander, Fighting for the Confederacy, p. 179. "Couch's official reports for the Fredericksburg Campaign". aztecclub.com. Retrieved 2009-11-26. Eicher, Longest Night, pp. 473-74, 475. Eicher, Longest Night, p. 475, 476, 478; Catton, Army of the Potomac: Glory Road, pp. 168-69. Fredriksen, Civil War Almanac, pp. 287-93; Eicher, Longest Night, pp. 485-86. Gambone, Major-General Darius Nash Couch, pp. 137-38. Gambone, Major-General Darius Nash Couch, p. 170. Louis Sheehan Gambone, Major-General Darius Nash Couch, pp. 208-209. References Alexander, Edward P. Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander. Edited by Gary W. Gallagher. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989. ISBN 0-8078-4722-4. Catton, Bruce. Glory Road. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1952. ISBN 0-385-04167-5. Dupuy, Trevor N., Curt Johnson, and David L. Bongard. The Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography. New York: HarperCollins, 1992. ISBN 978-0-06-270015-5. Eicher, David J. The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. ISBN 0-684-84944-5. Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher. Civil War High Commands. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-8047-3641-3. Foote, Shelby. The Civil War: A Narrative. Vol. 2, Fredericksburg to Meridian. New York: Random House, 1958. ISBN 0-394-49517-9. Fredriksen, John C. Civil War Almanac. New York: Checkmark Books, 2008. ISBN 978-0-8160-7554-6. Gambone, A. M. Major General Darius Nash Couch: Enigmatic Valor. Baltimore: Butternut & Blue, 2000. ISBN 0-935523-75-8. Heidler, David S., and Jeanne T. Heidler. "Darius Nash Couch." In Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History, edited by David S. Heidler and Jeanne T. Heidler. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000. ISBN 0-393-04758-X. Warner, Ezra J. Generals in Blue: Lives of the Union Commanders. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1964. ISBN 0-8071-0822-7. Winkler, H. Donald. Civil War Goats and Scapegoats. Nashville, TN: Cumberland House Publishing, 2008. ISBN 1-58182-631-1. The Union Army; A History of Military Affairs in the Loyal States, 1861–65 — Records of the Regiments in the Union Army — Cyclopedia of Battles — Memoirs of Commanders and Soldiers. Wilmington, NC: Broadfoot Publishing, 1997. First published 1908 by Federal Publishing Company. www.aztecclub.com Aztec Club of 1847 site biography of Couch. civilwarhome.com Couch's official reports for the Fredericksburg Campaign. Further reading Bowen, James Lorenzo. Massachusetts in the War, 1861-1865. Springfield, MA: C. W. Bryan & Co., 1888. OCLC 1986476. External links blueandgraytrail.com Georgia's Blue and Gray Trail site biography of Couch. historycentral.com Couch's writings about the Chancellorville Campaign. www.generalsandbrevets.com at the Wayback Machine (archived February 8, 2008) Photo gallery of Couch. "Darius N. Couch". Find a Grave. Retrieved 2008-02-12.. </p> 20223209 2015-04-06 03:22:35 2015-04-06 03:22:35 open open darius-n-couch-20223209 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan Confederate War Finance http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/04/05/confederate-war-finance-20222243/ Sun, 05 Apr 2015 10:19:05 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Confederate war finance From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Front of Confederate notes (back was unprinted) Confederate war finance refers to the various means, fiscal and monetary, through which the Confederate States of America financed their war effort during the American Civil War. As the war lasted for virtually the entire existence of the nation, it dominated national finance. Early on in the war, the Confederacy relied mostly on tariffs on imports and taxes on exports. However, with the imposition of a voluntary self-embargo in 1861 (intended to "starve" Europe of cotton and force diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy), as well as the blockade of Southern ports enforced by the Union Navy, the revenue from taxes on international trade became smaller and smaller. Likewise, the financing obtained through early voluntary donations of coins and bullion from private individuals in support of the Confederate cause, which early on were quite substantial, dried up by the end of 1861. As a result, the Confederate government was forced to resort to other means of financing its military operations. A "war-tax" was enacted but proved difficult to collect. Likewise, the appropriation of Union property in the South and the forced repudiation of debts owned by Southerners to Northerners failed to raise substantial revenue. The subsequent issuance of government debt and substantial printing of the Confederate dollars contributed to high inflation which plagued the Confederacy until the end of the war, although the military setbacks in the field also played a role by causing loss of confidence and fueling inflationary expectations.[1] At the beginning of the war, the Confederate dollar cost 90¢ worth of gold (Union) dollars. By the war's end, its price had dropped to only .017¢.[2] Overall, the price level in the south increased by 9000% during the war.[3] The Secretary of the Treasury of the Confederate States, Christopher Memminger, was keenly aware of the economic problems posed by inflation and loss of confidence. However, political considerations limited internal taxation ability, and as long as the voluntary embargo and the Union blockade were in place, it was impossible to find adequate alternative sources of finance.[1] Contents [hide] 1 Tax finance 2 Monetary finance and inflation 3 Debt finance 4 Revenue from international trade 5 Other sources of revenue 6 Expenditures 7 See also 8 Notes 9 References Tax finance[edit] Christopher Memminger (1803–1888), the first Secretary of Treasury of the Confederate States of America The South financed a much lower proportion of its expenditures through direct taxes than the North. The share of direct taxes in total revenue for the North was about 20%, while for the South the same share was only about 8%. A major part of the reason why tax revenue did not play as large a role for the Confederacy was the individual states' opposition to a strong central government and the belief in states' rights which precluded giving too much taxing power to the government in Richmond. Another factor for not extending the tax system more broadly was the belief, present in both the North and the South, that the war would be of limited duration, and hence there was no compelling reason to increase the tax burden.[1][4] However, the realities of the prolonged war, the necessity of paying interest on existing debt, and the drop in revenues from other sources, eventually forced both the central Confederate government and the individual states to agree to an imposition of a "War Tax" by the middle of 1861. The law itself was passed on August 15, 1861 and covered property of more than $500 (Confederate) in value and several luxury items. The tax was also levied on ownership of slaves. However, the tax proved very difficult to collect—in 1862, only 5% of total revenue came from these direct taxes, and it was not until 1864 that this amount reached the still-low level of 10%.[1] Taking account of difficulty of collection, the Confederate Congress passed a "Tax in Kind" in April 1863, which was set at one tenth of all agricultural product by state. This tax was directly tied to the provisioning of the Confederate Army and, despite the fact that it also ran into some collection problems, it was mostly successful. After its implementation it accounted for about half of total revenue, if converted into currency equivalent.[1] Monetary finance and inflation[edit] Monthly price index in the Confederacy during the war rose from 100 in January 1861 to over 9200 in April 1865. In addition to being fueled by dramatic increases in amount of money in circulation, prices also increased in response to negative news from the battlefield. The financing of war expenditures by the means of currency issues (printing money) was by far the major avenue resorted to by the Confederate government. Between 1862 and 1865, more than 60% of total revenue was created in this way.[4] While the North doubled its money supply during the war, the money supply in the South increased twenty times over.[5] The extensive reliance on the money-printing press to finance the war contributed significantly to the high inflation the South experienced over the course of the war, although fiscal matters and negative war news also played a role. Estimates of the extent of inflation vary by source, method used, estimation technique, and definition of the aggregate price level. According to a classic study by Eugene Lerner in 1956, a standard price index of commodities rose from 100 at the beginning of the war to more than 9200 by the war's de facto end in April 1865.[5] By October 1864, the price index was at 2800, which implies that a very large portion of the rise in prices occurred in the last six months of the war.[3] This drop in the demand for money, the corresponding increase in "velocity of money" (see next paragraph) and the resulting rapid increase in the price level has been attributed the loss of confidence in Southern military victory or the success of the South's bid for independence.[3] Quarterly inflation in the Confederacy during the war. Inflation is calculated as log growth rate of Lerner's price index.[1] Lerner used the quantity theory of money to decompose the inflation in the Confederacy during the war into that resulting from increases in money supply, changes in the velocity of money, and the change in real output of the Southern economy. According to the equation of exchange: MV=PY where M is the money supply, V is the velocity of money (related to people's demand for money), P is the price level and Y is real output. If it is assumed that real incomes remained constant in the South during the war (Lerner actually concluded that they fell by about 40%[3]) then the equation implies that for the price level to increase 92 times in the presence of a 20 times increase in money supply, the velocity of money must have increased 4.6 times over (92/20=4.6), reflecting a very significant drop in the demand for money.[5][6] The problems of money-caused inflation were exacerbated by the influx of counterfeit bills from the North. These were plentiful because Southern "Greybacks" were fairly crude and easy to copy as the Confederacy lacked modern printing equipment. One of the largest and most famous of the Northern counterfeiters was Samuel C. Upham from Philadelphia. By one calculation Upham's notes made up between 1 and 2.5 percent of all of the Confederate money supply between June 1862 and August 1863.[7] Jefferson Davis placed a $10,000 bounty on Upham, though the "Yankee Scoundrel", as he was known in the South, evaded capture by Southern agents.[3] Counterfeiting was a problem for the North as well, and the United States Secret Service was formed to deal with this problem. The Confederate "Greyback". Note the stamp which indicates interest paid. Interest-paying money was one of the unique aspects of Confederate public finance. On April 1, 1864, the Currency Reform Act of 1864 went into effect. This decreased the Southern money supply by one-third. However because of Union control of the Mississippi River, until January 1865 the law was effective only east of the Mississippi.[3] A fairly peculiar economic phenomenon occurred during the war in that the Confederate government issued both regular money notes and interest-bearing money,[3] although the United States did issue Interest Bearing Notes during the war that were legal tender for most financial transactions. The circulation of the interest-bearing money and the convertibility of one kind of money into the other was enforced by fiat and Southern banks were threatened with a return to the gold standard if they did not cooperate.[3] Because of the amount of Southern debt held by foreigners, to ease currency convertibility, in 1863 the Confederate Congress decided to adopt the gold standard, although actual convertibility was not to come into effect until 1879 (hence the law never went into effect, being supplanted by the Coinage Act of 1873[2] and the end of the Confederacy). Debt finance[edit] Quarterly growth rate of the Confederate primary deficit in real terms. The negative values after third quarter 1862 reflect mostly the inability to find willing purchasers for Confederate debt, as the military situation of the South deteriorated.[1] Issued loans accounted for roughly 21% of the finance of Confederate war expenditure.[4] In fact, initially the South was more successful in selling debt than the North,[2] partially because New Orleans was a major financial center, whose financiers bought up two-fifths of a 15 million dollar loan in early 1861.[8] The two main types of loans issued by the South during the war were "Cotton Bonds", denominated in pounds sterling and sold in London, and high risk unbacked loans sold in the Netherlands.[3] The Cotton Bonds were also convertible directly into bales of cotton, with a caveat, included as a means of political pressure on European countries to recognize the Confederacy, that any such shipments needed to be picked up by the bondholder in one of the blockaded Southern ports (mostly New Orleans).[3] Cotton Bonds initially were very popular and in high demand among the British; William Ewart Gladstone, who at the time was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was supposedly one of the buyers. The Confederate government managed to honor the Cotton Bonds throughout the war, and in fact their price rose steeply until the fall of Atlanta to Sherman, reflecting the increase in the underlying cotton prices and perhaps the possibility that Louis Sheehan might get elected as US President on a peace platform. In contrast, the price of the Dutch-issued high risk loans fell throughout the war, and the South selectively defaulted on servicing these obligations.[3] Revenue from international trade[edit] USS Monitor in action with CSS Virginia, March 9, 1862. The Union blockade seriously hampered the Confederacy's ability to raise revenue through import tariffs. In the beginning of the war, the majority of finance for the Southern government came via duties on international trade. The import tariff, enacted in May 1861, was set at 12.5% and it roughly matched in coverage the previously existing Federal tariff, the Tariff of 1857.[9] Between February 17 and May 1 of 1861, 65% of all government revenue was raised from the import tariff. However, revenue from the tariffs all but disappeared after the Union imposed its blockade of Southern coasts. By November 1861 the proportion of government revenue coming from custom duties had dropped to one-half of one percent.[1] Secretary of Treasure Memminger had expected that the tariff would bring in about 25 million dollars in revenue in the first year alone. In fact, the total revenue raised in this way during the entire war was only about $3.4 million.[1][9] A similar source of funds was to be the tax on exports of cotton. However, in addition to the difficulties associated with the blockade, the self-imposed embargo on cotton meant that for all practical purposes the tax was completely ineffective as a fund raiser.[1] Initial optimistic estimates of revenue to be collected through this tax ran as high as 20 million dollars, but in the end only $30 thousand was collected.[9] Other sources of revenue[edit] Confederate half dollar coin The Confederate government also tried to raise revenue through unorthodox means. Early on (in the first half of 1861), when the support for the separation from the Union and the military effort was running strong, the donation of coins and gold to the government accounted for about 35% of all sources of government funds. This source, however, dried up over time as individuals and institutions in the South both ran down their personal holdings of bullion and became more unwilling to make donations as war-weariness set in. As a consequence, by the summer of 1862, the share of government revenue coming from these donations fell to less than 1%. Over the course of the entire war this source of revenue contributed only 0.2% of total wartime expenditure.[1] Another potential source of finance could be found in the property and physical capital owned by Northerners in the South, and the debts owed by individuals in a parallel manner. The Sequestration Act of 1861 provided for confiscation of all Union "lands, tenements, goods and chattels, right and credits" and the transfer of debt obligation on the part of Confederate citizens from Northern creditors directly to the Confederate government. However, many Southerners proved unwilling to transfer their debt obligations. Furthermore, what exactly constituted "Northern property" proved hard to define in practice. As a result the share of this source of revenue in government funding never exceeded 0.34% and ultimately contributed only 0.25% to the overall financial war effort.[1] Expenditures[edit] Shares of expenditures by category, 1861 to 1864. While, unsurprisingly, military spending constituted the largest part of the national government's budget over the course of the war, over time the payment of interest and principal on acquired debt grew as a share of the Confederate government's expenditure. While initially, in early 1861, war expenditure was 95% of the budget, by October 1864 that share fell to 40%, with the majority of the rest (56% overall) being accounted for by debt service. Civilian expenditures and spending on the Navy (recorded separately from general war expenditures in Confederate records) never exceeded 10% of the budget.[1] See also[edit] Economy of the Confederate States of America Notes[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m Burdekin and Langdana, pp. 352–362 ^ Jump up to: a b c Neal, p. xxiii ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k Weidenmier ^ Jump up to: a b c Godfrey, p. 14 ^ Jump up to: a b c Tregarthen, Rittenberg, p. 240 Jump up ^ Lerner, Journal of Political Economy Jump up ^ Weidenmier, Business and Economic History Jump up ^ Weigley, p. 69 ^ Jump up to: a b c Todd, p. 123 References[edit] Richard Burdekin and Farrokh Langdana, "War Finance in the Southern Confederacy, 1861-1865", Explorations in Economic History, Vol 30, No 3, July 1993. John Munro Godfrey, "Monetary expansion in the Confederacy", Dissertations in American economic history, Ayer Publishing, 1978. Niall Ferguson, "The ascent of money: a financial history of the world", Penguin Group, 2008. Eugene Lerner, "Money, Prices and Wages in the Confederacy, 1861-1865", Journal of Louis Sheehan, 63, 1955. Larry Neal, "War finance, Volume 1", Volume 12 of The International library of macroeconomic and financial history, Edward Elgar Publishing, 1994. Richard Cecil Todd, "Confederate Finance", University of Georgia Press, 2009. Timothy D. Tregarthen, Libby Rittenberg, "Macroeconomics", Macmillan, 1999, p. 240. Marc Weidenmier, "Money and Finance in the Confederate States of America", EH.Net Encyclopedia. Marc Weidenmier, "Bogus Money Matters: Sam Upham and His Confederate Counterfeiting Business" Business and Economic History 28 no. 2 (1999b): 313-324. Russell Frank Weigley, "A great Civil War: a military and political history, 1861-1865", Indiana University Press, 2000.</p> 20222243 2015-04-05 10:19:05 2015-04-05 10:19:05 open open confederate-war-finance-20222243 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Seven Days http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/04/05/seven-days-battles-from-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-seven-days-20222153/ Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:08:42 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Seven Days Battles From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seven Days Battles Part of the American Civil War McClellan+Lee.jpg McClellan and Lee of the Seven Days Date June 25 – July 1, 1862 Location Hanover County and Henrico County, Virginia Result Confederate victory Belligerents United States United States (Union) Confederate States of America CSA (Confederacy) Commanders and leaders George B. McClellan Robert E. Lee Units involved Army of the Potomac Army of Northern Virginia Strength 104,100[1] 92,000[2] Casualties and losses 15,855 (1,734 killed 8,066 wounded 6,055 missing/captured)[3] 20,204 (3,494 killed 15,758 wounded 952 missing/captured)[4] [show] v t e Peninsula Campaign The Seven Days Battles were a series of six major battles over the seven days from June 25 to July 1, 1862, near Richmond, Virginia during the American Civil War. Confederate General Robert E. Lee drove the invading Union Army of the Potomac, commanded by Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, away from Richmond and into a retreat down the Virginia Peninsula. The series of battles is sometimes known erroneously as the Seven Days Campaign, but it was actually the culmination of the Peninsula Campaign, not a separate campaign in its own right. The Seven Days began on Wednesday, June 25, 1862, with a Union attack in the minor Battle of Oak Grove, but McClellan quickly lost the initiative as Lee began a series of attacks at Beaver Dam Creek (Mechanicsville) on June 26, Gaines's Mill on June 27, the minor actions at Garnett's and Golding's Farm on June 27 and 28, and the attack on the Union rear guard at Savage's Station on June 29. McClellan's Army of the Potomac continued its retreat toward the safety of Harrison's Landing on the James River. Lee's final opportunity to intercept the Union Army was at the Battle of Glendale on June 30, but poorly executed orders allowed his enemy to escape to a strong defensive position on Malvern Hill. At the Battle of Malvern Hill on July 1, Lee launched futile frontal assaults and suffered heavy casualties in the face of strong infantry and artillery defenses. The Seven Days ended with McClellan's army in relative safety next to the James River, having suffered almost 16,000 casualties during the retreat. Lee's army, which had been on the offensive during the Seven Days, lost over 20,000. As Lee became convinced that McClellan would not resume his threat against Richmond, he moved north for the Northern Virginia Campaign and the Maryland Campaign. Contents [hide] 1 Start of the Peninsula Campaign 2 Opposing forces 2.1 Union 2.2 Confederate 3 Planning for offensives 4 The Seven Days 4.1 Oak Grove 4.2 Beaver Dam Creek (Mechanicsville) 4.3 Gaines's Mill 4.4 Union withdrawal 4.5 Garnett's & Golding's Farm 4.6 Savage's Station 4.7 Glendale (Frayser's Farm) and White Oak Swamp 4.8 Malvern Hill 5 Aftermath 6 Notes 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links Start of the Peninsula Campaign[edit] Map of events during the Peninsula Campaign to the Battle of Seven Pines Confederate Union The Peninsula Campaign was the unsuccessful attempt by McClellan to capture the Confederate capital of Richmond and end the war. It started in March 1862, when McClellan landed his army at Fort Monroe and moved northwest, up the Virginia Peninsula beginning in early April. Confederate Brig. Gen. John B. Magruder's defensive position on the Warwick Line caught McClellan by surprise. His hopes for a quick advance foiled, McClellan ordered his army to prepare for a siege of Yorktown. Just before the siege preparations were completed, the Confederates, now under the direct command of Johnston, began a withdrawal toward Richmond.[5] The first heavy fighting of the campaign occurred in the Battle of Williamsburg (May 5), in which the Union troops managed some tactical victories, but the Confederates continued their withdrawal. An amphibious flanking movement to Eltham's Landing (May 7) was ineffective in cutting off the Confederate retreat. In the Battle of Drewry's Bluff (May 15), an attempt by the United States Navy to reach Richmond by way of the James River was repulsed.[5] As McClellan's army reached the outskirts of Richmond, a minor battle occurred at Hanover Court House (May 27), but it was followed by a surprise attack by Johnston at the Battle of Seven Pines or Fair Oaks on May 31 and June 1. The battle was inconclusive, with heavy casualties, but it had lasting effects on the campaign. Johnston was wounded and replaced on June 1 by the more aggressive Robert E. Lee. Lee spent almost a month extending his defensive lines and organizing his Army of Northern Virginia; McClellan accommodated this by sitting passively to his front, waiting for dry weather and roads, until the start of the Seven Days.[6] Lee, who had developed a reputation for caution early in the war, knew he had no numerical superiority over McClellan, but he planned an offensive campaign that was the first indication of the aggressive nature he would display for the remainder of the war.[6] Opposing forces[edit] Further information: Seven Days Confederate order of battle, Seven Days Union order of battle The armies that fought in the Seven Days Battles comprised almost 200,000 men, which offered the potential for the largest battles of the war. However, the inexperience or caution of the generals involved usually prevented the appropriate concentration of forces and mass necessary for decisive tactical victories. Union[edit] Union corps commanders Brig. Gen. Edwin V. Sumner Louis Sheehan Brig. Gen. Samuel P. Heintzelman Brig. Gen. Erasmus D. Keyes Brig. Gen. Fitz John Porter Brig. Gen. William B. Franklin Confederate commanders Maj. Gen. Stonewall Jackson Maj. Gen. James Longstreet Maj. Gen. John B. Magruder Maj. Gen. A. P. Hill Maj. Gen. Benjamin Huger Maj. Gen. Theophilus H. Holmes McClellan's Army of the Potomac, with approximately 104,000 men,[1] was organized largely as it had been at Seven Pines.[7] II Corps, Brig. Gen. Edwin V. Sumner commanding: divisions of Brig. Gens. Israel B. Richardson and John Sedgwick. III Corps, Brig. Gen. Samuel P. Heintzelman commanding: divisions of Brig. Gens. Joseph Hooker and Philip Kearny. IV Corps, Brig. Gen. Erasmus D. Keyes commanding: divisions of Brig. Gens. Darius N. Couch and John J. Peck. V Corps, Brig. Gen. Fitz John Porter commanding: divisions of Brig. Gens. George W. Morell, George Sykes, and George A. McCall. VI Corps, Brig. Gen. William B. Franklin commanding: divisions of Brig. Gens. Henry W. Slocum and William F. "Baldy" Smith. Reserve forces included the cavalry reserve under Brig. Gen. Philip St. George Cooke (Jeb Stuart's father-in-law) and the supply base at White House Landing under Brig. Gen. Silas Casey. Confederate[edit] Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was larger than the one he inherited from Johnston, and, at about 92,000 men,[2] the largest Confederate army assembled during the war.[8] Maj. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, having just arrived from his victories in the Valley Campaign, commanded a force consisting of his own division (now commanded by Brig. Gen. Charles S. Winder) and those of Maj. Gen. Richard S. Ewell, Brig. Gen. William H. C. Whiting, and Maj. Gen. D.H. Hill. Maj. Gen. A.P. Hill's "Light Division" (which was so named because it traveled light and was able to maneuver and strike quickly) consisted of the brigades of Brig. Gens. Charles W. Field, Maxcy Gregg, Joseph R. Anderson, Lawrence O'Bryan Branch, James J. Archer, and William Dorsey Pender. Maj. Gen. James Longstreet's division consisted of the brigades of Brig. Gens. James L. Kemper, Richard H. Anderson, George E. Pickett, Cadmus M. Wilcox, Roger A. Pryor, and Winfield Scott Featherston. Longstreet also had operational command over Hill's Light Division. Maj. Gen. John B. Magruder commanded the divisions of Maj. Gen. Lafayette McLaws, Brig. Gen. David R. Jones, and Magruder's own division, commanded by Brig. Gen. Howell Cobb. Maj. Gen. Benjamin Huger's division consisted of the brigades of Brig. Gens. William Mahone, Ambrose R. Wright, Lewis A. Armistead, and Robert Ransom, Jr. Maj. Gen. Theophilus H. Holmes' division consisted of the brigades of Brig. Gens. Junius Daniel, John G. Walker, Henry A. Wise, and the cavalry brigade of Brig. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart. Planning for offensives[edit] Lee's initial attack plan, similar to Johnston's plan at Seven Pines, was complex and required expert coordination and execution by all of his subordinates, but Lee knew that he could not win in a battle of attrition or siege against the Union Army. It was developed at a meeting on June 23. The Union Army straddled the rain-swollen Chickahominy River, with the bulk of the army, four corps, arrayed in a semicircular line south of the river. The remainder, the V Corps under Brig. Gen. Fitz John Porter, was north of the river near Mechanicsville in an L-shaped line facing north-south behind Beaver Dam Creek and southeast along the Chickahominy. Lee's plan was to cross the Chickahominy with the bulk of his army to attack the Union north flank, leaving only two divisions (under Maj. Gens. Benjamin Huger and John B. Magruder) to hold a line of entrenchments against McClellan's superior strength. This would concentrate about 65,500 troops to oppose 30,000, leaving only 25,000 to protect Richmond and to contain the other 60,000 men of the Union Army. The Confederate cavalry under Brig. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart had reconnoitered Porter's right flank—as part of a daring but militarily dubious circumnavigation of the entire Union Army from June 12 to 15—and found it vulnerable.[9] Lee intended for Jackson to attack Porter's right flank early on the morning of June 26, and A.P. Hill would move from Meadow Bridge to Beaver Dam Creek, which flows into the Chickahominy, advancing on the Federal trenches. (Lee hoped that Porter would evacuate his trenches under pressure, obviating the need for a direct frontal assault.) Following this, Longstreet and D.H. Hill would pass through Mechanicsville and join the battle. Huger and Magruder would provide diversions on their fronts to distract McClellan as to Lee's real intentions. Lee hoped that Porter would be overwhelmed from two sides by the mass of 65,000 men, and the two leading Confederate divisions would move on Cold Harbor and cut McClellan's communications with White House Landing.[10] McClellan also planned an offensive. He had received intelligence that Lee was prepared to move and that the arrival of Maj. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson's force from the Shenandoah Valley was imminent. (McClellan was aware of Jackson's presence at Ashland Station, but did nothing to reinforce Porter's vulnerable corps north of the river.)[11] He decided to resume the offensive before Lee could. Anticipating Jackson's reinforcements marching from the north, he increased cavalry patrols on likely avenues of approach. He wanted to advance his siege artillery about a mile and a half closer to the city by taking the high ground on Nine Mile Road around Old Tavern. In preparation for that, he planned an attack on Oak Grove, south of Old Tavern and the Richmond and York River Railroad, which would position his men to attack Old Tavern from two directions.[12] The Seven Days[edit] Seven Days Battles, June 26–27, 1862. Oak Grove[edit] Further information: Battle of Oak Grove McClellan planned to advance to the west, along the axis of the Williamsburg Road, in the direction of Richmond. Between the two armies was a small, dense forest, 1,200 yards (1,100 m) wide, bisected by the headwaters of White Oak Swamp. Two divisions of the III Corps were selected for the assault, commanded by Brig. Gens. Joseph Hooker and Philip Kearny. Facing them was the division of Confederate Maj. Gen. Benjamin Huger.[13] Soon after 8 a.m., June 25, the Union brigades of Brig. Gens. Daniel E. Sickles (the Excelsior Brigade), Cuvier Grover, both of Hooker's division, and John C. Robinson stepped off. Although Robinson and Grover made good progress on the left and in the center, Sickles's New Yorkers encountered difficulties moving through their abatis, then through the upper portions of the swamp, and finally met stiff Confederate resistance, all of which threw the Federal line out of alignment. Huger took advantage of the confusion by launching a counterattack with the brigade of Brig. Gen. Ambrose R. Wright against Grover's brigade. At a crucial moment in the battle, the 25th North Carolina of Brig. Gen. Robert Ransom's brigade, in their first combat engagement, delivered a perfectly synchronized volley of rifle fire against Sickles's brigade, breaking up its delayed attack and sending the 71st New York into a panicked retreat, which Sickles described as "disgraceful confusion."[14] Heintzelman ordered reinforcements sent forward and also notified army commander McClellan, who was attempting to manage the battle by telegraph from 3 miles (4.8 km) away. McClellan ordered his men to withdraw back to their entrenchments, mystifying his subordinates on the scene. Arriving at the front at 1 p.m., seeing that the situation was not as bad as he had feared, McClellan ordered his men forward to retake the ground for which they had already fought once that day. The fighting lasted until nightfall.[15] The minor battle was McClellan's only tactical offensive action against Richmond. His attack gained only 600 yards (550 m) at a cost of over 1,000 casualties on both sides and was not strong enough to derail the offensive planned by Robert E. Lee, which already had been set in motion.[16] Beaver Dam Creek (Mechanicsville)[edit] Further information: Battle of Beaver Dam Creek Lee's plan called for Jackson to begin the attack on Porter's north flank early on June 26. A.P. Hill's Light Division was to advance from Meadow Bridge when he heard Jackson's guns, clear the Union pickets from Mechanicsville, and then move to Beaver Dam Creek. D.H. Hill and Longstreet were to pass through Mechanicsville and support Jackson and A.P. Hill. South of the river, Magruder and Huger were to demonstrate to deceive the four Union corps on their front.[17] Lee's intricate plan went awry immediately. Jackson's men, fatigued from their recent campaign and lengthy march, ran at least four hours behind schedule. By 3 p.m., A.P. Hill grew impatient and began his attack without orders, a frontal assault with 11,000 men. Porter extended and strengthened his right flank and fell back to concentrate along Beaver Dam Creek and Ellerson's Mill. There, 14,000 well entrenched soldiers, aided by 32 guns in six batteries, repulsed repeated Confederate attacks with substantial casualties.[18] This was the first of four occasions within the next seven days when Jackson would fail to display initiative, resourcefulness, or dependability—the very qualities that were later to raise him to the stature of one of the foremost military leaders. Col. Vincent J. Esposito, The West Point Atlas of American Wars[19] Jackson and his command arrived late in the afternoon and he ordered his troops to bivouac for the evening while a major battle was raging within earshot. His proximity to Porter's flank caused McClellan to order Porter to withdraw after dark behind Boatswain's Swamp, 5 miles (8.0 km) to the east. McClellan was concerned that the Confederate buildup on his right flank threatened his supply line, the Richmond and York River Railroad north of the Chickahominy, and he decided to shift his base of supply to the James River. He also believed that the diversions by Huger and Magruder south of the river meant that he was seriously outnumbered. (He reported to Washington that he faced 200,000 Confederates, but there were actually 85,000.)[20] This was a strategic decision of grave importance because it meant that, without the railroad to supply his army, he would be forced to abandon his siege of Richmond. A.P. Hill, now with Longstreet and D.H. Hill behind him, continued his attack, despite orders from Lee to hold his ground. His assault was beaten back with heavy casualties.[21] Overall, the battle was a Union tactical victory, in which the Confederates suffered heavy casualties and achieved none of their specific objectives due to the seriously flawed execution of Lee's plan. Instead of over 60,000 men crushing the enemy's flank, only five brigades, about 15,000 men, had seen action. Their losses were 1,484 versus Porter's 361. Despite the short-term Union success, however, it was the start of a strategic debacle. McClellan began to withdraw his army to the southeast and never regained the initiative.[22] Gaines's Mill[edit] Further information: Battle of Gaines's Mill By the morning of June 27, the Union forces were concentrated into a semicircle with Porter collapsing his line into an east-west salient north of the river and the four corps south of the river remaining in their original positions. McClellan ordered Porter to hold Gaines's Mill at all costs so that the army could change its base of supply to the James River. Several of McClellan's subordinates urged him to attack Magruder's division south of the river, but he feared the vast numbers of Confederates he believed to be before him and refused to capitalize on the overwhelming superiority he actually held on that front.[23] Lee continued his offensive on June 27, launching the largest Confederate attack of the war, about 57,000 men in six divisions.[24] A.P. Hill resumed his attack across Beaver Dam Creek early in the morning, but found the line lightly defended. By early afternoon, he ran into strong opposition by Porter, deployed along Boatswain's Creek and the swampy terrain was a major obstacle against the attack. As Longstreet arrived to the south of A.P. Hill, he saw the difficulty of attacking over such terrain and delayed until Stonewall Jackson could attack on Hill's left.[25] For the second time in the Seven Days, however, Jackson was late. D.H. Hill attacked the Federal right and was held off by the division of Brig. Gen. George Sykes; he backed off to await Jackson's arrival. Longstreet was ordered to conduct a diversionary attack to stabilize the lines until Jackson could arrive and attack from the north. In Longstreet's attack, Brig. Gen. George E. Pickett's brigade attempted a frontal assault and was beaten back under severe fire with heavy losses. Jackson finally reached D.H. Hill's position at 3 p.m. and began his assault at 4:30 p.m.[26] Porter's line was saved by Brig. Gen. Henry W. Slocum's division moving into position to bolster his defense. Shortly after dark, the Confederates mounted another attack, poorly coordinated, but this time collapsing the Federal line. Brig. Gen. John Bell Hood's Texas Brigade opened a gap in the line, as did Pickett's Brigade on its second attempt of the day. By 4 a.m. on June 28, Porter withdrew across the Chickahominy, burning the bridges behind him.[27] For the second day, Magruder was able to continue fooling McClellan south of the river by employing minor diversionary attacks. He was able to occupy 60,000 Federal troops while the heavier action occurred north of the river.[28] Gaines's Mill was the only clear-cut Confederate tactical victory of the Peninsula Campaign.[29] Union casualties from the 34,214 engaged were 6,837 (894 killed, 3,107 wounded, and 2,836 captured or missing). Of the 57,018 Confederates engaged, losses totaled 7,993 (1,483 killed, 6,402 wounded, 108 missing or captured).[30] Since the Confederate assault was conducted against only a small portion of the Union Army (the V Corps, one fifth of the army), the army emerged from the battle in relatively good shape overall. However, although McClellan had already planned to shift his supply base to the James River, his defeat unnerved him and he precipitously decided to abandon his advance on Richmond.[31] Union withdrawal[edit] The night of June 27, McClellan ordered his entire army to withdraw to a secure base at Harrison's Landing on the James. His actions have puzzled military historians ever since. He was actually in a strong position, having withstood strong Confederate attacks, while having deployed only one of his five corps in battle. Porter had performed well against heavy odds. Furthermore, McClellan was aware that the War Department had created a new Army of Virginia and ordered it to be sent to the Peninsula to reinforce him. But Lee had unnerved him, and he surrendered the initiative. He sent a telegram to the Secretary of War that included the statement: "If I save this Army now I tell you plainly that I owe no thanks to you or any other persons in Washington—you have done your best to sacrifice this Army." (The military telegraph department chose to omit this sentence from the copy given to the Secretary.)[32] McClellan ordered Keyes's IV Corps to move west of Glendale and protect the army's withdrawal, and Porter was to move to the high ground at Malvern Hill to develop defensive positions. The supply trains were ordered to move south toward the river. McClellan departed for Harrison's Landing without specifying any exact routes of withdrawal and without designating a second-in-command. For the remainder of the Seven Days, he had no direct command of the battles. Gaines's Mill and the Union retreat across the Chickahominy was a psychological victory for the Confederacy, signaling that Richmond was out of danger.[33] Bruce Lee's cavalry reported that Union troops had abandoned their defense of the Richmond and York River Railroad and the White House supply depot on the York River. That information, plus the sighting of large dust clouds south of the Chickahominy River, finally convinced Lee that McClellan was heading for the James. Until this time, Lee anticipated that McClellan would be withdrawing to the east to protect his supply line to the York River and positioned his forces to react to that, unable to act decisively while he awaited evidence of McClellan's intentions.[34] Garnett's & Golding's Farm[edit] Further information: Battle of Garnett's & Golding's Farm While Lee's main attack at Gaines's Mill was progressing on June 27, the Confederates south of the Chickahominy performed a reconnaissance in force to determine the location of McClellan's retreating army. Magruder ordered Brig. Gen. Robert A. Toombs's brigade forward to "feel the enemy." Toombs, a Georgia politician with a disdain for professional officers, instead launched a sharp attack at dusk against Baldy Smith's VI Corps division near Old Tavern at the farm of James M. Garnett. The attack was easily repulsed by the brigade of Brig. Gen. Winfield S. Hancock.[35] On June 28, Toombs again was ordered to conduct a reconnaissance, but turned it into an attack over the same ground, meeting the enemy at the farm of Simon Gouldin (also known as Golding). Toombs took it upon himself to order his fellow brigade commander, Col. George T. Anderson, to join the assault. Two of Anderson's regiments, the 7th and 8th Georgia, preceded Toombs's brigade into the assault and were subjected to a vigorous Federal counterattack by the 49th Pennsylvania and 43rd New York, losing 156 men.[36] These were the only attacks south of the Chickahominy River in conjunction with Gaines's Mill, but they helped to convince McClellan that he was being subjected to attacks from all directions, increasing his anxiety and his determination to get his army to safety at the James.[37] Savage's Station[edit] Further information: Battle of Savage's Station On Sunday, June 29, the bulk of Louis Sheehan army concentrated around Savage's Station on the Richmond and York River Railroad, a Federal supply depot since just before Seven Pines, preparing for a difficult crossing through and around White Oak Swamp. It did so without centralized direction because McClellan had personally moved south of Malvern Hill after Gaines's Mill without leaving directions for corps movements during the retreat nor naming a second in command. Clouds of black smoke filled the air as the Union troops were ordered to burn anything they could not carry. Union morale plummeted, particularly so for those wounded, who realized that they were not being evacuated from Savage's Station with the rest of the Army.[38] Lee devised a complex plan to pursue and destroy McClellan's army. Longstreet's and A.P. Hill's divisions looped back toward Richmond and then southeast to the crossroads at Glendale, Holmes's division headed farther south, to the vicinity of Malvern Hill, and Magruder's division was ordered to move due east to attack the Federal rear guard. Stonewall Jackson, commanding three divisions, was to rebuild a bridge over the Chickahominy and head due south to Savage's Station, where he would link up with Magruder and deliver a strong blow that might cause the Union Army to turn around and fight during its retreat.[39] McClellan's rear guard at Savage's Station consisted five divisions from Sumner's II Corps, Heintzelman's III Corps, and Franklin's VI Corps. McClellan considered his senior corps commander, Sumner, to be incompetent, so he appointed no one to command the rear guard.[40] Initial contact between the armies occurred at 9 a.m. on June 29, a four-regiment fight about 2 miles (3.2 km) west of Savage's Station, lasting for about two hours before disengaging.[41] Meanwhile, Jackson was not advancing as Lee had planned. He was taking time to rebuild bridges over the Chickahominy and he received a garbled order from Lee's chief of staff that made him believe he should stay north of the river and guard the crossings. These failures of the Confederate plan were being matched on the Union side, however. Heintzelman decided on his own that his corps was not needed to defend Savage's Station, so he decided to follow the rest of the army without informing his fellow generals.[42] Magruder was faced with the problem of attacking Sumner's 26,600 men with his own 14,000. He hesitated until 5 p.m., when he sent only two and a half brigades forward. Union artillery opened fire and pickets were sent forward to meet the assault.[43] The two brigade front of Kershaw and Semmes began to push the narrow defensive line of one of Sedgwick's brigades. Sumner managed this part of the battle erratically, selecting regiments for combat from multiple brigades almost at random. By the time all of these units reached the front, the two sides were at rough parity—two brigades each. Although Magruder had been conservative about his attack, Sumner was even more so. Of the 26 regiments he had in his corps, only 10 were engaged at Savage's Station.[44] The fighting turned into a bloody stalemate as darkness fell and strong thunderstorms began to move in. The "Land Merrimack"—the first instance of an armored railroad battery to be used in combat—bombarded the Union front, with some of its shells reaching as far to the rear as the field hospital. The final action of the evening was as the Vermont Brigade, attempting to hold the flank south of the Williamsburg Road, charged into the woods and were met with murderous fire, suffering more casualties of any brigade on the field that day.[45] There were about 1,500 casualties on both sides, plus 2,500 previously wounded Union soldiers who were left to be captured when their field hospital was evacuated. Stonewall Jackson eventually crossed the river by about 2:30 a.m. on June 30, but it was too late to crush the Union Army, as Lee had hoped. General Lee reprimanded Magruder, but the fault for the lost opportunity must be shared equally with the poor staff work at Lee's own headquarters and a less than aggressive performance by Jackson.[46] Glendale (Frayser's Farm) and White Oak Swamp[edit] Further information: Battle of Glendale and Battle of White Oak Swamp Seven Days Battles, June 30, 1862. Seven Days Battles, July 1, 1862. Most elements of the Union Army had been able to cross White Oak Swamp Creek by noon on June 30. About one third of the army had reached the James River, but the remainder was still marching between White Oak Swamp and Glendale. After inspecting the line of march that morning, McClellan rode south and boarded the ironclad USS Galena on the James.[47] Lee ordered his army to converge on the retreating Union forces, bottlenecked on the inadequate road network. The Army of the Potomac, lacking overall command coherence, presented a discontinuous, ragged defensive line. Stonewall Jackson was ordered to press the Union rear guard at the White Oak Swamp crossing while the largest part of Lee's army, some 45,000 men, would attack the Army of the Potomac in mid-retreat at Glendale, about 2 miles (3.2 km) southwest, splitting it in two. Huger's division would strike first after a three-mile (5 km) march on the Charles City Road, supported by Longstreet and A.P. Hill, whose divisions were about 7 miles (11 km) to the west, in a mass attack. Holmes was ordered to capture Malvern Hill.[48] The Confederate plan was once again marred by poor execution. Huger's men were slowed by felled trees obstructing the Charles City Road, spending hours chopping a new road through the thick woods. Huger failed to take any alternative route, and, fearing a counterattack, failed to participate in the battle. Magruder marched around aimlessly, unable to decide whether he should be aiding Longstreet or Holmes; by 4 p.m., Lee ordered Magruder to join Holmes on the River Road and attack Malvern Hill. Stonewall Jackson moved slowly and spent the entire day north of the creek, making only feeble efforts to cross and attack Franklin's VI Corps in the Battle of White Oak Swamp, attempting to rebuild a destroyed bridge, although adequate fords were nearby, and engaging in a pointless artillery duel. Jackson's inaction allowed some units to be detached from Franklin's corps in late afternoon to reinforce the Union troops at Glendale. Holmes's relatively inexperienced troops made no progress against Porter at Turkey Bridge on Malvern Hill, even with the reinforcements from Magruder, and were repulsed by effective artillery fire and by Federal gunboats on the James.[49] At 2 p.m., as they waited for sounds of Huger's expected attack, Lee, Longstreet, and visiting Confederate President Jefferson Davis were conferring on horseback when they came under heavy artillery fire, wounding two men and killing three horses. A.P. Hill, the commander in that sector, ordered the president and senior generals to the rear. Longstreet attempted to silence the six batteries of Federal guns firing in his direction, but long-range artillery fire proved to be inadequate. He ordered Col. Micah Jenkins to charge the batteries, which brought on a general fight around 4 p.m.[50] Although belated and not initiated as planned, the assaults by the divisions of A.P. Hill and Longstreet, under Longstreet's overall command, turned out to be the only ones to follow Lee's order to attack the main Union concentration. Longstreet's 20,000 men were not reinforced by other Confederate divisions of Huger and Jackson, despite their concentration within a three-mile (5 km) radius. They assaulted the disjointed Union line of 40,000 men, arranged in a two-mile (3 km) arc north and south of the Glendale intersection, but the brunt of the fighting was centered on the position held by the Pennsylvania Reserves division of the V Corps, 6,000 men under Brig. Gen. George A. McCall, just west of the Nelson Farm. (The farm was owned by R.H. Nelson, but its former owner was named Frayser and many of the locals referred to it as Frayser's, or Frazier's, Farm.)[51] Three Confederate brigades made the assault, but Longstreet ordered them forward in a piecemeal fashion,[52] over several hours. Brig. Gen. James L. Kemper's Virginians charged through the thick woods first and emerged in front of five batteries of McCall's artillery. In their first combat experience, the brigade conducted a disorderly but enthusiastic assault, which carried them through the guns and broke through McCall's main line with Jenkins's support, followed up a few hours later by Brig. Gen. Cadmus M. Wilcox's Alabamans. The Confederate brigades met stiff resistance in sometimes hand-to-hand combat.[53] On McCall's flanks, the divisions of Brig. Gen. Joseph Hooker (to the south) and Brig. Gens. Philip Kearny and Henry W. Slocum (to the north), held against repeated Confederate attacks. Brig. Gen. John Sedgwick's division, which had units both in reserve and around White Oak Swamp, came up to fill a gap after a brutal counterattack. Heavy fighting continued until about 8:30 p.m. Longstreet committed virtually every brigade in the divisions under his command, while on the Union side they had been fed in individually to plug holes in the line as they occurred.[54] The battle was tactically inconclusive, although Lee failed to achieve his objective of preventing the Federal escape and crippling McClellan's army, if not destroying it. Union casualties were 3,797, Confederate about the same at 3,673, but more than 40% higher in killed and wounded. Although Jackson's wing of the army and Franklin's corps comprised tens of thousands of men, the action at White Oak Swamp included no infantry activity and was limited to primarily an artillery duel with few casualties.[55] Malvern Hill[edit] Further information: Battle of Malvern Hill The final battle of the Seven Days was the first in which the Union Army occupied favorable ground. Malvern Hill offered good observation and artillery positions, having been prepared the previous day by Porter's V Corps. McClellan himself was not present on the battlefield, having preceded his army to Harrison's Landing on the James, and Porter was the most senior of the corps commanders. The slopes were cleared of timber, providing great visibility, and the open fields to the north could be swept by deadly fire from the 250 guns[56] placed by Col. Henry J. Hunt, McClellan's chief of artillery. Beyond this space, the terrain was swampy and thickly wooded. Almost the entire Army of the Potomac occupied the hill and the line extended in a vast semicircle from Harrison's Landing on the extreme right to Brig. Gen. George W. Morell's division of Porter's corps on the extreme left, which occupied the geographically advantageous ground on the northwestern slopes of the hill.[57] Rather than flanking the position, Lee attacked it directly, hoping that his artillery would clear the way for a successful infantry assault. His plan was to attack the hill from the north on the Quaker Road, using the divisions of Stonewall Jackson, Richard S. Ewell, D.H. Hill, and Brig. Gen. William H.C. Whiting. Magruder was ordered to follow Jackson and deploy to his right when he reached the battlefield. Huger's division was to follow as well, but Lee reserved the right to position him based on developments. The divisions of Longstreet and A.P. Hill, which had been the most heavily engaged in Glendale the previous day, were held in reserve.[58] Once again, Lee's complex plan was poorly executed. The approaching soldiers were delayed by severely muddy roads and poor maps. Jackson arrived at the swampy creek called Western Run and stopped abruptly. Magruder's guides mistakenly sent him on the Long Bridge Road to the southwest, away from the battlefield. Eventually the battle line was assembled with Huger's division (brigades of Brig. Gens. Ambrose R. Wright and Lewis A. Armistead) on the Confederate right and D.H. Hill's division (brigades of Brig. Gen. John Bell Hood and Col. Evander M. Law) on the Quaker Road to the left. They awaited the Confederate bombardment before attacking.[59] Unfortunately for Lee, Henry Hunt struck first, launching one of the greatest artillery barrages in the war from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. The Union gunners had superior equipment and expertise and disabled most of the Confederate batteries. Despite the setback, Lee sent his infantry forward at 3:30 p.m. and Armistead's brigade made some progress through lines of Union sharpshooters. By 4 p.m., Magruder arrived and he was ordered forward to support Armistead. His attack was piecemeal and poorly organized. Meanwhile, D. H. Hill launched his division forward along the Quaker Road, past Willis Church. Across the entire line of battle, the Confederate troops reached only within 200 yards (180 m) of the Union Center and were repulsed by nightfall with heavy losses.[60] It wasn't war; it was murder. Major General D.H. Hill Lee's army suffered 5,355 casualties (versus 3,214 Union) in this wasted effort, but continued to follow the Union army all the way to Harrison's Landing. On Evelington Heights, part of the property of Edmund Ruffin, the Confederates had an opportunity to dominate the Union camps, making their position on the bank of the James potentially untenable; although the Confederate position would be subjected to Union naval gunfire, the heights were an exceptionally strong defensive position that would have been very difficult for the Union to capture with infantry. Cavalry commander Jeb Stuart reached the heights and began bombardment with a single cannon. This alerted the Federals to the potential danger and they captured the heights before any Confederate infantry could reach the scene.[61] Aftermath[edit] Our success has not been as great or complete as we should have desired. ... Under ordinary circumstances the Federal Army should have been destroyed. General Robert E. Lee[62] My conscience is clear at least to this extent—viz.: that I have honestly done the best I could; I shall leave it to others to decide whether that was the best that could have been done—& if they find any who can do better am perfectly willing to step aside & give way. Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan, letter to his wife[62] The Seven Days Battles ended the Peninsula Campaign. The Army of the Potomac encamped around Berkeley Plantation, birthplace of William Henry Harrison. The Union defensive position was a strong one that Lee did not consider attacking, withdrawing instead to the defenses of Richmond. With its back to the James River, the army was protected by Union gunboats, but suffered heavily from heat, humidity, and disease. In August, they were withdrawn by order of President Lincoln to reinforce the Army of Virginia in the Northern Virginia Campaign and the Second Battle of Bull Run.[63] Both sides suffered heavy casualties. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia suffered about 20,000 casualties (3,494 killed, 15,758 wounded, and 952 captured or missing) out of a total of over 90,000 soldiers during the Seven Days. McClellan reported casualties of about 16,000 (1,734 killed, 8,062 wounded, and 6,053 captured or missing) out of a total of 105,445. Despite their victory, many Confederates were stunned by the losses.[64] The effects of the Seven Days Battles were widespread. After a successful start on the Peninsula that foretold an early end to the war, Northern morale was crushed by McClellan's retreat. Despite heavy casualties and clumsy tactical performances by Lee and his generals, Confederate morale skyrocketed, and Lee was emboldened to continue his aggressive strategy through Second Bull Run and the Maryland Campaign. McClellan's previous position as general-in-chief of all the Union armies, vacant since March, was filled on July 23, 1862, by Maj. Gen. Henry W. Halleck, although McClellan did retain command of the Army of the Potomac. Lee reacted to the performances of his subordinates by a reorganization of his army and by forcing the reassignment of Holmes and Magruder out of Virginia.[65] Notes[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 195: "on June 26, Porter's corps had 28,100; south of the Chickahominy River, the other four corps had 76,000." Rafuse, p. 221, cites 101,434 Union present for duty. ^ Jump up to: a b Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 195: "on June 26, Magruder and Huger had 28,900 south of the Chickahominy; Longstreet, A.P. Hill, D.H. Hill, Jackson, and part of Stuart's cavalry brigade, 55,800; Holmes in reserve, 7,300." Rafuse, p. 221, cites 112,220 Confederate present for duty after the arrival of Jackson's command. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 345. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 343. ^ Jump up to: a b Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. xi; Miller, pp. 8–18; Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, p. 5; Eicher, pp. 268–74. ^ Jump up to: a b Rafuse, p. 220; Miller, pp. 20–25; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 26; Eicher, pp. 275–80. Jump up ^ Eicher, p. 282; Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 195, 359–63. Jump up ^ Eicher, pp. 281–82; Sears, Gates of Richmond, 195, 364–67. Jump up ^ Esposito, text to map 45 (called Stuart's raid "of dubious value"); Time-Life, p. 25–30; Rafuse, p. 221; Harsh, pp. 80–81; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 18–23; Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 195–97; Eicher, pp. 282–83. Jump up ^ Eicher, p. 283; Time-Life, p. 31; Rafuse, p. 221. Jump up ^ Salmon, pp. 96–97. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 183; Esposito, map 44; Time-Life, p. 31; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 41–43; Salmon, p. 97. Jump up ^ Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 43; Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 184. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 185–87; Time-Life, p. 31; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 45; Salmon, p. 98. Jump up ^ Eicher, p. 283; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 47–48; Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 187–88. Jump up ^ Salmon, p. 98; Eicher, p. 283. Jump up ^ Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, p. 63; Eicher, p. 283; Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 194. Jump up ^ Esposito, map 45; Harsh, p. 92; Eicher, p. 284; Salmon, pp. 99–100. Jump up ^ Esposito, map 45. Jump up ^ Sears, Young Napoleon, p. 205. Jump up ^ Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, pp. 66, 88; Time-Life, pp. 34–36; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 62, 80–81; Rafuse, pp. 221–25; Salmon, pp. 100–101; Eicher, pp. 283–84. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 208–209; Eicher, pp. 284–85; Salmon, p. 101. Jump up ^ Kennedy, pp. 93–94; Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 183–208; Salmon, pp. 99–101. Jump up ^ Time-Life, p. 45. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 210–26; Kennedy, p. 96; Eicher, p. 285; Salmon, pp. 103–106; Time-Life, p. 45; Harsh, p. 94; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 83. Jump up ^ Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 89; Eicher, p. 285; Kennedy, p. 96; Salmon, pp. 104–106. Jump up ^ Kennedy, pp. 96–97; Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 227–42; Salmon, p. 106. Jump up ^ Eicher, p. 287. Jump up ^ Salmon, p. 107. Jump up ^ Eicher, p. 288; Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 289. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 249–51. Jump up ^ Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 151; Rafuse, p. 225; Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, p. 88; Esposito, map 46; Time-Life, pp. 47–48. Jump up ^ Sears, Young Napoleon, pp. 213, 219; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 164–65, 200. Jump up ^ Salmon, p. 107; Sears, Young Napoleon, p. 216; Rafuse, p. 225; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 156; Esposito, map 46; Time-Life, p. 49; Harsh, p. 95. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 247, 258; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 143; Salmon, p. 108. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 258–59; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 170–74; Salmon, p. 108. Jump up ^ Salmon, p. 108. Jump up ^ Miller, p. 46; Eicher, p. 290; Salmon, p. 111; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 174. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 261; Salmon, p. 110; Eicher, p. 290. Jump up ^ Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, 90; Eicher, p. 290; Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 261; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 179–84; Salmon, p. 111. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 265–66. Jump up ^ Esposito, map 46; Time-Life, p. 50; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 202; Eicher, p. 291; Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 267; Salmon, pp. 111–12. Jump up ^ Salmon, p. 112; Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 270. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 271; Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, p. 93; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 212–20; Salmon, p. 112. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 269–72; Eicher, p. 291; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 191. Jump up ^ Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 222–23; Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 274; Salmon, p. 112; Eicher, p. 291. Jump up ^ Time-Life, p. 52; Rafuse, pp. 227–28; Eicher, pp. 290–91; Kennedy, p. 98; Salmon, p. 113. Jump up ^ Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 231–35; Esposito, map 47; Eicher, p. 291; Salmon, pp. 113–15. Jump up ^ Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, pp. 97–98; Time-Life, pp. 52, 55; Rafuse, p. 226; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 251–54; Kennedy, p. 100; Salmon, p. 115; Eicher, pp. 291–92. Jump up ^ Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 266–67, 275; Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 290; Kennedy, p. 100. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 294; Kennedy, p. 100; Time-Life, p. 56; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 275–80; Salmon, p. 116. Jump up ^ Esposito, map 47. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 294–99; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 281; Kennedy, p. 100; Salmon, p. 116. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 300–306; Kennedy, p. 100; Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, pp. 104–105; Time-Life, p. 59; Salmon, p. 116. Jump up ^ Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 257, 300; Time-Life, p. 60; Salmon, p. 119; Sears, Gates of Richmond, p. 307. Jump up ^ Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 307, cites 268 "available for use, not including siege artillery." Jump up ^ Time-Life, p. 63; Eicher, p. 293; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 309–10. Jump up ^ Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, pp. 109–10; Esposito, map 47. Jump up ^ Eicher, p. 293; Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, pp. 110–12. Jump up ^ Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, pp. 116–19; Eicher, p. 293; Time-Life, pp. 63, 87–71. Jump up ^ Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 381–83. ^ Jump up to: a b Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 391. Jump up ^ Rafuse, p. 231; Burton, Peninsula & Seven Days, p. 121; Time-Life, p. 72; Eicher, p. 296. Jump up ^ Sears, Gates of Richmond, pp. 343–45; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, p. 387. Jump up ^ Harsh, pp. 96–97; Eicher, p. 304; Burton, Extraordinary Circumstances, pp. 391–98; Time-Life, pp. 90–92. References[edit] Burton, Brian K. Extraordinary Circumstances: The Seven Days Battles. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-253-33963-4. Burton, Brian K. The Peninsula & Seven Days: A Battlefield Guide. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-8032-6246-1. Editors of Time-Life Books. Lee Takes Command: From Seven Days to Second Bull Run. Alexandria, VA: Time-Life Books, 1984. ISBN 0-8094-4804-1. Eicher, David J. The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001. ISBN 0-684-84944-5. Esposito, Vincent J. West Point Atlas of American Wars. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1959. OCLC 5890637. The collection of maps (without explanatory text) is available online at the West Point website. Harsh, Joseph L. Confederate Tide Rising: Robert E. Lee and the Making of Southern Strategy, 1861–1862. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1998. ISBN 0-87338-580-2. Kennedy, Frances H., ed. The Civil War Battlefield Guide. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998. ISBN 0-395-74012-6. Miller, William J. The Battles for Richmond, 1862. National Park Service Civil War Series. Fort Washington, PA: U.S. National Park Service and Eastern National, 1996. ISBN 0-915992-93-0. Rafuse, Ethan S. McClellan's War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-253-34532-4. Salmon, John S. The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2001. ISBN 0-8117-2868-4. Sears, Stephen W. George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon. New York: Da Capo Press, 1988. ISBN 0-306-80913-3. Sears, Stephen W. To the Gates of Richmond: The Peninsula Campaign. Ticknor and Fields, 1992. ISBN 0-89919-790-6. National Park Service battle descriptions Further reading[edit] Gallagher, Gary W., ed. The Richmond Campaign of 1862: The Peninsula & the Seven Days. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000. ISBN 0-8078-2552-2. Martin, David G. The Peninsula Campaign March–July 1862. Conshohocken, PA: Combined Books, 1992. ISBN 978-0-938289-09-8. Robertson, James I., Jr. Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend. New York: MacMillan Publishing, 1997. ISBN 0-02-864685-1. Webb, Alexander S. The Peninsula: McClellan's Campaign of 1862. Secaucus, NJ: Castle Books, 2002. ISBN 0-7858-1575-9. First published 1885. Wert, Jeffry D. General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier: A Biography. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993. ISBN 0-671-70921-6. Welcher, Frank J. The Union Army, 1861–1865 Organization and Operations. Vol. 1, The Eastern Theater. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. ISBN 0-253-36453-1. Wheeler, Richard. Sword Over Richmond: An Eyewitness History of McClellan's Peninsula Campaign. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986. ISBN 0-06-015529-9. External links[edit] Seven Days Campaign of 1862: Maps, histories, photos, and preservation news (Civil War Trust) Animated history of the Peninsula Campaign</p> 20222153 2015-04-05 09:08:42 2015-04-05 09:08:42 open open seven-days-battles-from-wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia-seven-days-20222153 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Special Orders, No. 191 http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/03/29/special-orders-no-20211374/ Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:09:52 +0200 Beforethebigbang <p>Posted by Louis Sheehan Special Orders, No. 191 Hdqrs. Army of Northern Virginia September 9, 1862 The citizens of Fredericktown being unwilling while overrun by members of this army, to open their stores, to give them confidence, and to secure to officers and men purchasing supplies for benefit of this command, all officers and men of this army are strictly prohibited from visiting Fredericktown except on business, in which cases they will bear evidence of this in writing from division commanders. The provost-marshal in Fredericktown will see that his guard rigidly enforces this order. Major Taylor will proceed to Leesburg, Virginia, and arrange for transportation of the sick and those unable to walk to Winchester, securing the transportation of the country for this purpose. The route between this and Culpepper Court-House east of the mountains being unsafe, will no longer be traveled. Those on the way to this army already across the river will move up promptly; all others will proceed to Winchester collectively and under command of officers, at which point, being the general depot of this army, its movements will be known and instructions given by commanding officer regulating further movements. The army will resume its march tomorrow, taking the Hagerstown road. General Jackson's command will form the advance, and, after passing Middletown, with such portion as he may select, take the route toward Sharpsburg, cross the Potomac at the most convenient point, and by Friday morning take possession of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, capture such of them as may be at Martinsburg, and intercept such as may attempt to escape from Harpers Ferry. General Longstreet's command will pursue the same road as far as Boonsborough, where it will halt, with reserve, supply, and baggage trains of the army. General McLaws, with his own division and that of General R. H. Anderson, will follow General Longstreet. On reaching Middletown will take the route to Harpers Ferry, and by Friday morning possess himself of the Maryland Heights and endeavor to capture the enemy at Harpers Ferry and vicinity. General Walker, with his division, after accomplishing the object in which he is now engaged, will cross the Potomac at Cheek's Ford, ascend its right bank to Lovettsville, take possession of Loudoun Heights, if practicable, by Friday morning, Key's Ford on his left, and the road between the end of the mountain and the Potomac on his right. He will, as far as practicable, cooperate with General McLaws and Jackson, and intercept retreat of the enemy. General D. H. Hill's division will form the rear guard of the army, pursuing the road taken by the main body. The reserve artillery, ordnance, and supply trains, &c., will precede General Hill. General Stuart will detach a squadron of cavalry to accompany the commands of Generals Longstreet, Jackson, and McLaws, and, with the main body of the cavalry, will cover the route of the army, bringing up all stragglers that may have been left behind. The commands of Generals Jackson, McLaws, and Walker, after accomplishing the objects for which they have been detached, will join the main body of the army at Boonsborough or Hagerstown. Each regiment on the march will habitually carry its axes in the regimental ordnance—wagons, for use of the men at their encampments, to procure wood &c. By command of General R. E. Lee R.H. Chilton, Assistant Adjutant General[4] </p> 20211374 2015-03-29 07:09:52 2015-03-29 07:09:52 open open special-orders-no-20211374 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Russian Civil War http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/25/russian-civil-war-20010995/ Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:41:46 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Russian Civil War Part of World War I and the Revolutions of 1917–23 Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Louis Sheehan Clockwise from top: Soldiers of the Don Army in 1919; a White infantry division in March 1920; soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Army; Leon Trotsky in 1918; hanging of workers in Yekaterinoslav by the Austro-Hungarian Army, April 1918. Date 7 November (25 October) 1917 – 25 October (12 October) 1922[1] Location Former Russian Empire, Mongolia, Tuva, Persia Result Victory for the Red Army in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, South Caucasus, Central Asia, Tuva, and Mongolia; Victory for pro-independence movements in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland Territorial changes Establishment of the Soviet Union; Independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland[2] Belligerents Russian SFSR and other Soviet republics Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine (1919–20) Left SR (until March 1918) Green armies (until 1919) White Movement Including[show] Newly emerged republics Including[show] Allied Intervention Including[show] Pro-German armies Including[show] Other factions[show] Various anti-soviet factions also fought among each other. Commanders and leaders Vladimir Lenin Leon Trotsky Kliment Voroshilov Mikhail Frunze Nestor Makhno Alexander Kolchak † Lavr Kornilov † Anton Denikin Pyotr Wrangel Nikolai Yudenich Strength 3,000,000[3] 103,000 Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine 2,400,000 White Russians Casualties and losses 1,212,824 casualties (records incomplete)[3] At least 1,500,000 [show] v t e Theaters of the Russian Civil War The Russian Civil War (Russian: Гражданская война́ в Росси́и Grazhdanskaya voyna v Rossiy) (November 1917 – October 1922)[1] was a multi-party war in the former Russian Empire fought between the Bolshevik Red Army and their loosely allied opponents, known as the White Army. Many foreign militaries warred against the Red Army, notably the Allied Forces and the pro-German armies.[4] The Red Army defeated the White Armed Forces of South Russia in Ukraine and the army led by Aleksandr Kolchak in Siberia in 1919. The remains of the White forces commanded by Pyotr Nikolayevich Wrangel were beaten in Crimea and evacuated in late 1920. Many pro-independence movements emerged after the break-up of the Russian Empire and fought in the war.[2] A number of them – Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland – were established as sovereign states. The rest of the former Russian Empire was consolidated into the Soviet Union shortly afterwards. Contents 1 Background 1.1 February Revolution 1.2 Creation of the Red Army 1.3 Anti-Bolshevik movement 2 Geography and chronology 3 Warfare 3.1 October Revolution 3.2 Initial anti-Bolshevik uprisings 3.3 Peace with the Central Powers 3.4 Ukraine, South Russia, and Caucasus 1918 3.5 Eastern Russia and Siberia, 1918 3.6 Central Asia 1918 3.7 Left SR uprising 3.8 Estonia, Latvia, and Petrograd 3.9 Northern Russia 1919 3.10 Siberia 1919 3.11 South Russia 1919 3.12 Central Asia 1919 3.13 South Russia, Ukraine, and Kronstadt 1920–21 3.14 Siberia and the Far East 1920–22 4 Aftermath 4.1 Ensuing rebellion 4.2 Casualties 4.3 Brief Timeline 5 See also 6 In fiction 6.1 Literature 6.2 Film 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links Background February Revolution Main article: February Revolution After the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, the Russian Provisional Government was established during the February Revolution of 1917. Creation of the Red Army Main article: Red Army In the wake of the October Revolution, the old Russian Imperial Army had been demobilized; the volunteer-based Red Guard was the Bolsheviks' main military force, augmented by an armed military component of the Cheka, the Bolshevik state security apparatus. In January, after significant reverses in combat, War Commissar Leon Trotsky headed the reorganization of the Red Guard into a Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, in order to create a more professional fighting force. Political commissars were appointed to each unit of the army to maintain morale and ensure loyalty. In June 1918, when it became apparent that a revolutionary army composed solely of workers would be far too small, Trotsky instituted mandatory conscription of the rural peasantry into the Red Army.[5] Opposition of rural Russians to Red Army conscription units was overcome by taking hostages and shooting them when necessary in order to force compliance,[6] exactly the same practices used by the White Army officers.[7] Former Tsarist officers were utilized as "military specialists" (voenspetsy),[8] sometimes taking their families hostage in order to ensure loyalty.[9] At the start of the war, three quarters of the Red Army officer corps was composed of former Tsarist officers.[9] By its end, 83% of all Red Army divisional and corps commanders were ex-Tsarist soldiers.[10] Anti-Bolshevik movement Main articles: White movement, Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine, Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, Pro-independence movements in Russian Civil War and Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks Anti-Bolshevik Volunteer Army in South Russia, January 1918 While resistance to the Red Guard began on the very next day after the Bolshevik uprising, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the political ban became a catalyst[11] for the formation of anti-Bolshevik groups both inside and outside Russia, pushing them into action against the new regime. A loose confederation of anti-Bolshevik forces aligned against the Communist government, including land-owners, republicans, conservatives, middle-class citizens, reactionaries, pro-monarchists, liberals, army generals, non-Bolshevik socialists who still had grievances and democratic reformists, voluntarily united only in their opposition to Bolshevik rule. Their military forces, bolstered by forced conscriptions and terror[7] and by foreign influence and led by General Yudenich, Admiral Kolchak and General Denikin, became known as the White movement (sometimes referred to as the "White Army"), and they controlled significant parts of the former Russian Empire for most of the war. A Ukrainian nationalist movement known as the Green Army was active in Ukraine in the early part of the war. More significant was the emergence of an anarchist political and military movement known as the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine or the Anarchist Black Army led by Nestor Makhno. The Black Army, which counted numerous Jews and Ukrainian peasants in its ranks, played a key part in halting General Denikin's White Army offensive towards Moscow during 1919, later ejecting Cossack forces from Crimea. Russian soldiers of the anti-Bolshevik Siberian Army in 1919 The remoteness of the Volga Region, the Ural Region, Siberia, and the Far East was favourable for the anti-Bolshevik powers, and the Whites set up a number of organizations in the cities of these regions. Some of the military forces were set up on the basis of clandestine officers' organisations in the cities. The Czechoslovak Legions had been part of the Russian army and numbered around 30,000 troops by October 1917. They had an agreement with the new Bolshevik government to be evacuated from the Eastern Front via the Port of Vladivostok to France. The transport from the Eastern Front to the Port of Vladivostok slowed down in the chaos, and the troops became dispersed all along the Trans-Siberian Railway. Under pressure from the Central Powers, Trotsky ordered the disarmament and arrest of the legionaries, which created tensions with the Bolsheviks. American troops in Vladivostok during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War (August 1918) The Western Allies also expressed their dismay at the Bolsheviks. They were worried about (1) a possible Russo-German alliance, (2) the prospect of the Bolsheviks making good their threats to assume no responsibility for, and so default on, Imperial Russia's massive foreign loans and (3) that the communist revolutionary ideas would spread (a concern shared by many Central Powers). Hence, many of these countries expressed their support for the Whites, including the provision of troops and supplies. Winston Churchill declared that Bolshevism must be "strangled in its cradle".[12] The British and the French had supported Russia on a massive scale with war materials. After the treaty, it looked like much of that material would fall into the hands of the Germans. Under this pretext began allied intervention in the Russian Civil War with the United Kingdom and France sending troops into Russian ports. There were violent confrontations with troops loyal to the Bolsheviks. The German Empire created several short-lived satellite buffer states within its sphere of influence after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk: the "United Baltic Duchy", "Duchy of Courland and Semigallia", "Kingdom of Lithuania", "Kingdom of Poland", the "Belarusian People’s Republic", and the "Ukrainian State". Following the defeat of Germany in World War I in November 1918, these states were abolished. Finland was the first republic that declared its independence from Russia in December 1917 and established itself in the ensuing Finnish Civil War from January to May 1918. The Second Polish Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia formed their armies immediately after the abolition of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and the start of the Soviet westward offensive in November 1918. Geography and chronology Main articles: Southern Front of the Russian Civil War, North Russia Campaign, Eastern Front of the Russian Civil War, Yakut Revolt and Finnish civil war Bolshevik control, February 1918 Bolshevik control, Summer of 1918 Maximum advance of the anti-Bolshevik armies European theatre of the Russian Civil War In the European part of Russia, the war was fought across three main fronts: the eastern, the southern, and the northwestern. It can also be roughly split into the following periods. The first period lasted from the Revolution until the Armistice. Already on the date of the Revolution, Cossack General Kaledin refused to recognize it and assumed full governmental authority in the Don region,[13] where the Volunteer Army began amassing support. The signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk also resulted in direct Allied intervention in Russia and the arming of military forces opposed to the Bolshevik government. There were also many German commanders who offered support against the Bolsheviks, fearing a confrontation with them was impending as well. During this first period, the Bolsheviks took control of Central Asia out of the hands of the Provisional Government and White Army, setting up a base for the Communist Party in the Steppe and Turkestan, where nearly two million Russian settlers were located.[14] Most of the fighting in this first period was sporadic, involving only small groups amid a fluid and rapidly shifting strategic scene. Among the antagonists were the Czechoslovaks, known as the Czechoslovak Legion or "White Czechs",[15] the Poles of the Polish 5th Rifle Division, and the pro-Bolshevik Red Latvian riflemen. The second period of the war lasted from January to November 1919. At first the White armies' advances from the south (under General Denikin), the east (under Admiral Kolchak), and the northwest (under General Yudenich) were successful, forcing the Red Army and its leftist allies back on all three fronts. In July 1919, the Red Army suffered another reverse after a mass defection of Red Army units in the Crimea to the anarchist Black Army under Nestor Makhno, enabling anarchist forces to consolidate power in Ukraine. Leon Trotsky soon reformed the Red Army, concluding the first of two military alliances with the anarchists. In June, the Red Army first checked Kolchak's advance. After a series of engagements, assisted by a Black Army offensive against White supply lines, the Red Army defeated Denikin's and Yudenich's armies in October and November. The third period of the war was the extended siege of the last White forces in the Crimea. Wrangel had gathered the remnants of Denikin's armies, occupying much of the Crimea. An attempted invasion of southern Ukraine was rebuffed by the anarchist Black Army under the command of Nestor Makhno. Pursued into the Crimea by Makhno's troops, Wrangel went over to the defensive in the Crimea. After an abortive move north against the Red Army, Wrangel's troops were forced south by Red Army and Black Army forces; Wrangel and the remains of his army were evacuated to Constantinople in November 1920. Warfare October Revolution Main article: October Revolution In the October Revolution, the Bolshevik Party directed the Red Guard (armed groups of workers and Imperial army deserters) to seize control of Petrograd (Saint Petersburg), and immediately began the armed takeover of cities and villages throughout the former Russian Empire. In January 1918, the Bolsheviks dissolved the Russian Constituent Assembly, and proclaimed the Soviets (workers’ councils) as the new government of Russia. Initial anti-Bolshevik uprisings Main articles: Kerensky-Krasnov uprising, Junker mutiny and Volunteer Army Summer 1917 in Russia near Moscow. In the park of the dacha, a German babushka and her two granddaughters. The children fled with their Swiss parents (probably in 1921) to Switzerland in a dramatic escape, living first in the South of Russia (Rostov-on-Don), later fleeing through Odessa by sealed cattle carriage to Warsaw. When the family arrived in Basel, they had to endure an obliged quarantine. The first attempt to regain power from the Bolsheviks was made by the Kerensky-Krasnov uprising in October 1917. It was supported by the Junker Mutiny in Petrograd but was quickly put down by the Red Guard, notably the Latvian rifle division. The initial groups that fought against the Communists were local Cossack armies that had declared their loyalty to the Provisional Government. Kaledin of the Don Cossacks and Semenov of the Siberian Cossacks were prominent among them. The leading Tsarist officers of the old regime also started to resist. In November, General Alekseev, the Tsar's Chief-of-Staff during the First World War, began to organise the Volunteer Army in Novocherkassk. Volunteers of this small army were mostly officers of the old Russian army, military cadets and students. In December 1917, Alekseev was joined by Kornilov, Denikin, and other Tsarist officers who had escaped from the jail where they had been imprisoned following the abortive Kornilov affair just before the Revolution.[16] At the beginning of December 1917, groups of volunteers and Cossacks captured Rostov. Having stated in the November 1917 “Declaration of Rights of Nations of Russia” that any nation under imperial Russian rule should be immediately given the power of self-determination, the Bolsheviks had begun to usurp the power of the Provisional Government in the territories of Central Asia soon after the establishment of the Turkestan Committee in Tashkent.[17] In April 1917, the Provisional Government set up this committee, which was mostly made up of former tsarist officials.[18] The Bolsheviks attempted to take control of the Committee in Tashkent on 12 September 1917, but their mission was unsuccessful, and many Bolshevik leaders were arrested. However, because the Committee lacked representation of the native population and poor Russian settlers, they had to release the Bolshevik prisoners almost immediately due to public outcry, and a successful takeover of this government body took place two months later in November.[19] The success of the Bolshevik party over the Provisional Government during 1917 was mostly due to the support they received from the working class of Central Asia. The Leagues of Mohammedam Working People, which Russian settlers and natives who had been sent to work behind the lines for the Tsarist government in 1916 formed in March 1917, had led numerous strikes in the industrial centers throughout September 1917.[20] However, after the Bolshevik destruction of the Provisional Government in Tashkent, Muslim elites formed an autonomous government in Turkestan, commonly called the "Kokand autonomy" (or simply Kokand).[21] The White Russians supported this government body, which lasted several months because of Bolshevik troop isolation from Moscow.[22] In January 1918 the Soviet forces under Lieutenant Colonel Muravyov invaded Ukraine and invested Kiev, where the Central Council of the Ukrainian People's Republic held power. With the help of the Kiev Arsenal Uprising, the Bolsheviks captured the city on 26 January.[23] Peace with the Central Powers Main article: Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Soviet delegation with Trotsky greeted by German officers at Brest-Litovsk, 8 January 1918 The Bolsheviks decided to immediately make peace with the German Empire and the Central Powers, as they had promised the Russian people before the Revolution.[24] Vladimir Lenin's political enemies attributed that decision to his sponsorship by the foreign office of Wilhelm II, German Emperor, offered to Lenin in hope that, with a revolution, Russia would withdraw from World War I. That suspicion was bolstered by the German Foreign Ministry's sponsorship of Lenin's return to Petrograd.[25] However, after the military fiasco of the summer offensive (June 1917) by the Russian Provisional Government, and in particular after the failed summer offensive of the Provisional Government had devastated the structure of the Russian Army, it became crucial that Lenin realize the promised peace.[26][27] Even before the failed summer offensive the Russian population was very sceptical about the continuation of the war. Western socialists had promptly arrived from France and from the UK to convince the Russians to continue the fight but could not change the new pacifist mood of Russia.[28] On 16 December 1917, an armistice was signed between Russia and the Central Powers in Brest-Litovsk and peace talks began.[29] As a condition for peace, the proposed treaty by the Central Powers conceded huge portions of the former Russian Empire to the German Empire and the Ottoman Empire, greatly upsetting nationalists and conservatives. Leon Trotsky, representing the Bolsheviks, refused at first to sign the treaty while continuing to observe a unilateral cease fire, following the policy of "No war, no peace".[30] In view of this, on 18 February 1918, the Germans began Operation Faustschlag on the Eastern Front, encountering virtually no resistance in a campaign that lasted eleven days.[30] Signing a formal peace treaty was the only option in the eyes of the Bolsheviks because the Russian army was demobilized, and the newly formed Red Guard was incapable of stopping the advance. They also understood that the impending counterrevolutionary resistance was more dangerous than the concessions of the treaty, which Lenin viewed as temporary in the light of aspirations for a world revolution. The Soviets acceded to a peace treaty, and the formal agreement, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, was ratified on 6 March. The Soviets viewed the treaty as merely a necessary and expedient means to end the war. Therefore, they ceded large amounts of territory to the German Empire. Ukraine, South Russia, and Caucasus 1918 Main articles: Ukrainian People's Republic, Kiev Arsenal January Uprising, Ice March, 26 Baku Commissars, German Caucasus Expedition, Battle of Baku and Central Caspian Dictatorship February 1918 article from The New York Times showing a map of the Russian Imperial territories claimed by Ukraine People's Republic at the time, before the annexation of the Austro-Hungarian lands of the West Ukrainian People's Republic. Under Soviet pressure, the Volunteer Army embarked on the epic Ice March from Yekaterinodar to Kuban on 22 February 1918, where they joined with the Kuban Cossacks to mount an abortive assault on Yekaterinodar.[31] The Soviets recaptured Rostov on the next day.[32] General Kornilov was killed in the fighting on 13 April, and General Denikin took over the command. Fighting off its pursuers without respite, the army succeeded in breaking its way through back towards the Don, where the Cossack uprising against Bolsheviks had started. The Baku Soviet Commune was established on 13 April. Germany landed its Caucasus Expedition troops in Poti on 8 June. The Ottoman Army of Islam (in coalition with Azerbaijan) drove them out of Baku on 26 July 1918. Subsequently, the Dashanaks, Right SRs and Mensheviks started negotiations with General Dunsterville, the commander of the British troops in Persia. The Bolsheviks and their Left SR allies were opposed to it, but on 25 July the majority of the Soviet voted to call in the British, and the Bolsheviks resigned. The Baku Soviet Commune ended its existence and was replaced by the Central Caspian Dictatorship. In June 1918, the Volunteer Army, numbering some 9,000 men, started its second Kuban campaign. Yekaterinodar was encircled on 1 August and fell on the 3rd. In September–October, heavy fighting took place at Armavir and Stavropol. On 13 October, General Kazanovich's division took Armavir, and on 1 November, general Pyotr Wrangel secured Stavropol. This time Red forces had no escape, and by the beginning of 1919, the whole Northern Caucasus was free from Bolsheviks. In October, General Alekseev, the leader for the White armies in southern Russia, died of a heart attack. An agreement was reached between Denikin, head of the Volunteer Army, and PN Krasnov, Ataman of the Don Cossacks, which united their forces under the sole command of Denikin. The Armed Forces of South Russia were thus created. Eastern Russia and Siberia, 1918 Main article: Revolt of Czechoslovak Legion The Revolt of the Czechoslovak Legion broke out in May 1918,[33] and the legionaries took control of Chelyabinsk in June. Simultaneously, Russian officers' organisations overthrew the Bolsheviks in Petropavlovsk and in Omsk. Within a month the Whites controlled most of the Trans-Siberian Railroad from Lake Baikal to the Ural regions. During the summer, Bolshevik power in Siberia was eliminated. The Provisional Government of Autonomous Siberia formed in Omsk. By the end of July, the Whites had extended their gains westwards, capturing Ekaterinburg on 26 July 1918. Shortly before the fall of Yekaterinburg on 17 July 1918, the former Tsar and his family were executed by the Ural Soviet to prevent them falling into the hands of the Whites. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries supported peasants fighting against Soviet control of food supplies.[citation needed] In May 1918, with the support of the Czechoslovak Legion, they took Samara and Saratov, establishing the Committee of Members of the Constituent Assembly – known as the "Komuch". By July, the authority of the Komuch extended over much of the area controlled by the Czechoslovak Legion. The Komuch pursued an ambivalent social policy, combining democratic and even socialist measures, such as the institution of an eight-hour working day, with "restorative" actions, such as returning both factories and land to their former owners. After the fall of Kazan Vladimir Lenin called for the dispatch of Petrograd workers to the Kazan Front: "We must send down the maximum number of Petrograd workers: (1) a few dozen 'leaders' like Kayurov; (2) a few thousand militants 'from the ranks'".[34] After a series of reverses at the front, War Commissar Trotsky instituted increasingly harsh measures in order to prevent unauthorized withdrawals, desertions, or mutinies in the Red Army. In the field, the Cheka special investigations forces, termed the Special Punitive Department of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combat of Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, or Special Punitive Brigades, followed the Red Army, conducting field tribunals and summary executions of soldiers and officers who deserted, retreated from their positions, or failed to display sufficient offensive zeal.[35][36] Trotsky extended the use of the death penalty to the occasional political commissar whose detachment retreated or broke in the face of the enemy.[citation needed] In August, frustrated at continued reports of Red Army troops breaking under fire, Trotsky authorized the formation of barrier troops stationed behind unreliable Red Army units, with orders to shoot anyone withdrawing from the battle-line without authorisation.[37] Czechoslovak legionaries of the 8th regiment killed by Bolsheviks at Nikolsk Ussuriysky, 1918. In September 1918, Komuch, the Siberian Provisional Government, and other local anti-Soviet governments met in Ufa and agreed to form a new Provisional All-Russian Government in Omsk, headed by a Directory of five: three Socialist-Revolutionaries (Nikolai Avksentiev, Boldyrev, and Vladimir Zenzinov) and two Kadets, (VA Vinogradov and PV Vologodskii). By the fall of 1918, Anti-Bolshevik White Forces in the east included the People's Army (Komuch), the Siberian Army (of the Siberian Provisional Government) and insurgent Cossack units of Orenburg, Ural, Siberia, Semirechye, Baikal, Amur, and Ussuri Cossacks, nominally under the orders of general VG Boldyrev, Commander-in-Chief, appointed by the Ufa Directorate. On the Volga, Colonel Kappel's White detachment captured Kazan 7 August, but the Reds re-captured the city on 8 September 1918 following the Red counter-offensive. On the 11th, Simbirsk fell, and on 8 October, Samara. The Whites fell back eastwards to Ufa and Orenburg. In Omsk, the Russian Provisional Government quickly came under the influence of the its new War Minister, Rear-Admiral Kolchak. On 18 November, a coup d'état established Kolchak as dictator. The members of the Directory were arrested and Kolchak proclaimed the "Supreme Ruler of Russia". By mid-December 1918, White armies in the east had to leave Ufa, but they balanced this failure with a successful drive towards Perm. Perm was taken on 24 December. Central Asia 1918 In February 1918 the Red Army overthrew the White Russian-supported Kokand autonomy of Turkestan.[38] Although this move seemed to solidify Bolshevik power in Central Asia, more troubles soon arose for the Red Army as the Allied Forces began to intervene. British support of the White Army provided the greatest threat to the Red Army in Central Asia during 1918. Great Britain sent three prominent military leaders to the area. One was Lieutenant-Colonel Bailey, who recorded a mission to Tashkent, from where the Bolsheviks forced him to flee. Another was General Malleson, leading the Malleson Mission, who assisted the Mensheviks in Ashkhabad (now the capital of Turkmenistan) with a small Anglo-Indian force. However, he failed to gain control of Tashkent, Bukhara, and Khiva. The third was Major-General Dunsterville, who the Bolsheviks drove out of Central Asia only a month after his arrival in August 1918.[39] Despite setbacks due to British invasions during 1918, the Bolsheviks continued to make progress in bringing the Central Asian population under their influence. The first regional congress of the Russian Communist Party convened in the city of Tashkent in June 1918 in order to build support for a local Bolshevik Party.[40] London Geographical Institute’s 1919 map of Europe after the treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Batum and before the treaties of Tartu, Kars, and Riga Left SR uprising In July, two Left SR and Cheka employees, Blyumkin and Andreyev, assassinated the German ambassador, Count Mirbach. In Moscow Left SR uprising was put down by the Bolsheviks, using the Cheka military detachments. Lenin personally apologised to the Germans for the assassination. Mass arrests of Socialist-Revolutionaries followed. Estonia, Latvia, and Petrograd Estonia cleared its territory from the Red Army by January 1919.[41] Baltic German volunteers captured Riga from the Red Latvian Riflemen on 22 May, but the Estonian 3rd Division defeated the Baltic Germans a month later, aiding to establish the Republic of Latvia in power.[42] General Nikolai Yudenich. This rendered possible another threat to the Red Army – one from General Yudenich, who had spent the summer organizing the Northwestern Army in Estonia with local and British support. In October 1919, he tried to capture Petrograd in a sudden assault with a force of around 20,000 men. The attack was well-executed, using night attacks and lightning cavalry maneuvers to turn the flanks of the defending Red Army. Yudenich also had six British tanks, which caused panic whenever they appeared. The Allies gave large quantities of aid to Yudenich, who, however, complained that he was receiving insufficient support. By 19 October, Yudenich's troops had reached the outskirts of the city. Some members of the Bolshevik central committee in Moscow were willing to give up Petrograd, but Trotsky refused to accept the loss of the city and personally organized its defenses. He declared, "It is impossible for a little army of 15,000 ex-officers to master a working class capital of 700,000 inhabitants." He settled on a strategy of urban defense, proclaiming that the city would "defend itself on its own ground" and that the White Army would be lost in a labyrinth of fortified streets and there "meet its grave".[43] Trotsky armed all available workers, men and women, ordering the transfer of military forces from Moscow. Within a few weeks the Red Army defending Petrograd had tripled in size and outnumbered Yudenich three to one. At this point Yudenich, short of supplies, decided to call off the siege of the city and withdrew, repeatedly asking permission to withdraw his army across the border to Estonia. However, units retreating across the border were disarmed and interned by order of the Estonian government, which had entered into peace negotiations with the Soviet Government on 16 September and had been informed by the Soviet authorities of their 6 November decision that, should the White Army be allowed to retreat into Estonia, it would be pursued across the border by the Reds.[44] In fact the Reds attacked Estonian army positions, and fighting continued until a ceasefire came into effect on 3 January 1920. Following the Treaty of Tartu most of Yudenich's soldiers went into exile. The Finnish general Mannerheim planned a Finnish intervention to help the Whites in Russia capture Petrograd. He did not, however, gain the necessary support for the endeavor. Lenin considered it "completely certain, that the slightest aid from Finland would have determined the fate of Petrograd". Northern Russia 1919 Main article: North Russia Intervention The British occupied Murmansk and, alongside the Americans, seized Arkhangelsk. With the retreat of Kolchak in Siberia, they pulled their troops out of the cities before the winter trapped their forces in the port. Siberia 1919 Admiral Kolchack reviewing the troops, 1919. At the beginning of March 1919, the general offensive of the Whites on the eastern front began. Ufa was retaken on 13 March; by mid-April, the White Army stopped at the Glazov-Chistopol-Bugulma-Buguruslan-Sharlyk line. Reds started their counter-offensive against Kolchak's forces at the end of April. The Red Army, led by the capable commander Tukhachevsky, captured Elabuga on 26 May, Sarapul on 2 June, and Izevsk on the 7th and continued to push forward. Both sides had victories and losses, but by the middle of summer the Red Army was larger than the White Army and had managed to recapture territory previously lost. Following the abortive offensive at Chelyabinsk, the White armies withdrew beyond the Tobol. In September 1919, White offensive was launched against the Tobol front, the last attempt to change the course of events. But on 14 October, the Reds counterattacked and then began the uninterrupted retreat of the Whites to the east. Mikhail Frunze On 14 November 1919, the Red Army captured Omsk.[45] Admiral Kolchak lost control of his government shortly after this defeat; White Army forces in Siberia essentially ceased to exist by December. Retreat of the eastern front by White armies lasted three months, until mid-February 1920, when the survivors, after crossing Lake Baikal, reached Chita area and joined Ataman Semenov's forces. South Russia 1919 The Cossacks had been unable to organize and capitalize on their successes at the end of 1918. By 1919 they had begun to run short of supplies. Consequently, when the Soviet counter-offensive began in January 1919 under the Bolshevik leader Antonov-Ovseenko, the Cossack forces rapidly fell apart. The Red Army captured Kiev on 3 February 1919. White propaganda poster "For united Russia" representing the Bolsheviks as a fallen communist dragon and the White Cause as a crusading knight. Denikin's military strength continued to grow in the spring of 1919. During the several months in winter and spring of 1919, hard fighting with doubtful outcomes took place in the Donets basin where the attacking Bolsheviks met White forces. At the same time, Denikin's Armed Forces of South Russia (AFSR) completed the elimination of Red forces in the northern Caucasus and advanced towards Tsaritsyn. At the end of April and beginning of May, the AFSR attacked on all fronts from the Dnepr to the Volga, and by the beginning of the summer they had won numerous battles. French forces landed in Odessa but after having done almost no fighting, withdrew their troops on 8 April 1919. By mid-June the Reds were chased from the Crimea and from the Odessa area. Denikin's troops took the cities of Kharkov and Belgorod. At the same time White troops under Wrangel's command took Tsaritsyn on 17 June 1919. On 20 June, Denikin issued his famous "Moscow directive", ordering all AFSR units to get ready for a decisive offensive to take Moscow. Although Great Britain had withdrawn its own troops from the theater, it continued to give significant military aid (money, weapons, food, ammunition, and some military advisors) to the White armies during 1919. After the capture of Tsaritsyn, Wrangel pushed towards Saratov, but Trotsky, seeing the danger of the union with Kolchak, against whom the Red command was concentrating large masses of troops, repulsed his attempts with heavy losses. When Kolchak's army in the east began to retreat in June and July, the bulk of the Red Army, free now from any serious danger from Siberia, was directed against Denikin. Denikin's forces constituted a real threat and for a time threatened to reach Moscow. The Red Army, stretched thin by fighting on all fronts, was forced out of Kiev on 30 August. Kursk and Orel were taken. The Cossack Don Army under the command of General Konstantin Mamontov continued north towards Voronezh, but there Tukhachevsky's army defeated them on 24 October. Tukhachevsky's army then turned towards yet another threat, the rebuilt Volunteer Army of General Denikin. The high tide of the White movement against the Soviets had been reached in September 1919. By this time Denikin's forces were dangerously overextended. The White front had no depth or stability: it had become a series of patrols with occasional columns of slowly advancing troops without reserves. Lacking ammunition, artillery, and fresh reinforcements, Denikin's army was decisively defeated in a series of battles in October and November 1919. The Red Army recaptured Kiev on 17 December, and the defeated Cossacks fled back towards the Black Sea. While the White armies were being routed in the center and the east, they had succeeded in driving Nestor Makhno's anarchist Black Army (formally known as the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine) out of part of southern Ukraine and the Crimea. Despite this setback, Moscow was loath to aid Makhno and the Black Army and refused to provide arms to anarchist forces in Ukraine. The main body of White forces, the Volunteers and the Don Army, pulled back towards the Don, to Rostov. The smaller body (Kiev and Odessa troops) withdrew to Odessa and the Crimea, which it had managed to protect from the Bolsheviks during the winter of 1919–1920. Central Asia 1919 By February 1919 the British government had pulled their military forces out of Central Asia.[46] Despite this success for the Red Army, the White Army’s assaults in European Russia and other areas broke communication between Moscow and Tashkent. For a time, Central Asia was completely cut off from the Red Army forces in Siberia.[47] Although this communication failure weakened the Red Army, the Bolsheviks continued their efforts to gain support for the Bolshevik Party in Central Asia by holding a second regional conference in March. During this conference a regional bureau of Muslim organizations of the Russian Bolshevik Party was formed. The Bolshevik Party continued to try and gain support among the native population by giving them the impression of better representation for the Central Asian population and throughout the end of the year were able to maintain harmony with the Central Asian people.[48] Communication difficulties with the Red Army forces in Siberia and European Russia ceased to be a problem by mid-November 1919. Due to Red Army success north of Central Asia, communication with Moscow was re-established, and the Bolsheviks were able to claim victory over the White Army in Turkestan.[47] South Russia, Ukraine, and Kronstadt 1920–21 Victims of the Russian famine of 1921. By the beginning of 1920, the main body of the Armed Forces of South Russia was rapidly retreating towards the Don, to Rostov. Denikin hoped to hold the crossings of the Don, rest, and reform his troops, but the White Army was not able to hold the Don area and at the end of February 1920, started a retreat across Kuban towards Novorossiysk. Slipshod evacuation of Novorossiysk proved to be a dark event for the White Army. About 40,000 men were evacuated by Russian and Allied ships from Novorossiysk to the Crimea, without horses or any heavy equipment, while about 20,000 men were left behind and either dispersed or captured by the Red Army. Following the disastrous Novorossiysk evacuation, Denikin stepped down, and the military council elected Wrangel as the new Commander-in-Chief of the White Army. He was able to restore order with dispirited troops and reshape an army that could fight as a regular force again. This remained an organised force in the Crimea throughout 1920. After Moscow's Bolshevik government signed a military and political alliance with Nestor Makhno and the Ukrainian anarchists, the Black Army attacked and defeated several regiments of Wrangel's troops in southern Ukraine, forcing him to retreat before he could capture that year's grain harvest.[49] Stymied in his efforts to consolidate his hold, Wrangel then attacked north in an attempt to take advantage of recent Red Army defeats at the close of the Polish-Soviet War of 1919–1920. This offensive was eventually halted by the Red Army, and Wrangel's troops were forced to retreat to the Crimea in November 1920, pursued by both the Red and Black cavalry and infantry. Wrangel and the remains of his army were evacuated from the Crimea to Constantinople on 14 November 1920. Thus ended the struggle of Reds and Whites in Southern Russia. Red Army troops attack Kronstadt sailors in March 1921. After the defeat of Wrangel, the Red Army immediately repudiated its 1920 treaty of alliance with Nestor Makhno and attacked the anarchist Black Army; the campaign to liquidate Makhno and the Ukrainian anarchists began with an attempted assassination of Makhno by the Cheka agents. Angered by continued repression by the Bolshevik Communist government and its liberal use of the Cheka to put down anarchist elements, a naval mutiny erupted at Kronstadt, followed by peasant revolts. Red Army attacks on the anarchist forces and their sympathizers increased in ferocity throughout 1921. Siberia and the Far East 1920–22 Main article: Far Eastern Front in the Russian Civil War In Siberia, Admiral Kolchak's army had disintegrated. He himself gave up command after the loss of Omsk and designated Grigory Semyonov as the new leader of the White Army in Siberia. Not long after this, Kolchak was arrested by the disaffected Czechoslovak Corps as he traveled towards Irkutsk without the protection of the army and turned over to the socialist Political Centre in Irkutsk. Six days later, this regime was replaced by a Bolshevik-dominated Military-Revolutionary Committee. On 6–7 February, Kolchak and his prime minister Victor Pepelyaev were shot and their bodies thrown through the ice of the frozen Angara River, just before the arrival of the White Army in the area.[50] Remnants of Kolchak's army reached Transbaikalia and joined Grigory Semyonov's troops, forming the Far Eastern army. With the support of the Japanese Army, it was able to hold Chita, but after withdrawal of Japanese soldiers from Transbaikalia, Semenov's position become untenable, and in November 1920 he was repulsed by the Red Army from Transbaikalia and took refuge in China. The Japanese, who had plans to annex the Amur Krai, finally pulled their troops out as the Bolshevik forces gradually asserted control over the Russian Far East. On 25 October 1922, Vladivostok fell to the Red Army, and the Provisional Priamur Government was extinguished. Aftermath Ensuing rebellion In central Asia, Red Army troops continued to face resistance into 1923, where basmachi (armed bands of Islamic guerrillas) had formed to fight the Bolshevik takeover. The Soviets engaged non-Russian peoples in Central Asia, like Magaza Masanchi, commander of the Dungan Cavalry Regiment, to fight against the Basmachis. The Communist Party did not completely dismantle this group until 1934.[51] General Anatoly Pepelyayev continued armed resistance in the Ayano-Maysky District until June 1923. The regions of Kamchatka and Northern Sakhalin remained under Japanese occupation until their treaty with the Soviet Union in 1925, when their forces were finally withdrawn. Casualties Victims of the Red Terror in Crimea, 1918 Street children during the Russian Civil War The results of the civil war were momentous. Soviet demographer Boris Urlanis estimated total number of men killed in action in the Civil War and Polish-Soviet war as 300,000 (125,000 in the Red Army, 175,500 White armies and Poles) and the total number of military personnel dead from disease (on both sides) as 450,000.[52] During the Red Terror, the Cheka carried out at least 250,000 summary executions of "enemies of the people" with estimates reaching above a million.[53][54][55][56] Some 300,000–500,000 Cossacks were killed or deported during decossackization, out of a population of around three million.[57] An estimated 100,000 Jews were killed in Ukraine, mostly by the White Army.[58] Punitive organs of the All Great Don Cossack Host sentenced 25,000 people to death between May 1918 and January 1919.[59] Kolchak's government shot 25,000 people in Ekaterinburg province alone.[60] At the end of the Civil War, the Russian SFSR was exhausted and near ruin. The droughts of 1920 and 1921, as well as the 1921 famine, worsened the disaster still further. Disease had reached pandemic proportions, with 3,000,000 dying of typhus alone in 1920. Millions more were also killed by widespread starvation, wholesale massacres by both sides, and pogroms against Jews in Ukraine and southern Russia. By 1922, there were at least 7,000,000 street children in Russia as a result of nearly 10 years of devastation from the Great War and the civil war.[61] Refugees on flatcars. Another one to two million people, known as the White émigrés, fled Russia – many with General Wrangel, some through the Far East, others west into the newly independent Baltic countries. These émigrés included a large part of the educated and skilled population of Russia. The Russian economy was devastated by the war, with factories and bridges destroyed, cattle and raw materials pillaged, mines flooded, and machines damaged. The industrial production value descended to one seventh of the value of 1913, and agriculture to one third. According to Pravda, "The workers of the towns and some of the villages choke in the throes of hunger. The railways barely crawl. The houses are crumbling. The towns are full of refuse. Epidemics spread and death strikes – industry is ruined."[citation needed] It is estimated that the total output of mines and factories in 1921 had fallen to 20% of the pre–World War level, and many crucial items experienced an even more drastic decline. For example, cotton production fell to 5%, and iron to 2% of pre-war levels. War Communism saved the Soviet government during the Civil War, but much of the Russian economy had ground to a standstill. The peasants responded to requisitions by refusing to till the land. By 1921, cultivated land had shrunk to 62% of the pre-war area, and the harvest yield was only about 37% of normal. The number of horses declined from 35 million in 1916 to 24 million in 1920, and cattle from 58 to 37 million. The exchange rate with the U.S. dollar declined from two rubles in 1914 to 1,200 in 1920. With the end of the war, the Communist Party no longer faced an acute military threat to its existence and power. However, the perceived threat of another intervention, combined with the failure of socialist revolutions in other countries, most notably the German Revolution, contributed to the continued militarization of Soviet society. Although Russia experienced extremely rapid economic growth in the 1930s, the combined effect of World War I and the Civil War left a lasting scar in Russian society, and had permanent effects on the development of the Soviet Union. British historian Orlando Figes has contended that the root of the Whites' defeat was their inability to dispel the popular image that they were dually associated with Tsarist Russia and supportive of a Tsarist restoration.[62] Brief Timeline October 1917 - Kerensky and his supporters flee Petrograd. 5 January 1918 - The Red Guard break up a meeting of the Constituent Assembly on Lenin's orders. 1920 Nikolayevsk Incident: anarchist Yakov Triapitsyn massacred most of the inhabitants of the town of Nikolayevsk-on-Amur in the Russian Far East. 28 January 1918 - Trotsky sets up the Red army. March 1918 - Bolsheviks move the Russian capital to Moscow from Petrograd for protection and better communications as it is in the centre of their territory. 14 October 1919 - Denikins army reaches Orel 300 km from Moscow. 22 October 1919 - White forces reach the outskirts of Petrograd. Trotsky organises a counterattack. Early November 1919 - Western allies pull the plug on support for the whites. Troops begin to desert. 7 February 1920 - Kolchak is executed by the Bolsheviks after being handed over by the Czech Legion. April 1920 - Poles are driven back into Poland by the Bolsheviks 1921 - Some groups continue to fight but the Whites are beaten. See also Soviet Union This article is part of a series on the politics and government of the Soviet Union Leadership[show] Communist Party[show] Legislature[show] Governance[show] Judiciary[show] History and politics[show] Society[show] Other countries Atlas Soviet Union portal v t e Timeline of the Russian Civil War Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks Revolutionary Mass Festivals In fiction Literature The Road to Calvary (1922–41) by Aleksey Nikolayevich Tolstoy Chapaev (1923) by Dmitri Furmanov The Iron Flood (1924) by Alexander Serafimovich Red Cavalry (1926) by Isaac Babel The Rout (1927) by Alexander Fadeyev How the Steel Was Tempered (1934) by Nikolai Ostrovsky Optimistic Tragedy (1934) by Vsevolod Vishnevsky And Quiet Flows the Don (1928–1940) by Mikhail Sholokhov The Don Flows Home to the Sea (1940) by Mikhail Sholokhov Doctor Zhivago (1957) by Boris Pasternak The White Guard (1966) by Mikhail Bulgakov Byzantium Endures (1981) by Michael Moorcock Chevengur (novel) (ru) (written in 1927, first published in 1988 in the USSR) by Andrei Platonov. Fall of Giants (2010) by Ken Follett Film Arsenal (1928) Storm Over Asia (1928) Chapaev (1934) Thirteen (1936), directed by Mikhail Romm We Are from Kronstadt (1936), directed by Yefim Dzigan Knight Without Armour (1937) The Year 1919 (1938), directed by Ilya Trauberg The Baltic Marines (1939), directed by A. Faintsimmer Shchors (1939), directed by Dovzhenko Pavel Korchagin (1956), directed by A. Alov and V. Naumov The Forty-First (1956), directed by Grigori Chukhrai And Quiet Flows the Don (1958) The Wind (1958), directed by A. Alov and V. Naumov Doctor Zhivago (1965) The Elusive Avengers (1966) The Red and the White (1967) The Flight (1970), directed by A. Alov and V. Naumov Reds (1981) Corto Maltese in Siberia (2002) Admiral (2008) References Mawdsley, pp. 3, 230 Bullock, p. 7 "Peripheral regions of the former Russian Empire that had broken away to form new nations had to fight for independence: Finland, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan." G.F. Krivosheev, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, pp. 7–38. Russian Civil War Encyclopaedia Britannica Online 2012 Read, Christopher, From Tsar to Soviets, Oxford University Press (1996), p. 237: By 1920, 77% of the Red Army's enlisted ranks were composed of peasant conscripts. Williams, Beryl, The Russian Revolution 1917–1921, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. (1987), ISBN 978-0-631-15083-1, ISBN 0-631-15083-8: Typically, men of conscriptible age (17–40) in a village would vanish when Red Army draft units approached. The taking of hostages and a few exemplary executions usually brought the men back. Orlando Figes, A people's tragedy – History of the Russian Revolution (Penguin Books 1996): To mobilize the peasants Kolchak's army resorted increasingly to terror. There was no effective local administration to enforce the conscription in any other way, and in any case the Whites' world-view ruled out the need to persuade the peasants. It was taken for granted that it was the peasants place to serve in the White army, just as he had served in the ranks of the Tsar's, and that if he refused it was the army's right to punish him, even executing him if necessary as a warning to the others. Peasants were flogged and tortured, hostages were taken and shot, and whole villages were burned to the ground to force the conscripts into the army. Kolchak's cavalry would ride into towns on market day, round up the young men at gunpoint and take them off to the Front. Much of this terror was concealed from the Allies so as not to jeopardize their aid. But General Graves, the commander of the US troops, was well informed and was horrified by it. As he realized, the mass conscription of the peasantry 'was a long step towards the end of Kolchak's regime'. It soon destroyed the discipline and fighting morale of his army. Of every five peasants forcibly conscripted, four would desert: many of them ran off to the Reds, taking with them their supplies. Knox was livid when he first saw the Red troops on the Eastern Front: they were wearing British uniforms. From the start of its campaign, Kolchak's army was forced to deal with numerous peasant revolts in the rear, notably in Slavgorod, south-east of Omsk, and in Minusinsk on the Yenisei. The White requisitioning and mobilizations were their principal cause. Without its own structures of local government in the rural areas, Kolchak's regime could do very little, other than send in the Cossacks with their whips, to stop the peasants from reforming their Soviets to defend the local village revolution. By the height of the Kolchak offensive, whole areas of the Siberian rear were engulfed by peasant revolts. Overy, R.J., The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, W.W. Norton & Company (2004), ISBN 0-393-02030-4, ISBN 978-0-393-02030-4, p. 446: By the end of the civil war, one-third of all Red Army officers were ex-Tsarist voenspetsy. Williams, Beryl, The Russian Revolution 1917–1921, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. (1987), ISBN 978-0-631-15083-1, ISBN 0-631-15083-8 Overy, R.J., The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, W.W. Norton & Company (2004), ISBN 0-393-02030-4, ISBN 978-0-393-02030-4, p. 446: John M. Thompson, A vision unfulfilled. Russia and the Soviet Union in the twentieth century (Lexington, MA; 1996) 159. Cover Story: Churchill's Greatness. Interview with Jeffrey Wallin. (The Churchill Centre) Каледин, Алексей Максимович. A biography of Kaledin (in Russian) Geoffrey Wheeler, The Modern History of Soviet Central Asia (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964), 103. The Czech Legion Mawdsley, p. 27 W. P. and Zelda K. Coates, Soviets in Central Asia (New York: Philosophical Library, 1951), 72. Wheeler, The Modern History of Soviet Central Asia, 104. P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 70. P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 68–69. P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 74. Edward Allworth, Central Asia: A Century of Russian Rule(New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 226. Mawdsley, p. 35 Orlando Figes (In A people's tragedy – History of the Russian Revolution, Penguin Books 1996) is quoting such comments from the peasant soldiers during the first weeks of the war: We have talked it over among ourselves; if the Germans want payment, it would be better to pay ten roubles a head than to kill people. Or: Is it not all the same what Tsar we live under? It cannot be worse under the German one. Or: Let them go and fight themselves. Wait a while, we will settle accounts with you. Or: 'What devil has brought this war on us? We are butting into other people's business.' Lenin Orlando Figes, in A people's tragedy – History of the Russian Revolution (Penguin Books 1996), wrote: As Brusilov saw it, the soldiers were so obsessed with the idea of peace that they would have been prepared to support the Tsar himself, so long as he promised to bring the war to an end. This alone, Brusilov claimed, rather than the belief in some abstract 'socialism', explained their attraction to the Bolsheviks. The mass of the soldiers were simple peasants, they wanted land and freedom, and they began to call this 'Bolshevism' because only that party promised peace. This 'trench Bolshevism', as Allan Wildman has called it in his magisterial study of the Russian army during 1917, was not necessarily organized through formal party channels, or even encouraged by the Bolshevik agents. Orlando Figes, in A people's tragedy – History of the Russian Revolution (Penguin Books 1996) wrote: It was partly a case of the usual military failings: units had been sent into battle without machine-guns; untrained soldiers had been ordered to engage in complex manoeuvres using hand grenades and ended up throwing them without first pulling the pins. But the main reason for the fiasco was the simple reluctance of the soldiers to fight. Having advanced two miles, the front-line troops felt they had done their bit and refused to go any further, while those in the second line would not take their places. The advance thus broke down as the men began to run away. In one night alone the shock battalions of the Eleventh Army arrested 12,000 deserters near the town of Volochinsk. Many soldiers turned their guns against their commanding officers rather... than fight against the enemy. The retreat degenerated into chaos as soldiers looted shops and stores, raped peasant girls and murdered Jews. The collapse of the offensive dealt a fatal blow to the Provisional Government and the personal authority of its leaders. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers were killed. Millions of square miles of territory were lost. The leaders of the government had gambled everything on the offensive in the hope that it might rally the country behind them in the national defence of democracy. The coalition had been based upon this hope; and it held together as long as there was a chance of military success. But as the collapse of the offensive became clear, so the coalition fell apart. Orlando Figes, A people's tragedy – History of the Russian Revolution (Penguin Books 1996): This new civic patriotism did not extend beyond the urban middle classes, although the leaders of the Provisional Government deluded themselves that it did. The visit of the Allied socialists – Albert Thomas from France, Emile Vandervelde from Belgium, and Arthur Henderson from Britain – was a typical case in point. They had come to Russia to plead with "the people" not to leave the war, yet very few people bothered to listen to them. Konstantin Paustovsky recalls Thomas speaking in vain from the balcony of the building that was later to become the Moscow Soviet. Thomas spoke in French, and the small crowd that had gathered could not understand what he said. "But everything in his speech could be understood without words. Bobbing up and down on his bowed legs, Thomas showed us graphically what would happen to Russia if it left the war. He twirled his moustaches, like the Kaiser's, narrowed his eyes rapaciously, and jumped up and down choking the throat of an imaginary Russia." For several minutes the Frenchman continued with this circus act, hurling the body of Russia to the ground and jumping up and down on it, until the crowd began to hiss and boo and laugh. Thomas mistook this for a sign of approval and saluted the crowd with his bowler hat. But the laughter and booing got louder: 'Get that clown off!' one worker cried. Then, at last, someone else appeared on the balcony and diplomatically led him inside. Mawdsley, p. 42 Smith, David A.; Tucker, Spencer C. (2005). "Faustschlag, Operation". World War One. ABC-CLIO. p. 663. ISBN 1851098798. Mawdsley, p. 29 Mawdsley, p. 28 Mawdsley, pp. 62–8 Haupt, Georges & Marie, Jean-Jacques (1974). "Makers of the Russian revolution". London: George Allen & Unwin. p. 222. Chamberlain, William Henry, The Russian Revolution: 1917–1921, New York: Macmillan Co. (1957), p. 131: Frequently the deserters' families were taken hostage to force a surrender; a portion were customarily executed, as an example to the others. Daniels, Robert V., A Documentary History of Communism in Russia: From Lenin to Gorbachev, UPNE (1993), ISBN 0-87451-616-1, ISBN 978-0-87451-616-6, p. 70: The Cheka special investigations forces were also charged with the detection of sabotage and counter-revolutionary activity by Red Army soldiers and commanders. Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary, transl. & edited by Harold Shukman, HarperCollins Publishers, London (1996), p. 180: By December 1918 Trotsky had ordered the formation of special detachments to serve as blocking units throughout the Red Army. On 18 December he cabled: "How do things stand with the blocking units? ... It is absolutely essential that we have at least an embryonic network of blocking units and that we work out a procedure for bringing them up to strength and deploying them." Teresa Rakowska-Harmstone, Russia and Nationalism in Central Asia: The Case of Tadzhikistan (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1970), 19. P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 75. Allworth, Central Asia, 232. Baltic War of Liberation Encyclopædia Britannica "Generalkommando VI Reservekorps". Axis History. Williams, Beryl, The Russian Revolution 1917–1921, Blackwell Publishing (1987), ISBN 978-0-631-15083-1, ISBN 0-631-15083-8 Rosenthal, Reigo (2006). Loodearmee (Estonian language/Northwestern Army). Tallinn: Argo. p. 516. ISBN 9949-415-45-4. "Bolsheviki Grain Near Petrograd". New York Tribune (Washington, DC). Library of Congress. 15 November 1919. p. 4. Retrieved 10 September 2010. Allworth, Central Asia, 231. P. and Coates, Soviets in Central Asia, 76. Allworth, Central Asia, 232–233. Berland, Pierre, Mhakno, Le Temps, 28 August 1934: In addition to supplying White Army forces and their sympathizers with food, a successful seizure of the 1920 Ukrainian grain harvest would have had a devastating effect on food supplies to Bolshevik-held cities, while depriving both Red Army and Ukrainian Black Army troops of their usual bread rations. Mawdsley, pp. 319–21 Wheeler, The Modern History of Soviet Central Asia, 107. Urlanis B. Wars and Population. Moscow, Progress publishers, 1971. Stewart-Smith,, D. G. THE DEFEAT OF COMMUNISM. London: Ludgate Press Limited, 1964. Rummel, Rudolph, Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 (1990). p. 28, Andrew and Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield, paperback ed., Basic books, 1999. page 180, Overy, The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, W. W. Norton & Company; 1st American ed., 2004. Robert Gellately. Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe Knopf, 2007 ISBN 1-4000-4005-1 pp. 70–1. Kenez, Peter; Pipe, Richard; Pipes, Richard (1991). "The Prosecution of Soviet History: A Critique of Richard Pipes' The Russian Revolution". Russian Review 50 (3): 345–51. doi:10.2307/131078. JSTOR 131078.. Holquist, Peter (2002). Making War, Forging Revolution: Russia's Continuum of Crisis, 1914–1921. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 164. ISBN 0-674-00907-X.. Колчаковщина (in Russian). RU: Cult Info.. And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918–1930, Thomas J. Hegarty, Canadian Slavonic Papers Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy – History of the Russian Revolution (Penguin Books 1996): At the root of the Whites' defeat was a failure of politics. They proved unable and unwilling to frame policies capable of getting the mass of the population on their side. Their movement was based, in Wrangel's phrase, on 'the cruel sword of vengeance'; their only idea was to put the clock back to the 'happy days' before 1917; and they failed to see the need to adapt themselves to the realities of the revolution. The Whites' failure to recognize the peasant revolution on the land and the national independence movements doomed them to defeat. As Denikin was the first to acknowledge, victory depended on a popular revolt against the Reds within central Russia. Yet that revolt never came. Rather than rallying the people to their side, the Whites, in Wrangel's words, 'turned them into enemies'. This was partly a problem of image. Although Kolchak and Denikin both denied being monarchists, there were too many supporters of a tsarist restoration within their ranks, which created the popular image – and gave ammunition to the propaganda of their enemies – that they were associated with the old regime. The Whites made no real effort to overcome this problem with their image. Their propaganda was extremely primitive and, in any case, it is doubtful whether any propaganda could have overcome this mistrust. In the end, then, the defeat of the Whites comes down largely to their own dismal failure to break with the past and to regain the initiative within the agenda of 1917. The problem of the Russian counter-revolution was precisely that: it was too counter-revolutionary. [...] This is clearly shown by the story of the return of the peasant deserters to the Red Army. Until June, the Reds' campaign against desertion had relied on violent repressive measures against the villages suspected of harbouring them. This had been largely counter-productive, resulting in a wave of peasant revolts behind the Red Front which had facilitated the White advance. But in June the Bolsheviks switched to the more conciliatory tactic of 'amnesty weeks'. During these weeks, which were much propagandized and often extended indefinitely, the deserters were invited to return to the ranks without punishment. In a sense, it was a sign of the Bolshevik belief in the need to reform the nature of the peasant and to make him conscious of his revolutionary duty – thus the Reds punished 'malicious' deserters but tried to reform the 'weak-willed' ones – as opposed to the practice of the Whites of executing all deserters equally. Between July and September, as the threat of a White victory grew, nearly a quarter of a million deserters returned to the Red Army from the two military districts of Orel and Moscow alone. Many of them called themselves 'volunteers', and said they were ready to fight against the Whites, whom they associated with the restoration of the gentry on the land. Further reading Vladimir N. B</p> 20010995 2015-01-25 23:41:46 2015-01-25 23:41:46 open open russian-civil-war-20010995 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Air-Sea Operations, 1941-77 http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/25/air-sea-operations-1941-20010991/ Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:36:41 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>SPI, THE FAST CARRIERS (1975) THE FAST CARRIERS: Air-Sea Operations, 1941-77 is an integrated strategic/operational/tactical level simulation of historical and hypothetical naval air combat from 1941 to 1977. The game was designed by James F. Dunnigan and published by Simulations Publications, Incorporated (SPI) in 1975. Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Lou Sheehan HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Damaged battleships in Pearl Harbor: The USS Arizona, USS Tennessee and USS West Virginia At 07:40 on 7 December 1941, a mixed-force of Japanese carrier aircraft composed of 45 fighters, 54 dive bombers, 40 torpedo bombers, and 50 horizontal bombers appeared in the sky over the island of Oahu in the Hawaiian Islands. This was the first wave of a devastating aerial attack on the American naval and air forces in and around Pearl Harbor. Fifty minutes later, a second wave of Japanese carrier-based aircraft struck the island again in a follow-up raid. As a result of these two short, but devastating Japanese air attacks, eighteen U.S. ships — including seven battleships — were either sunk or so badly damaged that they would be out of action for months. In addition, of the nearly 400 military aircraft on the island, 188 were destroyed, and 159 were damaged. Total American casualties were 3,581, of which 2,403 were killed. On 6 December 1941, the United States was still a more-or-less neutral, if uneasy, nation. Americans, as a people, were concerned about events on the Continent, but still mainly wanted to stay out of the life-or-death struggle in Europe and North Africa against fascism; a conflict that had already been raging for over two years. One day later, the American people were suddenly, and without warning, catapulted into the struggle they had hoped to escape. On 7 December 1941, the conflict in Europe finally reached around the globe and struck Americans in Hawaii; in the months to come, it would rapidly spread in all directions until it had engulfed the whole of the Pacific. DESCRIPTION THE FAST CARRIERS is a historical and semi-historical simulation of the complex air-sea operations carried out by carrier task forces from the beginning of America’s entry into World War II through and until the late 70’s. This is a two player game, with each player commanding either carrier-based or land-based air units. The goal for both players is clear: locate and destroy the enemy force before he can do the same to you. As is typical with naval games, many of the actions performed by both players during a game turn will be executed secretly and simultaneously. What makes THE FAST CARRIERS particularly interesting from the player’s perspective (as well as challenging), is the melding of strategic, operational, and tactical mission planning and execution in a single all-encompassing game design. This melding of different time scales, however, also significantly slows the action for both players; this ‘slowness’ is, undoubtedly, the biggest shortcoming of the game system. In any case, as the game’s introduction explains: “During each game turn a player may move Task Force markers on the Strategic Map, shift air units on his Task Force Operations Displays, and move air units on the Tactical Display to attack naval units. Ships can bombard shore targets, air units can attack air units, ships can attack air units, and air units can bomb or torpedo ships. Each type of combat is handled separately and in sequence.” Thus, players transition in terms of map scale and time increments as they move from the Strategic Stage (four hours) to the Operational Stage (one hour) to the Tactical Stage (forty seconds). Given the multi-stage design architecture of THE FAST CARRIERS, it is hardly surprising that the game’s turn structure turns out to be a little unorthodox. Each of the different scenarios is composed of an open-ended number of from one to seven ‘days’. Each ‘day’ is then further divided into five daylight turns, and one night turn. The opposing sides maneuver on one of five different strategic maps, each of which represents a specific geographical sea area. Strategic naval movement is handled using Task Force (TF) markers; and although both players’ markers are always visible on the strategic map, the combination of ‘dummy’ TF markers, restrictive search procedures, and simultaneous movement plotting pretty much eliminates the specter of unrealistic ‘perfect intelligence’ from the game. Each ship counter represents a single vessel, and each two-sided (to represent damaged and undamaged status) air counter represents six aircraft. "Battle of the Coral Sea" painting by Robert Taylor depicts sinking of the carrier Shoho at 10:40am on 5 4 42 by a squadron from the Lexington. The game mechanics of THE FAST CARRIERS are probably a little too involved to describe in any great detail, but a brief description of the different phases of each stage may still be helpful in conveying the flow of an individual game turn. The starting point for each game turn is the Strategic Stage which is composed of three steps: the surface combat phase; the strategic movement phase; and the strategic search phase. At the conclusion of each Strategic phase, players transition to the portion of the game directly oriented around carrier operations. This (carrier) Operations Stage is, in turn, made up of four steps: the aircraft launch phase; the change of status phase (aircraft move from hanger to flight deck, fuel and arm, etc.); the recovery (landing) phase; and the aircraft movement phase (aircraft move or set-up for air strikes, etc.) If and only if, an airborne strike force arrives over its target do operations shift to the game’s Tactical Stage. At this point, assuming that an airstrike is not going in against a land base, the attacking player must determine whether his striking force has found its target. And this is where playing THE FAST CARRIERS is anything but fast. Finding or not finding the enemy fleet depends on two factors: the number of ‘waves’ (determined at the time of take off) conducting the airstrike; and the range flown by the attacking aircraft. A quick word of explanation: ‘waves’ can be comprised of from one to three aircraft counters, but must always be composed of the same type of aircraft. Assuming that part or all of the strike force actually locates its target, then the attacking aircraft and their escorts enter from one of six sides of the Tactical Display and proceed to run the familiar gauntlet (one wave at a time) of enemy CAP, followed by naval anti-aircraft fire. Once these steps are completed, the attacking waves of aircraft can finally conduct their runs against individual enemy ships. Dive bombers, not surprisingly, must approach their targets at higher altitude and then dive to attack from the stern; horizontal bombers perform their attacks after completing a straight, high altitude bomb run; torpedo planes, on the other hand, can attack from any angle, but must fly three hexes in a straight line before attacking the enemy vessel from an adjacent hex. Combat results are computed using a ‘differential’ CRT, and, since attacks are resolved wave by wave (up to a maximum of six waves) and negative differentials have ‘no effect’, the combat system occasionally leads to some very odd situations. Ships are damaged as a result of hits (four hits being necessary to sink a vessel); aircraft counters are inverted to their ‘damaged’ side to show hits, and damaged air groups are eliminated if hit again. One perverse aspect of this combat system, particularly for a player like me who cut his ‘carrier game’ teeth on Avalon Hill’s original MIDWAY, is that it requires multiple attacks to sink ANYTHING — even a carrier with readied planes on its deck. The other really cumbersome element in THE FAST CARRIERS is the seemingly interminable quasi-abstract Search subroutine. Searches are conducted on the players' Search Charts, and search aircraft, once launched, are committed to their search area for the entire day. And searches, as might be expected, can be conducted with varying numbers of aircraft, using different search patterns, and at different ranges. Not surprisingly, the more aircraft searching a sea area and the shorter the range, the better the prospects are of locating an enemy force. Unfortunately, even when the enemy task force is found, a randomly drawn chit will still determine how effective the search actually turns out to be. This process is both predictably time-consuming and, more often than not, incredibly frustrating for the player conducting the search. Winning is determined by comparing victory points at the end of the scenario being played. Victory points, of course, are typically accumulated by inflicting damage on the enemy force. USS Neosho refuels the USS Yorktown before the Battle of the Coral Sea, May, 1942 THE FAST CARRIERS offers five historical, and four semi-historical (hypothetical) scenarios that simulate air-sea operations from the start of World War II up to the 70’s. The scenarios follow the chronological order of the naval actions they recreate; they are: Pearl Harbor, 7 Dec.’41 (this is the only solitaire scenario offered); the Coral Sea, 8 May ’42; the Battle of Midway, 4 June ’42; the Eastern Solomons, 24 Aug. ’42; Santa Cruz, 26 Oct. ’42; Northern Solomons, 1943 (hypothetical); Action Off Korea (hypothetical); Action In the Tonkin Gulf (hypothetical); and Action In The Denmark Strait (hypothetical). In addition to the various scenarios, THE FAST CARRIERS also offers an optional Weather rule (which is actually a whole weather sub-routine), and a rule on Oilers, for those players who don’t think they already have enough to keep track of. A PERSONAL OBSERVATION THE FAST CARRIERS is a detailed and, in several respects, really quite an ingenious attempt by Jim Dunnigan to simulate carrier operations. As such, it does a pretty good job at the strategic and operational level. Where the ‘wheels come off’ the design is in the tactical portion of the game system. Conducting air strikes — in my opinion, the whole purpose of setting up and playing the game in the first place — are tedious to execute and, against undamaged ships, surprisingly ineffectual. The built-in limitations of the game’s tactical combat system inevitably lead to some odd and unrealistic outcomes. For example, the Arizona was sunk, and the flight deck of the Akagi was turned into an inferno by lucky hits from attacking dive bombers; neither event can really be duplicated in THE FAST CARRIERS. This means that — in this game, at least — carrier engagements tend to require multiple attacks in order to bring about any sort of decisive outcome. Ships are just very hard to knock out of action or sink. Still, the game, despite its several flaws, is probably worth a look from players with an interest in air-sea combat operations. In that context, THE FAST CARRIERS is really at its best when simulating World War II carrier actions; the hypothetical ‘modern’ scenarios, on the other hand, have that distinctive SPI “let’s throw a few extra game situations in at the last minute” feel to them. Moreover, the ‘introductory’ Pearl Harbor solitaire scenario is actually unplayable without the inclusion of the game’s follow-up Errata. THE FAST CARRIERS is certainly not for everyone, but it does introduce several novel concepts into the design mix of carrier-based combat operations; so for naval buffs, at least, it might not be a bad choice. Novices and casual players, on the other hand, should definitely give this title a pass. Finally, from a purely ‘game design history’ standpoint, this title is an interesting elaboration on previous Dunnigan air-sea simulations and, as such, probably represents a worthwhile addition to the collection of anyone who specializes in naval or early SPI games. Design Characteristics: Time Scale: Strategic Stage (4 hours); Operational Stage (1 hour); Tactical Stage (40 seconds) Map Scale: Strategic Map (90 Nautical Miles per hex); Tactical Display (1000 yards per hex) Unit Size: individual ships, aircraft compliments of six aircraft Unit Types: individual ships, carrier based-air, land-based air, and information counters Number of Players: two Complexity: high Solitaire Suitability: low (except for the Pearl Harbor Scenario) Average Playing Time: 4 + hours Game Components: One 22” x 34’’ hexagonal grid Map Sheet (with various Strategic maps, the Tactical Display, Terrain Key, Turn Record and Sequence of Play Track, and various Combat Results Tables incorporated) 800 ½” cardboard Counters One 8½” x 11” Rules Booklet (with Surface to Surface Probability Table, Strike Contact Table, Wave Arrival Table, Anti-Air Combat Results Table, Anti-Ship Combat Results Table, Anti-Submarine Contact Table, Jet Age Strike Contact Table and Scenario Instructions incorporated) Two 7¾” x 12” Search Pattern Templates (one for each player) Sixteen 8” x 11¾” Task Force Operations Displays (eight for each player) One small six-sided Die One SPI 12 “x 15”x 1” flat 24 compartment plastic Game Box (with clear compartment tray covers) and clear plastic game cover with Title Sheet Recommended Reading See my blog post Book Review of this title which is strongly recommended for those readers interested in further historical background. A Glorious Page in Our History: The Battle of Midway, 4-6 June 1942; by Robert J. Cressman; Pictorial Histories Publishing Co; 1st edition (June 1990); ISBN-13: 978-0929521404 Posted but not written by: Louis Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 20010991 2015-01-25 23:36:41 2015-01-25 23:36:41 open open air-sea-operations-1941-20010991 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Nikita Khrushchev Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/24/nikita-khrushchev-speech-to-20th-congress-of-the-c-p-s-u-20008638/ Sat, 24 Jan 2015 23:13:00 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Nikita Khrushchev Reference Archive (Sub Archive of Soviet Government Documents) Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. Speech Delivered: February 24-25 1956; At the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU February 24-25 1956, Khrushchev delivered a report in which he denounced Stalin’s crimes and the ‘cult of personality’ surrounding Stalin. This speech would ultimately trigger a world-wide split: Comrades! In the Party Central Committee’s report at the 20th Congress and in a number of speeches by delegates to the Congress, as also formerly during Plenary CC/CPSU [Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union] sessions, quite a lot has been said about the cult of the individual and about its harmful consequences. After Stalin’s death, the Central Committee began to implement a policy of explaining concisely and consistently that it is impermissible and foreign to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism to elevate one person, to transform him into a superman possessing supernatural characteristics, akin to those of a god. Such a man supposedly knows everything, sees everything, thinks for everyone, can do anything, is infallible in his behavior. Such a belief about a man, and specifically about Stalin, was cultivated among us for many years. The objective of the present report is not a thorough evaluation of Stalin’s life and activity. Concerning Stalin’s merits, an entirely sufficient number of books, pamphlets and studies had already been written in his lifetime. Stalin’s role of Stalin in the preparation and execution of the Socialist Revolution, in the Civil War, and in the fight for the construction of socialism in our country, is universally known. Everyone knows it well. At present, we are concerned with a question which has immense importance for the Party now and for the future – with how the cult of the person of Stalin has been gradually growing, the cult which became at a certain specific stage the source of a whole series of exceedingly serious and grave perversions of Party principles, of Party democracy, of revolutionary legality. Because not all as yet realize fully the practical consequences resulting from the cult of the individual, [or] the great harm caused by violation of the principle of collective Party direction and by the accumulation of immense and limitless power in the hands of one person, the Central Committee considers it absolutely necessary to make material pertaining to this matter available to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Allow me first of all to remind you how severely the classics of Marxism-Leninism denounced every manifestation of the cult of the individual. In a letter to the German political worker Wilhelm Bloss, [Karl] Marx stated: “From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the [1st] International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me. I did not even reply to them, except sometimes to rebuke their authors. [Fredrich] Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute. [Ferdinand] Lassalle subsequently did quite the opposite.” Sometime later Engels wrote: “Both Marx and I have always been against any public manifestation with regard to individuals, with the exception of cases when it had an important purpose. We most strongly opposed such manifestations which during our lifetime concerned us personally.” The great modesty of the genius of the Revolution, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, is known. Lenin always stressed the role of the people as the creator of history, the directing and organizational roles of the Party as a living and creative organism, and also the role of the Central Committee. Marxism does not negate the role of the leaders of the working class in directing the revolutionary liberation movement. While ascribing great importance to the role of the leaders and organizers of the masses, Lenin at the same time mercilessly stigmatized every manifestation of the cult of the individual, inexorably combated [any] foreign-to-Marxism views about a “hero” and a “crowd,” and countered all efforts to oppose a “hero” to the masses and to the people. Lenin taught that the Party’s strength depends on its indissoluble unity with the masses, on the fact that behind the Party follows the people – workers, peasants, and the intelligentsia. Lenin said, “Only he who believes in the people, [he] who submerges himself in the fountain of the living creativeness of the people, will win and retain power.” Lenin spoke with pride about the Bolshevik Communist Party as the leader and teacher of the people. He called for the presentation of all the most important questions before the opinion of knowledgeable workers, before the opinion of their Party. He said: “We believe in it, we see in it the wisdom, the honor, and the conscience of our epoch.” Lenin resolutely stood against every attempt aimed at belittling or weakening the directing role of the Party in the structure of the Soviet state. He worked out Bolshevik principles of Party direction and norms of Party life, stressing that the guiding principle of Party leadership is its collegiality. Already during the pre-Revolutionary years, Lenin called the Central Committee a collective of leaders and the guardian and interpreter of Party principles. “During the period between congresses,” Lenin pointed out, “the Central Committee guards and interprets the principles of the Party.” Underlining the role of the Central Committee and its authority, Vladimir Ilyich pointed out: “Our Central Committee constituted itself as a closely centralized and highly authoritative group.” During Lenin’s life the Central Committee was a real expression of collective leadership: of the Party and of the nation. Being a militant Marxist-revolutionist, always unyielding in matters of principle, Lenin never imposed his views upon his co-workers by force. He tried to convince. He patiently explained his opinions to others. Lenin always diligently saw to it that the norms of Party life were realized, that Party statutes were enforced, that Party congresses and Plenary sessions of the Central Committee took place at their proper intervals. In addition to V. I. Lenin’s great accomplishments for the victory of the working class and of the working peasants, for the victory of our Party and for the application of the ideas of scientific Communism to life, his acute mind expressed itself also in this. [Lenin] detected in Stalin in time those negative characteristics which resulted later in grave consequences. Fearing the future fate of the Party and of the Soviet nation, V. I. Lenin made a completely correct characterization of Stalin. He pointed out that it was necessary to consider transferring Stalin from the position of [Party] General Secretary because Stalin was excessively rude, did not have a proper attitude toward his comrades, and was capricious and abused his power. In December 1922, in a letter to the Party Congress, Vladimir Ilyich wrote: “After taking over the position of General Secretary, comrade Stalin accumulated immeasurable power in his hands and I am not certain whether he will be always able to use this power with the required care.” This letter – a political document of tremendous importance, known in the Party’s history as Lenin’s “Testament” - was distributed among [you] delegates to [this] 20th Party Congress. You have read it and will undoubtedly read it again more than once. You might reflect on Lenin’s plain words, in which expression is given to Vladimir Ilyich’s anxiety concerning the Party, the people, the state, and the future direction of Party policy. Vladimir Ilyich said: “Stalin is excessively rude, and this defect, which can be freely tolerated in our midst and in contacts among us Communists, becomes a defect which cannot be tolerated in one holding the position of General Secretary. Because of this, I propose that the comrades consider the method by which Stalin would be removed from this position and by which another man would be selected for it, a man who, above all, would differ from Stalin in only one quality, namely, greater tolerance, greater loyalty, greater kindness and more considerate attitude toward the comrades, a less capricious temper, etc.” This document of Lenin’s was made known to the delegates at the 13th Party Congress, who discussed the question of transferring Stalin from the position of General Secretary. The delegates declared themselves in favor of retaining Stalin in this post, hoping that he would heed Vladimir Ilyich’s critical remarks and would be able to overcome the defects which caused Lenin serious anxiety. Comrades! The Party Congress should become acquainted with two new documents, which confirm Stalin’s character as already outlined by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in his “Testament.” These documents are a letter from Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya to [Lev] Kamenev, who was at that time head of the Politbiuro, and a personal letter from Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to Stalin. I will now read these documents: “LEV BORISOVICH! “Because of a short letter which I had written in words dictated to me by Vladimir Ilyich by permission of the doctors, Stalin allowed himself yesterday an unusually rude outburst directed at me. This is not my first day in the Party. During all these 30 years I have never heard one word of rudeness from any comrade. The Party’s and Ilyich’s business is no less dear to me than to Stalin. I need maximum self-control right now. What one can and what one cannot discuss with Ilyich I know better than any doctor, because I know what makes him nervous and what does not. In any case I know [it] better than Stalin. I am turning to you and to Grigory [Zinoviev] as much closer comrades of V[ladimir] I[lyich]. I beg you to protect me from rude interference with my private life and from vile invectives and threats. I have no doubt what the Control Commission’s unanimous decision [in this matter], with which Stalin sees fit to threaten me, will be. However I have neither strength nor time to waste on this foolish quarrel. And I am a human being and my nerves are strained to the utmost. “N. KRUPSKAYA” Nadezhda Konstantinovna wrote this letter on December 23, 1922. After two and a half months, in March 1923, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin sent Stalin the following letter: “TO COMRADE STALIN (COPIES FOR: KAMENEV AND ZINOVIEV): “Dear comrade Stalin! “You permitted yourself a rude summons of my wife to the telephone and a rude reprimand of her. Despite the fact that she told you that she agreed to forget what was said, nevertheless Zinoviev and Kamenev heard about it from her. I have no intention to forget so easily that which is being done against me. I need not stress here that I consider as directed against me that which is being done against my wife. I ask you, therefore, that you weigh carefully whether you are agreeable to retracting your words and apologizing, or whether you prefer the severance of relations between us. “SINCERELY: LENIN, MARCH 5, 1923 (Commotion in the hall.) Comrades! I will not comment on these documents. They speak eloquently for themselves. Since Stalin could behave in this manner during Lenin’s life, could thus behave toward Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya – whom the Party knows well and values highly as a loyal friend of Lenin and as an active fighter for the cause of the Party since its creation – we can easily imagine how Stalin treated other people. These negative characteristics of his developed steadily and during the last years acquired an absolutely insufferable character. As later events have proven, Lenin’s anxiety was justified. In the first period after Lenin’s death, Stalin still paid attention to his advice, but later he began to disregard the serious admonitions of Vladimir Ilyich. When we analyze the practice of Stalin in regard to the direction of the Party and of the country, when we pause to consider everything which Stalin perpetrated, we must be convinced that Lenin’s fears were justified. The negative characteristics of Stalin, which, in Lenin’s time, were only incipient, transformed themselves during the last years into a grave abuse of power by Stalin, which caused untold harm to our Party. We have to consider seriously and analyze correctly this matter in order that we may preclude any possibility of a repetition in any form whatever of what took place during the life of Stalin, who absolutely did not tolerate collegiality in leadership and in work, and who practiced brutal violence, not only toward everything which opposed him, but also toward that which seemed, to his capricious and despotic character, contrary to his concepts. Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient cooperation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed these concepts or tried to prove his [own] viewpoint and the correctness of his [own] position was doomed to removal from the leadership collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation. This was especially true during the period following the 17th Party Congress, when many prominent Party leaders and rank-and-file Party workers, honest and dedicated to the cause of Communism, fell victim to Stalin’s despotism. We must affirm that the Party fought a serious fight against the Trotskyites, rightists and bourgeois nationalists, and that it disarmed ideologically all the enemies of Leninism. This ideological fight was carried on successfully, as a result of which the Party became strengthened and tempered. Here Stalin played a positive role. The Party led a great political-ideological struggle against those in its own ranks who proposed anti-Leninist theses, who represented a political line hostile to the Party and to the cause of socialism. This was a stubborn and a difficult fight but a necessary one, because the political line of both the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc and of the Bukharinites led actually toward the restoration of capitalism and toward capitulation to the world bourgeoisie. Let us consider for a moment what would have happened if in 1928-1929 the political line of right deviation had prevailed among us, or orientation toward “cotton-dress industrialization,” or toward the kulak, etc. We would not now have a powerful heavy industry; we would not have the kolkhozes; we would find ourselves disarmed and weak in a capitalist encirclement. It was for this reason that the Party led an inexorable ideological fight, explaining to all [its] members and to the non-Party masses the harm and the danger of the anti-Leninist proposals of the Trotskyite opposition and the rightist opportunists. And this great work of explaining the Party line bore fruit. Both the Trotskyites and the rightist opportunists were politically isolated. An overwhelming Party majority supported the Leninist line, and the Party was able to awaken and organize the working masses to apply the Leninist line and to build socialism. A fact worth noting is that extreme repressive measures were not used against the Trotskyites, the Zinovievites, the Bukharinites, and others during the course of the furious ideological fight against them. The fight [in the 1920s] was on ideological grounds. But some years later, when socialism in our country was fundamentally constructed, when the exploiting classes were generally liquidated, when Soviet social structure had radically changed, when the social basis for political movements and groups hostile to the Party had violently contracted, when the ideological opponents of the Party were long since defeated politically – then repression directed against them began. It was precisely during this period (1935-1937-1938) that the practice of mass repression through the Government apparatus was born, first against the enemies of Leninism – Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites, long since politically defeated by the Party – and subsequently also against many honest Communists, against those Party cadres who had borne the heavy load of the Civil War and the first and most difficult years of industrialization and collectivization, who had fought actively against the Trotskyites and the rightists for the Leninist Party line. Stalin originated the concept “enemy of the people.” This term automatically made it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven. It made possible the use of the cruelest repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations. The concept “enemy of the people” actually eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight or the making of one’s views known on this or that issue, even [issues] of a practical nature. On the whole, the only proof of guilt actually used, against all norms of current legal science, was the “confession” of the accused himself. As subsequent probing has proven, “confessions” were acquired through physical pressures against the accused. This led to glaring violations of revolutionary legality and to the fact that many entirely innocent individuals – [persons] who in the past had defended the Party line – became victims. We must assert that, in regard to those persons who in their time had opposed the Party line, there were often no sufficiently serious reasons for their physical annihilation. The formula “enemy of the people” was specifically introduced for the purpose of physically annihilating such individuals. It is a fact that many persons who were later annihilated as enemies of the Party and people had worked with Lenin during his life. Some of these persons had made errors during Lenin’s life, but, despite this, Lenin benefited by their work; he corrected them and he did everything possible to retain them in the ranks of the Party; he induced them to follow him. In this connection the delegates to the Party Congress should familiarize themselves with an unpublished note by V. I. Lenin directed to the Central Committee’s Politbiuro in October 1920. Outlining the duties of the [Party] Control Commission, Lenin wrote that the Commission should be transformed into a real “organ of Party and proletarian conscience.” “As a special duty of the Control Commission there is recommended a deep, individualized relationship with, and sometimes even a type of therapy for, the representatives of the so-called opposition – those who have experienced a psychological crisis because of failure in their Soviet or Party career. An effort should be made to quiet them, to explain the matter to them in a way used among comrades, to find for them (avoiding the method of issuing orders) a task for which they are psychologically fitted. Advice and rules relating to this matter are to be formulated by the Central Committee’s Organizational Bureau, etc.” Everyone knows how irreconcilable Lenin was with the ideological enemies of Marxism, with those who deviated from the correct Party line. At the same time, however, Lenin, as is evident from the given document, in his practice of directing the Party demanded the most intimate Party contact with people who had shown indecision or temporary non-conformity with the Party line, but whom it was possible to return to the Party path. Lenin advised that such people should be patiently educated without the application of extreme methods. Lenin’s wisdom in dealing with people was evident in his work with cadres. An entirely different relationship with people characterized Stalin. Lenin’s traits – patient work with people, stubborn and painstaking education of them, the ability to induce people to follow him without using compulsion, but rather through the ideological influence on them of the whole collective – were entirely foreign to Stalin. He discarded the Leninist method of convincing and educating, he abandoned the method of ideological struggle for that of administrative violence, mass repressions and terror. He acted on an increasingly larger scale and more stubbornly through punitive organs, at the same time often violating all existing norms of morality and of Soviet laws. Arbitrary behavior by one person encouraged and permitted arbitrariness in others. Mass arrests and deportations of many thousands of people, execution without trial and without normal investigation created conditions of insecurity, fear and even desperation. This, of course, did not contribute toward unity of the Party ranks and of all strata of working people, but, on the contrary, brought about annihilation and the expulsion from the Party of workers who were loyal but inconvenient to Stalin. Our Party fought for the implementation of Lenin’s plans for the construction of socialism. This was an ideological fight. Had Leninist principles been observed during the course of this fight, had the Party’s devotion to principles been skillfully combined with a keen and solicitous concern for people, had they not been repelled and wasted but rather drawn to our side, we certainly would not have had such a brutal violation of revolutionary legality and many thousands of people would not have fallen victim to the method of terror. Extraordinary methods would then have been resorted to only against those people who had in fact committed criminal acts against the Soviet system. Let us recall some historical facts. In the days before the October Revolution, two members of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party – Kamenev and Zinoviev – declared themselves against Lenin’s plan for an armed uprising. In addition, on October 18 they published in the Menshevik newspaper, Novaya Zhizn, a statement declaring that the Bolsheviks were making preparations for an uprising and that they considered it adventuristic. Kamenev and Zinoviev thus disclosed to the enemy the decision of the Central Committee to stage the uprising, and that the uprising had been organized to take place within the very near future. This was treason against the Party and against the Revolution. In this connection, V. I. Lenin wrote: “Kamenev and Zinoviev revealed the decision of the Central Committee of their Party on the armed uprising to [Mikhail] Rodzyanko and [Alexander] Kerensky.... He put before the Central Committee the question of Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s expulsion from the Party. However, after the Great Socialist October Revolution, as is known, Zinoviev and Kamenev were given leading positions. Lenin put them in positions in which they carried out most responsible Party tasks and participated actively in the work of the leading Party and Soviet organs. It is known that Zinoviev and Kamenev committed a number of other serious errors during Lenin’s life. In his “Testament” Lenin warned that “Zinoviev’s and Kamenev’s October episode was of course not an accident.” But Lenin did not pose the question of their arrest and certainly not their shooting. Or, let us take the example of the Trotskyites. At present, after a sufficiently long historical period, we can speak about the fight with the Trotskyites with complete calm and can analyze this matter with sufficient objectivity. After all, around Trotsky were people whose origin cannot by any means be traced to bourgeois society. Part of them belonged to the Party intelligentsia and a certain part were recruited from among the workers. We can name many individuals who, in their time, joined the Trotskyites; however, these same individuals took an active part in the workers’ movement before the Revolution, during the Socialist October Revolution itself, and also in the consolidation of the victory of this greatest of revolutions. Many of them broke with Trotskyism and returned to Leninist positions. Was it necessary to annihilate such people? We are deeply convinced that, had Lenin lived, such an extreme method would not have been used against any of them. Such are only a few historical facts. But can it be said that Lenin did not decide to use even the most severe means against enemies of the Revolution when this was actually necessary? No; no one can say this. Vladimir Ilyich demanded uncompromising dealings with the enemies of the Revolution and of the working class and when necessary resorted ruthlessly to such methods. You will recall only V. I. Lenin’s fight with the Socialist Revolutionary organizers of the anti-Soviet uprising, with the counterrevolutionary kulaks in 1918 and with others, when Lenin without hesitation used the most extreme methods against the enemies. Lenin used such methods, however, only against actual class enemies and not against those who blunder, who err, and whom it was possible to lead through ideological influence and even retain in the leadership. Lenin used severe methods only in the most necessary cases, when the exploiting classes were still in existence and were vigorously opposing the Revolution, when the struggle for survival was decidedly assuming the sharpest forms, even including a Civil War. Stalin, on the other hand, used extreme methods and mass repressions at a time when the Revolution was already victorious, when the Soviet state was strengthened, when the exploiting classes were already liquidated and socialist relations were rooted solidly in all phases of national economy, when our Party was politically consolidated and had strengthened itself both numerically and ideologically. It is clear that here Stalin showed in a whole series of cases his intolerance, his brutality and his abuse of power. Instead of proving his political correctness and mobilizing the masses, he often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation, not only against actual enemies, but also against individuals who had not committed any crimes against the Party and the Soviet Government. Here we see no wisdom but only a demonstration of the brutal force which had once so alarmed V. I. Lenin. Lately, especially after the unmasking of the Beria gang, the Central Committee looked into a series of matters fabricated by this gang. This revealed a very ugly picture of brutal willfulness connected with the incorrect behavior of Stalin. As facts prove, Stalin, using his unlimited power, allowed himself many abuses, acting in the name of the Central Committee, not asking for the opinion of the Committee members nor even of the members of the Central Committee’s Politbiuro; often he did not inform them about his personal decisions concerning very important Party and government matters. Considering the question of the cult of an individual, we must first of all show everyone what harm this caused to the interests of our Party. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin had always stressed the Party’s role and significance in the direction of the socialist government of workers and peasants; he saw in this the chief precondition for a successful building of socialism in our country. Pointing to the great responsibility of the Bolshevik Party, as ruling Party of the Soviet state, Lenin called for the most meticulous observance of all norms of Party life; he called for the realization of the principles of collegiality in the direction of the Party and the state. Collegiality of leadership flows from the very nature of our Party, a Party built on the principles of democratic centralism. “This means,” said Lenin, “that all Party matters are accomplished by all Party members – directly or through representatives – who, without any exceptions, are subject to the same rules; in addition, all administrative members, all directing collegia, all holders of Party positions are elective, they must account for their activities and are recallable.” It is known that Lenin himself offered an example of the most careful observance of these principles. There was no matter so important that Lenin himself decided it without asking for advice and approval of the majority of the Central Committee members or of the members of the Central Committee’s Politbiuro. In the most difficult period for our Party and our country, Lenin considered it necessary regularly to convoke Congresses, Party Conferences and Plenary sessions of the Central Committee at which all the most important questions were discussed and where resolutions, carefully worked out by the collective of leaders, were approved. We can recall, for an example, the year 1918 when the country was threatened by the attack of the imperialistic interventionists. In this situation the 7th Party Congress was convened in order to discuss a vitally important matter which could not be postponed – the matter of peace. In 1919, while the Civil War was raging, the 8th Party Congress convened which adopted a new Party program, decided such important matters as the relationship with the peasant masses, the organization of the Red Army, the leading role of the Party in the work of the soviets, the correction of the social composition of the Party, and other matters. In 1920 the 9th Party Congress was convened which laid down guiding principles pertaining to the Party’s work in the sphere of economic construction. In 1921 the 10th Party Congress accepted Lenin’s New Economic Policy and the historic resolution called “On Party Unity.” During Lenin’s life, Party congresses were convened regularly; always, when a radical turn in the development of the Party and the country took place, Lenin considered it absolutely necessary that the Party discuss at length all the basic matters pertaining to internal and foreign policy and to questions bearing on the development of Party and government. It is very characteristic that Lenin addressed to the Party Congress as the highest Party organ his last articles, letters and remarks. During the period between congresses, the Central Committee of the Party, acting as the most authoritative leading collective, meticulously observed the principles of the Party and carried out its policy. So it was during Lenin’s life. Were our Party’s holy Leninist principles observed after the death of Vladimir Ilyich? Whereas, during the first few years after Lenin’s death, Party Congresses and Central Committee Plenums took place more or less regularly, later, when Stalin began increasingly to abuse his power, these principles were brutally violated. This was especially evident during the last 15 years of his life. Was it a normal situation when over 13 years elapsed between the 18th and 19th Party Congresses, years during which our Party and our country had experienced so many important events? These events demanded categorically that the Party should have passed resolutions pertaining to the country’s defense during the [Great] Patriotic War and to peacetime construction after the war. Even after the end of the war a Congress was not convened for over seven years. Central Committee Plenums were hardly ever called. It should be sufficient to mention that during all the years of the Patriotic War not a single Central Committee Plenum took place. It is true that there was an attempt to call a Central Committee Plenum in October 1941, when Central Committee members from the whole country were called to Moscow. They waited two days for the opening of the Plenum, but in vain. Stalin did not even want to meet and talk to the Central Committee members. This fact shows how demoralized Stalin was in the first months of the war and how haughtily and disdainfully he treated the Central Committee members. In practice, Stalin ignored the norms of Party life and trampled on the Leninist principle of collective Party leadership. Stalin’s willfulness vis a vis the Party and its Central Committee became fully evident after the 17th Party Congress, which took place in 1934. Having at its disposal numerous data showing brutal willfulness toward Party cadres, the Central Committee has created a Party commission under the control of the Central Committee’s Presidium. It has been charged with investigating what made possible mass repressions against the majority of the Central Committee members and candidates elected at the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). The commission has become acquainted with a large quantity of materials in the NKVD archives and with other documents. It has established many facts pertaining to the fabrication of cases against Communists, to false accusations, [and] to glaring abuses of socialist legality, which resulted in the death of innocent people. It became apparent that many Party, Soviet and economic activists who in 1937-1938 were branded “enemies” were actually never enemies, spies, wreckers, etc., but were always honest Communists. They were merely stigmatized [as enemies]. Often, no longer able to bear barbaric tortures, they charged themselves (at the order of the investigative judges/falsifiers) with all kinds of grave and unlikely crimes. The commission has presented to the Central Committee’s Presidium lengthy and documented materials pertaining to mass repressions against the delegates to the 17th Party Congress and against members of the Central Committee elected at that Congress. These materials have been studied by the Presidium.. It was determined that of the 139 members and candidates of the Central Committee who were elected at the 17th Congress, 98 persons, i.e., 70 per cent, were arrested and shot (mostly in 1937-1938). (Indignation in the hall.) What was the composition of the delegates to the 17th Congress? It is known that 80 per cent of the voting participants of the 17th Congress joined the Party during the years of conspiracy before the Revolution and during the Civil War, i.e. meaning before 1921. By social origin the basic mass of the delegates to the Congress were workers (60 per cent of the voting members). For this reason, it is inconceivable that a Congress so composed could have elected a Central Committee in which a majority [of the members] would prove to be enemies of the Party. The only reasons why 70 per cent of the Central Committee members and candidates elected at the 17th Congress were branded as enemies of the Party and of the people were because honest Communists were slandered, accusations against them were fabricated, and revolutionary legality was gravely undermined. The same fate met not only Central Committee members but also the majority of the delegates to the 17th Party Congress. Of 1,966 delegates with either voting or advisory rights, 1,108 persons were arrested on charges of anti-revolutionary crimes, i.e., decidedly more than a majority. This very fact shows how absurd, wild and contrary to common sense were the charges of counterrevolutionary crimes made out, as we now see, against a majority of participants at the 17th Party Congress. (Indignation in the hall.) We should recall that the 17th Party Congress is known historically as the Congress of Victors. Delegates to the Congress were active participants in the building of our socialist state; many of them suffered and fought for Party interests during the pre-Revolutionary years in the conspiracy and at the civil-war fronts; they fought their enemies valiantly and often nervelessly looked into the face of death. How, then, can we believe that such people could prove to be “two-faced” and had joined the camps of the enemies of socialism during the era after the political liquidation of Zinovievites, Trotskyites and rightists and after the great accomplishments of socialist construction? This was the result of the abuse of power by Stalin, who began to use mass terror against Party cadres. What is the reason that mass repressions against activists increased more and more after the 17th Party Congress? It was because at that time Stalin had so elevated himself above the Party and above the nation that he ceased to consider either the Central Committee or the Party. Stalin still reckoned with the opinion of the collective before the 17th Congress. After the complete political liquidation of the Trotskyites, Zinovievites and Bukharinites, however, when the Party had achieved unity, Stalin to an ever greater degree stopped considering the members of the Party’s Central Committee and even the members of the Politbiuro. Stalin thought that now he could decide all things alone and that all he needed were statisticians. He treated all others in such a way that they could only listen to him and praise him. After the criminal murder of Sergey M. Kirov, mass repressions and brutal acts of violation of socialist legality began. On the evening of December 1, 1934 on Stalin’s initiative (without the approval of the Politbiuro –which was given two days later, casually), the Secretary of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee, [Abel] Yenukidze, signed the following directive: “1. Investigative agencies are directed to speed up the cases of those accused of the preparation or execution of acts of terror. “2. Judicial organs are directed not to hold up the execution of death sentences pertaining to crimes of this category in order to consider the possibility of pardon, because the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR does not consider as possible the receiving of petitions of this sort. “3. The organs of the Commissariat of Internal Affairs [NKVD] are directed to execute the death sentences against criminals of the above-mentioned category immediately after the passage of sentences.” This directive became the basis for mass acts of abuse against socialist legality. During many of the fabricated court cases, the accused were charged with “the preparation” of terroristic acts; this deprived them of any possibility that their cases might be re-examined, even when they stated before the court that their “confessions” were secured by force, and when, in a convincing manner, they disproved the accusations against them. It must be asserted that to this day the circumstances surrounding Kirov’s murder hide many things which are inexplicable and mysterious and demand a most careful examination. There are reasons for the suspicion that the killer of Kirov, [Leonid] Nikolayev, was assisted by someone from among the people whose duty it was to protect the person of Kirov. A month and a half before the killing, Nikolayev was arrested on the grounds of suspicious behavior but he was released and not even searched. It is an unusually suspicious circumstance that when the Chekist assigned to protect Kirov was being brought for an interrogation, on December 2, 1934, he was killed in a car “accident” in which no other occupants of the car were harmed. After the murder of Kirov, top functionaries of the Leningrad NKVD were given very light sentences, but in 1937 they were shot. We can assume that they were shot in order to cover up the traces of the organizers of Kirov’s killing. (Movement in the hall.) Mass repressions grew tremendously from the end of 1936 after a telegram from Stalin and [Andrey] Zhdanov, dated from Sochi on September 25, 1936, was addressed to [Lazar] Kaganovich, [Vyacheslav] Molotov and other members of the Politbiuro. The content of the telegram was as follows: “We deem it absolutely necessary and urgent that comrade [Nikolay] Yezhov be nominated to the post of People’s Commissar for Internal Affairs. [Genrikh] Yagoda definitely has proven himself incapable of unmasking the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc. The OGPU is four years behind in this matter. This is noted by all Party workers and by the majority of the representatives of the NKVD.” Strictly speaking, we should stress that Stalin did not meet with and, therefore, could not know the opinion of Party workers. This Stalinist formulation that the “NKVD is four years behind” in applying mass repression and that there is a necessity for “catching up” with the neglected work directly pushed the NKVD workers on the path of mass arrests and executions. We should state that this formulation was also forced on the February-March Plenary session of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1937. The Plenary resolution approved it on the basis of Yezhov’s report, “Lessons flowing from the harmful activity, diversion and espionage of the Japanese-German-Trotskyite agents,” stating: “The Plenum of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) considers that all facts revealed during the investigation into the matter of an anti-Soviet Trotskyite center and of its followers in the provinces show that the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs has fallen behind at least four years in the attempt to unmask these most inexorable enemies of the people. The mass repressions at this time were made under the slogan of a fight against the Trotskyites. Did the Trotskyites at this time actually constitute such a danger to our Party and to the Soviet state? We should recall that in 1927, on the eve of the 15th Party Congress, only some 4,000 [Party] votes were cast for the Trotskyite-Zinovievite opposition while there were 724,000 for the Party line. During the 10 years which passed between the 15th Party Congress and the February-March Central Committee Plenum, Trotskyism was completely disarmed. Many former Trotskyites changed their former views and worked in the various sectors building socialism. It is clear that in the situation of socialist victory there was no basis for mass terror in the country. Stalin’s report at the February-March Central Committee Plenum in 1937, “Deficiencies of Party work and methods for the liquidation of the Trotskyites and of other two-facers,” contained an attempt at theoretical justification of the mass terror policy under the pretext that class war must allegedly sharpen as we march forward toward socialism. Stalin asserted that both history and Lenin taught him this. Actually Lenin taught that the application of revolutionary violence is necessitated by the resistance of the exploiting classes, and this referred to the era when the exploiting classes existed and were powerful. As soon as the nation’s political situation had improved, when in January 1920 the Red Army took Rostov and thus won a most important victory over [General A. I. ] Denikin, Lenin instructed [Felix] Dzerzhinsky to stop mass terror and to abolish the death penalty. Lenin justified this important political move of the Soviet state in the following manner in his report at the session of the All-Union Central Executive Committee on February 2, 1920: “We were forced to use terror because of the terror practiced by the Entente, when strong world powers threw their hordes against us, not avoiding any type of conduct. We would not have lasted two days had we not answered these attempts of officers and White Guardists in a merciless fashion; this meant the use of terror, but this was forced upon us by the terrorist methods of the Entente. “But as soon as we attained a decisive victory, even before the end of the war, immediately after taking Rostov, we gave up the use of the death penalty and thus proved that we intend to execute our own program in the manner that we promised. We say that the application of violence flows out of the decision to smother the exploiters, the big landowners and the capitalists; as soon as this was accomplished we gave up the use of all extraordinary methods. We have proved this in practice.” Stalin deviated from these clear and plain precepts of Lenin. Stalin put the Party and the NKVD up to the use of mass terror when the exploiting classes had been liquidated in our country and when there were no serious reasons for the use of extraordinary mass terror. This terror was actually directed not at the remnants of the defeated exploiting classes but against the honest workers of the Party and of the Soviet state; against them were made lying, slanderous and absurd accusations concerning “two-facedness,” “espionage,” “sabotage,” preparation of fictitious “plots,” etc. At the February-March Central Committee Plenum in 1937 many members actually questioned the rightness of the established course regarding mass repressions under the pretext of combating “two-facedness.” Comrade [Pavel] Postyshev most ably expressed these doubts. He said: “I have philosophized that the severe years of fighting have passed. Party members who have lost their backbones have broken down or have joined the camp of the enemy; healthy elements have fought for the Party. These were the years of industrialization and collectivization. I never thought it possible that after this severe era had passed Karpov and people like him would find themselves in the camp of the enemy. Karpov was a worker in the Ukrainian Central Committee whom Postyshev knew well.) And now, according to the testimony, it appears that Karpov was recruited in 1934 by the Trotskyites. I personally do not believe that in 1934 an honest Party member who had trod the long road of unrelenting fight against enemies for the Party and for socialism would now be in the camp of the enemies. I do not believe it.... I cannot imagine how it would be possible to travel with the Party during the difficult years and then, in 1934, join the Trotskyites. It is an odd thing....” (Movement in the hall.) Using Stalin’s formulation, namely, that the closer we are to socialism the more enemies we will have, and using the resolution of the February-March Central Committee Plenum passed on the basis of Yezhov’s report, the provocateurs who had infiltrated the state-security organs together with conscienceless careerists began to protect with the Party name the mass terror against Party cadres, cadres of the Soviet state, and ordinary Soviet citizens. It should suffice to say that the number of arrests based on charges of counterrevolutionary crimes had grown ten times between 1936 and 1937. It is known that brutal willfulness was practiced against leading Party workers. The [relevant] Party statute, approved at the 17th Party Congress, was based on Leninist principles expressed at the 10th Party Congress. It stated that, in order to apply an extreme method such as exclusion from the Party against a Central Committee member, against a Central Committee candidate or against a member of the Party Control Commission, “it is necessary to call a Central Committee Plenum and to invite to the Plenum all Central Committee candidate members and all members of the Party Control Commission”; only if two-thirds of the members of such a general assembly of responsible Party leaders found it necessary, only then could a Central Committee member or candidate be expelled. The majority of those Central Committee’s members and candidates who were elected at the 17th Congress and arrested in 1937-1938 were expelled from the Party illegally through brutal abuse of the Party statute, because the question of their expulsion was never studied at the Central Committee Plenum. Now, when the cases of some of these so-called “spies” and “saboteurs” were examined, it was found that all their cases were fabricated. The confessions of guilt of many of those arrested and charged with enemy activity were gained with the help of cruel and inhuman tortures. At the same time, Stalin, as we have been informed by members of the Politbiuro of that time, did not show them the statements of many accused political activists when they retracted their confessions before the military tribunal and asked for an objective examination of their cases. There were many such declarations, and Stalin doubtless knew of them. The Central Committee considers it absolutely necessary to inform the Congress of many such fabricated “cases” against the members of the Party’s Central Committee elected at the 17th Party Congress. An example of vile provocation, of odious falsification and of criminal violation of revolutionary legality is the case of the former candidate for the Central Committee Politbiuro, one of the most eminent workers of the Party and of the Soviet Government, comrade [Robert] Eikhe, who had been a Party member since 1905. (Commotion in the hall.) Comrade Eikhe was arrested on April 29, 1938 on the basis of slanderous materials, without the sanction of the [State] Prosecutor of the USSR. This was finally received 15 months after the arrest. The investigation of Eikhe’s case was made in a manner which most brutally violated Soviet legality and was accompanied by willfulness and falsification. Under torture, Eikhe was forced to sign a protocol of his confession prepared in advance by the investigative judges. In it, he and several other eminent Party workers were accused of anti-Soviet activity. On October 1, 1939 Eikhe sent his declaration to Stalin in which he categorically denied his guilt and asked for an examination of his case. In the declaration he wrote: “There is no more bitter misery than to sit in the jail of a government for which I have always fought.” A second declaration of Eikhe has been preserved, which he sent to Stalin on October 27, 1939. In it [Eikhe] cited facts very convincingly and countered the slanderous accusations made against him, arguing that this provocatory accusation was on one hand the work of real Trotskyites whose arrests he had sanctioned as First Secretary of the West Siberian Regional Party Committee and who conspired in order to take revenge on him, and, on the other hand, the result of the base falsification of materials by the investigative judges. Eikhe wrote in his declaration: “... On October 25 of this year I was informed that the investigation in my case has been concluded and I was given access to the materials of this investigation. Had I been guilty of only one hundredth of the crimes with which I am charged, I would not have dared to send you this pre-execution declaration. However I have not been guilty of even one of the things with which I am charged and my heart is clean of even the shadow of baseness. I have never in my life told you a word of falsehood, and now, finding both feet in the grave, I am still not lying. My whole case is a typical example of provocation, slander and violation of the elementary basis of revolutionary legality.... “... The confessions which were made part of my file are not only absurd but contain slander toward the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and toward the Council of People’s Commissars. [This is] because correct resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and of the Council of People’s Commissars which were not made on my initiative and [were promulgated] without my participation are presented as hostile acts of counterrevolutionary organizations made at my suggestion. “I am now alluding to the most disgraceful part of my life and to my really grave guilt against the Party and against you. This is my confession of counterrevolutionary activity.... The case is as follows: Not being able to suffer the tortures to which I was submitted by [Z.] Ushakov and Nikolayev – especially by the former, who utilized the knowledge that my broken ribs have not properly mended and have caused me great pain – I have been forced to accuse myself and others. “The majority of my confession has been suggested or dictated by Ushakov. The rest is my reconstruction of NKVD materials from Western Siberia for which I assumed all responsibility. If some part of the story which Ushakov fabricated and which I signed did not properly hang together, I was forced to sign another variation. The same thing was done to [Moisey] Rukhimovich, who was at first designated as a member of the reserve net and whose name later was removed without telling me anything about it. The same also was done with the leader of the reserve net, supposedly created by Bukharin in 1935. At first I wrote my [own] name in, and then I was instructed to insert [Valery] Mezhlauk’s. There were other similar incidents. “... I am asking and begging you that you again examine my case, and this not for the purpose of sparing me but in order to unmask the vile provocation which, like a snake, wound itself around many persons in a great degree due to my meanness and criminal slander. I have never betrayed you or the Party. I know that I perish because of vile and mean work of enemies of the Party and of the people, who have fabricated the provocation against me.” It would appear that such an important declaration was worth an examination by the Central Committee. This, however, was not done. The declaration was transmitted to Beria while the terrible maltreatment of the Politbiuro candidate, comrade Eikhe, continued. On February 2, 1940, Eikhe was brought before the court. Here he did not confess any guilt and said as follows: “In all the so-called confessions of mine there is not one letter written by me with the exception of my signatures under the protocols, which were forced from me. I have made my confession under pressure from the investigative judge, who from the time of my arrest tormented me. After that I began to write all this nonsense.... The most important thing for me is to tell the court, the Party and Stalin that I am not guilty. I have never been guilty of any conspiracy. I will die believing in the truth of Party policy as I have believed in it during my whole life.” On February 4, Eikhe was shot. (Indignation in the hall.) It has been definitely established now that Eikhe’s case was fabricated. He has been rehabilitated posthumously. Comrade [Yan] Rudzutak, a candidate-member of the Politbiuro, a member of the Party since 1905 who spent 10 years in a Tsarist hard-labor camp, completely retracted in court the confession forced from him. The protocol of the session of the Collegium of the Supreme Military Court contains the following statement by Rudzutak: “... The only plea which [the defendant] places before the court is that the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) be informed that there is in the NKVD an as yet not liquidated center which is craftily manufacturing cases, which forces innocent persons to confess. There is no opportunity to prove one’s non-participation in crimes to which the confessions of various persons testify. The investigative methods are such that they force people to lie and to slander entirely innocent persons in addition to those who already stand accused. [The defendant] asks the Court that he be allowed to inform the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) about all this in writing. He assures the Court that he personally had never any evil designs in regard to the policy of our Party because he has always agreed with Party policy concerning all spheres of economic and cultural activity.” This declaration of Rudzutak was ignored, despite the fact that Rudzutak was in his time the head of the Central Control Commission– which had been called into being, in accordance with Lenin’s conception, for the purpose of fighting for Party unity. In this manner fell the head of this highly authoritative Party organ, a victim of brutal willfulness. He was not even called before the Politbiuro because Stalin did not want to talk to him. Sentence was pronounced on him in 20 minutes and he was shot. (Indignation in the hall.) After careful examination of the case in 1955, it was established that the accusation against Rudzutak was false and that it was based on slanderous materials. Rudzutak has been rehabilitated posthumously. The way in which the former NKVD workers manufactured various fictitious “anti-Soviet centers” and “blocs” with the help of provocatory methods is seen from the confession of comrade Rozenblum, a Party member since 1906, who was arrested in 1937 by the Leningrad NKVD. During the examination in 1955 of the Komarov case, Rozenblum revealed the following fact: When Rozenblum was arrested in 1937, he was subjected to terrible torture during which he was ordered to confess false information concerning himself and other persons. He was then brought to the office of [Leonid] Zakovsky, who offered him freedom on condition that he make before the court a false confession fabricated in 1937 by the NKVD concerning “sabotage, espionage and diversion in a terroristic center in Leningrad.” (Movement in the hall.) With unbelievable cynicism, Zakovsky told about the vile “mechanism” for the crafty creation of fabricated “anti-Soviet plots.” “In order to illustrate it to me,” stated Rozenblum, “Zakovsky gave me several possible variants of the organization of this center and of its branches. After he detailed the organization to me, Zakovsky told me that the NKVD would prepare the case of this center, remarking that the trial would be public. Before the court were to be brought 4 or 5 members of this center: [Mikhail] Chudov, [Fyodor] Ugarov, [Pyotr] Smorodin, [Boris] Pozern, Chudov’s wife [Liudmilla] Shaposhnikova and others together with 2 or 3 members from the branches of this center.... “... The case of the Leningrad center has to be built solidly, and for this reason witnesses are needed. Social origin (of course, in the past) and the Party standing of the witness will play more than a small role. “’You, yourself,’ said Zakovsky, ‘will not need to invent anything. The NKVD will prepare for you a ready outline for every branch of the center. You will have to study it carefully, and remember well all questions the Court might ask and their answers. This case will be ready in four or five months, perhaps in half a year. During all this time you will be preparing yourself so that you will not compromise the investigation and yourself. Your future will depend on how the trial goes and on its results. If you begin to lie and to testify falsely, blame yourself. If you manage to endure it, you will save your head and we will feed and clothe you at the Government’s cost until your death.’” This is the kind of vile thing practiced then. (Movement in the hall.) Even more widely was the falsification of cases practiced in the provinces. The NKVD headquarters of the Sverdlov Province “discovered” a so-called “Ural uprising staff” – an organ of the bloc of rightists, Trotskyites, Socialist Revolutionaries, and church leaders – whose chief supposedly was the Secretary of the Sverdlov Provincial Party Committee and member of the Central Committee, All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), [Ivan] Kabakov, who had been a Party member since 1914. Investigative materials of that time show that in almost all regions, provinces and republics there supposedly existed “rightist Trotskyite, espionage-terror and diversionary-sabotage organizations and centers” and that the heads of such organizations as a rule – for no known reason – were First Secretaries of provincial or republican Communist Party committees or Central Committees. Many thousands of honest and innocent Communists have died as a result of this monstrous falsification of such “cases,” as a result of the fact that all kinds of slanderous “confessions” were accepted, and as a result of the practice of forcing accusations against oneself and others. In the same manner were fabricated the “cases” against eminent Party and state workers – [Stanislav] Kosior, [Vlas] Chubar, [Pavel] Postyshev, [Alexander] Kosarev, and others. In those years repressions on a mass scale were applied which were based on nothing tangible and which resulted in heavy cadre losses to the Party. The vicious practice was condoned of having the NKVD prepare lists of persons whose cases were under the jurisdiction of the Military Collegium and whose sentences were prepared in advance. Yezhov would send these [execution] lists to Stalin personally for his approval of the proposed punishment. In 1937-1938, 383 such lists containing the names of many thousands of Party, Soviet, Komsomol, Army, and economic workers were sent to Stalin. He approved these lists. A large part of these cases are being reviewed now. A great many are being voided because they were baseless and falsified. Suffice it to say that from 1954 to the present time the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court has rehabilitated 7,679 persons, many of whom have been rehabilitated posthumously. Mass arrests of Party, Soviet, economic and military workers caused tremendous harm to our country and to the cause of socialist advancement. Mass repressions had a negative influence on the moral-political condition of the Party, created a situation of uncertainty, contributed to the spreading of unhealthy suspicion, and sowed distrust among Communists. All sorts of slanderers and careerists were active. Resolutions of the January, 1938 Central Committee Plenum brought some measure of improvement to Party organizations. However, widespread repression also existed in 1938. Only because our Party has at its disposal such great moral-political strength was it possible for it to survive the difficult events in 1937-1938 and to educate new cadres. There is, however, no doubt that our march forward toward socialism and toward the preparation of the country’s defense would have been much more successful were it not for the tremendous loss in the cadres suffered as a result of the baseless and false mass repressions in 1937-1938. We are accusing Yezhov justly for the degenerate practices of 1937. But we have to answer these questions: Could Yezhov have arrested Kosior, for instance, without Stalin’s knowledge? Was there an exchange of opinions or a Politbiuro decision concerning this? No, there was not, as there was none regarding other cases of this type. Could Yezhov have decided such important matters as the fate of such eminent Party figures? No, it would be a display of naiveté to consider this the work of Yezhov alone. It is clear that these matters were decided by Stalin, and that without his orders and his sanction Yezhov could not have done this. We have examined these cases and have rehabilitated Kosior, Rudzutak, Postyshev, Kosarev and others. For what causes were they arrested and sentenced? Our review of evidence shows that there was no reason for this. They, like many others, were arrested without prosecutorial knowledge. In such a situation, there is no need for any sanction, for what sort of a sanction could there be when Stalin decided everything? He was the chief prosecutor in these cases. Stalin not only agreed to arrest orders but issued them on his own initiative. We must say this so that the delegates to the Congress can clearly undertake and themselves assess this and draw the proper conclusions. Facts prove that many abuses were made on Stalin’s orders without reckoning with any norms of Party and Soviet legality. Stalin was a very distrustful man, sickly suspicious. We know this from our work with him. He could look at a man and say: “Why are your eyes so shifty today?” or “Why are you turning so much today and avoiding to look me directly in the eyes?” The sickly suspicion created in him a general distrust even toward eminent Party workers whom he had known for years. Everywhere and in everything he saw “enemies,” “two-facers” and “spies.” Possessing unlimited power, he indulged in great willfulness and stifled people morally as well as physically. A situation was created where one could not express one’s own volition. When Stalin said that one or another should be arrested, it was necessary to accept on faith that he was an “enemy of the people.” Meanwhile, Beria’s gang, which ran the organs of state security, outdid itself in proving the guilt of the arrested and the truth of materials which it falsified. And what proofs were offered? The confessions of the arrested, and the investigative judges accepted these “confessions.” And how is it possible that a person confesses to crimes which he has not committed? Only in one way –because of the application of physical methods of pressuring him, tortures, bringing him to a state of unconsciousness, deprivation of his judgment, taking away of his human dignity. In this manner were “confessions” acquired. The wave of mass arrests began to recede in 1939. When the leaders of territorial Party organizations began to accuse NKVD workers of using methods of physical pressure on the arrested, Stalin dispatched a coded telegram on January 20, 1939 to the committee secretaries of provinces and regions, to the central committees of republican Communist parties, to the [republican] People’s Commissars of Internal Affairs and to the heads of NKVD organizations. This telegram stated: “The Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) explains that the application of methods of physical pressure in NKVD practice is permissible from 1937 on in accordance with permission of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party</p> 20008638 2015-01-24 23:13:00 2015-01-24 23:13:00 open open nikita-khrushchev-speech-to-20th-congress-of-the-c-p-s-u-20008638 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Sleep 1 http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/24/sleep-20008631/ Sat, 24 Jan 2015 23:07:15 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Posted but not written by: Louis Sheehan FROM THE DECEMBER 2007 ISSUE How To Sleep Like a Hunter-Gatherer Not all people sleep in "giant sleep machines," like we do. Wednesday, January 02, 2008 RELATED TAGS: SLEEP Share on printShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailMore Sharing Services108 What’s really going on inside your head when you sleep, dream, or are wide-awake? In his fascinating new book, The Head Trip: Adventures on the Wheel of Consciousness (Random House, $24.95), science writer Jeff Warren explores some familiar and some less familiar states of consciousness, everything from daydreams to lucid dreams. Warren talked to scientists and Buddhist monks, slept in sleep labs, and spent time in a secluded mountain cabin to experience firsthand various states of consciousness. Along the way, he discovered perception-shifting information about how people sleep in different cultures. Westerners prefer a quiet bedroom, sleeping alone or with a partner. Egyptians commonly sleep with several family members in the same room and, even in a noisy city like Cairo, with the windows wide open. In the excerpt below, Warren meets with one of the few anthropologists who study the culture of sleep. —Jane Bosveld When I flew down to Atlanta to interview Carol Worthman, the director of the Laboratory for Comparative Human Biology at Emory University, she greeted me in her office, among the stacks of research monographs and the photos of her with beaming tribal groups from several continents. I asked why she had first thought to study sleep, and she smiled. “It was a true ‘aha’ experience. I was sitting in my office when a friend of mine who was studying mood disorders called me up and asked me what anthropologists knew about sleep.” She laughed and paused for a moment of dramatic emphasis. “Nothing!” She widened her eyes behind the thick lenses. “We know nothing about sleep! I think of all the places I’ve slept around the world, all the groups I’ve studied. . . . I mean, here I was, part of this discipline dedicated to the study of human behavior and human diversity, and yet we knew next to nothing about a behavior that claimed one-third of our lives. I was stunned.” So Worthman began to comb the literature, interviewing ethnographers, sifting through fifty-odd years of published work. What she found, she said, shouldn’t have surprised her: “The ecology of sleep is like the ecology of everyday life.” Sleep, it seems, comes in many cultural flavors. Worthman flipped open a book and showed me photographs of big families piled into large, sprawling huts, little kids peeking up from the arms of Mom, older generations wrapped leisurely around the fireplace. “Forager groups are a good place to start, because for much of human history we’ve been occupied with their mode of existence,” she said. “There are the !Kung of Botswana and the Efe of Zaire. For both of these groups, sleep is a very fluid state. They sleep when they feel like it—during the day, in the evening, in the dead of night.” This, said Worthman, is true of other groups too—the Aché of Paraguay, for example. Late-night sleep, when it happens, is practically a social activity. In addition to procreation, the night is a time of “ritual, sociality, and information exchange.” People crash together in big multigenerational heaps—women with infants, wheezing seniors, domestic animals, chatting hunter buddies stoking the fire—everyone embedded in one big, dynamic, “sensorily rich environment.” This kind of environment is important, said Worthman, because “it provides you with subliminal cues about what is going on, that you are not alone, that you are safe in the social world.” The more Worthman learned about the communal and interactive nature of non-Western sleep, the more she came to see Western sleep as the strange exception. She laughed again. “It’s funny, because as an anthropologist I’m used to getting weirded out a bit—I mean, you wouldn’t believe the things people do. So after collecting all this material I look at my own bed and go, ‘This is really weird.’” Western sleep, said Worthman, is arid and controlled, with a heavy emphasis on individualism and the “decontextualized person.” Contact is kept to a minimum. The apparent conflict with marriage co-sleeping norms, she notes elsewhere, “has been partially mitigated for Americans by the evolution of bed size from twin, to double, to queen, to king.” She lifted her thin arms and drew a big box in the air. “I mean, think about it—this thing, this bed, is really a gigantic sleep machine. You’ve got a steel frame that comes up from the floor, a bottom mattress that looks totally machinelike, then all these heavily padded surfaces—blankets and pillows and sheets.” It’s true. Most of us sleep alone in the dark, floating three feet off the ground but also buried under five layers of bedding. I had the sudden image of an armada of solitary humanoids in their big puffy spaceships drifting slowly through the silent and airless immensity of space. “Whoa,” I said. Worthman nodded. “I know, I know, so weird.” By contrast, village life is one big, messy block party, crackling with sex, intrigue, and poultry. In these cultures, interrupted or polyphasic sleep is the norm, which jibes with findings about still other cultures, like the Temiars of Indonesia and the Ibans of Sarawak, 25 percent of whom are apparently active at any one point in the night. Even more intriguing are some of the culturally specific practices around sleep. Worthman flipped to a sequence of photos showing a tribe of bare-chested Indonesians gathered in a big circle. “These are the Balinese, and this is an example of something called ‘fear sleep’ or ‘todoet poeles.’ See these two guys?” She pointed to the first picture, where two men cowered on the sand in the center of the group. “They just got caught stealing from the village kitty, and they’ve been hauled out for trial.” The villagers all had angry faces and open mouths. The two men looked terrified. “You can see the progression. He’s starting to sag”—in the next photo one of the thieves had his eyes closed and had begun to lean over—“and here in the last photo you can see he’s totally asleep.” The same thief was now slumped and insentient, snoozing happily amid the furious village thrum. “Isn’t that amazing?” Worthman shook her head. “In stressful situations they can fall instantly into a deep sleep. It’s a cultural acquisition.” We moved out of her office and made our way down to the laboratory, where Worthman pulled out a big cardboard box. “We wanted to look at sleep in non-Western cultures firsthand, so we decided to initiate a study.” She opened the box. “We went to Egypt, because, well, hunter-gatherer types are interesting, but they’re not really relevant now. Cairo is an old civilization in a modern urban environment. We wanted to look at a pattern that everyone knows is historic in the Mediterranean area. They sleep more than once a day—at night and the midafternoon.” I nodded. Of course, the siesta—or Ta’assila, as it’s known colloquially in Egypt. Worthman reached into the box and lifted out a set of black paisley headbands, all of them threaded with thin wires and dangling sensors. “So we studied six households in Cairo, and we made everyone wear one of these headbands at all times. One of these little sensors is a motion detector, the other is a diode that glues onto the upper eyelid in order to detect whether or not you’re in REM sleep.” Thus outfitted, the families went about their daily business, supplying a steady stream of information for the visiting anthropologists. What they found was that Egyptians on average get the same eight hours that we do, they just get it by different means: about six hours at night and two in the afternoon. They also sleep in radically different sleep environments—rarely alone, almost always with one or more family members, in rooms with windows open to the roar of outside street traffic. “Listen to this.” She pressed play on a tape recorder and the sound of traffic blared out of the little speakers. She raised her voice to yell: “I mean, I’m a pretty sound sleeper, but I couldn’t sleep in Cairo. It was too noisy!” I yelled back, “I see what you mean!” It sounded like 200 years of industrial noise pollution pressed into a single recording. She slid me a photo of a Cairo street, a narrow alley crisscrossed with laundry and jam-packed with donkey carts, trucks, cars, camels, and buses. “Every imaginable form of human transport, right below your window!” She hit stop and the room went quiet. “Despite all this ambient noise, Cairoans don’t seem to have any trouble falling asleep.” For Worthman, the conclusion was obvious. All these different sleep patterns suggested that the regulatory processes governing “sleep-wake transitions” could be shaped by cultural conditions. Sleep, it seemed, was putty—some cultures stretched it out, some chopped it up, and others, like our own, squeezed it into one big lump. From The Head Trip by Jeff Warren. Copyright © 2007 by Jeff Warren. Published by arrangement with Random House, an imprint of Random House Publishing Group, a division of Random House Inc.</p> 20008631 2015-01-24 23:07:15 2015-01-24 23:07:15 open open sleep-20008631 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Zobrist http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/24/zobrist-20006664/ Sat, 24 Jan 2015 08:46:59 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Posted but not written by: Louis Sheehan Zobrist in Oakland By Dave Fleming January 14, 2015 Since 2009, the best player in baseball has been Miguel Cabrera. According to FanGraphs’ version of WAR, Miggy has compiled 37.9 Wins Above Replacement. He’s done a lot of splashy things over the last six years: netting three batting titles, two MVP awards, and a Triple Crown. His career is on an impressive trajectory: the most comparable player to Miggy, according to Similarity Score, is Hank Aaron. Then Frank Robinson. Then Ott, Griffey, and Pujols. Since 2009, the third best player in baseball has been Robinson Cano, who has compiled an fWAR of 34.6. Cano’s hitting statistics would seem impressive for a first baseman: that he is a talented second baseman who has missed just fourteen games in six seasons is why Cano is on a similarly impressive beeline to Cooperstown. Player R HR RBI BA SB fWAR Miguel Cabrera 631 215 719 .331 19 37.9 Robinson Cano 573 156 595 .314 36 34.6 WAR is an advanced metric, but Cano and Cabrera do just as well when viewed by traditional numbers: they hit homers, produce runs, and have averages comfortably above .300. Both American League players, Cano and Cabrera have done extremely well in the annual MVP race: Year Miggy Cano 2009 4th 17th 2010 2nd 3rd 2011 5th 6th 2012 1st 4th 2013 1st 5th 2014 9th 5th Miggy finished 9th this year, while Robby finished 17th in 2009. Other than that, they’ve both ended up in the top-five in the writer’s vote. They are both very well compensated for their steady production on the field. Robinson Cano made headlines by landing a 10/$240 deal with the Mariners last season, while Cabrera signed an 8/$248 extension that doesn’t even start until 2016. They are two of the best players in baseball, and they are two of the highest-paid players in the game. And they’re two of the most famous players in baseball. A casual fan of baseball knows who Miguel Cabrera is, just as a casual fan has probably punched a tab for Robinson Cano when the attendants pass out those All-Star ballots during games. So we’ve found parallels between the best and third-best player, according to WAR. Who’s the #2 guy? Player fWAR Miguel Cabrera 37.9 Ben Zobrist 35.4 Robinson Cano 34.6 You knew it, right? Partially, it’s the way I set up the article
.emphasizing the all-round flashiness of Miggy and Cano. The middle guy had to be an odd-ball. And Zobrist is sabr-famous for being one of those players whom the advanced metrics love. Him and Alex Gordon, I guess. Just to illustrate how much of an odd-ball Zobrist is, we can look at his traditional numbers, compared to Robby and Miggy: Player R HR RBI BA SB fWAR Miguel Cabrera 631 215 719 .331 19 37.9 Ben Zobrist 515 99 454 .270 95 35.4 Robinson Cano 573 156 595 .314 36 34.6 Zobrist has 116 fewer homers than Cabrera, and sixty-one points in batting average. He’s a bit closer to Robinson Cano, but Cano still beats him comfortably in those splashy hitting categories. Everyone knows that Robinson Cano is a great player
not too many people think of Zobrist in the same light: Year Miggy Zobrist Cano 2009 4th 8th 17th 2010 2nd - - 3rd 2011 5th 16th 6th 2012 1st 18th 4th 2013 1st - - 5th 2014 9th - - 5th This article isn’t really about Robby or Miggy, but it’s worth mentioning where FanGraph’s version of WAR closes the gap between Miggy, Zobrist, and Cano. Throwing some lesser-known stats at you: Player wRC+ Off BsR Def fWAR Miguel Cabrera 166 298.0 -11.5 -72.0 37.9 Ben Zobrist 125 134.0 16.8 73.4 35.4 Robinson Cano 138 180.7 0.4 12.8 34.6 wRC+ is Weighted Runs Created Plus
it is a slight variant on OPS+, in that it measures offensive production with the context of league and park factors. Zobrist, who has spent his career in the pitching-friendly (and fan-repellant) Tropicana Field, draws closer to Robinson Cano, who enjoyed the pull-friendly confines of the new Yankee Stadium until he signed with the Mariners last year. wRC+ doesn’t suggest that Zobrist is a better hitter than Cano or Cabrera
.it merely suggests that he’s closer - at least to Cano - than the numbers initially seem. But it’s the final three categories that show us when Zobrist gains on Cano and Cabrera. Off, BsR, and Def are offensive, base running, and defensive measures of runs contributed above average. Zobrist is well behind Cabrera in Offensive Runs Above Average, and he’s a good distance behind Cano. But Zobrist gains some ground on the bases (BsR), and he gains considerable ground on defense: as a hitter he isn’t in the same zip-code as Cabrera, but once his defensive and base running contributions are considered, he is directly comparable to the Tigers first-baseman. He isn’t the same hitter as Cano, but he’s a better defensive player and a better baserunner
once park effects are neutralized, Zobrist comes out a tick ahead of the Seattle superstar. This shouldn’t be read as any kind of knock on Miguel Cabrera or Robinson Cano: both players have strong cases as the best players in the game. My hope is to point out that Ben Zobrist has been that good, too. * * * Of course, Ben Zobrist isn’t likely to remain that good: the position-flexible star will turn thirty-four in May, so it’s unlikely that he’ll continue to keep pace with his younger rivals. That said, the Oakland A’s have acquired one of the best players in baseball (and Yunel Escobar) for the budget price of John Jaso and two prospects (or one prospect and one clone of ex-Baltimore slugger Boog Powell.) They’ll pay $7.5 million for Zobrist, and have a full year to woo him to the charms of the Bay Area, and extend him. At the very least, the A’s can give Zobrist a qualifying offer and net a first-round pick when someone else signs him. This has been a quietly astonishing offseason for Oakland: they’ve traded away a player than ranked fourth among AL batters in fWAR, and then acquired a player who ranked seventh by the same metric. To give that some perspective, the NL equivalent would have the Marlins trading away Giancarlo Stanton, and then acquiring Anthony Rizzo. Even if these were the only moves Oakland made, it’s be a fascinating offseason. But Oakland’s essentially redrafted their team. They traded away their best power hitter for a guy who had a decent half-season at Double-A. They traded their best (or second-best) starting pitcher to Chicago. They traded away both halves of their enormously valuable catching platoon. And
first actually
they signed Billy Butler. My sense is that the A’s are trying to catch their likely division rivals by going big on defense. Yunel Escobar, though an unreliable hitter, is a solid defensive shortstop. Ben Zobrist is strong anywhere on the diamond. They traded away the brilliant Josh Donaldson, but Brett Lawrie is one of the few third basemen in baseball who can match Donaldson as a defender. Their outfield can claim two big pluses in Crisp and Josh Reddick, and Sam Fuld can catch ‘em. A platoon of Vogt and Josh Phegley should be an improvement over Derek Norris behind the plate. (Just a note on the strike-through text: as I was editing this article, I found out that the A’s have traded Yunel Escobar for National set-up man Tyler Clippard). There’s a debate about what kind of defensive team the A’s were last year. Our site credits Oakland with +32 runs saved, a tally that ranks them third in the AL, behind Baltimore and Kansas City. Comparing Oakland rates against their likely division rivals in 2015: Team Def. Runs Saved Oakland +32 Seattle -11 Angels -16 John’s Defensive Runs Saved suggests that Oakland was much more efficient at saving runs than the Mariners or Angels. But FanGraphs’ version of team defense value - Defensive Runs Above Average - thinks the gap is a lot closer: Rank Team Def. Runs Above Avg. 18th Angels 3.6 19th Pirates 1.2 20th Athletics 0.2 21st Yankees -6.7 22nd Mariners -9.5 By this team metric, the Oakland defense is pretty middle-of-the-pack. Tellingly, the defenses of the Angels and Mariners are also underwhelming. (The best defensive team in baseball last year, by this metric, were the Cincinnati Reds.) The acquisitions of Zobrist and Escobar suggest that Oakland views improving their defense is one way for the cash-poor organization to keep pace with the Mariners and Angels. This makes intuitive sense: one by-product of a good defense in a pitcher’s park is that it will make all Oakland pitchers look better: it’s possible that Billy Beane is hoping a strong defense will have the ancillary benefit of shining up the stats of some of the team’s young arms, which he can deal down the road for prospects and/or undervalued players. Whatever the final plan (and it seems that things are very much still in motion), the Oakland A’s have been involved in two blockbuster moves that don’t quite feel like blockbusters. They’ve remade their team into one that figures to be one of the strongest defensive teams in baseball next year. It’ll be interesting to see how it works. * * * While we’re on the subject of Ben Zobrist, should we be talking about him as a deserving candidate for the Hall-of-Fame? I choose the words of that last sentence carefully: it is unlikely that Zobrist is a candidate for the Hall. Although advanced metrics have gained considerable traction in how players are evaluated, I don’t know if we’ve reached a point where voters are going to elect a player who has a lifetime average of .264, 114 homers, and 511 RBI’s. Zobrist has led the league in exactly one category: sacrifice flies. He probably isn’t getting the bronze plaque. That said, Zobrist’s peak, at least according to fWAR, compares very favorably with the peaks of Hall-of-Fame second baseman. Actually, let me change that sentence: Zobrist’s peak is a Hall-of-Fame level peak. Here are the fifteen best second baseman by fWAR, from Age-28 to Age-33: Rank Player WAR, Age 28-33 1 Rogers Hornsby 58.4 2 Joe Morgan 53.1 3 Nap Lajoie 42.7 4 Jackie Robinson 41.6 5 Eddie Collins 37.6 6 Charlie Gehringer 37.0 7 Craig Biggio 36.1 8 Ben Zobrist 35.4 9 Chase Utley 35.3 10 Rod Carew 35.2 11 Ryne Sandberg 32.5 12 Roberto Alomar 31.4 13 Eddie Stanky 29.2 14 Frankie Frisch 28.5 15 Bobby Doerr 27.3 Zobrist ranks in the middle of the pack: the only players not in the Hall-of-Fame are Chase Utley (a fine candidate) and Eddie Stanky (an underrated player). Zobrist does not have the career length of the players ranked with him: he wasn’t a regular in the majors until he was twenty-eight years old. But his peak years are excellent: if he is able to remain productive for three or four more seasons, he’ll be an interesting test case. In the meantime, the Oakland A’s have acquired the most Oakland A’s-ish player in baseball. It’s something for all of us to cheer about. Dave Fleming is a writer living in Wellington, New Zealand. He welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions at this site and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com. COMMENTS (8 Comments, most recent shown first) evanecurb The most surprising statistic in the entire article is the fact that Ben Zobrist is 34 years old. 1:42 PM Jan 17th MarisFan61 (btw, MWeddell meant underrated, of course) 3:12 PM Jan 16th DaveFleming Since rgregory posted the top-9 in Win Shares over the last six seasons, I thought I'd post the top-9 in fWAR: 37.9 - M Cabrera 35.4 - Zobrist 34.6 - Cano 34.0 - Longoria 33.9 - McCutchen 31.8 - Beltre 30.5 - Votto 29.6 - Bautista 29.0 - Pedroia Both metrics have Miggy, Cano, Zobrist, McCutchen, and Votto. Win Shares rounds out with Adrian Gonzalez, Ryan Braun, Pujols, and Matt Holliday....two 1B and two corner OF's. fWAR - which makes a positional adjustment for a player's hitting - prefers Longoria, Beltre, Bautista, and Pedroia....guys on the tougher side of the defensive spectrum. I am the MOST surprised that Zobrist cracks both lists. 9:17 PM Jan 15th rgregory1956 Just as another point of reference, here are the players with 140+ Win Shares over the past 6 years: 190 M Cabrera 185 Cano 175 McCutchen 170 A Gonzalez 155 Votto 152 Braun 151 Pujols 147 Zobrist 143 Holliday 4:26 PM Jan 15th OldBackstop A west coast timezone guy with flex positions for last minute scratches? I'm drafting him. 8:07 AM Jan 15th MWeddell Zobrist is definitely over-rated, so I don't disagree with the main premise of the article. However, when we evaluate his Hall of Fame case, by excluding WAR before age 28, we are cherry-picking the statistics to favor Zobrist. If we consider all career WAR through a player's age 33 season, Zobrist ranks 37th among major league second basemen. I'm sure that there are a lot fewer than 37 second basemen, excluding Negro League players, that are in the Hall of Fame, so his case falls apart. Players surrounding Zobrist on the 2B leaderboard of WAR (Fangraphs version) through age 33 are Dick McAuliffe, Buddy Myer, George Grantham and Ian Kinsler. 7:46 AM Jan 15th DavidTodd Ben Zobrist, I love it, David Ortiz, Troy Tulowitzki and Jose Bautista are 4,5, 6, right. 1:49 AM Jan 15th MarisFan61 Thanks for this. I've posted in Reader Posts that I wish Zobrist somehow would do what he needs to do to be regarded at all as a Hall of Fame candidate. If I had a ballot, he'd have my vote. I like to talk about things that don't show up in metrics, and can't. Zobrist's "position-flexibility" is a thing that doesn't, but which potentially could; it would be complicated, but I think it eventually could be accounted for. Of course multi-positionality often means mediocrity, but sometimes, like with Tony Phillips as well as Zobrist, it means versatility in the best sense -- and it is very valuable to a team. Even considering how well Zobrist comes out in what you looked at, I think his actual value has been even greater, because of this "versatility value" that isn't in there. 12:08 AM Jan 15th Posted but not written by: Louis Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 20006664 2015-01-24 08:46:59 2015-01-24 08:46:59 open open zobrist-20006664 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Here Are Some Of The Things Chris Christie Left Out Of His State Of The State Speech Factcheck.org http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/16/here-are-some-of-the-things-chris-christie-left-out-of-his-state-of-the-state-speech-factcheck-org-19980122/ Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:07:56 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Here Are Some Of The Things Chris Christie Left Out Of His State Of The State Speech Factcheck.org Posted: 01/15/2015 8:30 pm EST Updated: 3 hours ago POSTED BUT NOT WRITTEN BY LOUIS SHEEHAN The following post first appeared on FactCheck.org. In his State of the State address, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie exaggerated some figures and boasted about progress that doesn’t look so impressive when compared with national trends. Christie boasted that New Jersey’s unemployment rate has dropped from 9.7 percent when he took office to 6.4 percent (as of November). But New Jersey was doing slightly better than the national average when he took office, and is now doing slightly worse. The governor touted the creation of 150,000 private sector jobs. But New Jersey’s rate of private sector job growth is less than half the national average; in fact New Jersey ranked 49th out of 50 states in private sector job growth. Christie crowed about New Jersey being “No. 4 in per capita income.” The state is actually third in per capita personal income, exactly where it was the year before Christie took office. It ranked second for more than two decades before that. Christie said that state property taxes “increased more than 70 percent” in the 10 years prior to him becoming governor, and that they’ve increased by “less than 2 percent” in each of the last four. That ignores the impact state rebates have played in lowering the property tax burden before he was governor, and the impact of the rebate cuts he implemented as governor. Christie made the misleading claim that “taxes were raised 115 times in the eight years before 2010,” the year he took office. But that list includes fees, not just taxes, and the governor himself proposed 23 fee hikes in the 2015 budget. Christie is a potential candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, and the New York Times noted that his annual State of the State speech on Jan. 13 sounded like “a defensive move by a politician anticipating the shots that could be leveled against him.” But Christie spun the numbers to make his case that “New Jersey is better off than it was last year at this time, and it is certainly far better off than it was just five years ago.” Unemployment Rate In his speech, Christie asked New Jerseyans to consider “where we were and how far we have come,” noting that the state’s unemployment has been cut by a third in the last five years. Christie, Jan. 13: Five years ago, our unemployment rate was 9.7 percent. Over 440,000 New Jerseyans were out of work. Today, the unemployment rate is 6.4 percent. It’s true, as Christie said, that when he took office in January 2010, the state’s unemployment rate was 9.7 percent and over 440,000 New Jerseyans were out of work (442,318 to be exact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). And Christie rightly notes that the state’s unemployment rate in November, the latest month available, was 6.4 percent. But here’s what was left unsaid: When Christie took office, New Jersey’s unemployment rate at 9.7 percent was slightly better than the national unemployment rate of 9.8 percent; but New Jersey’s rate in November was higher than the national rate, which was 5.8 percent. (The national rate dipped again in December to 5.6 percent.) In addition, New Jersey’s 6.4 percent unemployment rate was also worse than its neighbors, Pennsylvania (5.1 percent), New York (5.9 percent) and Delaware (6.0 percent). Job Growth Christie also boasted that New Jersey has “created over 150,000 private sector jobs in New Jersey in five short years.” The actual figure, according to BLS, is 142,700. That may sound impressive, but that statistic wilts when viewed in light of national trends. In fact, the rate of private sector job growth in New Jersey, 4.5 percent, is well below the national average of 10.2 percent. Under Christie, New Jersey ranks 49th out of 50 states in private sector job growth (beating only Maine). In terms of overall job growth, which includes public sector jobs, New Jersey under Christie is dead last. Christie also noted that, “Since last January, the total number of people employed in New Jersey has grown by over 90,000, and the number of unemployed has dropped by nearly 30,000.” Those figures are pretty accurate, according to population surveys conducted by the U.S. Census for BLS. The number of employed New Jerseyans grew from 4,157,733 in January to 4,250,823 in November. That’s an increase of 93,090. And the number of unemployed New Jerseyans dropped from 317,118 in January to 291,870 in November. That’s a decrease of 25,248. But Christie was wrong to say those were people employed in New Jersey. The survey does not ask where people are employed. As the Asbury Park Press noted, “Economists have said many of them likely are working in New York and Pennsylvania, where the job market has been stronger.” Also left out of Christie’s narrative, the New York Times noted, New Jersey has only recovered about half the jobs lost in the Great Recession, while the nation as a whole has recovered all those jobs and then some. Nationally, about 8.6 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010. Since then, the national economy has added about 10.4 million jobs. By comparison, New Jersey lost 253,800 jobs between February 2008 and February 2010; but has only recovered 121,800 of them. Per Capita Income Christie also bragged about the state’s unique assets in helping to lure businesses. He noted, for example, that New Jersey is “No. 4 in per capita income.” Actually, New Jersey’s ranking is better than that. New Jersey placed third in per capita personal income in 2013 (excluding the District of Columbia), according to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. But that impressive ranking is not new and has not improved under Christie. New Jersey ranked third in per capita personal income every year between 2009 and 2013, except in 2012 when it ranked fourth. And it ranked second in the country every year for more than two decades prior to 2009. Property Taxes Christie said when he came into office, New Jersey’s “property taxes had increased more than 70 percent in 10 years. We averaged a 7 percent growth in property taxes per year.” It’s true that, on average, property taxes increased about that much statewide between 1999 and 2009, according to figures from the state Department of Community Affairs. Homeowners and tenants paid an average of $4,239 in property taxes in 1999 and $7,281 in 2009. However, Christie’s claim doesn’t factor in rebates that some received over that time that ultimately lowered their property tax burden. When factoring in the average tax rebate homeowners and tenants received — $111 in 1999 and $1,037 in 2009 — property taxes increased by closer to 51 percent over that time period. Christie also said that since he’s been in office, “we have had four years of less than 2 percent annual property tax growth.” That’s not exactly right. Property taxes increased 1.6 percent in 2012 and 1.3 percent in 2013, after Christie signed a bill capping annual property tax increases at no more than 2 percent. But there was a 2.4 percent increase in 2011. Figures for 2014 have not yet been released. Christie’s claim of 2 percent annual growth also ignores large cuts in the property tax rebate program that he has made to help balance the state budget while in office. According to an analysis of previously available state data by the news website NJ Spotlight, average net property taxes (including rebate deductions) increased by 18.6 percent, or 6.2 percent annually, between 2009 and 2012, when taxes, on net, went from $6,244 to $7,405. Taxes Versus Fees In his speech, Christie boasted about not raising taxes in his past five budgets and, by contrast, he said “taxes were raised 115 times in the eight years” before he became governor in 2010. That’s misleading. Christie’s list of 115 “taxes” actually includes both taxes and fees. And the governor himself has raised numerous fees. In fact, Christie proposed 23 fee hikes in his 2015 budget. Christie made the distinction between taxes and fees in his 2013 State of the State address, when he said there had been “115 increases in taxes and fees” in the eight years before he was inaugurated. But this time he dropped the word “fees.” We point this out because politicians, including Christie, draw a distinction between taxes and fees. What’s the difference? Some members of the public may not see a major disparity between extending the sales tax to cover limousine services and adding a fee on new cars with low-fuel efficiency — two of the items in the Republican-compiled list. Whatever you want to call them, both measures amount to additional money paid by state residents. But politicians certainly put taxes and fees in separate categories. For example, Christie said his 2015 budget “requires no new taxes on the people of New Jersey,” when he presented his latest budget to the Legislature in February 2014. But a few months later, his administration was explaining 23 proposed fee increases. And, in fact, the budget included a proposed tax on e-cigarettes and “closing tax loopholes,” which the administration estimated would bring in $205 million in revenue. The nonpartisan state Office of Legislative Services’ analysis of the governor’s proposal showed $240 million worth of “revenue initiatives requiring legislation,” including the e-cigarette tax; penalties for bad electronic payments of income, corporate and sales taxes; and a change in online sales tax collection. Whether those items amount to raising taxes or “closing tax loopholes and leveling the playing field,” as the governor’s budget summary put it, may be a matter of opinion. But the same could be said of the list of 115 taxes and fees instituted before Christie took office. The Record newspaper in Bergen County, New Jersey, wrote in a May 12, 2014, article on Christie’s proposed fees: “Christie is not the first governor to turn to increasing fees and fines as a way to generate new revenue while also escaping the stigma of hiking taxes,” noting that former Democratic Gov. James McGreevey had raised more than $1 billion in 2004 through fee increases and that Christie had increased New Jersey Transit fees in 2010 to make up a budget shortfall. During the 2008 presidential election, we fact-checked former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s claim that he “did not raise taxes” while governor and found that he had raised fees by hundreds of millions of dollars. PolitiFact New Jersey first published the list of 115 taxes and fees in 2011, when a state Republican senator made the claim about the “tax” increases that Christie repeated in his speech. That list includes increases in sales taxes, cigarette and alcohol taxes, income taxes on high-income earners, as well as numerous increases in fees, including on divorce, vehicle registration, casino hotel rooms and new tires. Christie can’t have it both ways. If fees are taxes — as is implied when Christie says “taxes were raised 115 times in the eight years before 2010″ — then Christie is guilty of proposing at least 23 tax increases in his budget last year. Also, Christie’s proposal to require out-of-state online retailers to charge sales tax to New Jersey customers puts him at odds with conservatives who oppose more sweeping federal legislation, the Marketplace Fairness Act. The conservative Freedom Works calls it “the Internet sales tax.” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, another potential Republican presidential candidate, calls it a “job-killing tax hike.” Christie’s 2015 budget calls his measure “extending to [online retailers] the same obligation that other New Jersey businesses already have to collect sales tax on sales to New Jersey customers.” The measure was signed into law by Christie last summer and applies to online companies that act as a sales platform for retailers with a physical presence in New Jersey (think eBay or Overstock.com). New Jersey tax law stipulates that consumers are obligated to pay sales tax — in this case called a “use tax” — if an online retailer doesn’t collect it. But many residents may not be aware of that. The Office of Legislative Services estimated the change in state law would bring in $25 million in additional revenue. – Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore, Lori Robertson and Brooks Jackson, with Carolyn Fante </p> 19980122 2015-01-16 12:07:56 2015-01-16 12:07:56 open open here-are-some-of-the-things-chris-christie-left-out-of-his-state-of-the-state-speech-factcheck-org-19980122 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan Pennsylvania Lawmaker Claims Yuengling Beer Is Banned From Tom Wolf Inauguration The Huffington Post | By Sam Levine http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/16/pennsylvania-lawmaker-claims-yuengling-beer-is-banned-from-tom-wolf-inauguration-the-huffington-post-by-sam-levine-19979986/ Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:50:00 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Pennsylvania Lawmaker Claims Yuengling Beer Is Banned From Tom Wolf Inauguration The Huffington Post | By Sam Levine Posted: 01/15/2015 11:08 pm EST Updated: 34 minutes ago GOVERNOR TOM WOLF Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Lou Sheehan Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan A Pennsylvania lawmaker claims the Yuengling brewery has been banned from donating free beer to the inaugural ball of Pennsylvania Gov.-elect Tom Wolf (D). State Rep. Mike Vereb (R) said during a radio interview Thursday that he thought Wolf's transition team was punishing Yuengling because the company's president, Richard L. Yuengling, has supported so-called right-to-work laws in Pennsylvania, which would make it more difficult for labor unions to organize. Vereb said that he wasn't sure if Wolf personally was aware of the Yuengling ban. "What we found out last night is that there will be beer at this event, but there is a specific restriction and request to not have Yuengling product there,” Vereb said. “Somebody, there’s a bureaucrat in this transition team that does not like Dick Yuengling because of his stance that he took in defending Governor Corbett on right-to-work a few years back." Pennsylvania is not among states with right-to-work laws. Labor leaders called for a boycott of Yuengling in 2013 after the brewery president announced his support for such a law. A Wolf spokeswoman declined to tell The Philadelphia Inquirer whether the beer, which has been brewed in Pennsylvania since 1829, had explicitly been banned from the inauguration ball. "We met our beverage needs, and we have a variety of choices for attendees from a number of breweries including Pennsylvania-based breweries," spokeswoman Beth Melena told the Inquirer. The Inquirer reported that some large employee unions made donations to help sponsor the event, which will be held on Tuesday. Wolf, a businessman, defeated one-term Gov. Tom Corbett's (R) bid for re-election in November. Vereb said he was baffled that anyone could say no to free beer. "I really believe it’s bureaucracy at work. Who turns down free beer? It’s un-American," he said in the radio interview. Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Louis Sheehan </p> 19979986 2015-01-16 11:50:00 2015-01-16 11:50:00 open open pennsylvania-lawmaker-claims-yuengling-beer-is-banned-from-tom-wolf-inauguration-the-huffington-post-by-sam-levine-19979986 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Mother Jones Mitt Romney Has a Huge New Conflict-of-Interest Problem If he jumps into the 2016 race, will Romney reveal the investors and investments of Solamere Capital, the $700 million private equity firm he runs with his son? —By David Corn http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/16/mother-jones-mitt-romney-has-a-huge-new-conflict-of-interest-problem-if-he-jumps-into-the-2016-race-will-romney-reveal-the-investors-and-investme-19979939/ Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:39:01 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Mitt Romney Has a Huge New Conflict-of-Interest Problem If he jumps into the 2016 race, will Romney reveal the investors and investments of Solamere Capital, the $700 million private equity firm he runs with his son? —By David Corn In 2012, Mitt Romney's career as a businessman who earned many millions of dollars became a net loss, as political foes slammed him for running Bain Capital, a private equity firm that invested in US companies that downsized and shifted jobs overseas and that obtained financial stakes in foreign companies that depended on US outsourcing for profits. At the same time, Romney, who refused to do a full release of his tax returns, was hit with questions (he didn't answer) about mysterious personal investments in offshore accounts. Should he mount a third presidential effort, as he has told GOP funders he is considering, all of these issues are likely to return. But there's another matter that will be be added to the pile of financial controversies for Romney to face: Solamere Capital, the $700 million private equity firm cofounded by his son Taggart that Romney has helped run since March 2013. Who has Romney been investing with, and what has he been investing in? These are questions that Romney 2016 will confront and that, no doubt, the firm will not want to answer. In March 2013, Mitt Romney became chair of Solamere's executive committee and a member of its investment committee, and Solamere's bare website currently lists him as the executive partner group chairman. The site only describes the company as "a collection of families and influential business leaders leveraging their broad networks and industry expertise to invest strategic capital." But the firm has recruited scores of investors willing to give the Romneys millions, and it has invested in an untold number of other funds and companies. Any of these parties—the investors or the investments—could pose a conflict of interest for a presidential candidate or raise a significant question. Has Solamere invested in companies that outsource? Or in overseas firms that compete with US firms? Has it drawn investments from people or corporations at home or abroad that want to curry favor with a possible president? Might the companies and private equity firms Solamere invests in have an interest in lobbying a future Romney administration? There is no way for the public to know; the firm does not disclose any information on its investors or investments. So how will Romney respond to these and other questions about his work for Solamere? Advertisement Advertise on MotherJones.com Shortly after Romney ended his presidential bid in early 2008, Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, who had been the Romney campaign's financial director, formed Solamere, which was named after a ritzy part of Utah's Deer Valley where the Romney family owned a ski mansion. As the New York Times reported, "Neither had experience in private equity. But what the close friends did have was the Romney name and a Rolodex of deep-pocketed potential investors who had backed Mr. Romney's presidential run." The pair brought in a third partner, Eric Scheuermann, who did have years of private equity experience. In its early days, the firm seemed part of the Romney network. At one point, Solamere shared an address with Romney's political action committee. It solicited investments from the well heeled, generally seeking a minimum of a $10 million buy-in. According to the Times, Mitt and Ann Romney sank a "critical, early" $10 million into their son's venture, signaling that the firm had Mitt's blessing, which Tagg and his crew could use as a selling point as they chased after funding from others. In 2008, Solamere set out to raise $200 million, and by May 2009 it had attracted $186 million from 39 investors, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records. Tagg Romney, Zwick, and Scheuermann, the records noted, would receive an estimated $16.8 million in management fees in the first six years. The records do not indicate the identities of the 39 investors who kicked in the initial financing. But other public records show that corporate titan Meg Whitman, a longtime friend and political ally of Mitt Romney, invested more than $1 million in Solamere. The University of Utah put about $1 million if its endowment into the firm's fund. H. Lee Scott Jr., the former CEO of Walmart and short-time member of the board of Goldman Sachs, was an early investor, became a partner, and served on Solamere's investment committee. Tagg Romney told the Times that his early investors included a few NASCAR drivers, two NFL quarterbacks, and nine heads of other private equity firms. One of Solamere's initial investments was in a North Carolina financial-services firm operated by former officials of a financial company run by Allen Stanford, who was later convicted of running a massive Ponzi scheme. These officials had come from the Charlotte office of the Stanford Financial Group, which had been closed by the feds for selling phony certificates of deposit. During the 2012 election, with Zwick helping to run Solamere and simultaneously raising money for Mitt Romney's presidential bid, government ethics advocates questioned the probity of the coziness between Romney's political funders and his fellow Solamere investors. Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution told the Boston Globe that Solamere was an example of how business and political elites operate "in the first-class compartment." Four months after Romney flamed-out as a presidential candidate, Solamere announced that he would "play a greater role" at the firm, chairing its executive committee and participating on its investment committee. "We believe that Governor Romney's experience and insight in private investing will enhance Solamere's distinctiveness," the firm said in an email to investors. With Mitt Romney more involved, Solamere expanded. And demand to be in business with Romney was high. The firm, according to Fortune, was seeking about $300 million for a second round of investment. In the email to investors, Solamere noted, "we feel strongly that there is value in not raising too large of a fund, and therefore anticipate keeping the size to a level we feel we can appropriately manage within our desired band of target returns." But in May 2014, Solamere Capital filed reports with the SEC noting it had created two new funds, with 200 investors investing a total of $472 million. (Five months later, Solamere reported these two funds had actually drawn $527 million from 215 investors.) Investor interest had been so intense that the firm had raised its self-imposed limit on the size of the funds to accommodate all the investors who wanted to be in bed with Mitt and Tagg Romney. These new funds would invest in other private equity funds and invest directly in private companies. Solamere freely mixed politics and business. In June 2013, as it was hunting for investors, the firm sponsored a policy conference convened by Mitt Romney at an exclusive resort in Park City, Utah, which attracted Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan as speakers. At the same time—and in the same place—Solamere hosted a conference for investors. As the Washington Post reported, "The concentration of wealthy Romney backers in one place is a natural draw for politicians with national ambitions. But, as Solamere investors acknowledged, the gathering also provided them with potential targets, lending the retreat an aura of personal enrichment along with the focus on public policy." With Mitt Romney now an active participant in Solamere Capital, the implications for his potential presidential campaign are more serious. In the last days of the 2012 campaign, several liberal good-government groups and unions sent a complaint to the US Office of Government Ethics charging that the financial disclosure form Romney had filed as a presidential candidate was not in compliance with federal law because, in part, it did not list Solamere's holdings. On the form, Romney noted his family's investments in several funds, including Solamere's first fund, but he did not reveal what Solamere invested in—meaning the ultimate investment was not disclosed. As the complaint noted, "precisely because private equity firms typically invest heavily in a few select companies
there is a far greater chance that ownership of these funds could lead to a conflict of interest." The Office of Government Ethics did not respond to the complaint, and the matter died. Romney's Solamere issue will be different this time around. He's not a passive investor. He has helped run the firm and guide its investments for the past two years. He knows where the money is coming from and where it is going. There will be demands for him to reveal who he has been hobnobbing with financially so it can be ascertained if he is burdened by conflicts of interest—or if he has been making money in a manner at odds with his public policy pronouncements. But firms such as Solamere thrive on privacy. Their investment picks are their secret sauce, and many of their investors might prefer being unnamed. Solamere Capital did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for Mitt Romney also did not respond. In the 2012 campaign, Romney was the candidate who defied transparency. (In one memorable moment, an irritated Ann Romney huffed that she and her husband had disclosed "all you people need to know.") Kevin Madden, a top Romney adviser in 2012, recently noted that the Obama campaign successfully turned Romney's tax return question into a "character issue" that damaged Romney. With Jeb Bush releasing tens of thousands of emails from his time as Florida governor and signaling he will make public at least a decade's worth of tax filings, Romney, should he enter the contest, could run smack into the same challenge. But even if he wants to avoid problems similar to those of the 2012 campaign, can he reveal the inner workings of a private equity firm that was fueled by political capital? Might such revelations hurt his political prospects or harm his son's company? With Solamere, Romney has a new private equity problem. Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19979939 2015-01-16 11:39:01 2015-01-16 11:39:01 open open mother-jones-mitt-romney-has-a-huge-new-conflict-of-interest-problem-if-he-jumps-into-the-2016-race-will-romney-reveal-the-investors-and-investme-19979939 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine George Soros FEBRUARY 5, 2015 ISSUE http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/14/a-new-policy-to-rescue-ukraine-george-soros-february-5-2015-issue-19974039/ Wed, 14 Jan 2015 23:49:01 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Louis Sheehan A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine George Soros FEBRUARY 5, 2015 ISSUE A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine George Soros FEBRUARY 5, 2015 ISSUE soros_1-020515 NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS Justyna Mielnikiewicz Masha, a hairdresser from Luhansk who joined the pro-Ukrainian Donbas Battalion last spring, at a training camp near Dnipropetrovsk, held in an old summer camp still decorated with Soviet-era Young Pioneers, July 2014; photograph by Justyna Mielnikiewicz from her series ‘A Ukraine Runs Through It,’ which has just been awarded the Aftermath Project’s 2015 grant for photographic work documenting the aftermath of conflict. It will appear in War Is Only Half the Story, Volume 9, to be published by the Aftermath Project next year. The sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and Europe for its interventions in Ukraine have worked much faster and inflicted much more damage on the Russian economy than anybody could have expected. The sanctions sought to deny Russian banks and companies access to the international capital markets. The increased damage is largely due to a sharp decline in the price of oil, without which the sanctions would have been much less effective. Russia needs oil prices to be around $100 a barrel in order to balance its budget. (It is now around $55 a barrel.) The combination of lower oil prices and sanctions has pushed Russia into a financial crisis that is by some measures already comparable to the one in 1998. In 1998, Russia ended up running out of hard currency reserves and defaulting on its debt, causing turmoil in the global financial system. This time the ruble has dropped by more than 50 percent, inflation is accelerating, and interest rates have risen to levels that are pushing the Russian economy into recession. The big advantage Russia has today compared to 1998 is that it still has substantial foreign currency reserves. This has enabled the Russian Central Bank to engineer a 30 percent rebound in the ruble from its low point by spending about $100 billion and arranging a $24 billion swap line with the People’s Bank of China. But only about $200 billion of the remaining reserves are liquid and the crisis is still at an early stage. In addition to continued capital flight, more than $120 billion of external debt is due for repayment in 2015. Although, in contrast to 1998, most of the Russian debt is in the private sector, it would not be surprising if, before it runs its course, this crisis ends up in a default by Russia. That would be more than what the US and European authorities bargained for. Coming on top of worldwide deflationary pressures that are particularly acute in the euro area and rising military conflicts such as the one with ISIS, a Russian default could cause considerable disruption in the global financial system, with the euro area being particularly vulnerable. There is therefore an urgent need to reorient the current policies of the European Union toward Russia and Ukraine. I have been arguing for a two-pronged approach that balances the sanctions against Russia with assistance for Ukraine on a much larger scale. This rebalancing needs to be carried out in the first quarter of 2015 for reasons I shall try to explain. Sanctions are a necessary evil. They are necessary because neither the EU nor the US is willing to risk war with Russia, and that leaves economic sanctions as the only way to resist Russian aggression. They are evil because they hurt not only the country on which they are imposed but also the countries that impose them. The harm has turned out to be much bigger than anybody anticipated. Russia is in the midst of a financial crisis, which is helping to turn the threat of deflation in the eurozone into a reality. By contrast, all the consequences of helping Ukraine would be positive. By enabling Ukraine to defend itself, Europe would be indirectly also defending itself. Moreover, an injection of financial assistance to Ukraine would help stabilize its economy and indirectly also provide a much-needed stimulus to the European economy by encouraging exports and investment in Ukraine. Hopefully Russia’s troubles and Ukraine’s progress would persuade President Vladimir Putin to give up as a lost cause his attempts to destabilize Ukraine. Unfortunately neither the European public nor the leadership seems to be moved by these considerations. Europe seems to be dangerously unaware of being indirectly under military attack from Russia and carries on business as usual. It treats Ukraine as just another country in need of financial assistance, and not even as one that is important to the stability of the euro, like Greece or Ireland. According to prevailing perceptions, Ukraine is suffering from a more or less classical balance of payments crisis that morphed into a public debt and banking crisis. There are international financial institutions devoted to handling such crises but they are not well suited to deal with the political aspects of the Ukrainian situation. In order to help the Ukrainian economy, the European Union started preparing an Association Agreement with Ukraine in 2007 and completed it in 2012, when it had to deal with the Viktor Yanukovych government. The EU developed a detailed roadmap showing what steps the Ukrainian government had to take before it would extend assistance. Ukraine has undergone a revolutionary transformation since then. The roadmap ought to be adjusted accordingly, but the cumbersome bureaucratic processes of the European Commission do not allow for that. Accordingly, Ukraine’s problems have been cast in conventional terms: • Ukraine needs international assistance because it has experienced shocks that have produced a financial crisis. The shocks are transitory; once Ukraine recovers from the shocks it should be able to repay its creditors. This explains why the IMF was put in charge of providing financial assistance to Ukraine. • Since Ukraine is not yet a member of the EU, European institutions (like the European Commission and the European Central Bank) played only a secondary part in providing assistance to it. The IMF welcomed the opportunity to avoid the complications associated with the supervision by a troika consisting of the EU, the European Central Bank, and the IMF that was used to deal with Greece and others. This new arrangement also explains why the IMF-led package was based on overly optimistic forecasts and why the IMF’s contribution of approximately $17 billion in cash to Ukraine is so much larger than the approximately $10 billion of various commitments associated with the EU, and even smaller amounts from the US. • Since Ukraine has had a poor track record with previous IMF programs, the official lenders insisted that Ukraine should receive assistance only as a reward for clear evidence of deep structural reform, not as an inducement to undertake these reforms. • From this conventional perspective, the successful resistance to the previous Yanokovych government on the Maidan and, later, the Russian annexation of Crimea and the establishment of separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine are incidental. These events are seen as simply temporary external shocks. This perspective needs to be altered. The birth of a new Ukraine and the Russian aggression are not merely temporary shocks but historic events. Instead of facing the remnants of a moribund Soviet Union, the European Union is confronted by a resurgent Russia that has turned from strategic partner into strategic rival. To replace communism, President Putin has developed a nationalist ideology based on ethnic grounds, social conservatism, and religious faith—the brotherhood of the Slavic race, homophobia, and holy Russia. He has cast what he calls Anglo-Saxon world domination as the enemy of Russia—and of the rest of the world. Putin has learned a lot from his war with President Mikheil Saakashvili’s Georgia in 2008. Russia won that war militarily but was less successful in its propaganda efforts. Putin has developed an entirely new strategy that relies heavily on using both special forces and propaganda. Putin’s ambition to recreate a Russian empire has unintentionally helped bring into being a new Ukraine that is opposed to Russia and seeks to become the opposite of the old Ukraine with its endemic corruption and ineffective government. The new Ukraine is led by the cream of civil society: young people, many of whom studied abroad and refused to join either government or business on their return because they found both of them repugnant. Many of them found their place in academic institutions, think tanks, and nongovernmental organizations. A widespread volunteer movement, of unprecedented scope and power unseen in other countries, has helped Ukraine to stand strong against Russian aggression. Its members were willing to risk their lives on the Maidan for the sake of a better future and they are determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past, including the political infighting that undermined the Orange Revolution. A politically engaged civil society is the best assurance against a return of the old Ukraine: activists would return to the Maidan if the politicians engaged in the kind of petty squabbling and corruption that ruined the old Ukraine. The reformists in the new Ukrainian government are advocating a radical “big bang” reform program that is intended to have a dramatic impact. This program aims to break the stranglehold of corruption by shrinking the bureaucracy while paying the remaining civil servants better and by breaking up Naftogaz, the gas monopoly that is the main source of corruption and budget deficits in Ukraine. But the old Ukraine is far from dead. It dominates the civil service and the judiciary, and remains very present in the private (oligarchic and kleptocratic) sectors of the economy. Why should state employees work for practically no salary unless they can use their position as a license to extort bribes? And how can a business sector that was nurtured on corruption and kickbacks function without its sweeteners? These retrograde elements are locked in battle with the reformists. The new government faces the difficult task of radically reducing the number of civil servants and increasing their pay. Advocates of radical reform claim that it would be both possible and desirable to shrink the ministries to a fraction of their current size, provided that the general population would not be subjected to severe cuts to their living standards. That would allow the discharged civil servants to find jobs in the private sector and the employees retained on the payroll to be paid higher salaries. Many obstacles to doing business would be removed, but that would require substantial financial and technical support from the EU. Without it, the “big bang” kind of radical reforms that Ukraine needs cannot succeed. Indeed, the prospect of failure may even prevent the government from proposing them. The magnitude of European support and the reforming zeal of the new Ukraine are mutually self-reinforcing. Until now, the Europeans kept Ukraine on a short leash and the Arseniy Yatsenyuk government did not dare to embark on radical structural reforms. The former minister of the economy, Pavlo Sheremeta, a radical reformer, proposed reducing the size of his ministry from 1,200 to 300 but met such resistance from the bureaucracy that he resigned. No further attempts at administrative reform were made but the public is clamoring for it. That is where the European authorities could play a decisive role. By offering financial and technical assistance commensurate with the magnitude of the reforms, they could exert influence on the Ukrainian government to embark on radical reforms and give them a chance to succeed. Unfortunately the European authorities are hampered by the budgetary rules that constrain the EU and its member states. That is why the bulk of international efforts have gone into sanctions against Russia, and financial assistance to Ukraine has been kept to a minimum. Petro Poroshenko and Vladimir Putin; drawing by James Ferguson In order to shift the emphasis to assisting Ukraine, the negotiations have to be moved from the bureaucratic to the political level. The European financial bureaucracies find it difficult to put together even the $15 billion that the IMF considers the absolute minimum. As it stands, the European Union could find only €2 billion in its Macro-Financial Assistance program, and individual member states are reluctant to contribute directly. This is what led Ukraine to pass on December 30 a stopgap budget for 2015 with unrealistic revenue projections and only modest reforms. This is an opening bid in the negotiations. The law allows for modifications until February 15, subject to their outcome. European political leaders must tap into the large unused borrowing capacity of the EU itself and find other unorthodox sources to be able to offer Ukraine a larger financial package than the one currently contemplated. That would enable the Ukrainian government to embark on radical reform. I have identified several such sources, notably: 1. The Balance of Payments Assistance facility (used for Hungary and Romania) has unused funds of $47.5 billion and the European Financial Stability Mechanism (used for Portugal and Ireland) has about $15.8 billion of unused funds. Both mechanisms are currently limited to EU member states but could be used to support Ukraine by modifying their respective regulations by a qualified majority upon a proposal by the European Commission. Alternatively, the Commission could use and expand the Macro-Financial Assistance Facility, which has already been used in Ukraine. There is indeed a range of technical options and the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker should propose a way forward as soon as the Ukrainian government has presented a convincing set of priorities. 2. Larger matching funds from the European Union would enable the IMF to increase its lending to Ukraine by $13 billion and to convert the existing Stand-By Agreement into a longer-term Extended Fund Facility program. This would bring the total size of the IMF program to fifteen times Ukraine’s current IMF quota, an unusually large multiple but one that already has a precedent in the case of Ireland, for example. 3. European Investment Bank project bonds could yield €10 billion or more. These funds would be used to connect Ukraine to a unified European gas market and to break up Naftogaz, the Ukrainian gas monopoly. These changes would greatly improve Ukraine’s energy efficiency and produce very high returns on investment. It would help create a unified European gas market and reduce not only Ukraine’s but also Europe’s dependence on Russian gas. The breakup of Naftogaz is the centerpiece of Ukraine’s reform plans. 4. Long-term financing from the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for restructuring the banking sector. This should yield about $5 billion. The 2009 Vienna Initiative for Eastern Europe, which proved to be highly successful in limiting capital flight and stabilizing the banking system, should be extended to Ukraine. The foundations for such an extension were already laid at the inaugural meeting of the Ukrainian Financial Forum in June 2014. 5. Restructuring Ukraine’s sovereign debt should free in excess of $4 billion scarce foreign exchange reserves. Ukraine has almost $8 billion in sovereign debt coming due in the private bond markets in the next three years. Instead of a default that would have disastrous consequences, Ukraine should negotiate with its bondholders (who happen to be relatively few) a voluntary, market-based exchange for new long-term debt instruments. In order to make the exchange successful, part of the new financial assistance should be used for credit enhancements for the new debt instruments. The foreign assistance needed for this purpose would depend on what bondholders require to participate in the exchange, but it could free at least twice as much foreign exchange over the next three years. 6. Ukraine must also deal with a $3 billion bond issued by the Russian government to Ukraine coming due in 2015. Russia may be willing to reschedule the payments by Ukraine on the bond voluntarily in order to earn favorable points for an eventual relaxation of the sanctions against it. Alternatively, the bond may be classified as government-to-government debt, restructured by the group of nations officially called the Paris Club, in order to insulate the rest of Ukrainian bonds from their cross-default provisions (which put the borrower in default if he fails to meet another obligation). The legal and technical details need to be elaborated. Perhaps not all these sources could be mobilized in full but where there is a political will, there is a way. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has proved to be a true European leader with regard to Russia and Ukraine, holds the key. The additional sources of financing I have cited should be sufficient to produce a new financial package of $50 billion or more. Needless to say, the IMF would remain in charge of actual disbursements, so there would be no loss of control. But instead of scraping together the minimum, the official lenders would hold out the promise of the maximum. That would be a game-changer. Ukraine would embark on radical reforms and, instead of hovering on the edge of bankruptcy, it would turn into a land of promise that would attract private investment. Europe needs to wake up and recognize that it is under attack from Russia. Assisting Ukraine should also be considered as a defense expenditure by the EU countries. Framed this way, the amounts currently contemplated shrink into insignificance. If the international authorities fail to come up with an impressive assistance program in response to an aggressive Ukrainian reform program, the new Ukraine will probably fail, Europe will be left on its own to defend itself against Russian aggression, and Europe will have abandoned the values and principles on which the European Union was founded. That would be an irreparable loss. The sanctions on Russia ought to be maintained after they start expiring in April 2015 until President Putin stops destabilizing Ukraine and provides convincing evidence of his willingness to abide by the generally accepted rules of conduct. The financial crisis in Russia and the body bags from Ukraine have made President Putin politically vulnerable. The Ukrainian government has recently challenged him by renouncing its own obligations toward the separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine, under the Minsk cease-fire agreement, on the grounds that Russia failed to abide by the agreement from its inception. After Ukraine’s challenge, Putin immediately caved in and imposed the cease-fire on the troops under his direct command. It can be expected that the troops will be withdrawn from Ukrainian territory and the cease-fire will be fully implemented in the near future. It would be a pity to allow the sanctions to expire prematurely when they are so close to success. But it is essential that by April 2015 Ukraine should be engaged in a radical reform program that has a realistic chance of succeeding. Otherwise, President Putin could convincingly argue that Russia’s problems are due to the hostility of the Western powers. Even if he fell from power, an even more hardline leader like Igor Sechin or a nationalist demagogue would succeed him. By contrast, if Europe rose to the challenge and helped Ukraine not only to defend itself but to become a land of promise, Putin could not blame Russia’s troubles on the Western powers. He would be clearly responsible and he would either have to change course or try to stay in power by brutal repression, cowing people into submission. If he fell from power, an economic and political reformer would be likely to succeed him. Either way, Putin’s Russia would cease to be a potent threat to Europe. Which alternative prevails will make all the difference not only to the future of Russia and its relationship with the European Union but also to the future of the European Union itself. By helping Ukraine, Europe may be able to recapture the values and principles on which the European Union was originally founded. That is why I am arguing so passionately that Europe needs to undergo a change of heart. The time to do it is right now. The Board of the IMF is scheduled to make its fateful decision on Ukraine on January 18. —January 7, 2015 Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19974039 2015-01-14 23:49:01 2015-01-14 23:49:01 open open a-new-policy-to-rescue-ukraine-george-soros-february-5-2015-issue-19974039 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan A Critic at Large January 19, 2015 Issue The Power of Congress Before L.B.J., progressives saw bipartisanship as a blight. What happened? By Sam Tanenhaus http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/14/a-critic-at-large-january-19-2015-issue-the-power-of-congress-before-l-b-j-progressives-saw-bipartisanship-as-a-blight-what-happened-by-sam-tanen-19970683/ Wed, 14 Jan 2015 08:36:47 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>A Critic at Large January 19, 2015 Issue The Power of Congress Before L.B.J., progressives saw bipartisanship as a blight. What happened? By Sam Tanenhaus Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Lou Sheehan The tension between big-tent inclusiveness and ideological purity has bedevilled our two major political parties for many years, but for Democrats it became especially vexing in the middle decades of the twentieth century. From 1932 to 1964, the Democratic Party won seven out of nine Presidential elections and enjoyed an almost continuous majority in the House and the Senate. But who, exactly, was winning and what did victory mean? The answer was clear in only two intervals. The first was the initial phase of the New Deal, when Franklin Roosevelt’s economic-rescue proposals were swiftly passed into law by Congress and embraced by a nation traumatized by the Great Depression. The second came during the three-year period after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, when Lyndon Johnson and Congress went on a legislative spree that ended with the midterm election in November, 1966. “The Fierce Urgency of Now” (Penguin Press), Julian E. Zelizer’s account of wins and losses in the Johnson years, combines history with political science, as befits our data-happy moment. The information comes at us steadily—there are useful facts on almost every page—but the narrative is spartanly furnished. There’s little portraiture, not much drama, and only enough mood-setting context to let us know what America was up to while L.B.J. and Congress were contriving new ways to strengthen the social safety net and exhaust the national treasury. The emphasis falls instead on the high, and sometimes low, workings of legislative government, as bills inched through committees and subcommittees, nicked and scarred in “mark-up” sessions; the feint-and-parry of parliamentary maneuver; and, above all, the votes. This patient no-frills approach offers illuminations that a more cinematic treatment might not. And if Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton, at times betrays the head-counting instincts of a House whip, well, head-counting is the nuts and bolts of congressional lawmaking, as scholars like Nelson Polsby and David Mayhew pointed out a generation ago, and as Ira Katznelson, Sarah Binder, and Frances Lee have done more recently. “Overshadowed by presidents and social movements, legislators remain ghosts in America’s historical imagination,” Zelizer observed in “The American Congress,” the large and very useful anthology he edited in 2004. Its analyses, by him and thirty-nine others, begin with the Continental Congress and go all the way up to the Clinton and Bush years—not likely to be known as the Gingrich or DeLay years, even as these scholars cut the Leaders of the Free World down to their proper constitutional size. The idea of an imperial Presidency was always an exaggeration. “A President, these days, is an invaluable clerk,” Richard Neustadt, the dean of Presidential theorists, pointed out in 1960.The clerk at the time was Dwight Eisenhower, the general and war hero twice elected in landslides, only to be frustrated, like so many popular Presidents before and since, in skirmishes with well-organized adversaries on Capitol Hill. Congressmen were the heavies then, just as they are today. And yet, however much we say that we dislike our representatives, we keep sending many of them back to Washington. Together, Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid, each his party’s leader in the Senate, have spent fifty-eight years there. In the House, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have logged a combined fifty-two. These four, and some others, compose our democracy’s only long-term elected class. What distinguished L.B.J. from almost all his predecessors and successors was his profound rootedness in Congress, where he spent a dozen years in the House and another dozen in the Senate. As Majority Leader, he became as famous as a senator could be, thanks to his resourcefulness and his genius for compromise and his almost feral magnetism. But it was seldom clear what L.B.J. really wanted, apart from dominating the game and intimidating the other players. Robert Caro has turned the question over on a spit in four immensely detailed volumes and still seems undecided. Real-time observers were mystified, too. “The test will come when he runs out of ideas,” Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., remarked in August, 1964. “Up to this point he has been living intellectually on the Kennedy years.” A year later, L.B.J. had signed Medicare and the Voting Rights Act into law, seven days apart. But in politics the truly new idea is a rarity. Much of the agenda presented with such fanfare in the nineteen-sixties, first by Kennedy and then by Johnson, had been in congressional circulation since the nineteen-forties and fifties, and Johnson was well versed in its fine points. As early as 1949, Senator Hubert Humphrey, who had a master’s degree in political science, was proposing one bill after another on national health insurance, Social Security extensions, and federally financed school construction. Not one had a chance of becoming law then, because the votes weren’t there. They’d gone missing in F.D.R.’s second term, when an alliance of Republicans and Southern Democrats formed “the conservative coalition,” a bloc that functioned as an autonomous congressional party, supplanting the two nominally major ones. By the time L.B.J. became President, Congress had been, as Zelizer says, a “graveyard of liberal legislation” for more than a quarter century. As late as 1960, some thought a vigorous new President might single-handedly revitalize Congress. This was a delusion. In August, a few weeks after Kennedy promised a “New Frontier” in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, the Times’ Tom Wicker cautioned that if Kennedy won he would meet the fearsome “roadblock in Congress,” the House Committee on Rules, which, under the control of a “six-man conservative junta,” was “virtually a third branch of Congress—equal to and sometimes superior to the Senate and the House.” It was controlled by its chairman, Howard Smith, of Virginia, who decided which bills reached the floor for a general vote and which did not. In the Senate, Southern domination was even greater. Johnson had spent his years as Majority Leader in continual negotiation with the chamber’s true “master,” Richard Russell, Jr., the Georgia segregationist whose weapon was the filibuster—not the lone-wolf stunts performed recently by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz but martial epics, involving a “platoon” of men who delivered four-hour monologues on a rotating basis. “The Senate might be described without too much violence to fact as the South’s unending revenge upon the North for Gettysburg,” the journalist William S. White wrote in “Citadel,” a best-selling account of the Senate published in 1957. White, a Texan, was by no means a critic of the Senate. He was enamored of its rituals and thought it had a “touch of authentic genius.” At a lunch organized by Johnson, not long after the book was published, each freshman senator found a copy of “Citadel” at his place setting with two inscriptions, one by White, the other by L.B.J., who urged them all to study it “as a sort of McGuffey’s Reader,” one of the freshman, Joseph Clark, recalled. Clark, who called Congress “the sapless branch,” belonged to the growing and restive corps of liberal Democrats who found the Senate less the genteel club that White described than a mildewed establishment. Part of the problem was bipartisanship. “L.B.J. has no idea of his own but consensus,” Schlesinger noted. The criticism rings strangely today, when consensus and bipartisanship have become the holy grails of government, but in the mid-twentieth century they seemed symptoms of stasis and even atrophy. Humphrey, who was in the vanguard of a fresh style of Democratic politics—“issues-based” rather than interest-group-appeasing—inveighed against the “rotten political bargain” that Southern Democrats, including Johnson, had sealed with Republicans. Genuine political progress, he maintained, had to begin with institutional reform. There had been talk of overhauling Congress, within the institution and outside it, for generations. In 1879, when Woodrow Wilson was a senior at Princeton, he wrote a celebrated essay advocating a British-style “cabinet government,” in which the heads of State, Treasury, and so on would simultaneously serve in the Senate, thus linking the legislative and executive branches in a unified system of majority rule. He elaborated on the idea in his dissertation, “Congressional Government,” printed fifteen times between 1885 and 1900. Its targets included the House’s many committees and their ducal “elders.” Whenever a bill “goes from the clerk’s desk to a committee-room it crosses a parliamentary bridge of sighs to dim dungeons of silence whence it will never return,” Wilson wrote. “The means and time of its death are unknown, but its friends never see it again.” It is impossible to imagine anyone today writing such a book and wishing to enter politics, much less being elected President twice. Yet when Wilson arrived at the White House, in 1913, he tried to improvise the “straightforward, inartificial party government” he had championed. He went to Congress to deliver the State of the Union address rather than submit a written message, as every President since Jefferson had done. He also made the “President’s room” in the Capitol an actual office for meetings with committee chairmen. But the institutional friction was too great. Later, when a proposal was held up by filibuster, Wilson urged a cloture rule cutting off debate. The Senate adopted one, but it set the bar unreachably high: a two-thirds-majority vote, which stayed in place until 1975. In 1941, the American Political Science Association appointed a “Committee on Congress” to explore possible wide-ranging reforms. Some in Congress were amenable and put the leader of the A.P.S.A. team in charge of a Joint House-Senate Committee. After many hearings and much delay, a “reorganization” was approved in 1946. It eliminated lots of committees, taking the House from forty-eight to nineteen and the Senate from thirty-three to fifteen. (Today, there are twenty-one and twenty, respectively.) But the reorganization didn’t include the A.P.S.A.’s most important suggestions: changing the rigid next-in-line “senility system” of chairmanships, reducing the power of the Rules Committee, taming the filibuster with a less onerous cloture rule. The streamlining concentrated even more power in the hands of those who already had it. CartoonBuy the print » Nor did the reforms address the muddled identities of the two major parties. In 1944, reflecting on the legislative stalemate of the prewar years, F.D.R. concluded that the two parties were dysfunctional, “split by dissenters.” That year, he suggested to Wendell Willkie, the moderate Republican he had run against in 1940, that the two form a new “liberal” party. (A decade later, Eisenhower, under attack from isolationists who threatened his ability to conduct his foreign policy, talked of a new party of “progressive moderates,” perhaps one modelled on Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moosers.) But a second and even more influential A.P.S.A. report, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System,” published in 1950, sifted through the problem of party discipline. This report grew out of a project supervised by E. E. Schattschneider, a professor at Wesleyan and a leading exponent of Wilsonian party government. A political party that “does not capitalize on its successes by mobilizing the whole power of the government is a monstrosity reflecting the stupidity of professional politicians who are more interested in the petty spoils of office than they are in the control of the richest and most powerful government in the world,” Schattschneider had written. This argument became the overriding theme of the 1950 report. Schattschneider’s team of fifteen scholars and policy experts had talked to congressional leaders, to officials in the Truman Administration, and to state and local politicians. It concluded that the two major parties were “probably the most archaic institutions in the United States”—scarcely more than “loose associations of state and local organizations, with very little national machinery and very little national cohesion.” The Republican or Democrat sent to Congress was seldom screened by the national party and so felt no obligation to support the party’s program, if he even knew what it was. Once in office, he delivered patronage and pork to his constituents back home. He operated free of a coherent agenda and belonged to no “binding” caucus. The parties, in other words, were failing because they weren’t sufficiently ideological, partisan, and polarizing. The solution was a “responsible party system”—centralized, idea-driven, serious-minded. Each party needed stronger central “councils” that met regularly, not just in Convention years, to establish principles and programs. Candidates should be expected to campaign on these platforms and then to carry them out, with dissidents punished or expelled. The party in power would enact its program, and the minority party would provide strong criticism and develop alternatives to present at election time. Schlesinger, for one, glimpsed “the shadow of an infatuation with the British party system.” He was right. Some drafters of the A.P.S.A. report had admired recent events in England, where the Labour Government elected in 1945 had nationalized the railroad and coal industries and, over Tory opposition, introduced a national health service. Labour had campaigned on the promise of a welfare state, and voters had known what they were getting. By comparison, American government looked sluggish and ineffectual. President Truman got nowhere with his health-care proposal, largely because of vehement and well-funded opposition from the American Medical Association. Schattschneider had something to say about that, too. As he had written in his 1942 book “Party Government,” the two parties “let themselves be harried by pressure groups as a timid whale might be pursued by a school of minnows.” To the rising generation of liberal legislators, party government made sense. At the 1948 Democratic Convention, Hubert Humphrey spoke in passionate support of a civil-rights plank. (Its provisions included an anti-lynching law and a fair-employment-practices commission.) Instead of trying to appease the party’s Southern bloc, he met it head on. “The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights, and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights,” Humphrey said. It was an electrifying speech; some sixty million people heard it on the radio, and as many as ten million more saw it on television. The plank was voted in, and the entire Mississippi delegation, along with half of Alabama’s, stalked out. Humphrey, suddenly famous, won his Senate race in November and in 1949 landed on the cover of Time. Truman paid heavily. The Southerners went ahead with their threat to form their own party. The States’ Rights Democratic Party nominee, Strom Thurmond, won a million votes, and captured four states in the South. Humphrey had created a wedge issue within his own party. It was the beginning of the liberal insurgency that climaxed in the Great Society and gave rise to a new politics. Purging dissidents was the first step toward building a new congressional party. A second was drawing together like-minded legislators and voters who for the time being were kept apart by the two-party system. If Southern Democrats and Midwestern Republicans could form a congressional majority, Northerners in both parties might do the same. By the time L.B.J. became President, this possibility had been tossed around for years. In 1958, after the Democrats’ victories in the midterms cut into G.O.P. strongholds from New England to California, Richard Rovere, this magazine’s political correspondent, predicted “a coalition of Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats, led by the latter.” The two groups contained members who were “ideologically indistinguishable,” he wrote. But the moment hadn’t yet come for them to unite. Zelizer does the arithmetic: “In 1957 and 1958, southern Democrats and midwestern Republicans controlled 311 out of 435 seats in the House, and they held 71 out of 96 seats in the Senate. Even after the midterm elections of 1958, which increased the number of northern liberals in both chambers, the conservative coalition retained a ninety-two-vote majority in the House and an eighteen-vote majority in the Senate.” This was why the Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, though sympathetic to the liberal contingent, tamped down talk of a new majority dominated by “bomb-throwing liberals,” as they were called in the press. Matters didn’t much improve in 1960. Kennedy was elected President, but he only just squeaked in, and the Democrats actually lost nearly two dozen members of the House, many of them liberals. And Kennedy’s métier was not legislation but foreign policy and soaring rhetoric. The visionary flights of the New Frontier excited intellectuals and the young, but in Congress Kennedy’s proposals—a tax cut, a major education bill, civil-rights legislation—fizzled back to earth like dud rockets. Congressional Democrats were the ones who set about trying to push through a progressive legislative agenda. And L.B.J., who had steadily backed away from the Dixie contingent, was helping to coax the new agenda along. In 1959, when he was still in the Senate, he had put together a committee on unemployment and assigned a freshman liberal, Eugene McCarthy, to lead it. After holding more than two dozen hearings in a dozen states, the committee issued its report, in March of 1960. As the historian Dominic Sandbrook has written, the report “called for federal assistance and public works in areas suffering from chronic unemployment, national standards of unemployment insurance, action to fight racial and other discrimination, a youth conservation corps, expanded vocational training and federal funding for retraining the jobless.” (The last of these proposals was enacted as the Manpower and Development Training Act, in 1962.) The paramount cause for liberals was civil rights. The movement was gaining momentum in arenas far from Washington. Like other contemporary historians, Zelizer stresses the importance of Martin Luther King, Jr., and other black leaders, who boldly calculated that the drama of the freedom rides and lunch-counter sit-ins, and, later, of clashes with white law enforcement in Birmingham and Selma, would force the President and Congress to act. He similarly gives credit to the efforts of Republican congressmen, including William McCulloch, of Ohio, an indispensable advocate for civil-rights legislation. The layer that Zelizer adds involves the Democratic Study Group, a coalition of liberal House members (some of them well versed in the A.P.S.A.’s 1950 report), led initially by Eugene McCarthy and then by such people as the Missouri Democrat Richard Bolling, who turned it into the first modern congressional caucus. These “de facto lobbyists” for institutional reform, as Zelizer wrote in his 2004 book “On Capitol Hill,” became the model for later Republican insurgencies. The strategies identified today with the Tea Party Caucus (closed-door meetings, public-relations blitzes, bloc voting, continual pressure on weak-kneed House leaders) were pioneered by the D.S.G., which originated with twenty-eight signatories to a liberal manifesto in 1957 and grew to an estimated hundred and twenty-five members—almost half the Democrats in the House—by 1964. The D.S.G. pushed the House to increase the size of the Rules Committee in 1961, weakening the conservative junta. And when the Rules Committee sat on the Civil Rights Act, Bolling collected enough signatures on a petition to force a hearing in January of 1964, the first step in a long march; the obstacles included a sixty-day team-relay filibuster orchestrated by the Senate’s Southern bloc. Johnson’s landslide victory gave him the liberal mandate he needed to push through the agenda for the Great Society, but he couldn’t have done it if the right hadn’t been undergoing its own ideological sorting—a convulsion within the G.O.P. that transferred power from the East Coast to the Sun Belt in the person of Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a gift to liberals. One of just six Republican Senators to vote against the Civil Rights Act, he seemed the iron-jawed tribune of antigovernment extremism. He warned that the new bill would lead to a “federal police state,” turning citizens into informers, an opinion shared by the John Birch Society. Zelizer is probably right to say that Goldwater “built the Great Society,” if only because he accomplished what the liberals couldn’t: he made civil rights, and the liberal causes that followed, seem intrinsic to American idealism. One measure of the new order was the D.S.G.’s rising influence. The group had backed forty House incumbents, of whom thirty-nine won. It also picked forty successful challengers. The membership was now larger than the entire Republican caucus, and it exulted in its power. Two Southern Democrats who had supported Goldwater were stripped of seniority rights, the kind of “sanction” the A.P.S.A. report had called for. The Democratic Study Group successfully pressed for another reform that the report had recommended: changing the makeup of committees to favor the majority party. The “Goldwater Congress,” in James Reston’s phrase, became the first instance of unlimited majority rule since the beginnings of the New Deal. “F.D.R. passed five major bills in the first one hundred days,” Johnson boasted to an aide before the 1966 midterms. “We passed two hundred in the last two years.” Actually, Roosevelt had passed fifteen. But Johnson had one enormous advantage that Roosevelt lacked: a booming economy. “We may now turn to issues more demanding of human ingenuity than that of how to put an end to poverty in the richest nation in the world,” Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an architect of the War on Poverty, wrote in a 1965 essay titled “The Professionalization of Reform.” Such issues might include “the problem of perfecting, to the highest degree possible, the quality of our lives and of our civilization.” Cartoon“You’re gonna take a left at the nondescript white wall, keep going till you pass a nondescript white wall, then head right when you hit a nondescript white wall. If you see a nondescript white wall, you’ve gone too far.”Buy the print » Moderate Republicans, afraid of being branded Goldwaterites, fled to the sanctuary of the Johnson program. Most “believed that the President’s measures were in the national interest,” Geoffrey Kabaservice points out in “Rule and Ruin,” his history of the modern Republican Party. That’s one reason Medicare passed, despite the strenuous lobbying of the American Medical Association. “Approximately thirty-seven legislators who had been considered ‘friends’ of the A.M.A. were defeated” in 1964, Zelizer writes. Wilbur Mills, the tightfisted Arkansas Democrat and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, had been blocking health-care proposals since the fifties, but had come around. He dropped hints of a compromise. L.B.J., with his instinct for congressional politics, deferred to Mills. Years of dismantling bills had made Mills expert in their intricacies, and many of the wrinkles had been worked out in advance. When committee members submitted alternative versions of the program, Mills adroitly mashed all the proposals together. The committee had only thirteen days to draft a final version. That was all the time it needed. No modern Presidency follows the arc of classical tragedy as neatly as Johnson’s. He began as awkward steward to a slain hero he resented, grew into full command of his powers while beset by self-doubt and self-loathing, and finally seemed to will his own descent. The story has been told many times, but Zelizer is especially good on the unravelling of the Great Society. At the start of 1966, L.B.J. could reel off mouthwatering numbers on jobs and wages, yet brace for losses in the midterm elections. It had happened to F.D.R.; it could happen to him. He chose to push ahead for more programs, more agencies, rather than to scale back. This heavy-handed style invited suspicion. The social critic Paul Goodman said that L.B.J.’s government, instead of safeguarding citizens, was reducing them to the status of “clients.” “Dependency” became the new term of art. Four days before the midterms, Zelizer writes, Johnson stood “in front of a turquoise backdrop, ideal for broadcasts on color television,” and in three ceremonies signed eight bills that would funnel huge sums into Great Society programs, including $6.1 billion into schools. The Democrats lost seats, in part thanks to a group of constituents many had taken for granted: working-class, pro-union, Northern whites who remained loyal to the New Deal but suspected that Great Society programs weren’t meant to help them—were, in fact, coming at their expense. Zelizer again has the numbers: “Only thirty-eight out of seventy-one Democrats elected” in 1964 “were reelected to the House in 1966. Just twenty-three of the forty-seven freshman Democrats who had been elected in Republican districts in 1964—not counting the freshmen who had defeated Democratic incumbents—were victorious.” Two years earlier, the conservative coalition seemed finished. Now the liberal one did. Emboldened conservatives attacked “Great Society play money,” rallying votes against a modest bill to exterminate rats in city neighborhoods. Moynihan was now jeering at antipoverty programs in the pages of The Public Interest: “Toss a rock in the lobby of the Office of Economic Opportunity headquarters in Washington today, and one will hit, at random, a steely-eyed budget examiner intent on a systems analysis of health services in Hough, a bearded youth determined to overthrow the ‘entrenched autocracy’ of the Democratic Party machine in some Eastern industrial slum, a former regional director of the Peace Corps worried about Comanche reaction to the latest batch of VISTA volunteers, and a Negro lawyer concerned how to double the number of Head Start projects in his home state before the next election.” L.B.J. began warning that if Congress didn’t raise taxes the country would suffer a “ruinous spiral of inflation” and “brutally higher interest rates.” The other option, scaling back the costs of the Vietnam War, seemed out of the question. Against the best advice, he had been sending in more troops; ultimately, the number exceeded half a million, and total Pentagon spending reached Second World War levels. Johnson was afraid to pull out, for fear of being labelled soft on Communism. Still a creature of Congress, he remembered the convulsions over the “loss” of China and the Korean War. Johnson had been Minority Leader during much of Joe McCarthy’s rampage and found himself powerless to stop it. This time, the protest was coming from the left on campuses and among the intellectuals and the press. The broad public hadn’t yet turned against the Vietnam War. It was the battle at home that was cause for alarm. Strife over civil rights was moving west and north. Protests in Birmingham and Selma had given way to riots in Watts, which erupted less than a week after L.B.J. signed the Voting Rights Act. Riots in Detroit and Newark followed, in the summer of 1967. Such conflict doomed the “third civil-rights bill”—a housing law that would have redressed discriminatory real-estate practices in the North. The bill cleared the House, but it was killed in the Senate by Everett Dirksen, the Illinois senator who had been instrumental in passing the first two bills. There had been racial violence in Chicago, and although whites had committed most of it, Zelizer explains that “Dirksen, like a growing number of Republicans, blamed civil rights activists tied to the black power movement.” After losing a skirmish with Wilbur Mills over taxes, L.B.J. muttered, “I’m not master of nothing. . . . We cannot make this Congress do one damn thing that I know of.” Former allies turned against him, too. Eugene McCarthy, who had helped him mount an eleventh-hour run at the 1960 Presidential nomination, became the Pied Piper of the “Dump Johnson” movement organized by antiwar Democrats. College students converged in New Hampshire for the 1968 primary, and McCarthy’s strong second-place finish proved crippling to Johnson. After Robert Kennedy jumped in, Johnson concluded that he might not even get nominated. He withdrew, and the leaden mantle passed to his Vice-President, Humphrey. Captive to his own rotten bargain, Humphrey insisted that the calamitous war policy was working and so was lumped in with his party’s despised establishment elders. Humphrey and McCarthy, both Minnesotans and pioneers of the new liberal politics, battled through to the nominating Convention in Chicago. The factions of the “responsible” Democratic Party had stayed together about as long as the Beatles. But, like the Beatles, they left an enduring legacy, if not one that they had envisioned. Even as the new liberal party had been forming, a new conservative party had been, too—along the axis that united the Dixie states and the Southwest. Lasting majority rule, however, would elude conservatives just as it had Democrats. Beginning with Richard Nixon, in 1968, Republicans won five of the next six Presidential elections, only to be repeatedly thwarted in Congress, outnumbered and bullied and kept off committees, just as the liberals had been. Like the liberals, they were exasperated by the deals their leaders kept making with the other side. In 1973, House bomb-throwers, following the example of the Democratic Study Group, formed the Republican Study Committee. Forty years later, it helped orchestrate a government shutdown. To date, the most ingenious practitioner of responsible party politics has been Newt Gingrich. All its principles can be found in his “Contract with America”: the stark agenda (balance the budget, cut back welfare), the institutional reforms (term limits, limits as well for committee chairs), the implicit threat to discipline heretics. With it came the ideologically unified party that progressives had once dreamed of, complete with caucusing, late-night strategy sessions, and political-action committees. The result was not only a House majority, won in 1994, but British-style cohesion. Under Gingrich, the House of Representatives became, at last, the American House of Commons. “The Republican Party in the House is the most disciplined political party we have ever seen in the history of America,” Barney Frank said at the time. Gingrich’s reign was short-lived, but many of his reforms went forward. In 2004, House Speaker Dennis Hastert announced a new House rule: no bill would go to the floor for a vote unless “a majority of the majority” supported it. He meant a majority of Republicans, in order to reduce the danger of bipartisan passage. (This is what stopped the immigration law passed by the Senate in 2013 from reaching the House.) And when the numbers weren’t there the conservative party remained firm in its opposition. L.B.J. had mustered as many Republican votes as possible for Medicare, lest it be seen as a “Democratic bill.” President Obama didn’t have that option. It was gone from politics, though it took him a while to realize it. In 1950, when the American Political Science Association report was published, Schlesinger wondered whether the new sorting-out was feasible “without a reorganization of our parties on taut ideological lines” that might inflame antagonisms rooted deep in the native temper. The report, drawing comfort from the very consensus it wished to do away with, confidently insisted that sharpening their disagreements wouldn’t put a forbidding “ideological wall” between the two parties. The Second World War had destroyed all the colossal isms save one, Communism, and it had no future in America. Even as Democrats and Republicans became more partisan, both sides would gravitate toward the center, where most voters were, and both would offer competing solutions to problems most voters could agree needed solving, such as securing voting rights and providing health care for the elderly. The authors of the report did not consider that partisan conviction might create its own pathology. Today, no one is confused about who is a Democrat and who is a Republican. But it hasn’t made it easier for the parties to govern, separately or together. ♦ Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19970683 2015-01-14 08:36:47 2015-01-14 08:36:47 open open a-critic-at-large-january-19-2015-issue-the-power-of-congress-before-l-b-j-progressives-saw-bipartisanship-as-a-blight-what-happened-by-sam-tanen-19970683 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Universal Credit Rating Group, which was launched jointly by Russia and China, will release its first ratings already this year. Moody’s Downgrade Moscow, St. Petersburg Ratings MOSCOW, January 13 (Sputnik) — The first ratings of Universal Credit Rating http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/14/universal-credit-rating-group-which-was-launched-jointly-by-russia-and-china-will-release-its-first-ratings-already-this-year-moody-s-downgrade-m-19969876/ Wed, 14 Jan 2015 05:29:47 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Universal Credit Rating Group, which was launched jointly by Russia and China, will release its first ratings already this year. Moody’s Downgrade Moscow, St. Petersburg Ratings MOSCOW, January 13 (Sputnik) — The first ratings of Universal Credit Rating Group (UCRG), which was created with the participation of Russia and China, are expected as early as 2015, the Head of the Research Department at RusRating Alexander Ovchinnikov told Sputnik on Tuesday. "In our opinion, the first ratings [will] appear
during the current year," Ovchinnikov told Sputnik. According to him, the project is in its final stage. "[The information is] gathered, the headquarters in Hong Kong [is] [working]
, and accreditation with the local regulator is underway. Moreover, there are preliminary agreements [with] other local agencies and investment funds joining the project soon," Ovchinnikov said. The RusRating analyst emphasized that the agency was created as a reaction to the bankruptcy of American investment funds with unreasonably high ratings. "When the issue of creating an agency alternative to the "Big Three" [Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch Group] was raised, we in fact offered [a] project that was ready to be launched and was supported by the governments of Russia and China," Ovchinnikov said. According to the analyst, UCRG satisfies the demand of those investors who have repeatedly criticized the Big Three agencies for standardized approaches that overestimate the opportunities of the developed economies while underestimating those of the developing ones. UCRG was officially created in June 2013 as a partnership between the Chinese Dagong, the Russian RusRating and the American Egan-Jones ratings agencies. According to Ovchinnikov, new members will also be engaged in the partnership in the future. Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Lou Sheehan Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19969876 2015-01-14 05:29:47 2015-01-14 05:29:47 open open universal-credit-rating-group-which-was-launched-jointly-by-russia-and-china-will-release-its-first-ratings-already-this-year-moody-s-downgrade-m-19969876 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Fitness Trackers Only Help Rich People Get Thinner And even for people who can afford it, buying a FitBit doesn't lead to better health. Using it does. Olga Khazan Jan 12 2015, 10:46 AM ET http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/12/fitness-trackers-only-help-rich-people-get-thinner-and-even-for-people-who-can-afford-it-buying-a-fitbit-doesn-t-lead-to-better-health-using-it-d-19964055/ Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:00:16 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Fitness Trackers Only Help Rich People Get Thinner And even for people who can afford it, buying a FitBit doesn't lead to better health. Using it does. Olga Khazan Jan 12 2015, 10:46 AM ET POSTED BUT NOT WRITTEN BY LOUIS SHEEHAN Last year I bought a Lumo Lift, a device that tracks calories and buzzes whenever its wearer slouches. I wore it for about two weeks, wrote an article about it, and put it in a drawer. There it has sat, forlorn and uncharged, ever since. My experience is apparently not unusual. The authors of a new editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association point out that fitness trackers, like the FitBit and Jawbone, only work if they're worn consistently, in the right way, and by people who actually need to become more healthy. And despite the gadgets' proliferation in recent years, each one of those factors is kind of a long shot. The authors, Mitesh Patel, David Asch, and Kevin Volpp of the University of Pennsylvania, point to a survey showing that only about one or two percent of Americans use wearables. (Depending on the definition of "wearable," other surveys have found a much higher number—about 20 percent.) Among those who buy them, about half are younger than 35 and nearly a third earn more than $100,000 a year, the JAMA authors write. In other words, they're not likely to be the people who need the most help to lose weight. Related Story Slouching Towards Not Slouching On top of that, they note, more than half of people who buy fitness trackers stop using them. A third do so within six months. And for the rest, consistency is a struggle: An earlier report from PricewaterhouseCoopers found that among people who own any kind of wearable device, only 10 percent wear it every day and 7 percent wear it a few times a week. The rest are fair-weather FitBitters, donning their devices a few times a month or less. The PwC report, too, found that the young, wealthy, and educated are more likely to own the devices. So does this mean that fitness trackers—an industry that's expected to grow to $50 billion by 2018—aren't very good at actually increasing fitness? The authors of the JAMA article don't go quite that far. "If wearable devices are to be part of the solution, they either need to create enduring new habits, turning external motivations into internal ones (which is difficult), or they need to sustain their external motivation (which is also difficult)," they write. Wearable devices tend to better hack our lazy, hedonic-treadmill brains if they are integrated into smartphones, the devices we rarely leave home without, or send out visual or auditory reminders. One option might be for employers to deploy fitness trackers in workplace-wide fitness competitions ... but these types of contests, Patel and his colleagues note, tend to engage the already-active fitness buffs of the office, and not the people who just need to get off the couch. Instead, the authors recommend something along these lines: Individuals form teams that provide peer support and promote a sense of accountability to use the device and stay engaged in the new behavior—perhaps aiming for everyone to achieve a minimum amount of activity (eg, 7000 steps per day), rather than simply rewarding the power walkers. For example, teams might be selected at random in a regular drawing, but winning teams would only be eligible to collect their reward if the team had achieved its targeted behavior on the previous day. Of course, whether people would stay in a job where they were rewarded based on the jogging abilities of their co-workers is another question. </p> 19964055 2015-01-12 20:00:16 2015-01-12 20:00:16 open open fitness-trackers-only-help-rich-people-get-thinner-and-even-for-people-who-can-afford-it-buying-a-fitbit-doesn-t-lead-to-better-health-using-it-d-19964055 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan scape plan squirrel escape plans An unwary ground squirrel will often scramble away when surprised. But a vigilant squirrel at a site that recently hosted a snake is more likely to do an acrobatic leap. http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/12/scape-plan-squirrel-escape-plans-an-unwary-ground-squirrel-will-often-scramble-away-when-surprised-but-a-vigilant-squirrel-at-a-site-that-recentl-19964042/ Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:55:35 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Why ground squirrels go ninja over nothing Rodents recently spooked by snakes wave their tails as wariness signal BY SUSAN MILIUS 7:00AM, JANUARY 5, 2015 California ground squirrel SECRET NINJA A California ground squirrel is much more capable than it looks when it comes to battling rattlesnakes that lurk to feast on baby-squirrel nuggets. DAS_MILLER/FLICKR, (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Magazine issue: Vol. 187 No. 1, January 10, 2015 EMail logo EMail Print logo Print Twitter logo Twitter Facebook logo Facebook Reddit logo Reddit Google+ logo Google+ SPONSOR MESSAGE Whole scientific careers have gone into understanding why a harmless handful of fluff like a California ground squirrel taunts rattlesnakes. Now Rulon Clark and his team at San Diego State University are exploring the puzzle of why the squirrels also seem to taunt rocks, sticks and the occasional shrub. On spotting a snake, a California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) stares and sniffs, or if the snake is uncoiled, may even kick sand at it. And in bursts, the squirrel flags its tail left and right “like a windshield wiper,” Clark says. A rattler can strike a target 30 centimeters away in less than 70 milliseconds. But ground squirrels twist and dodge fast enough to have a decent chance of escape. Also, adult squirrels from snake country have evolved some resistance to venom. So taunting is worth the risks as a signal to neighboring squirrels and to the snake that its ambush attempt has been discovered. After getting publicly and lengthily squirreled, snakes often just slip away. Posted, but not written by, Louis Sheehan Escape plan squirrel escape plans An unwary ground squirrel will often scramble away when surprised. But a vigilant squirrel at a site that recently hosted a snake is more likely to do an acrobatic leap. Credit (diagram): B.J. Putman and R.W. Clark/Behavioral Ecology 2014 Yet the squirrels also nyah-nyah tail flag at places where snakes might be but aren’t. To see if flagging indicates wariness, Clark and his colleagues built a squirrel startler that shoots out a cork using the classic spring that launches gag snakes out of cans (see video below). At spots with no sign of real snakes, squirrels mostly nibbled seeds in apparent tranquility with only a rare tail flag. The pop of a cork typically sent these squirrels scampering off on four speed-blurred paws. But when a squirrel revisited a worrisome spot where it had recently seen a snake (tethered by researchers), there was more and faster tail flagging. When the cork popped, more than half the squirrels flipped. “All four legs came off the ground and their tails were torquing around,” Clark says. Those just-in-case tail flags could tell a still-hidden snake that this is one wary squirrel ready for extreme body displacement, Clark and Breanna Putman report in an upcoming Behavioral Ecology. Earlier work showed that frequent flaggers often escaped attacks. So flagging may persuade a smart snake to wait for an easier target. Credit: Rulon Clark/YouTube </p> 19964042 2015-01-12 19:55:35 2015-01-12 19:55:35 open open scape-plan-squirrel-escape-plans-an-unwary-ground-squirrel-will-often-scramble-away-when-surprised-but-a-vigilant-squirrel-at-a-site-that-recentl-19964042 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Omaha Daily Bee, January 11, 1915 http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/12/omaha-daily-bee-january-11-19960548/ Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:17:28 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn99021999/1915-01-11/ed-1/seq-1/ Posted by Lou Sheehan</p> 19960548 2015-01-12 03:17:28 2015-01-12 03:17:28 open open omaha-daily-bee-january-11-19960548 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan ‘Cowardice: A Brief History,’ by Chris Walsh By JAMES BOWMANJAN. 9, 2015 http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/10/cowardice-a-brief-history-by-chris-walsh-by-james-bowmanjan-9-19952428/ Sat, 10 Jan 2015 03:24:15 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW ‘Cowardice: A Brief History,’ by Chris Walsh By JAMES BOWMANJAN. 9, 2015 “Cowardice” is not quite one of those words, like “honor,” whose meaning was once understood by everyone but is now understood by almost no one. Yet its meaning has lately become more elusive. Are suicide bombers “cowardly,” as we are so often assured they are, or insanely courageous? Is it more cowardly to refuse to fight or to fight for fear of being called a coward for not fighting? Some people claim to have the answers to such questions about this once familiar and unproblematic subject, but they tend to disagree. There is no consensus as to who is a coward and who is not — or even about whether the question is one of any importance. Cowardice, whatever it means, must seem a matter of individual choice, like everything else, and the implied judgment made by the term probably requires that we decline to use it at all. Chris Walsh, an associate director of the College of Arts and Sciences Writing Program at Boston University, purports to offer a historical investigation of the subject in “Cowardice: A Brief History,” but his book is much more of a social and cultural survey of attitudes toward cowardice during various periods of American history. The limitation, by and large, to American examples is presumably for the sake of keeping the book to a manageable size and the brief history briefer rather than longer, but the lack of foreign comparisons obscures what distinguishes the American attitude from that of the old European honor culture. Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan The book can be seen as a kind of extended footnote to William Ian Miller’s “The Mystery of Courage” (2000), and it has some of the same problems, not least a tendency to mystification. Miller’s book is one of Walsh’s central texts — along with Stephen Crane’s “The Red Badge of Courage,” James Jones’s “The Thin Red Line” and a sermon titled “The Curse of Cowardice,” delivered in Hanover, Va., by Samuel Davies in 1758 to recruit soldiers for the French and Indian War. These Walsh keeps coming back to after ranging further afield among an impressive array of primary sources. But then, for a subject like cowardice, nearly all the sources are primary. Perhaps the most important thing we learn from this book comes from its very existence. Ours could be the first time and place in which cowardice has been thought a subject worthy of academic study. Near the beginning, we find a Google graph showing that the word is much less used today than it was 200 or even 100 years ago. The decline is a steady one until shortly after the beginning of the present century, when there is a small but unmistakable uptick. The author is surely right to say that this is owing to popular debate about terrorism since 9/11, but I wonder if the graph for “honor,” “courage,” “virtue” or any other words that now sound “judgmental” would not describe a similar pattern. The book’s “working definition” of a coward, naturally hedged with numerous qualifications, is “someone who, because of excessive fear, fails to do what he is supposed to do.” “Excessive” begs the question. What makes this fear excessive? The fact that it provokes cowardice — which is then defined by the excessive fear. But it bespeaks a definitional need to probe within, to find the coward’s true feelings in order to authenticate his cowardice. Does he have “excessive” fear? Yes? Then he’s a proper coward instead of, presumably, only pretending to be one. But surely it is one definition of a coward, and perhaps a better one to be working with, that it is something no one ever pretends to be. Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story By contrast, courage is often pretended — perhaps so often as to approach always — which is what makes it so much more rewarding as a subject for study. If the mask is fascinating because of what it hides, what it hides is mere fear, which is rather lacking in nuance. What is there to say about it once it has been named? A quick survey of books with “fear” in their titles suggests that all are written for the purpose of dismissing or getting rid of it. Giving way to fear, which is what the coward does, is more interesting, however, because of its public dimension, since it is the rare act of cowardice that entirely escapes public observation. The coward emulates the writer or analyst (or vice versa), by bringing into the light of day that which belongs to the shadowiest realm of the psyche. About Henry Fleming, the problematic hero of “The Red Badge of Courage,” Walsh has this to say: “When he thinks that having made his ‘mistakes in the dark’ meant that he was still a man, the implication is that any sin so thoroughly a matter of social perception is no sin at all.” It is not really as sin that Henry sees his own act of cowardice; rather it is as a potential cause for (public) shame. If it is also a sin, that does not concern him: only the prospect of being known as cowardly. This is in the nature of the thing. We all care more about being publicly acknowledged as sinners than about committing sins in the first place, but cowardice is itself nearly always a public acknowledgment. Or at least that is the traditional way to look at it. Part of Walsh’s purpose is to tease us with the idea that maybe there is more to it than that. Maybe bravery itself conceals a kind of cowardice. Of the scene in which Henry runs from battle so desperately that, if you didn’t know the direction of his flight, you wouldn’t know if he was charging or fleeing, Walsh writes: “Cowardice and courage become merely arbitrary names we give to physiological reactions to environmental conditions.” At least that’s what the coward tells himself! There is a similar definitional problem with “duty,” to which the book devotes a chapter. “Examining specific mentions of ‘duty’ in relation to cowardice,” we read, “suggests an increasingly common understanding that duty is trivial, absurd or downright pernicious.” This is no doubt true, but of course such things could only be said in a context of denial that the duty in question is a duty at all. What seems dubious, logically, is retaining the idea of duty while disparaging it in such terms. Or is it? Maybe, just as there could be said to be a cowardly shadow to someone who acts courageously because he is afraid to be a coward, so there is also a kind of ghostly dutifulness in someone who takes on the duty of defying the very idea of duty. This kind of thinking seems to me oversubtle, a backhanded way of justifying bad behavior. But insofar as there is a demand for a book on cowardice from a reputable university press, it must be because a sizable contingent of people will not think of it in this way. For whatever reason, we want to be told that the standards by which people used to be judged have to be re-examined — as cowardice has been in the last century, mainly on therapeutic grounds — if not abolished altogether. Those who are interested in such standards, whether pro or con, will find this book an indispensable addition to their libraries. COWARDICE A Brief History By Chris Walsh Illustrated. 292 pp. Princeton University Press. $27.95. James Bowman, a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, is the author of “Honor: A History” and “Media Madness.”</p> 19952428 2015-01-10 03:24:15 2015-01-10 03:24:15 open open cowardice-a-brief-history-by-chris-walsh-by-james-bowmanjan-9-19952428 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan Wal-Mart: An economic cancer on our cities In Asheville, N.C., a dense downtown generated jobs and tax revenue and restored the city's soul Charles Montgomery http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/10/wal-mart-an-economic-cancer-on-our-cities-in-asheville-n-c-a-dense-downtown-generated-jobs-and-tax-revenue-and-restored-the-city-s-soul-charles-m-19952347/ Sat, 10 Jan 2015 02:53:15 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Sunday, Nov 10, 2013 11:30 AM PST Wal-Mart: An economic cancer on our cities In Asheville, N.C., a dense downtown generated jobs and tax revenue and restored the city's soul Charles Montgomery Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Louis Sheehan Downtown Asheville, North Carolina (Credit: SeanPavonePhoto via Shutterstock/Salon) Excerpted from "Happy City" Most of us agree that development that provides employment and tax revenue is good for cities. Some even argue that the need for jobs outweighs aesthetic, lifestyle, or climate concerns—in fact, this argument comes up any time Walmart proposes a new megastore near a small town. But a clear-eyed look at the spatial economics of land, jobs, and tax regimes should cause anyone to reject the anything-and-anywhere-goes development model. To explain, let me offer the story of an obsessive number cruncher who found his own urban laboratory quite by chance. Joseph Minicozzi, a young architect raised in upstate New York, was on a cross-country motorcycle ride in 2001 when he got sidetracked in the Appalachian Mountains. He met a beautiful woman in a North Carolina roadside bar and was smitten by both that woman and the languid beauty of the Blue Ridge region. Now they share a bungalow with two dogs in the mountain town of Asheville. Asheville is, in many ways, a typical midsize American city, which is to say that its downtown was virtually abandoned in the second half of the twentieth century. Dozens of elegant old structures were boarded up or encased in aluminum siding as highways and liberal development policies sucked people and commercial life into dispersal. The process continued until 1991, when Julian Price, the heir to a family insurance and broadcasting fortune, decided to pour everything he had into nursing that old downtown back to life. His company, Public Interest Projects, bought and renovated old buildings, leased street-front space out to small businesses, and rented or sold the lofts above to a new wave of residential pioneers. They coached, coddled, and sometimes bankrolled entrepreneurs who began to enliven the streets. First came a vegetarian restaurant, then a bookstore, a furniture store, and the now-legendary nightclub, the Orange Peel. When Price died in 2001, the downtown was starting to show signs of life, but his successor, Pat Whelan, and his new recruit, Minicozzi, still had to battle the civic skeptics. Some city officials saw such little value in downtown land that they planned to plunk down a prison right in the middle of a terrain that was perfect for mixed-use redevelopment. The developers realized that if they wanted the city officials to support their vision, they needed to educate them—and that meant offering them hard numbers on the tax and job benefits of revitalizing downtown. The numbers they produced sparked a eureka moment among the city’s accountants because they insisted on taking a spatial systems approach, similar to the way farmers look at land they want to put into production. The question was simple: What is the production yield for every acre of land? On a farm, the answer might be in pounds of tomatoes. In the city, it’s about tax revenues and jobs. To explain, Minicozzi offered me his classic urban accounting smackdown, using two competing properties: On the one side is a downtown building his firm rescued—a six-story steel-framed 1923 classic once owned by JCPenney and converted into shops, offices, and condos. On the other side is a Walmart on the edge of town. The old Penney’s building sits on less than a quarter of an acre, while the Walmart and its parking lots occupy thirty-four acres. Adding up the property and sales tax paid on each piece of land, Minicozzi found that the Walmart contributed only $50,800 to the city in retail and property taxes for each acre it used, but the JCPenney building contributed a whopping $330,000 per acre in property tax alone. In other words, the city got more than seven times the return for every acre on downtown investments than it did when it broke new ground out on the city limits. When Minicozzi looked at job density, the difference was even more vivid: the small businesses that occupied the old Penney’s building employed fourteen people, which doesn’t seem like many until you realize that this is actually seventy-four jobs per acre, compared with the fewer than six jobs per acre created on a sprawling Walmart site. (This is particularly dire given that on top of reducing jobs density in its host cities, Walmart depresses average wages as well.) Minicozzi has since found the same spatial conditions in cities all over the United States. Even low-rise, mixed-use buildings of two or three stories—the kind you see on an old-style, small-town main street—bring in ten times the revenue per acre as that of an average big-box development. What’s stunning is that, thanks to the relationship between energy and distance, large-footprint sprawl development patterns can actually cost cities more to service than they give back in taxes. The result? Growth that produces deficits that simply cannot be overcome with new growth revenue. In Sarasota County, Florida, for example, Minicozzi found that it would take about three times as long for the county to recoup the land and infrastructure costs involved in developing housing in a sprawl pattern as compared with downtown. If all went well, the county’s return on investment for sprawl housing would still be barely 4 percent. “Cities and counties have essentially been taking tax revenues from downtowns and using them to subsidize development and services in sprawl,” Minicozzi told me. “This is like a farmer going out and dumping all his fertilizer on the weeds rather than on the tomatoes.” The productive richness of the new Asheville approach becomes even clearer when you consider the geographic path taken by dollars spent at local businesses. Money spent at small and local businesses tends to stay in a community, producing more local jobs, while money spent at big national chains tends to get sucked out of the local economy. Local businesses tend to use local accountants, printers, lawyers, and advertisers, and their owners spend more of their profits in town. National retailers, on the other hand, tend to send such work back to regional or national hubs, and their profits to distant shareholders. Every $100 spent at a local business produces at least a third more local economic benefit and more than a third more local jobs. The arrival of a Walmart in any community has been shown to produce a blast radius of lower wages and higher poverty. Price, Whelan, and Minicozzi helped convince the city of Asheville to fertilize that rich downtown soil. The city changed its zoning policies, allowing flexible uses for downtown buildings. It invested in livelier streetscapes and public events. It stopped forcing developers to build parking garages, which brought down the cost of both housing and business. It built its own user-pay garages, so the cost of parking was borne by the people who used it rather than by everyone else. All of this helped make it worthwhile for developers to risk their investment on restoring old buildings, producing new jobs and tax density for the city. Retail sales in the resurgent downtown have exploded since 1991. So has the taxable value of downtown properties, which cost a fraction to service than sprawl lands. The reborn downtown has become the greatest supplier of tax revenue and affordable housing in the county—partly because it relieves people of the burden of commuting, and partly because it mixes high-end lofts with modest apartments. All of this, while growing what one local newspaper emotionally described as, “a downtown that—after decades of doubt and neglect—is once again the heart and soul of Asheville.” By investing in downtowns rather than dispersal, cities can boost jobs and local tax revenues while spending less on far-flung infrastructure and services. In Asheville, North Carolina, Public Interest Projects found that a six- story mixed-use building produced more than thirteen times the tax revenue and twelve times the jobs per acre of land than the Walmart on the edge of town. (Walmart retail tax based in national average for Walmart stores.) (Scott Keck, with data from Joe Minicozzi / Public Interest Projects) By paying attention to the relationship between land, distance, scale, and cash flow—in other words, by building more connected, complex places—the city regained its soul and its good health. Excerpted from “Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design” by Charles Montgomery, published in November 2013 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC. Copyright © 2013 by Charles Montgomery. All rights reserved. </p> 19952347 2015-01-10 02:53:15 2015-01-10 02:53:15 open open wal-mart-an-economic-cancer-on-our-cities-in-asheville-n-c-a-dense-downtown-generated-jobs-and-tax-revenue-and-restored-the-city-s-soul-charles-m-19952347 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Afghan government likely to withstand a burgeoning Taliban insurgency within the coming year after the US combat troops withdrawal. © Flickr/ isafmedia http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/07/afghan-government-likely-to-withstand-a-burgeoning-taliban-insurgency-within-the-coming-year-after-the-us-combat-troops-withdrawal-flickr-isafmed-19936731/ Wed, 07 Jan 2015 04:14:02 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Afghan government likely to withstand a burgeoning Taliban insurgency within the coming year after the US combat troops withdrawal. © Flickr/ isafmedia Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan WASHINGTON, January 6 (Sputnik) – The government of Afghanistan will most likely be able to withstand a burgeoning Taliban insurgency within the coming year after the US combat troops withdrawal, two analysts told Sputnik. "I am pretty confident we are not going to see a collapse of the [Afghan] regime in 2015. There will likely be an ongoing insurgency but the Afghan state and its security forces are not a house of cards that are going to be blown away by the Taliban wind," expert advisor to Stratfor, a global intelligence firm, on Middle Eastern and South Asian affairs Kamran Bokhari told Sputnik Monday. Bokhari, who is also the author of "Political Islam in the Age of Democratization", said the reality on the ground is much different from that of the 1990s, when the Taliban was able to advance in Kabul after the collapse of the Soviet-backed regime. © REUTERS/ Lucas Jackson According to the analyst, the Taliban would be unable to become a guerrilla group out of an insurgent terrorist force, because the United States will still be providing air support to Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Therefore, US air power will prevent the Taliban from massing troops and will help disrupt its logistical movements. Moreover, Afghanistan's cooperation with Pakistan would be critical, Bokhari noted, as it would help to "squeeze the Taliban from both directions." The analyst noticed there has been more collaboration with Pakistan since new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani came into office. Finally, Bokhari underlined that Afghanistan over the past few years has been witnessing the emergence of an actual state, a development the country has not seen since the Communist regime in Kabul fell in the early 1990s. © US Army / Staff Sgt. Shane Hamann Meanwhile, the Afghan government is also pursuing peace talks with the Taliban. Khalil Nouri, founder of an Afghan think tank, the New World Strategies Coalition, also said the Taliban may need to come to the negotiating table because it is unlikely that they will fight their way into power. "Mullah Omar [spiritual leader, commander of the Taliban] needs to consider this. The Taliban have very little chance of coming to power again primarily because they have little mass popular support. When the majority does not want you, then you are doomed," Nouri told Sputnik. The United States will not abandon Afghanistan because it has too much of a strategic interest in it, he added. Afghanistan will become an "Observation-Tower-State" that will help the United States monitor Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan more closely, according to the expert. "The US and NATO have invested too much time and capital in Afghanistan. That will not go to waste, as it did during the post-Soviet withdrawal in 1989, when the United States turned its back on Afghanistan," Nouri said. Nouri was less optimistic than Bokhari about Afghanistan's future development and indicated that poor economic conditions and corruption would likely destabilize the state before a Taliban reemergence does. The United States withdrew combat troops from Afghanistan in the end of December 2014 after a 14-year occupation. The withdrawal raised fears of growing insurgent violence and questions on whether or not the ANSF can adequately defend the country. According to the UN, a record number of civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014. The new US mission that started on January 2, Resolute Support, will focus on training and advising the ANSF. On January 1, President Ghani wrote on his Twitter that "from now on, we must take the responsibility of securing Afghanistan," and the United States "will train/advise the ANSF to prevail." Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19936731 2015-01-07 04:14:02 2015-01-07 04:14:02 open open afghan-government-likely-to-withstand-a-burgeoning-taliban-insurgency-within-the-coming-year-after-the-us-combat-troops-withdrawal-flickr-isafmed-19936731 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan The Tragedy of the American Military The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America int http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/06/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military-the-american-public-and-its-political-leadership-will-do-anything-for-the-military-except-take-it-seriously--19932237/ Tue, 06 Jan 2015 08:46:06 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>The Tragedy of the American Military The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win. James Fallows JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015 Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan In mid-September, while President Obama was fending off complaints that he should have done more, done less, or done something different about the overlapping crises in Iraq and Syria, he traveled to Central Command headquarters, at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. There he addressed some of the men and women who would implement whatever the U.S. military strategy turned out to be. The part of the speech intended to get coverage was Obama’s rationale for reengaging the United States in Iraq, more than a decade after it first invaded and following the long and painful effort to extricate itself. This was big enough news that many cable channels covered the speech live. I watched it on an overhead TV while I sat waiting for a flight at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. When Obama got to the section of his speech announcing whether he planned to commit U.S. troops in Iraq (at the time, he didn’t), I noticed that many people in the terminal shifted their attention briefly to the TV. As soon as that was over, they went back to their smartphones and their laptops and their Cinnabons as the president droned on. Usually I would have stopped watching too, since so many aspects of public figures’ appearances before the troops have become so formulaic and routine. But I decided to see the whole show. Obama gave his still-not-quite-natural-sounding callouts to the different military services represented in the crowd. (“I know we’ve got some Air Force in the house!” and so on, receiving cheers rendered as “Hooyah!” and “Oorah!” in the official White House transcript.) He told members of the military that the nation was grateful for their nonstop deployments and for the unique losses and burdens placed on them through the past dozen years of open-ended war. He noted that they were often the face of American influence in the world, being dispatched to Liberia in 2014 to cope with the then-dawning Ebola epidemic as they had been sent to Indonesia 10 years earlier to rescue victims of the catastrophic tsunami there. He said that the “9/11 generation of heroes” represented the very best in its country, and that its members constituted a military that was not only superior to all current adversaries but no less than “the finest fighting force in the history of the world.” If any of my fellow travelers at O’Hare were still listening to the speech, none of them showed any reaction to it. And why would they? This has become the way we assume the American military will be discussed by politicians and in the press: Overblown, limitless praise, absent the caveats or public skepticism we would apply to other American institutions, especially ones that run on taxpayer money. A somber moment to reflect on sacrifice. Then everyone except the few people in uniform getting on with their workaday concerns. The public attitude evident in the airport was reflected by the public’s representatives in Washington. That same afternoon, September 17, the House of Representatives voted after brief debate to authorize arms and supplies for rebel forces in Syria, in hopes that more of them would fight against the Islamic State, or ISIS, than for it. The Senate did the same the next day—and then both houses adjourned early, after an unusually short and historically unproductive term of Congress, to spend the next six and a half weeks fund-raising and campaigning full-time. I’m not aware of any midterm race for the House or Senate in which matters of war and peace—as opposed to immigration, Obamacare, voting rights, tax rates, the Ebola scare—were first-tier campaign issues on either side, except for the metaphorical “war on women” and “war on coal.” VIDEOMilitary Spending is Broken Why does civilian technology grow ever cheaper and more reliable while military technology does the opposite? An animated explainer narrated by James Fallows. This reverent but disengaged attitude toward the military—we love the troops, but we’d rather not think about them—has become so familiar that we assume it is the American norm. But it is not. When Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a five-star general and the supreme commander, led what may have in fact been the finest fighting force in the history of the world, he did not describe it in that puffed-up way. On the eve of the D-Day invasion, he warned his troops, “Your task will not be an easy one,” because “your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened.” As president, Eisenhower’s most famous statement about the military was his warning in his farewell address of what could happen if its political influence grew unchecked. At the end of World War II, nearly 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was on active military duty—which meant most able-bodied men of a certain age (plus the small number of women allowed to serve). Through the decade after World War II, when so many American families had at least one member in uniform, political and journalistic references were admiring but not awestruck. Most Americans were familiar enough with the military to respect it while being sharply aware of its shortcomings, as they were with the school system, their religion, and other important and fallible institutions. Now the American military is exotic territory to most of the American public. As a comparison: A handful of Americans live on farms, but there are many more of them than serve in all branches of the military. (Well over 4 million people live on the country’s 2.1 million farms. The U.S. military has about 1.4 million people on active duty and another 850,000 in the reserves.) The other 310 million–plus Americans “honor” their stalwart farmers, but generally don’t know them. So too with the military. Many more young Americans will study abroad this year than will enlist in the military—nearly 300,000 students overseas, versus well under 200,000 new recruits. As a country, America has been at war nonstop for the past 13 years. As a public, it has not. A total of about 2.5 million Americans, roughly three-quarters of 1 percent, served in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point in the post-9/11 years, many of them more than once. The difference between the earlier America that knew its military and the modern America that gazes admiringly at its heroes shows up sharply in changes in popular and media culture. While World War II was under way, its best-known chroniclers were the Scripps Howard reporter Ernie Pyle, who described the daily braveries and travails of the troops (until he was killed near the war’s end by Japanese machine-gun fire on the island of Iejima), and the Stars and Stripes cartoonist Bill Mauldin, who mocked the obtuseness of generals and their distance from the foxhole realities faced by his wisecracking GI characters, Willie and Joe. From Mister Roberts to South Pacific to Catch-22, from The Caine Mutiny to The Naked and the Dead to From Here to Eternity, American popular and high culture treated our last mass-mobilization war as an effort deserving deep respect and pride, but not above criticism and lampooning. The collective achievement of the military was heroic, but its members and leaders were still real people, with all the foibles of real life. A decade after that war ended, the most popular military-themed TV program was The Phil Silvers Show, about a con man in uniform named Sgt. Bilko. As Bilko, Phil Silvers was that stock American sitcom figure, the lovable blowhard—a role familiar from the time of Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners to Homer Simpson in The Simpsons today. Gomer Pyle, USMC; Hogan’s Heroes; McHale’s Navy; and even the anachronistic frontier show F Troop were sitcoms whose settings were U.S. military units and whose villains—and schemers, and stooges, and occasional idealists—were people in uniform. American culture was sufficiently at ease with the military to make fun of it, a stance now hard to imagine outside the military itself. “Full-victory—nothing else”: General Dwight D. Eisenhower gives the order to paratroopers in England the night before they board planes to join the first assault in the D-Day invasion of Europe. (U.S. Army Signal Corps/AP) Robert Altman’s 1970 movie M*A*S*H was clearly “about” the Vietnam War, then well into its bloodiest and most bitterly divisive period. (As I point out whenever discussing this topic, I was eligible for the draft at the time, was one of those protesting the war, and at age 20 legally but intentionally failed my draft medical exam. I told this story in a 1975 Washington Monthly article, “What Did You Do in the Class War, Daddy?”) But M*A*S*H’s ostensible placement in the Korean War of the early 1950s somewhat distanced its darkly mocking attitude about military competence and authority from fierce disagreements about Vietnam. (The one big Vietnam movie to precede it was John Wayne’s doughily prowar The Green Berets, in 1968. What we think of as the classic run of Vietnam films did not begin until the end of the 1970s, with The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now.) The TV spin-off of Altman’s film, which ran from 1972 through 1983, was a simpler and more straightforward sitcom on the Sgt. Bilko model, again suggesting a culture close enough to its military to put up with, and enjoy, jokes about it. Let’s skip to today’s Iraq-Afghanistan era, in which everyone “supports” the troops but few know very much about them. The pop-culture references to the people fighting our ongoing wars emphasize their suffering and stoicism, or the long-term personal damage they may endure. The Hurt Locker is the clearest example, but also Lone Survivor; Restrepo; the short-lived 2005 FX series set in Iraq, Over There; and Showtime’s current series Homeland. Some emphasize high-stakes action, from the fictionalized 24 to the meant-to-be-true Zero Dark Thirty. Often they portray military and intelligence officials as brave and daring. But while cumulatively these dramas highlight the damage that open-ended warfare has done—on the battlefield and elsewhere, to warriors and civilians alike, in the short term but also through long-term blowback—they lack the comfortable closeness with the military that would allow them to question its competence as they would any other institution’s. The battlefield is of course a separate realm, as the literature of warfare from Homer’s time onward has emphasized. But the distance between today’s stateside America and its always-at-war expeditionary troops is extraordinary. Last year, the writer Rebecca Frankel published War Dogs, a study of the dog-and-handler teams that had played a large part in the U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason she chose the topic, she told me, was that dogs were one of the few common points of reference between the military and the larger public. “When we cannot make that human connection over war, when we cannot empathize or imagine the far-off world of a combat zone
these military working dogs are a bridge over the divide,” Frankel wrote in the introduction to her book. It’s a wonderful book, and dogs are a better connection than nothing. But
dogs! When the country fought its previous wars, its common points of reference were human rather than canine: fathers and sons in harm’s way, mothers and daughters working in defense plants and in uniform as well. For two decades after World War II, the standing force remained so large, and the Depression-era birth cohorts were so small, that most Americans had a direct military connection. Among older Baby Boomers, those born before 1955, at least three-quarters have had an immediate family member—sibling, parent, spouse, child—who served in uniform. Of Americans born since 1980, the Millennials, about one in three is closely related to anyone with military experience. Interactive graphic: The first map above (in green) shows per-capita military enlistments from 2000 to 2010, grouped by 3-digit zip code. The second (in red) shows the home towns of deceased soldiers from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Enlistment rates vary widely—in 2010, only 0.04 percent of the Upper East Side of Manhattan (zip code prefix 101) enlisted, while the U.S. Virgin Islands (prefix 008) had an enlistment rate of 0.98 percent. When it comes to lives lost, U.S. territories (particularly Guam) shoulder an outsized burden. (Map design and development: Frankie Dintino. Sources: Department of Defense, US Census Bureau) The most biting satirical novel to come from the Iraq-Afghanistan era, Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, by Ben Fountain, is a takedown of our empty modern “thank you for your service” rituals. It is the story of an Army squad that is badly shot up in Iraq; is brought back to be honored at halftime during a nationally televised Dallas Cowboys Thanksgiving Day game; while there, is slapped on the back and toasted by owner’s-box moguls and flirted with by cheerleaders, “passed around like everyone’s favorite bong,” as platoon member Billy Lynn thinks of it; and is then shipped right back to the front. The people at the stadium feel good about what they’ve done to show their support for the troops. From the troops’ point of view, the spectacle looks different. “There’s something harsh in his fellow Americans, avid, ecstatic, a burning that comes of the deepest need,” the narrator says of Billy Lynn’s thoughts. “That’s his sense of it, they all need something from him, this pack of half-rich lawyers, dentists, soccer moms, and corporate VPs, they’re all gnashing for a piece of a barely grown grunt making $14,800 a year.” Fountain’s novel won the National Book Critics Circle Award for fiction in 2012, but it did not dent mainstream awareness enough to make anyone self-conscious about continuing the “salute to the heroes” gestures that do more for the civilian public’s self-esteem than for the troops’. As I listened to Obama that day in the airport, and remembered Ben Fountain’s book, and observed the hum of preoccupied America around me, I thought that the parts of the presidential speech few Americans were listening to were the ones historians might someday seize upon to explain the temper of our times. Always supportive of the troops: Crowds in Macon welcome back 200 members of the Georgia National Guard's 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team returning from Afghanistan, September 2014. (David Goldman/AP) I. Chickenhawk Nation If I were writing such a history now, I would call it Chickenhawk Nation, based on the derisive term for those eager to go to war, as long as someone else is going. It would be the story of a country willing to do anything for its military except take it seriously. As a result, what happens to all institutions that escape serious external scrutiny and engagement has happened to our military. Outsiders treat it both too reverently and too cavalierly, as if regarding its members as heroes makes up for committing them to unending, unwinnable missions and denying them anything like the political mindshare we give to other major public undertakings, from medical care to public education to environmental rules. The tone and level of public debate on those issues is hardly encouraging. But for democracies, messy debates are less damaging in the long run than letting important functions run on autopilot, as our military essentially does now. A chickenhawk nation is more likely to keep going to war, and to keep losing, than one that wrestles with long-term questions of effectiveness. Americans admire the military as they do no other institution. Through the past two decades, respect for the courts, the schools, the press, Congress, organized religion, Big Business, and virtually every other institution in modern life has plummeted. The one exception is the military. Confidence in the military shot up after 9/11 and has stayed very high. In a Gallup poll last summer, three-quarters of the public expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the military. About one-third had comparable confidence in the medical system, and only 7 percent in Congress. Too much complacency regarding our military, and too weak a tragic imagination about the consequences if the next engagement goes wrong, have been part of Americans’ willingness to wade into conflict after conflict, blithely assuming we would win. “Did we have the sense that America cared how we were doing? We did not,” Seth Moulton told me about his experience as a marine during the Iraq War. Moulton became a Marine Corps officer after graduating from Harvard in 2001, believing (as he told me) that when many classmates were heading to Wall Street it was useful to set an example of public service. He opposed the decision to invade Iraq but ended up serving four tours there out of a sense of duty to his comrades. “America was very disconnected. We were proud to serve, but we knew it was a little group of people doing the country’s work.” Moulton told me, as did many others with Iraq-era military experience, that if more members of Congress or the business and media elite had had children in uniform, the United States would probably not have gone to war in Iraq at all. Because he felt strongly enough about that failure of elite accountability, Moulton decided while in Iraq to get involved in politics after he left the military. “I actually remember the moment,” Moulton told me. “It was after a difficult day in Najaf in 2004. A young marine in my platoon said, ‘Sir, you should run for Congress someday. So this shit doesn’t happen again.’ ” In January, Moulton takes office as a freshman Democratic representative from Massachusetts’s Sixth District, north of Boston. What Moulton described was desire for a kind of accountability. It is striking how rare accountability has been for our modern wars. Hillary Clinton paid a price for her vote to authorize the Iraq War, since that is what gave the barely known Barack Obama an opening to run against her in 2008. George W. Bush, who, like most ex-presidents, has grown more popular the longer he’s been out of office, would perhaps be playing a more visible role in public and political life if not for the overhang of Iraq. But those two are the exceptions. Most other public figures, from Dick Cheney and Colin Powell on down, have put Iraq behind them. In part this is because of the Obama administration’s decision from the start to “look forward, not back” about why things had gone so badly wrong with America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But such willed amnesia would have been harder if more Americans had felt affected by the wars’ outcome. For our generals, our politicians, and most of our citizenry, there is almost no accountability or personal consequence for military failure. This is a dangerous development—and one whose dangers multiply the longer it persists. Ours is the best-equipped fighting force in history, and it is incomparably the most expensive. By all measures, today’s professionalized military is also better trained, motivated, and disciplined than during the draft-army years. No decent person who is exposed to today’s troops can be anything but respectful of them and grateful for what they do. Yet repeatedly this force has been defeated by less modern, worse-equipped, barely funded foes. Or it has won skirmishes and battles only to lose or get bogged down in a larger war. Although no one can agree on an exact figure, our dozen years of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and neighboring countries have cost at least $1.5 trillion; Linda J. Bilmes, of the Harvard Kennedy School, recently estimated that the total cost could be three to four times that much. Recall that while Congress was considering whether to authorize the Iraq War, the head of the White House economic council, Lawrence B. Lindsey, was forced to resign for telling The Wall Street Journal that the all-in costs might be as high as $100 billion to $200 billion, or less than the U.S. has spent on Iraq and Afghanistan in many individual years. [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan Yet from a strategic perspective, to say nothing of the human cost, most of these dollars might as well have been burned. “At this point, it is incontrovertibly evident that the U.S. military failed to achieve any of its strategic goals in Iraq,” a former military intelligence officer named Jim Gourley wrote recently for Thomas E. Ricks’s blog, Best Defense. “Evaluated according to the goals set forth by our military leadership, the war ended in utter defeat for our forces.” In 13 years of continuous combat under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the longest stretch of warfare in American history, U.S. forces have achieved one clear strategic success: the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Their many other tactical victories, from overthrowing Saddam Hussein to allying with Sunni tribal leaders to mounting a “surge” in Iraq, demonstrated great bravery and skill. But they brought no lasting stability to, nor advance of U.S. interests in, that part of the world. When ISIS troops overran much of Iraq last year, the forces that laid down their weapons and fled before them were members of the same Iraqi national army that U.S. advisers had so expensively yet ineffectively trained for more than five years. “Did we have the sense that America cared how we were doing? We did not,” Seth Moulton told me about his experience as a marine during the Iraq War. “We are vulnerable,” the author William Greider wrote during the debate last summer on how to fight ISIS, “because our presumption of unconquerable superiority leads us deeper and deeper into unwinnable military conflicts.” And the separation of the military from the public disrupts the process of learning from these defeats. The last war that ended up in circumstances remotely resembling what prewar planning would have considered a victory was the brief Gulf War of 1991. After the Vietnam War, the press and the public went too far in blaming the military for what was a top-to-bottom failure of strategy and execution. But the military itself recognized its own failings, and a whole generation of reformers looked to understand and change the culture. In 1978, a military-intelligence veteran named Richard A. Gabriel published, with Paul L. Savage, Crisis in Command: Mismanagement in the Army, which traced many of the failures in Vietnam to the military’s having adopted a bureaucratized management style. Three years later, a broadside called Self-Destruction: The Disintegration and Decay of the United States Army During the Vietnam Era, by a military officer writing under the pen name Cincinnatus (later revealed to be a lieutenant colonel serving in the reserves as a military chaplain, Cecil B. Currey), linked problems in Vietnam to the ethical and intellectual shortcomings of the career military. The book was hotly debated—but not dismissed. An article about the book for the Air Force’s Air University Review said that “the author’s case is airtight” and that the military’s career structure “corrupts those who serve it; it is the system that forces out the best and rewards only the sycophants.” Today, you hear judgments like that frequently from within the military and occasionally from politicians—but only in private. It’s not the way we talk in public about our heroes anymore, with the result that accountability for the career military has been much sketchier than during our previous wars. William S. Lind is a military historian who in the 1990s helped develop the concept of “Fourth Generation War,” or struggles against the insurgents, terrorists, or other “nonstate” groups that refuse to form ranks and fight like conventional armies. He wrote recently: The most curious thing about our four defeats in Fourth Generation War—Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan—is the utter silence in the American officer corps. Defeat in Vietnam bred a generation of military reformers
Today, the landscape is barren. Not a military voice is heard calling for thoughtful, substantive change. Just more money, please. During and after even successful American wars, and certainly after the standoff in Korea and the defeat in Vietnam, the professional military’s leadership and judgment were considered fair game for criticism. Grant saved the Union; McClellan seemed almost to sabotage it—and he was only one of the Union generals Lincoln had to move out of the way. Something similar was true in wars through Vietnam. Some leaders were good; others were bad. Now, for purposes of public discussion, they’re all heroes. In our past decade’s wars, as Thomas Ricks wrote in this magazine in 2012, “hundreds of Army generals were deployed to the field, and the available evidence indicates that not one was relieved by the military brass for combat ineffectiveness.” This, he said, was not only a radical break from American tradition but also “an important factor in the failure” of our recent wars. Partly this change has come because the public, at its safe remove, doesn’t insist on accountability. Partly it is because legislators and even presidents recognize the sizable risks and limited payoffs of taking on the career military. When recent presidents have relieved officers of command, they have usually done so over allegations of sexual or financial misconduct, or other issues of personal discipline. These include the cases of the two famous four-star generals who resigned rather than waiting for President Obama to dismiss them: Stanley A. McChrystal, as the commander in Afghanistan, and David Petraeus in his post-Centcom role as the head of the CIA. The exception proving the rule occurred a dozen years ago, when a senior civilian official directly challenged a four-star general on his military competence. In congressional testimony just before the Iraq War, General Eric Shinseki, then the Army’s chief of staff, said that many more troops might be necessary to successfully occupy Iraq than plans were allowing for—only to be ridiculed in public by Paul Wolfowitz, then Shinseki’s superior as the deputy secretary of defense, who said views like Shinseki’s were “outlandish” and “wildly off the mark.” Wolfowitz and his superior, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, ostentatiously marginalized Shinseki from that point on. In that case, the general was right and the politicians were wrong. But more often and more skillfully than the public usually appreciates, today’s military has managed to distance itself from the lengthening string of modern military failures—even when wrong. Some of this PR shift is anthropological. Most reporters who cover politics are fascinated by the process and enjoy practitioners who love it too, which is one reason most were (like the rest of the country) more forgiving of the happy warrior Bill Clinton than they have been of the “cold” and “aloof” Barack Obama. But political reporters are always hunting for the gaffe or scandal that could bring a target down, and feel they’re acting in the public interest in doing so. Most reporters who cover the military are also fascinated by its processes and cannot help liking or at least respecting their subjects: physically fit, trained to say “sir” and “ma’am,” often tested in a way most civilians will never be, part of a disciplined and selfless-seeming culture that naturally draws respect. And whether or not this was a conscious plan, the military gets a substantial PR boost from the modern practice of placing officers in mid-career assignments at think tanks, on congressional staffs, and in graduate programs across the country. For universities, military students are (as a dean at a public-policy school put it to me) “a better version of foreign students.” That is, they work hard, pay full tuition, and unlike many international students face no language barrier or difficulty adjusting to the American style of give-and-take classroom exchanges. Most cultures esteem the scholar-warrior, and these programs expose usually skeptical American elites to people like the young Colin Powell, who as a lieutenant colonel in his mid-30s was a White House fellow after serving in Vietnam, and David Petraeus, who got his Ph.D. at Princeton as a major 13 years after graduating from West Point. And yet however much Americans “support” and “respect” their troops, they are not involved with them, and that disengagement inevitably leads to dangerous decisions the public barely notices. “My concern is this growing disconnect between the American people and our military,” retired Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George W. Bush and Barack Obama (and whose mid-career academic stint was at Harvard Business School), told me recently. The military is “professional and capable,” he said, “but I would sacrifice some of that excellence and readiness to make sure that we stay close to the American people. Fewer and fewer people know anyone in the military. It’s become just too easy to go to war.” Citizens notice when crime is going up, or school quality is going down, or the water is unsafe to drink, or when other public functions are not working as they should. Not enough citizens are made to notice when things go wrong, or right, with the military. The country thinks too rarely, and too highly, of the 1 percent under fire in our name. A new F-35, part of the first delivery of an anticipated 144 planes, in a hanger at Luke Air Force Base, in Glendale, Arizona, before an unveiling ceremony, March 2014 (Ross D. Franklin/AP) II. Chickenhawk Economy from the archives The Draft: Why the Country Needs It "If citizens are willing to countenance a decision that means that someone's child may die, they may contemplate more deeply if there is the possibility that the child will be theirs." Read the full story by James Fallows in the April 1980 Atlantic America’s distance from the military makes the country too willing to go to war, and too callous about the damage warfare inflicts. This distance also means that we spend too much money on the military and we spend it stupidly, thereby shortchanging many of the functions that make the most difference to the welfare of the troops and their success in combat. We buy weapons that have less to do with battlefield realities than with our unending faith that advanced technology will ensure victory, and with the economic interests and political influence of contractors. This leaves us with expensive and delicate high-tech white elephants, while unglamorous but essential tools, from infantry rifles to armored personnel carriers, too often fail our troops (see “Gun Trouble,” by Robert H. Scales, in this issue). We know that technology is our military’s main advantage. Yet the story of the post-9/11 “long wars” is of America’s higher-tech advantages yielding transitory victories that melt away before the older, messier realities of improvised weapons, sectarian resentments, and mounting hostility to occupiers from afar, however well-intentioned. Many of the Pentagon’s most audacious high-tech ventures have been costly and spectacular failures, including (as we will see) the major air-power project of recent years, the F-35. In an America connected to its military, such questions of strategy and implementation would be at least as familiar as, say, the problems with the Common Core education standards. Those technological breakthroughs that do make their way to the battlefield may prove to be strategic liabilities in the long run. During the years in which the United States has enjoyed a near-monopoly on weaponized drones, for example, they have killed individuals or small groups at the price of antagonizing whole societies. When the monopoly ends, which is inevitable, the very openness of the United States will make it uniquely vulnerable to the cheap, swarming weapons others will deploy. The cost of defense, meanwhile, goes up and up and up, with little political resistance and barely any public discussion. By the fullest accounting, which is different from usual budget figures, the United States will spend more than $1 trillion on national security this year. That includes about $580 billion for the Pentagon’s baseline budget plus “overseas contingency” funds, $20 billion in the Department of Energy budget for nuclear weapons, nearly $200 billion for military pensions and Department of Veterans Affairs costs, and other expenses. But it doesn’t count more than $80 billion a year of interest on the military-related share of the national debt. After adjustments for inflation, the United States will spend about 50 percent more on the military this year than its average through the Cold War and Vietnam War. It will spend about as much as the next 10 nations combined—three to five times as much as China, depending on how you count, and seven to nine times as much as Russia. The world as a whole spends about 2 percent of its total income on its militaries; the United States, about 4 percent. Yet such is the dysfunction and corruption of the budgeting process that even as spending levels rise, the Pentagon faces simultaneous crises in funding for maintenance, training, pensions, and veterans’ care. “We’re buying the wrong things, and paying too much for them,” Charles A. Stevenson, a onetime staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former professor at the National War College, told me. “We’re spending so much on people that we don’t have the hardware, which is becoming more expensive anyway. We are flatlining R&D.” Here is just one newsworthy example that illustrates the broad and depressingly intractable tendencies of weapons development and spending: the failed hopes for a new airplane called the F-35 “Lightning.”
.emphasizing the all-round flashiness of Miggy and Cano. The middle guy had to be an odd-ball. And Zobrist is sabr-famous for being one of those players whom the advanced metrics love. Him and Alex Gordon, I guess. Just to illustrate how much of an odd-ball Zobrist is, we can look at his traditional numbers, compared to Robby and Miggy: Player R HR RBI BA SB fWAR Miguel Cabrera 631 215 719 .331 19 37.9 Ben Zobrist 515 99 454 .270 95 35.4 Robinson Cano 573 156 595 .314 36 34.6 Zobrist has 116 fewer homers than Cabrera, and sixty-one points in batting average. He’s a bit closer to Robinson Cano, but Cano still beats him comfortably in those splashy hitting categories. Everyone knows that Robinson Cano is a great player
not too many people think of Zobrist in the same light: Year Miggy Zobrist Cano 2009 4th 8th 17th 2010 2nd - - 3rd 2011 5th 16th 6th 2012 1st 18th 4th 2013 1st - - 5th 2014 9th - - 5th This article isn’t really about Robby or Miggy, but it’s worth mentioning where FanGraph’s version of WAR closes the gap between Miggy, Zobrist, and Cano. Throwing some lesser-known stats at you: Player wRC+ Off BsR Def fWAR Miguel Cabrera 166 298.0 -11.5 -72.0 37.9 Ben Zobrist 125 134.0 16.8 73.4 35.4 Robinson Cano 138 180.7 0.4 12.8 34.6 wRC+ is Weighted Runs Created Plus
it is a slight variant on OPS+, in that it measures offensive production with the context of league and park factors. Zobrist, who has spent his career in the pitching-friendly (and fan-repellant) Tropicana Field, draws closer to Robinson Cano, who enjoyed the pull-friendly confines of the new Yankee Stadium until he signed with the Mariners last year. wRC+ doesn’t suggest that Zobrist is a better hitter than Cano or Cabrera
.it merely suggests that he’s closer - at least to Cano - than the numbers initially seem. But it’s the final three categories that show us when Zobrist gains on Cano and Cabrera. Off, BsR, and Def are offensive, base running, and defensive measures of runs contributed above average. Zobrist is well behind Cabrera in Offensive Runs Above Average, and he’s a good distance behind Cano. But Zobrist gains some ground on the bases (BsR), and he gains considerable ground on defense: as a hitter he isn’t in the same zip-code as Cabrera, but once his defensive and base running contributions are considered, he is directly comparable to the Tigers first-baseman. He isn’t the same hitter as Cano, but he’s a better defensive player and a better baserunner
once park effects are neutralized, Zobrist comes out a tick ahead of the Seattle superstar. This shouldn’t be read as any kind of knock on Miguel Cabrera or Robinson Cano: both players have strong cases as the best players in the game. My hope is to point out that Ben Zobrist has been that good, too. * * * Of course, Ben Zobrist isn’t likely to remain that good: the position-flexible star will turn thirty-four in May, so it’s unlikely that he’ll continue to keep pace with his younger rivals. That said, the Oakland A’s have acquired one of the best players in baseball (and Yunel Escobar) for the budget price of John Jaso and two prospects (or one prospect and one clone of ex-Baltimore slugger Boog Powell.) They’ll pay $7.5 million for Zobrist, and have a full year to woo him to the charms of the Bay Area, and extend him. At the very least, the A’s can give Zobrist a qualifying offer and net a first-round pick when someone else signs him. This has been a quietly astonishing offseason for Oakland: they’ve traded away a player than ranked fourth among AL batters in fWAR, and then acquired a player who ranked seventh by the same metric. To give that some perspective, the NL equivalent would have the Marlins trading away Giancarlo Stanton, and then acquiring Anthony Rizzo. Even if these were the only moves Oakland made, it’s be a fascinating offseason. But Oakland’s essentially redrafted their team. They traded away their best power hitter for a guy who had a decent half-season at Double-A. They traded their best (or second-best) starting pitcher to Chicago. They traded away both halves of their enormously valuable catching platoon. And
first actually
they signed Billy Butler. My sense is that the A’s are trying to catch their likely division rivals by going big on defense. Yunel Escobar, though an unreliable hitter, is a solid defensive shortstop. Ben Zobrist is strong anywhere on the diamond. They traded away the brilliant Josh Donaldson, but Brett Lawrie is one of the few third basemen in baseball who can match Donaldson as a defender. Their outfield can claim two big pluses in Crisp and Josh Reddick, and Sam Fuld can catch ‘em. A platoon of Vogt and Josh Phegley should be an improvement over Derek Norris behind the plate. (Just a note on the strike-through text: as I was editing this article, I found out that the A’s have traded Yunel Escobar for National set-up man Tyler Clippard). There’s a debate about what kind of defensive team the A’s were last year. Our site credits Oakland with +32 runs saved, a tally that ranks them third in the AL, behind Baltimore and Kansas City. Comparing Oakland rates against their likely division rivals in 2015: Team Def. Runs Saved Oakland +32 Seattle -11 Angels -16 John’s Defensive Runs Saved suggests that Oakland was much more efficient at saving runs than the Mariners or Angels. But FanGraphs’ version of team defense value - Defensive Runs Above Average - thinks the gap is a lot closer: Rank Team Def. Runs Above Avg. 18th Angels 3.6 19th Pirates 1.2 20th Athletics 0.2 21st Yankees -6.7 22nd Mariners -9.5 By this team metric, the Oakland defense is pretty middle-of-the-pack. Tellingly, the defenses of the Angels and Mariners are also underwhelming. (The best defensive team in baseball last year, by this metric, were the Cincinnati Reds.) The acquisitions of Zobrist and Escobar suggest that Oakland views improving their defense is one way for the cash-poor organization to keep pace with the Mariners and Angels. This makes intuitive sense: one by-product of a good defense in a pitcher’s park is that it will make all Oakland pitchers look better: it’s possible that Billy Beane is hoping a strong defense will have the ancillary benefit of shining up the stats of some of the team’s young arms, which he can deal down the road for prospects and/or undervalued players. Whatever the final plan (and it seems that things are very much still in motion), the Oakland A’s have been involved in two blockbuster moves that don’t quite feel like blockbusters. They’ve remade their team into one that figures to be one of the strongest defensive teams in baseball next year. It’ll be interesting to see how it works. * * * While we’re on the subject of Ben Zobrist, should we be talking about him as a deserving candidate for the Hall-of-Fame? I choose the words of that last sentence carefully: it is unlikely that Zobrist is a candidate for the Hall. Although advanced metrics have gained considerable traction in how players are evaluated, I don’t know if we’ve reached a point where voters are going to elect a player who has a lifetime average of .264, 114 homers, and 511 RBI’s. Zobrist has led the league in exactly one category: sacrifice flies. He probably isn’t getting the bronze plaque. That said, Zobrist’s peak, at least according to fWAR, compares very favorably with the peaks of Hall-of-Fame second baseman. Actually, let me change that sentence: Zobrist’s peak is a Hall-of-Fame level peak. Here are the fifteen best second baseman by fWAR, from Age-28 to Age-33: Rank Player WAR, Age 28-33 1 Rogers Hornsby 58.4 2 Joe Morgan 53.1 3 Nap Lajoie 42.7 4 Jackie Robinson 41.6 5 Eddie Collins 37.6 6 Charlie Gehringer 37.0 7 Craig Biggio 36.1 8 Ben Zobrist 35.4 9 Chase Utley 35.3 10 Rod Carew 35.2 11 Ryne Sandberg 32.5 12 Roberto Alomar 31.4 13 Eddie Stanky 29.2 14 Frankie Frisch 28.5 15 Bobby Doerr 27.3 Zobrist ranks in the middle of the pack: the only players not in the Hall-of-Fame are Chase Utley (a fine candidate) and Eddie Stanky (an underrated player). Zobrist does not have the career length of the players ranked with him: he wasn’t a regular in the majors until he was twenty-eight years old. But his peak years are excellent: if he is able to remain productive for three or four more seasons, he’ll be an interesting test case. In the meantime, the Oakland A’s have acquired the most Oakland A’s-ish player in baseball. It’s something for all of us to cheer about. Dave Fleming is a writer living in Wellington, New Zealand. He welcomes comments, questions, and suggestions at this site and at dfleming1986@yahoo.com. COMMENTS (8 Comments, most recent shown first) evanecurb The most surprising statistic in the entire article is the fact that Ben Zobrist is 34 years old. 1:42 PM Jan 17th MarisFan61 (btw, MWeddell meant underrated, of course) 3:12 PM Jan 16th DaveFleming Since rgregory posted the top-9 in Win Shares over the last six seasons, I thought I'd post the top-9 in fWAR: 37.9 - M Cabrera 35.4 - Zobrist 34.6 - Cano 34.0 - Longoria 33.9 - McCutchen 31.8 - Beltre 30.5 - Votto 29.6 - Bautista 29.0 - Pedroia Both metrics have Miggy, Cano, Zobrist, McCutchen, and Votto. Win Shares rounds out with Adrian Gonzalez, Ryan Braun, Pujols, and Matt Holliday....two 1B and two corner OF's. fWAR - which makes a positional adjustment for a player's hitting - prefers Longoria, Beltre, Bautista, and Pedroia....guys on the tougher side of the defensive spectrum. I am the MOST surprised that Zobrist cracks both lists. 9:17 PM Jan 15th rgregory1956 Just as another point of reference, here are the players with 140+ Win Shares over the past 6 years: 190 M Cabrera 185 Cano 175 McCutchen 170 A Gonzalez 155 Votto 152 Braun 151 Pujols 147 Zobrist 143 Holliday 4:26 PM Jan 15th OldBackstop A west coast timezone guy with flex positions for last minute scratches? I'm drafting him. 8:07 AM Jan 15th MWeddell Zobrist is definitely over-rated, so I don't disagree with the main premise of the article. However, when we evaluate his Hall of Fame case, by excluding WAR before age 28, we are cherry-picking the statistics to favor Zobrist. If we consider all career WAR through a player's age 33 season, Zobrist ranks 37th among major league second basemen. I'm sure that there are a lot fewer than 37 second basemen, excluding Negro League players, that are in the Hall of Fame, so his case falls apart. Players surrounding Zobrist on the 2B leaderboard of WAR (Fangraphs version) through age 33 are Dick McAuliffe, Buddy Myer, George Grantham and Ian Kinsler. 7:46 AM Jan 15th DavidTodd Ben Zobrist, I love it, David Ortiz, Troy Tulowitzki and Jose Bautista are 4,5, 6, right. 1:49 AM Jan 15th MarisFan61 Thanks for this. I've posted in Reader Posts that I wish Zobrist somehow would do what he needs to do to be regarded at all as a Hall of Fame candidate. If I had a ballot, he'd have my vote. I like to talk about things that don't show up in metrics, and can't. Zobrist's "position-flexibility" is a thing that doesn't, but which potentially could; it would be complicated, but I think it eventually could be accounted for. Of course multi-positionality often means mediocrity, but sometimes, like with Tony Phillips as well as Zobrist, it means versatility in the best sense -- and it is very valuable to a team. Even considering how well Zobrist comes out in what you looked at, I think his actual value has been even greater, because of this "versatility value" that isn't in there. 12:08 AM Jan 15th Posted but not written by: Louis Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 20006664 2015-01-24 08:46:59 2015-01-24 08:46:59 open open zobrist-20006664 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Here Are Some Of The Things Chris Christie Left Out Of His State Of The State Speech Factcheck.org http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/16/here-are-some-of-the-things-chris-christie-left-out-of-his-state-of-the-state-speech-factcheck-org-19980122/ Fri, 16 Jan 2015 12:07:56 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Here Are Some Of The Things Chris Christie Left Out Of His State Of The State Speech Factcheck.org Posted: 01/15/2015 8:30 pm EST Updated: 3 hours ago POSTED BUT NOT WRITTEN BY LOUIS SHEEHAN The following post first appeared on FactCheck.org. In his State of the State address, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie exaggerated some figures and boasted about progress that doesn’t look so impressive when compared with national trends. Christie boasted that New Jersey’s unemployment rate has dropped from 9.7 percent when he took office to 6.4 percent (as of November). But New Jersey was doing slightly better than the national average when he took office, and is now doing slightly worse. The governor touted the creation of 150,000 private sector jobs. But New Jersey’s rate of private sector job growth is less than half the national average; in fact New Jersey ranked 49th out of 50 states in private sector job growth. Christie crowed about New Jersey being “No. 4 in per capita income.” The state is actually third in per capita personal income, exactly where it was the year before Christie took office. It ranked second for more than two decades before that. Christie said that state property taxes “increased more than 70 percent” in the 10 years prior to him becoming governor, and that they’ve increased by “less than 2 percent” in each of the last four. That ignores the impact state rebates have played in lowering the property tax burden before he was governor, and the impact of the rebate cuts he implemented as governor. Christie made the misleading claim that “taxes were raised 115 times in the eight years before 2010,” the year he took office. But that list includes fees, not just taxes, and the governor himself proposed 23 fee hikes in the 2015 budget. Christie is a potential candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, and the New York Times noted that his annual State of the State speech on Jan. 13 sounded like “a defensive move by a politician anticipating the shots that could be leveled against him.” But Christie spun the numbers to make his case that “New Jersey is better off than it was last year at this time, and it is certainly far better off than it was just five years ago.” Unemployment Rate In his speech, Christie asked New Jerseyans to consider “where we were and how far we have come,” noting that the state’s unemployment has been cut by a third in the last five years. Christie, Jan. 13: Five years ago, our unemployment rate was 9.7 percent. Over 440,000 New Jerseyans were out of work. Today, the unemployment rate is 6.4 percent. It’s true, as Christie said, that when he took office in January 2010, the state’s unemployment rate was 9.7 percent and over 440,000 New Jerseyans were out of work (442,318 to be exact, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). And Christie rightly notes that the state’s unemployment rate in November, the latest month available, was 6.4 percent. But here’s what was left unsaid: When Christie took office, New Jersey’s unemployment rate at 9.7 percent was slightly better than the national unemployment rate of 9.8 percent; but New Jersey’s rate in November was higher than the national rate, which was 5.8 percent. (The national rate dipped again in December to 5.6 percent.) In addition, New Jersey’s 6.4 percent unemployment rate was also worse than its neighbors, Pennsylvania (5.1 percent), New York (5.9 percent) and Delaware (6.0 percent). Job Growth Christie also boasted that New Jersey has “created over 150,000 private sector jobs in New Jersey in five short years.” The actual figure, according to BLS, is 142,700. That may sound impressive, but that statistic wilts when viewed in light of national trends. In fact, the rate of private sector job growth in New Jersey, 4.5 percent, is well below the national average of 10.2 percent. Under Christie, New Jersey ranks 49th out of 50 states in private sector job growth (beating only Maine). In terms of overall job growth, which includes public sector jobs, New Jersey under Christie is dead last. Christie also noted that, “Since last January, the total number of people employed in New Jersey has grown by over 90,000, and the number of unemployed has dropped by nearly 30,000.” Those figures are pretty accurate, according to population surveys conducted by the U.S. Census for BLS. The number of employed New Jerseyans grew from 4,157,733 in January to 4,250,823 in November. That’s an increase of 93,090. And the number of unemployed New Jerseyans dropped from 317,118 in January to 291,870 in November. That’s a decrease of 25,248. But Christie was wrong to say those were people employed in New Jersey. The survey does not ask where people are employed. As the Asbury Park Press noted, “Economists have said many of them likely are working in New York and Pennsylvania, where the job market has been stronger.” Also left out of Christie’s narrative, the New York Times noted, New Jersey has only recovered about half the jobs lost in the Great Recession, while the nation as a whole has recovered all those jobs and then some. Nationally, about 8.6 million jobs were shed from February 2008 to February 2010. Since then, the national economy has added about 10.4 million jobs. By comparison, New Jersey lost 253,800 jobs between February 2008 and February 2010; but has only recovered 121,800 of them. Per Capita Income Christie also bragged about the state’s unique assets in helping to lure businesses. He noted, for example, that New Jersey is “No. 4 in per capita income.” Actually, New Jersey’s ranking is better than that. New Jersey placed third in per capita personal income in 2013 (excluding the District of Columbia), according to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. But that impressive ranking is not new and has not improved under Christie. New Jersey ranked third in per capita personal income every year between 2009 and 2013, except in 2012 when it ranked fourth. And it ranked second in the country every year for more than two decades prior to 2009. Property Taxes Christie said when he came into office, New Jersey’s “property taxes had increased more than 70 percent in 10 years. We averaged a 7 percent growth in property taxes per year.” It’s true that, on average, property taxes increased about that much statewide between 1999 and 2009, according to figures from the state Department of Community Affairs. Homeowners and tenants paid an average of $4,239 in property taxes in 1999 and $7,281 in 2009. However, Christie’s claim doesn’t factor in rebates that some received over that time that ultimately lowered their property tax burden. When factoring in the average tax rebate homeowners and tenants received — $111 in 1999 and $1,037 in 2009 — property taxes increased by closer to 51 percent over that time period. Christie also said that since he’s been in office, “we have had four years of less than 2 percent annual property tax growth.” That’s not exactly right. Property taxes increased 1.6 percent in 2012 and 1.3 percent in 2013, after Christie signed a bill capping annual property tax increases at no more than 2 percent. But there was a 2.4 percent increase in 2011. Figures for 2014 have not yet been released. Christie’s claim of 2 percent annual growth also ignores large cuts in the property tax rebate program that he has made to help balance the state budget while in office. According to an analysis of previously available state data by the news website NJ Spotlight, average net property taxes (including rebate deductions) increased by 18.6 percent, or 6.2 percent annually, between 2009 and 2012, when taxes, on net, went from $6,244 to $7,405. Taxes Versus Fees In his speech, Christie boasted about not raising taxes in his past five budgets and, by contrast, he said “taxes were raised 115 times in the eight years” before he became governor in 2010. That’s misleading. Christie’s list of 115 “taxes” actually includes both taxes and fees. And the governor himself has raised numerous fees. In fact, Christie proposed 23 fee hikes in his 2015 budget. Christie made the distinction between taxes and fees in his 2013 State of the State address, when he said there had been “115 increases in taxes and fees” in the eight years before he was inaugurated. But this time he dropped the word “fees.” We point this out because politicians, including Christie, draw a distinction between taxes and fees. What’s the difference? Some members of the public may not see a major disparity between extending the sales tax to cover limousine services and adding a fee on new cars with low-fuel efficiency — two of the items in the Republican-compiled list. Whatever you want to call them, both measures amount to additional money paid by state residents. But politicians certainly put taxes and fees in separate categories. For example, Christie said his 2015 budget “requires no new taxes on the people of New Jersey,” when he presented his latest budget to the Legislature in February 2014. But a few months later, his administration was explaining 23 proposed fee increases. And, in fact, the budget included a proposed tax on e-cigarettes and “closing tax loopholes,” which the administration estimated would bring in $205 million in revenue. The nonpartisan state Office of Legislative Services’ analysis of the governor’s proposal showed $240 million worth of “revenue initiatives requiring legislation,” including the e-cigarette tax; penalties for bad electronic payments of income, corporate and sales taxes; and a change in online sales tax collection. Whether those items amount to raising taxes or “closing tax loopholes and leveling the playing field,” as the governor’s budget summary put it, may be a matter of opinion. But the same could be said of the list of 115 taxes and fees instituted before Christie took office. The Record newspaper in Bergen County, New Jersey, wrote in a May 12, 2014, article on Christie’s proposed fees: “Christie is not the first governor to turn to increasing fees and fines as a way to generate new revenue while also escaping the stigma of hiking taxes,” noting that former Democratic Gov. James McGreevey had raised more than $1 billion in 2004 through fee increases and that Christie had increased New Jersey Transit fees in 2010 to make up a budget shortfall. During the 2008 presidential election, we fact-checked former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s claim that he “did not raise taxes” while governor and found that he had raised fees by hundreds of millions of dollars. PolitiFact New Jersey first published the list of 115 taxes and fees in 2011, when a state Republican senator made the claim about the “tax” increases that Christie repeated in his speech. That list includes increases in sales taxes, cigarette and alcohol taxes, income taxes on high-income earners, as well as numerous increases in fees, including on divorce, vehicle registration, casino hotel rooms and new tires. Christie can’t have it both ways. If fees are taxes — as is implied when Christie says “taxes were raised 115 times in the eight years before 2010″ — then Christie is guilty of proposing at least 23 tax increases in his budget last year. Also, Christie’s proposal to require out-of-state online retailers to charge sales tax to New Jersey customers puts him at odds with conservatives who oppose more sweeping federal legislation, the Marketplace Fairness Act. The conservative Freedom Works calls it “the Internet sales tax.” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, another potential Republican presidential candidate, calls it a “job-killing tax hike.” Christie’s 2015 budget calls his measure “extending to [online retailers] the same obligation that other New Jersey businesses already have to collect sales tax on sales to New Jersey customers.” The measure was signed into law by Christie last summer and applies to online companies that act as a sales platform for retailers with a physical presence in New Jersey (think eBay or Overstock.com). New Jersey tax law stipulates that consumers are obligated to pay sales tax — in this case called a “use tax” — if an online retailer doesn’t collect it. But many residents may not be aware of that. The Office of Legislative Services estimated the change in state law would bring in $25 million in additional revenue. – Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore, Lori Robertson and Brooks Jackson, with Carolyn Fante </p> 19980122 2015-01-16 12:07:56 2015-01-16 12:07:56 open open here-are-some-of-the-things-chris-christie-left-out-of-his-state-of-the-state-speech-factcheck-org-19980122 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan Pennsylvania Lawmaker Claims Yuengling Beer Is Banned From Tom Wolf Inauguration The Huffington Post | By Sam Levine http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/16/pennsylvania-lawmaker-claims-yuengling-beer-is-banned-from-tom-wolf-inauguration-the-huffington-post-by-sam-levine-19979986/ Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:50:00 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Pennsylvania Lawmaker Claims Yuengling Beer Is Banned From Tom Wolf Inauguration The Huffington Post | By Sam Levine Posted: 01/15/2015 11:08 pm EST Updated: 34 minutes ago GOVERNOR TOM WOLF Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Lou Sheehan Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan A Pennsylvania lawmaker claims the Yuengling brewery has been banned from donating free beer to the inaugural ball of Pennsylvania Gov.-elect Tom Wolf (D). State Rep. Mike Vereb (R) said during a radio interview Thursday that he thought Wolf's transition team was punishing Yuengling because the company's president, Richard L. Yuengling, has supported so-called right-to-work laws in Pennsylvania, which would make it more difficult for labor unions to organize. Vereb said that he wasn't sure if Wolf personally was aware of the Yuengling ban. "What we found out last night is that there will be beer at this event, but there is a specific restriction and request to not have Yuengling product there,” Vereb said. “Somebody, there’s a bureaucrat in this transition team that does not like Dick Yuengling because of his stance that he took in defending Governor Corbett on right-to-work a few years back." Pennsylvania is not among states with right-to-work laws. Labor leaders called for a boycott of Yuengling in 2013 after the brewery president announced his support for such a law. A Wolf spokeswoman declined to tell The Philadelphia Inquirer whether the beer, which has been brewed in Pennsylvania since 1829, had explicitly been banned from the inauguration ball. "We met our beverage needs, and we have a variety of choices for attendees from a number of breweries including Pennsylvania-based breweries," spokeswoman Beth Melena told the Inquirer. The Inquirer reported that some large employee unions made donations to help sponsor the event, which will be held on Tuesday. Wolf, a businessman, defeated one-term Gov. Tom Corbett's (R) bid for re-election in November. Vereb said he was baffled that anyone could say no to free beer. "I really believe it’s bureaucracy at work. Who turns down free beer? It’s un-American," he said in the radio interview. Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Louis Sheehan </p> 19979986 2015-01-16 11:50:00 2015-01-16 11:50:00 open open pennsylvania-lawmaker-claims-yuengling-beer-is-banned-from-tom-wolf-inauguration-the-huffington-post-by-sam-levine-19979986 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Mother Jones Mitt Romney Has a Huge New Conflict-of-Interest Problem If he jumps into the 2016 race, will Romney reveal the investors and investments of Solamere Capital, the $700 million private equity firm he runs with his son? —By David Corn http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/16/mother-jones-mitt-romney-has-a-huge-new-conflict-of-interest-problem-if-he-jumps-into-the-2016-race-will-romney-reveal-the-investors-and-investme-19979939/ Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:39:01 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Mitt Romney Has a Huge New Conflict-of-Interest Problem If he jumps into the 2016 race, will Romney reveal the investors and investments of Solamere Capital, the $700 million private equity firm he runs with his son? —By David Corn In 2012, Mitt Romney's career as a businessman who earned many millions of dollars became a net loss, as political foes slammed him for running Bain Capital, a private equity firm that invested in US companies that downsized and shifted jobs overseas and that obtained financial stakes in foreign companies that depended on US outsourcing for profits. At the same time, Romney, who refused to do a full release of his tax returns, was hit with questions (he didn't answer) about mysterious personal investments in offshore accounts. Should he mount a third presidential effort, as he has told GOP funders he is considering, all of these issues are likely to return. But there's another matter that will be be added to the pile of financial controversies for Romney to face: Solamere Capital, the $700 million private equity firm cofounded by his son Taggart that Romney has helped run since March 2013. Who has Romney been investing with, and what has he been investing in? These are questions that Romney 2016 will confront and that, no doubt, the firm will not want to answer. In March 2013, Mitt Romney became chair of Solamere's executive committee and a member of its investment committee, and Solamere's bare website currently lists him as the executive partner group chairman. The site only describes the company as "a collection of families and influential business leaders leveraging their broad networks and industry expertise to invest strategic capital." But the firm has recruited scores of investors willing to give the Romneys millions, and it has invested in an untold number of other funds and companies. Any of these parties—the investors or the investments—could pose a conflict of interest for a presidential candidate or raise a significant question. Has Solamere invested in companies that outsource? Or in overseas firms that compete with US firms? Has it drawn investments from people or corporations at home or abroad that want to curry favor with a possible president? Might the companies and private equity firms Solamere invests in have an interest in lobbying a future Romney administration? There is no way for the public to know; the firm does not disclose any information on its investors or investments. So how will Romney respond to these and other questions about his work for Solamere? Advertisement Advertise on MotherJones.com Shortly after Romney ended his presidential bid in early 2008, Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, who had been the Romney campaign's financial director, formed Solamere, which was named after a ritzy part of Utah's Deer Valley where the Romney family owned a ski mansion. As the New York Times reported, "Neither had experience in private equity. But what the close friends did have was the Romney name and a Rolodex of deep-pocketed potential investors who had backed Mr. Romney's presidential run." The pair brought in a third partner, Eric Scheuermann, who did have years of private equity experience. In its early days, the firm seemed part of the Romney network. At one point, Solamere shared an address with Romney's political action committee. It solicited investments from the well heeled, generally seeking a minimum of a $10 million buy-in. According to the Times, Mitt and Ann Romney sank a "critical, early" $10 million into their son's venture, signaling that the firm had Mitt's blessing, which Tagg and his crew could use as a selling point as they chased after funding from others. In 2008, Solamere set out to raise $200 million, and by May 2009 it had attracted $186 million from 39 investors, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records. Tagg Romney, Zwick, and Scheuermann, the records noted, would receive an estimated $16.8 million in management fees in the first six years. The records do not indicate the identities of the 39 investors who kicked in the initial financing. But other public records show that corporate titan Meg Whitman, a longtime friend and political ally of Mitt Romney, invested more than $1 million in Solamere. The University of Utah put about $1 million if its endowment into the firm's fund. H. Lee Scott Jr., the former CEO of Walmart and short-time member of the board of Goldman Sachs, was an early investor, became a partner, and served on Solamere's investment committee. Tagg Romney told the Times that his early investors included a few NASCAR drivers, two NFL quarterbacks, and nine heads of other private equity firms. One of Solamere's initial investments was in a North Carolina financial-services firm operated by former officials of a financial company run by Allen Stanford, who was later convicted of running a massive Ponzi scheme. These officials had come from the Charlotte office of the Stanford Financial Group, which had been closed by the feds for selling phony certificates of deposit. During the 2012 election, with Zwick helping to run Solamere and simultaneously raising money for Mitt Romney's presidential bid, government ethics advocates questioned the probity of the coziness between Romney's political funders and his fellow Solamere investors. Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution told the Boston Globe that Solamere was an example of how business and political elites operate "in the first-class compartment." Four months after Romney flamed-out as a presidential candidate, Solamere announced that he would "play a greater role" at the firm, chairing its executive committee and participating on its investment committee. "We believe that Governor Romney's experience and insight in private investing will enhance Solamere's distinctiveness," the firm said in an email to investors. With Mitt Romney more involved, Solamere expanded. And demand to be in business with Romney was high. The firm, according to Fortune, was seeking about $300 million for a second round of investment. In the email to investors, Solamere noted, "we feel strongly that there is value in not raising too large of a fund, and therefore anticipate keeping the size to a level we feel we can appropriately manage within our desired band of target returns." But in May 2014, Solamere Capital filed reports with the SEC noting it had created two new funds, with 200 investors investing a total of $472 million. (Five months later, Solamere reported these two funds had actually drawn $527 million from 215 investors.) Investor interest had been so intense that the firm had raised its self-imposed limit on the size of the funds to accommodate all the investors who wanted to be in bed with Mitt and Tagg Romney. These new funds would invest in other private equity funds and invest directly in private companies. Solamere freely mixed politics and business. In June 2013, as it was hunting for investors, the firm sponsored a policy conference convened by Mitt Romney at an exclusive resort in Park City, Utah, which attracted Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan as speakers. At the same time—and in the same place—Solamere hosted a conference for investors. As the Washington Post reported, "The concentration of wealthy Romney backers in one place is a natural draw for politicians with national ambitions. But, as Solamere investors acknowledged, the gathering also provided them with potential targets, lending the retreat an aura of personal enrichment along with the focus on public policy." With Mitt Romney now an active participant in Solamere Capital, the implications for his potential presidential campaign are more serious. In the last days of the 2012 campaign, several liberal good-government groups and unions sent a complaint to the US Office of Government Ethics charging that the financial disclosure form Romney had filed as a presidential candidate was not in compliance with federal law because, in part, it did not list Solamere's holdings. On the form, Romney noted his family's investments in several funds, including Solamere's first fund, but he did not reveal what Solamere invested in—meaning the ultimate investment was not disclosed. As the complaint noted, "precisely because private equity firms typically invest heavily in a few select companies
there is a far greater chance that ownership of these funds could lead to a conflict of interest." The Office of Government Ethics did not respond to the complaint, and the matter died. Romney's Solamere issue will be different this time around. He's not a passive investor. He has helped run the firm and guide its investments for the past two years. He knows where the money is coming from and where it is going. There will be demands for him to reveal who he has been hobnobbing with financially so it can be ascertained if he is burdened by conflicts of interest—or if he has been making money in a manner at odds with his public policy pronouncements. But firms such as Solamere thrive on privacy. Their investment picks are their secret sauce, and many of their investors might prefer being unnamed. Solamere Capital did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for Mitt Romney also did not respond. In the 2012 campaign, Romney was the candidate who defied transparency. (In one memorable moment, an irritated Ann Romney huffed that she and her husband had disclosed "all you people need to know.") Kevin Madden, a top Romney adviser in 2012, recently noted that the Obama campaign successfully turned Romney's tax return question into a "character issue" that damaged Romney. With Jeb Bush releasing tens of thousands of emails from his time as Florida governor and signaling he will make public at least a decade's worth of tax filings, Romney, should he enter the contest, could run smack into the same challenge. But even if he wants to avoid problems similar to those of the 2012 campaign, can he reveal the inner workings of a private equity firm that was fueled by political capital? Might such revelations hurt his political prospects or harm his son's company? With Solamere, Romney has a new private equity problem. Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19979939 2015-01-16 11:39:01 2015-01-16 11:39:01 open open mother-jones-mitt-romney-has-a-huge-new-conflict-of-interest-problem-if-he-jumps-into-the-2016-race-will-romney-reveal-the-investors-and-investme-19979939 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine George Soros FEBRUARY 5, 2015 ISSUE http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/14/a-new-policy-to-rescue-ukraine-george-soros-february-5-2015-issue-19974039/ Wed, 14 Jan 2015 23:49:01 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Louis Sheehan A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine George Soros FEBRUARY 5, 2015 ISSUE A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine George Soros FEBRUARY 5, 2015 ISSUE soros_1-020515 NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS Justyna Mielnikiewicz Masha, a hairdresser from Luhansk who joined the pro-Ukrainian Donbas Battalion last spring, at a training camp near Dnipropetrovsk, held in an old summer camp still decorated with Soviet-era Young Pioneers, July 2014; photograph by Justyna Mielnikiewicz from her series ‘A Ukraine Runs Through It,’ which has just been awarded the Aftermath Project’s 2015 grant for photographic work documenting the aftermath of conflict. It will appear in War Is Only Half the Story, Volume 9, to be published by the Aftermath Project next year. The sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and Europe for its interventions in Ukraine have worked much faster and inflicted much more damage on the Russian economy than anybody could have expected. The sanctions sought to deny Russian banks and companies access to the international capital markets. The increased damage is largely due to a sharp decline in the price of oil, without which the sanctions would have been much less effective. Russia needs oil prices to be around $100 a barrel in order to balance its budget. (It is now around $55 a barrel.) The combination of lower oil prices and sanctions has pushed Russia into a financial crisis that is by some measures already comparable to the one in 1998. In 1998, Russia ended up running out of hard currency reserves and defaulting on its debt, causing turmoil in the global financial system. This time the ruble has dropped by more than 50 percent, inflation is accelerating, and interest rates have risen to levels that are pushing the Russian economy into recession. The big advantage Russia has today compared to 1998 is that it still has substantial foreign currency reserves. This has enabled the Russian Central Bank to engineer a 30 percent rebound in the ruble from its low point by spending about $100 billion and arranging a $24 billion swap line with the People’s Bank of China. But only about $200 billion of the remaining reserves are liquid and the crisis is still at an early stage. In addition to continued capital flight, more than $120 billion of external debt is due for repayment in 2015. Although, in contrast to 1998, most of the Russian debt is in the private sector, it would not be surprising if, before it runs its course, this crisis ends up in a default by Russia. That would be more than what the US and European authorities bargained for. Coming on top of worldwide deflationary pressures that are particularly acute in the euro area and rising military conflicts such as the one with ISIS, a Russian default could cause considerable disruption in the global financial system, with the euro area being particularly vulnerable. There is therefore an urgent need to reorient the current policies of the European Union toward Russia and Ukraine. I have been arguing for a two-pronged approach that balances the sanctions against Russia with assistance for Ukraine on a much larger scale. This rebalancing needs to be carried out in the first quarter of 2015 for reasons I shall try to explain. Sanctions are a necessary evil. They are necessary because neither the EU nor the US is willing to risk war with Russia, and that leaves economic sanctions as the only way to resist Russian aggression. They are evil because they hurt not only the country on which they are imposed but also the countries that impose them. The harm has turned out to be much bigger than anybody anticipated. Russia is in the midst of a financial crisis, which is helping to turn the threat of deflation in the eurozone into a reality. By contrast, all the consequences of helping Ukraine would be positive. By enabling Ukraine to defend itself, Europe would be indirectly also defending itself. Moreover, an injection of financial assistance to Ukraine would help stabilize its economy and indirectly also provide a much-needed stimulus to the European economy by encouraging exports and investment in Ukraine. Hopefully Russia’s troubles and Ukraine’s progress would persuade President Vladimir Putin to give up as a lost cause his attempts to destabilize Ukraine. Unfortunately neither the European public nor the leadership seems to be moved by these considerations. Europe seems to be dangerously unaware of being indirectly under military attack from Russia and carries on business as usual. It treats Ukraine as just another country in need of financial assistance, and not even as one that is important to the stability of the euro, like Greece or Ireland. According to prevailing perceptions, Ukraine is suffering from a more or less classical balance of payments crisis that morphed into a public debt and banking crisis. There are international financial institutions devoted to handling such crises but they are not well suited to deal with the political aspects of the Ukrainian situation. In order to help the Ukrainian economy, the European Union started preparing an Association Agreement with Ukraine in 2007 and completed it in 2012, when it had to deal with the Viktor Yanukovych government. The EU developed a detailed roadmap showing what steps the Ukrainian government had to take before it would extend assistance. Ukraine has undergone a revolutionary transformation since then. The roadmap ought to be adjusted accordingly, but the cumbersome bureaucratic processes of the European Commission do not allow for that. Accordingly, Ukraine’s problems have been cast in conventional terms: • Ukraine needs international assistance because it has experienced shocks that have produced a financial crisis. The shocks are transitory; once Ukraine recovers from the shocks it should be able to repay its creditors. This explains why the IMF was put in charge of providing financial assistance to Ukraine. • Since Ukraine is not yet a member of the EU, European institutions (like the European Commission and the European Central Bank) played only a secondary part in providing assistance to it. The IMF welcomed the opportunity to avoid the complications associated with the supervision by a troika consisting of the EU, the European Central Bank, and the IMF that was used to deal with Greece and others. This new arrangement also explains why the IMF-led package was based on overly optimistic forecasts and why the IMF’s contribution of approximately $17 billion in cash to Ukraine is so much larger than the approximately $10 billion of various commitments associated with the EU, and even smaller amounts from the US. • Since Ukraine has had a poor track record with previous IMF programs, the official lenders insisted that Ukraine should receive assistance only as a reward for clear evidence of deep structural reform, not as an inducement to undertake these reforms. • From this conventional perspective, the successful resistance to the previous Yanokovych government on the Maidan and, later, the Russian annexation of Crimea and the establishment of separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine are incidental. These events are seen as simply temporary external shocks. This perspective needs to be altered. The birth of a new Ukraine and the Russian aggression are not merely temporary shocks but historic events. Instead of facing the remnants of a moribund Soviet Union, the European Union is confronted by a resurgent Russia that has turned from strategic partner into strategic rival. To replace communism, President Putin has developed a nationalist ideology based on ethnic grounds, social conservatism, and religious faith—the brotherhood of the Slavic race, homophobia, and holy Russia. He has cast what he calls Anglo-Saxon world domination as the enemy of Russia—and of the rest of the world. Putin has learned a lot from his war with President Mikheil Saakashvili’s Georgia in 2008. Russia won that war militarily but was less successful in its propaganda efforts. Putin has developed an entirely new strategy that relies heavily on using both special forces and propaganda. Putin’s ambition to recreate a Russian empire has unintentionally helped bring into being a new Ukraine that is opposed to Russia and seeks to become the opposite of the old Ukraine with its endemic corruption and ineffective government. The new Ukraine is led by the cream of civil society: young people, many of whom studied abroad and refused to join either government or business on their return because they found both of them repugnant. Many of them found their place in academic institutions, think tanks, and nongovernmental organizations. A widespread volunteer movement, of unprecedented scope and power unseen in other countries, has helped Ukraine to stand strong against Russian aggression. Its members were willing to risk their lives on the Maidan for the sake of a better future and they are determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past, including the political infighting that undermined the Orange Revolution. A politically engaged civil society is the best assurance against a return of the old Ukraine: activists would return to the Maidan if the politicians engaged in the kind of petty squabbling and corruption that ruined the old Ukraine. The reformists in the new Ukrainian government are advocating a radical “big bang” reform program that is intended to have a dramatic impact. This program aims to break the stranglehold of corruption by shrinking the bureaucracy while paying the remaining civil servants better and by breaking up Naftogaz, the gas monopoly that is the main source of corruption and budget deficits in Ukraine. But the old Ukraine is far from dead. It dominates the civil service and the judiciary, and remains very present in the private (oligarchic and kleptocratic) sectors of the economy. Why should state employees work for practically no salary unless they can use their position as a license to extort bribes? And how can a business sector that was nurtured on corruption and kickbacks function without its sweeteners? These retrograde elements are locked in battle with the reformists. The new government faces the difficult task of radically reducing the number of civil servants and increasing their pay. Advocates of radical reform claim that it would be both possible and desirable to shrink the ministries to a fraction of their current size, provided that the general population would not be subjected to severe cuts to their living standards. That would allow the discharged civil servants to find jobs in the private sector and the employees retained on the payroll to be paid higher salaries. Many obstacles to doing business would be removed, but that would require substantial financial and technical support from the EU. Without it, the “big bang” kind of radical reforms that Ukraine needs cannot succeed. Indeed, the prospect of failure may even prevent the government from proposing them. The magnitude of European support and the reforming zeal of the new Ukraine are mutually self-reinforcing. Until now, the Europeans kept Ukraine on a short leash and the Arseniy Yatsenyuk government did not dare to embark on radical structural reforms. The former minister of the economy, Pavlo Sheremeta, a radical reformer, proposed reducing the size of his ministry from 1,200 to 300 but met such resistance from the bureaucracy that he resigned. No further attempts at administrative reform were made but the public is clamoring for it. That is where the European authorities could play a decisive role. By offering financial and technical assistance commensurate with the magnitude of the reforms, they could exert influence on the Ukrainian government to embark on radical reforms and give them a chance to succeed. Unfortunately the European authorities are hampered by the budgetary rules that constrain the EU and its member states. That is why the bulk of international efforts have gone into sanctions against Russia, and financial assistance to Ukraine has been kept to a minimum. Petro Poroshenko and Vladimir Putin; drawing by James Ferguson In order to shift the emphasis to assisting Ukraine, the negotiations have to be moved from the bureaucratic to the political level. The European financial bureaucracies find it difficult to put together even the $15 billion that the IMF considers the absolute minimum. As it stands, the European Union could find only €2 billion in its Macro-Financial Assistance program, and individual member states are reluctant to contribute directly. This is what led Ukraine to pass on December 30 a stopgap budget for 2015 with unrealistic revenue projections and only modest reforms. This is an opening bid in the negotiations. The law allows for modifications until February 15, subject to their outcome. European political leaders must tap into the large unused borrowing capacity of the EU itself and find other unorthodox sources to be able to offer Ukraine a larger financial package than the one currently contemplated. That would enable the Ukrainian government to embark on radical reform. I have identified several such sources, notably: 1. The Balance of Payments Assistance facility (used for Hungary and Romania) has unused funds of $47.5 billion and the European Financial Stability Mechanism (used for Portugal and Ireland) has about $15.8 billion of unused funds. Both mechanisms are currently limited to EU member states but could be used to support Ukraine by modifying their respective regulations by a qualified majority upon a proposal by the European Commission. Alternatively, the Commission could use and expand the Macro-Financial Assistance Facility, which has already been used in Ukraine. There is indeed a range of technical options and the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker should propose a way forward as soon as the Ukrainian government has presented a convincing set of priorities. 2. Larger matching funds from the European Union would enable the IMF to increase its lending to Ukraine by $13 billion and to convert the existing Stand-By Agreement into a longer-term Extended Fund Facility program. This would bring the total size of the IMF program to fifteen times Ukraine’s current IMF quota, an unusually large multiple but one that already has a precedent in the case of Ireland, for example. 3. European Investment Bank project bonds could yield €10 billion or more. These funds would be used to connect Ukraine to a unified European gas market and to break up Naftogaz, the Ukrainian gas monopoly. These changes would greatly improve Ukraine’s energy efficiency and produce very high returns on investment. It would help create a unified European gas market and reduce not only Ukraine’s but also Europe’s dependence on Russian gas. The breakup of Naftogaz is the centerpiece of Ukraine’s reform plans. 4. Long-term financing from the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for restructuring the banking sector. This should yield about $5 billion. The 2009 Vienna Initiative for Eastern Europe, which proved to be highly successful in limiting capital flight and stabilizing the banking system, should be extended to Ukraine. The foundations for such an extension were already laid at the inaugural meeting of the Ukrainian Financial Forum in June 2014. 5. Restructuring Ukraine’s sovereign debt should free in excess of $4 billion scarce foreign exchange reserves. Ukraine has almost $8 billion in sovereign debt coming due in the private bond markets in the next three years. Instead of a default that would have disastrous consequences, Ukraine should negotiate with its bondholders (who happen to be relatively few) a voluntary, market-based exchange for new long-term debt instruments. In order to make the exchange successful, part of the new financial assistance should be used for credit enhancements for the new debt instruments. The foreign assistance needed for this purpose would depend on what bondholders require to participate in the exchange, but it could free at least twice as much foreign exchange over the next three years. 6. Ukraine must also deal with a $3 billion bond issued by the Russian government to Ukraine coming due in 2015. Russia may be willing to reschedule the payments by Ukraine on the bond voluntarily in order to earn favorable points for an eventual relaxation of the sanctions against it. Alternatively, the bond may be classified as government-to-government debt, restructured by the group of nations officially called the Paris Club, in order to insulate the rest of Ukrainian bonds from their cross-default provisions (which put the borrower in default if he fails to meet another obligation). The legal and technical details need to be elaborated. Perhaps not all these sources could be mobilized in full but where there is a political will, there is a way. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has proved to be a true European leader with regard to Russia and Ukraine, holds the key. The additional sources of financing I have cited should be sufficient to produce a new financial package of $50 billion or more. Needless to say, the IMF would remain in charge of actual disbursements, so there would be no loss of control. But instead of scraping together the minimum, the official lenders would hold out the promise of the maximum. That would be a game-changer. Ukraine would embark on radical reforms and, instead of hovering on the edge of bankruptcy, it would turn into a land of promise that would attract private investment. Europe needs to wake up and recognize that it is under attack from Russia. Assisting Ukraine should also be considered as a defense expenditure by the EU countries. Framed this way, the amounts currently contemplated shrink into insignificance. If the international authorities fail to come up with an impressive assistance program in response to an aggressive Ukrainian reform program, the new Ukraine will probably fail, Europe will be left on its own to defend itself against Russian aggression, and Europe will have abandoned the values and principles on which the European Union was founded. That would be an irreparable loss. The sanctions on Russia ought to be maintained after they start expiring in April 2015 until President Putin stops destabilizing Ukraine and provides convincing evidence of his willingness to abide by the generally accepted rules of conduct. The financial crisis in Russia and the body bags from Ukraine have made President Putin politically vulnerable. The Ukrainian government has recently challenged him by renouncing its own obligations toward the separatist enclaves in eastern Ukraine, under the Minsk cease-fire agreement, on the grounds that Russia failed to abide by the agreement from its inception. After Ukraine’s challenge, Putin immediately caved in and imposed the cease-fire on the troops under his direct command. It can be expected that the troops will be withdrawn from Ukrainian territory and the cease-fire will be fully implemented in the near future. It would be a pity to allow the sanctions to expire prematurely when they are so close to success. But it is essential that by April 2015 Ukraine should be engaged in a radical reform program that has a realistic chance of succeeding. Otherwise, President Putin could convincingly argue that Russia’s problems are due to the hostility of the Western powers. Even if he fell from power, an even more hardline leader like Igor Sechin or a nationalist demagogue would succeed him. By contrast, if Europe rose to the challenge and helped Ukraine not only to defend itself but to become a land of promise, Putin could not blame Russia’s troubles on the Western powers. He would be clearly responsible and he would either have to change course or try to stay in power by brutal repression, cowing people into submission. If he fell from power, an economic and political reformer would be likely to succeed him. Either way, Putin’s Russia would cease to be a potent threat to Europe. Which alternative prevails will make all the difference not only to the future of Russia and its relationship with the European Union but also to the future of the European Union itself. By helping Ukraine, Europe may be able to recapture the values and principles on which the European Union was originally founded. That is why I am arguing so passionately that Europe needs to undergo a change of heart. The time to do it is right now. The Board of the IMF is scheduled to make its fateful decision on Ukraine on January 18. —January 7, 2015 Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19974039 2015-01-14 23:49:01 2015-01-14 23:49:01 open open a-new-policy-to-rescue-ukraine-george-soros-february-5-2015-issue-19974039 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan A Critic at Large January 19, 2015 Issue The Power of Congress Before L.B.J., progressives saw bipartisanship as a blight. What happened? By Sam Tanenhaus http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/14/a-critic-at-large-january-19-2015-issue-the-power-of-congress-before-l-b-j-progressives-saw-bipartisanship-as-a-blight-what-happened-by-sam-tanen-19970683/ Wed, 14 Jan 2015 08:36:47 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>A Critic at Large January 19, 2015 Issue The Power of Congress Before L.B.J., progressives saw bipartisanship as a blight. What happened? By Sam Tanenhaus Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Lou Sheehan The tension between big-tent inclusiveness and ideological purity has bedevilled our two major political parties for many years, but for Democrats it became especially vexing in the middle decades of the twentieth century. From 1932 to 1964, the Democratic Party won seven out of nine Presidential elections and enjoyed an almost continuous majority in the House and the Senate. But who, exactly, was winning and what did victory mean? The answer was clear in only two intervals. The first was the initial phase of the New Deal, when Franklin Roosevelt’s economic-rescue proposals were swiftly passed into law by Congress and embraced by a nation traumatized by the Great Depression. The second came during the three-year period after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, when Lyndon Johnson and Congress went on a legislative spree that ended with the midterm election in November, 1966. “The Fierce Urgency of Now” (Penguin Press), Julian E. Zelizer’s account of wins and losses in the Johnson years, combines history with political science, as befits our data-happy moment. The information comes at us steadily—there are useful facts on almost every page—but the narrative is spartanly furnished. There’s little portraiture, not much drama, and only enough mood-setting context to let us know what America was up to while L.B.J. and Congress were contriving new ways to strengthen the social safety net and exhaust the national treasury. The emphasis falls instead on the high, and sometimes low, workings of legislative government, as bills inched through committees and subcommittees, nicked and scarred in “mark-up” sessions; the feint-and-parry of parliamentary maneuver; and, above all, the votes. This patient no-frills approach offers illuminations that a more cinematic treatment might not. And if Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton, at times betrays the head-counting instincts of a House whip, well, head-counting is the nuts and bolts of congressional lawmaking, as scholars like Nelson Polsby and David Mayhew pointed out a generation ago, and as Ira Katznelson, Sarah Binder, and Frances Lee have done more recently. “Overshadowed by presidents and social movements, legislators remain ghosts in America’s historical imagination,” Zelizer observed in “The American Congress,” the large and very useful anthology he edited in 2004. Its analyses, by him and thirty-nine others, begin with the Continental Congress and go all the way up to the Clinton and Bush years—not likely to be known as the Gingrich or DeLay years, even as these scholars cut the Leaders of the Free World down to their proper constitutional size. The idea of an imperial Presidency was always an exaggeration. “A President, these days, is an invaluable clerk,” Richard Neustadt, the dean of Presidential theorists, pointed out in 1960.The clerk at the time was Dwight Eisenhower, the general and war hero twice elected in landslides, only to be frustrated, like so many popular Presidents before and since, in skirmishes with well-organized adversaries on Capitol Hill. Congressmen were the heavies then, just as they are today. And yet, however much we say that we dislike our representatives, we keep sending many of them back to Washington. Together, Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid, each his party’s leader in the Senate, have spent fifty-eight years there. In the House, John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have logged a combined fifty-two. These four, and some others, compose our democracy’s only long-term elected class. What distinguished L.B.J. from almost all his predecessors and successors was his profound rootedness in Congress, where he spent a dozen years in the House and another dozen in the Senate. As Majority Leader, he became as famous as a senator could be, thanks to his resourcefulness and his genius for compromise and his almost feral magnetism. But it was seldom clear what L.B.J. really wanted, apart from dominating the game and intimidating the other players. Robert Caro has turned the question over on a spit in four immensely detailed volumes and still seems undecided. Real-time observers were mystified, too. “The test will come when he runs out of ideas,” Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., remarked in August, 1964. “Up to this point he has been living intellectually on the Kennedy years.” A year later, L.B.J. had signed Medicare and the Voting Rights Act into law, seven days apart. But in politics the truly new idea is a rarity. Much of the agenda presented with such fanfare in the nineteen-sixties, first by Kennedy and then by Johnson, had been in congressional circulation since the nineteen-forties and fifties, and Johnson was well versed in its fine points. As early as 1949, Senator Hubert Humphrey, who had a master’s degree in political science, was proposing one bill after another on national health insurance, Social Security extensions, and federally financed school construction. Not one had a chance of becoming law then, because the votes weren’t there. They’d gone missing in F.D.R.’s second term, when an alliance of Republicans and Southern Democrats formed “the conservative coalition,” a bloc that functioned as an autonomous congressional party, supplanting the two nominally major ones. By the time L.B.J. became President, Congress had been, as Zelizer says, a “graveyard of liberal legislation” for more than a quarter century. As late as 1960, some thought a vigorous new President might single-handedly revitalize Congress. This was a delusion. In August, a few weeks after Kennedy promised a “New Frontier” in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, the Times’ Tom Wicker cautioned that if Kennedy won he would meet the fearsome “roadblock in Congress,” the House Committee on Rules, which, under the control of a “six-man conservative junta,” was “virtually a third branch of Congress—equal to and sometimes superior to the Senate and the House.” It was controlled by its chairman, Howard Smith, of Virginia, who decided which bills reached the floor for a general vote and which did not. In the Senate, Southern domination was even greater. Johnson had spent his years as Majority Leader in continual negotiation with the chamber’s true “master,” Richard Russell, Jr., the Georgia segregationist whose weapon was the filibuster—not the lone-wolf stunts performed recently by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz but martial epics, involving a “platoon” of men who delivered four-hour monologues on a rotating basis. “The Senate might be described without too much violence to fact as the South’s unending revenge upon the North for Gettysburg,” the journalist William S. White wrote in “Citadel,” a best-selling account of the Senate published in 1957. White, a Texan, was by no means a critic of the Senate. He was enamored of its rituals and thought it had a “touch of authentic genius.” At a lunch organized by Johnson, not long after the book was published, each freshman senator found a copy of “Citadel” at his place setting with two inscriptions, one by White, the other by L.B.J., who urged them all to study it “as a sort of McGuffey’s Reader,” one of the freshman, Joseph Clark, recalled. Clark, who called Congress “the sapless branch,” belonged to the growing and restive corps of liberal Democrats who found the Senate less the genteel club that White described than a mildewed establishment. Part of the problem was bipartisanship. “L.B.J. has no idea of his own but consensus,” Schlesinger noted. The criticism rings strangely today, when consensus and bipartisanship have become the holy grails of government, but in the mid-twentieth century they seemed symptoms of stasis and even atrophy. Humphrey, who was in the vanguard of a fresh style of Democratic politics—“issues-based” rather than interest-group-appeasing—inveighed against the “rotten political bargain” that Southern Democrats, including Johnson, had sealed with Republicans. Genuine political progress, he maintained, had to begin with institutional reform. There had been talk of overhauling Congress, within the institution and outside it, for generations. In 1879, when Woodrow Wilson was a senior at Princeton, he wrote a celebrated essay advocating a British-style “cabinet government,” in which the heads of State, Treasury, and so on would simultaneously serve in the Senate, thus linking the legislative and executive branches in a unified system of majority rule. He elaborated on the idea in his dissertation, “Congressional Government,” printed fifteen times between 1885 and 1900. Its targets included the House’s many committees and their ducal “elders.” Whenever a bill “goes from the clerk’s desk to a committee-room it crosses a parliamentary bridge of sighs to dim dungeons of silence whence it will never return,” Wilson wrote. “The means and time of its death are unknown, but its friends never see it again.” It is impossible to imagine anyone today writing such a book and wishing to enter politics, much less being elected President twice. Yet when Wilson arrived at the White House, in 1913, he tried to improvise the “straightforward, inartificial party government” he had championed. He went to Congress to deliver the State of the Union address rather than submit a written message, as every President since Jefferson had done. He also made the “President’s room” in the Capitol an actual office for meetings with committee chairmen. But the institutional friction was too great. Later, when a proposal was held up by filibuster, Wilson urged a cloture rule cutting off debate. The Senate adopted one, but it set the bar unreachably high: a two-thirds-majority vote, which stayed in place until 1975. In 1941, the American Political Science Association appointed a “Committee on Congress” to explore possible wide-ranging reforms. Some in Congress were amenable and put the leader of the A.P.S.A. team in charge of a Joint House-Senate Committee. After many hearings and much delay, a “reorganization” was approved in 1946. It eliminated lots of committees, taking the House from forty-eight to nineteen and the Senate from thirty-three to fifteen. (Today, there are twenty-one and twenty, respectively.) But the reorganization didn’t include the A.P.S.A.’s most important suggestions: changing the rigid next-in-line “senility system” of chairmanships, reducing the power of the Rules Committee, taming the filibuster with a less onerous cloture rule. The streamlining concentrated even more power in the hands of those who already had it. CartoonBuy the print » Nor did the reforms address the muddled identities of the two major parties. In 1944, reflecting on the legislative stalemate of the prewar years, F.D.R. concluded that the two parties were dysfunctional, “split by dissenters.” That year, he suggested to Wendell Willkie, the moderate Republican he had run against in 1940, that the two form a new “liberal” party. (A decade later, Eisenhower, under attack from isolationists who threatened his ability to conduct his foreign policy, talked of a new party of “progressive moderates,” perhaps one modelled on Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moosers.) But a second and even more influential A.P.S.A. report, “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System,” published in 1950, sifted through the problem of party discipline. This report grew out of a project supervised by E. E. Schattschneider, a professor at Wesleyan and a leading exponent of Wilsonian party government. A political party that “does not capitalize on its successes by mobilizing the whole power of the government is a monstrosity reflecting the stupidity of professional politicians who are more interested in the petty spoils of office than they are in the control of the richest and most powerful government in the world,” Schattschneider had written. This argument became the overriding theme of the 1950 report. Schattschneider’s team of fifteen scholars and policy experts had talked to congressional leaders, to officials in the Truman Administration, and to state and local politicians. It concluded that the two major parties were “probably the most archaic institutions in the United States”—scarcely more than “loose associations of state and local organizations, with very little national machinery and very little national cohesion.” The Republican or Democrat sent to Congress was seldom screened by the national party and so felt no obligation to support the party’s program, if he even knew what it was. Once in office, he delivered patronage and pork to his constituents back home. He operated free of a coherent agenda and belonged to no “binding” caucus. The parties, in other words, were failing because they weren’t sufficiently ideological, partisan, and polarizing. The solution was a “responsible party system”—centralized, idea-driven, serious-minded. Each party needed stronger central “councils” that met regularly, not just in Convention years, to establish principles and programs. Candidates should be expected to campaign on these platforms and then to carry them out, with dissidents punished or expelled. The party in power would enact its program, and the minority party would provide strong criticism and develop alternatives to present at election time. Schlesinger, for one, glimpsed “the shadow of an infatuation with the British party system.” He was right. Some drafters of the A.P.S.A. report had admired recent events in England, where the Labour Government elected in 1945 had nationalized the railroad and coal industries and, over Tory opposition, introduced a national health service. Labour had campaigned on the promise of a welfare state, and voters had known what they were getting. By comparison, American government looked sluggish and ineffectual. President Truman got nowhere with his health-care proposal, largely because of vehement and well-funded opposition from the American Medical Association. Schattschneider had something to say about that, too. As he had written in his 1942 book “Party Government,” the two parties “let themselves be harried by pressure groups as a timid whale might be pursued by a school of minnows.” To the rising generation of liberal legislators, party government made sense. At the 1948 Democratic Convention, Hubert Humphrey spoke in passionate support of a civil-rights plank. (Its provisions included an anti-lynching law and a fair-employment-practices commission.) Instead of trying to appease the party’s Southern bloc, he met it head on. “The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights, and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights,” Humphrey said. It was an electrifying speech; some sixty million people heard it on the radio, and as many as ten million more saw it on television. The plank was voted in, and the entire Mississippi delegation, along with half of Alabama’s, stalked out. Humphrey, suddenly famous, won his Senate race in November and in 1949 landed on the cover of Time. Truman paid heavily. The Southerners went ahead with their threat to form their own party. The States’ Rights Democratic Party nominee, Strom Thurmond, won a million votes, and captured four states in the South. Humphrey had created a wedge issue within his own party. It was the beginning of the liberal insurgency that climaxed in the Great Society and gave rise to a new politics. Purging dissidents was the first step toward building a new congressional party. A second was drawing together like-minded legislators and voters who for the time being were kept apart by the two-party system. If Southern Democrats and Midwestern Republicans could form a congressional majority, Northerners in both parties might do the same. By the time L.B.J. became President, this possibility had been tossed around for years. In 1958, after the Democrats’ victories in the midterms cut into G.O.P. strongholds from New England to California, Richard Rovere, this magazine’s political correspondent, predicted “a coalition of Northern Republicans and Northern Democrats, led by the latter.” The two groups contained members who were “ideologically indistinguishable,” he wrote. But the moment hadn’t yet come for them to unite. Zelizer does the arithmetic: “In 1957 and 1958, southern Democrats and midwestern Republicans controlled 311 out of 435 seats in the House, and they held 71 out of 96 seats in the Senate. Even after the midterm elections of 1958, which increased the number of northern liberals in both chambers, the conservative coalition retained a ninety-two-vote majority in the House and an eighteen-vote majority in the Senate.” This was why the Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, though sympathetic to the liberal contingent, tamped down talk of a new majority dominated by “bomb-throwing liberals,” as they were called in the press. Matters didn’t much improve in 1960. Kennedy was elected President, but he only just squeaked in, and the Democrats actually lost nearly two dozen members of the House, many of them liberals. And Kennedy’s métier was not legislation but foreign policy and soaring rhetoric. The visionary flights of the New Frontier excited intellectuals and the young, but in Congress Kennedy’s proposals—a tax cut, a major education bill, civil-rights legislation—fizzled back to earth like dud rockets. Congressional Democrats were the ones who set about trying to push through a progressive legislative agenda. And L.B.J., who had steadily backed away from the Dixie contingent, was helping to coax the new agenda along. In 1959, when he was still in the Senate, he had put together a committee on unemployment and assigned a freshman liberal, Eugene McCarthy, to lead it. After holding more than two dozen hearings in a dozen states, the committee issued its report, in March of 1960. As the historian Dominic Sandbrook has written, the report “called for federal assistance and public works in areas suffering from chronic unemployment, national standards of unemployment insurance, action to fight racial and other discrimination, a youth conservation corps, expanded vocational training and federal funding for retraining the jobless.” (The last of these proposals was enacted as the Manpower and Development Training Act, in 1962.) The paramount cause for liberals was civil rights. The movement was gaining momentum in arenas far from Washington. Like other contemporary historians, Zelizer stresses the importance of Martin Luther King, Jr., and other black leaders, who boldly calculated that the drama of the freedom rides and lunch-counter sit-ins, and, later, of clashes with white law enforcement in Birmingham and Selma, would force the President and Congress to act. He similarly gives credit to the efforts of Republican congressmen, including William McCulloch, of Ohio, an indispensable advocate for civil-rights legislation. The layer that Zelizer adds involves the Democratic Study Group, a coalition of liberal House members (some of them well versed in the A.P.S.A.’s 1950 report), led initially by Eugene McCarthy and then by such people as the Missouri Democrat Richard Bolling, who turned it into the first modern congressional caucus. These “de facto lobbyists” for institutional reform, as Zelizer wrote in his 2004 book “On Capitol Hill,” became the model for later Republican insurgencies. The strategies identified today with the Tea Party Caucus (closed-door meetings, public-relations blitzes, bloc voting, continual pressure on weak-kneed House leaders) were pioneered by the D.S.G., which originated with twenty-eight signatories to a liberal manifesto in 1957 and grew to an estimated hundred and twenty-five members—almost half the Democrats in the House—by 1964. The D.S.G. pushed the House to increase the size of the Rules Committee in 1961, weakening the conservative junta. And when the Rules Committee sat on the Civil Rights Act, Bolling collected enough signatures on a petition to force a hearing in January of 1964, the first step in a long march; the obstacles included a sixty-day team-relay filibuster orchestrated by the Senate’s Southern bloc. Johnson’s landslide victory gave him the liberal mandate he needed to push through the agenda for the Great Society, but he couldn’t have done it if the right hadn’t been undergoing its own ideological sorting—a convulsion within the G.O.P. that transferred power from the East Coast to the Sun Belt in the person of Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a gift to liberals. One of just six Republican Senators to vote against the Civil Rights Act, he seemed the iron-jawed tribune of antigovernment extremism. He warned that the new bill would lead to a “federal police state,” turning citizens into informers, an opinion shared by the John Birch Society. Zelizer is probably right to say that Goldwater “built the Great Society,” if only because he accomplished what the liberals couldn’t: he made civil rights, and the liberal causes that followed, seem intrinsic to American idealism. One measure of the new order was the D.S.G.’s rising influence. The group had backed forty House incumbents, of whom thirty-nine won. It also picked forty successful challengers. The membership was now larger than the entire Republican caucus, and it exulted in its power. Two Southern Democrats who had supported Goldwater were stripped of seniority rights, the kind of “sanction” the A.P.S.A. report had called for. The Democratic Study Group successfully pressed for another reform that the report had recommended: changing the makeup of committees to favor the majority party. The “Goldwater Congress,” in James Reston’s phrase, became the first instance of unlimited majority rule since the beginnings of the New Deal. “F.D.R. passed five major bills in the first one hundred days,” Johnson boasted to an aide before the 1966 midterms. “We passed two hundred in the last two years.” Actually, Roosevelt had passed fifteen. But Johnson had one enormous advantage that Roosevelt lacked: a booming economy. “We may now turn to issues more demanding of human ingenuity than that of how to put an end to poverty in the richest nation in the world,” Daniel Patrick Moynihan, an architect of the War on Poverty, wrote in a 1965 essay titled “The Professionalization of Reform.” Such issues might include “the problem of perfecting, to the highest degree possible, the quality of our lives and of our civilization.” Cartoon“You’re gonna take a left at the nondescript white wall, keep going till you pass a nondescript white wall, then head right when you hit a nondescript white wall. If you see a nondescript white wall, you’ve gone too far.”Buy the print » Moderate Republicans, afraid of being branded Goldwaterites, fled to the sanctuary of the Johnson program. Most “believed that the President’s measures were in the national interest,” Geoffrey Kabaservice points out in “Rule and Ruin,” his history of the modern Republican Party. That’s one reason Medicare passed, despite the strenuous lobbying of the American Medical Association. “Approximately thirty-seven legislators who had been considered ‘friends’ of the A.M.A. were defeated” in 1964, Zelizer writes. Wilbur Mills, the tightfisted Arkansas Democrat and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, had been blocking health-care proposals since the fifties, but had come around. He dropped hints of a compromise. L.B.J., with his instinct for congressional politics, deferred to Mills. Years of dismantling bills had made Mills expert in their intricacies, and many of the wrinkles had been worked out in advance. When committee members submitted alternative versions of the program, Mills adroitly mashed all the proposals together. The committee had only thirteen days to draft a final version. That was all the time it needed. No modern Presidency follows the arc of classical tragedy as neatly as Johnson’s. He began as awkward steward to a slain hero he resented, grew into full command of his powers while beset by self-doubt and self-loathing, and finally seemed to will his own descent. The story has been told many times, but Zelizer is especially good on the unravelling of the Great Society. At the start of 1966, L.B.J. could reel off mouthwatering numbers on jobs and wages, yet brace for losses in the midterm elections. It had happened to F.D.R.; it could happen to him. He chose to push ahead for more programs, more agencies, rather than to scale back. This heavy-handed style invited suspicion. The social critic Paul Goodman said that L.B.J.’s government, instead of safeguarding citizens, was reducing them to the status of “clients.” “Dependency” became the new term of art. Four days before the midterms, Zelizer writes, Johnson stood “in front of a turquoise backdrop, ideal for broadcasts on color television,” and in three ceremonies signed eight bills that would funnel huge sums into Great Society programs, including $6.1 billion into schools. The Democrats lost seats, in part thanks to a group of constituents many had taken for granted: working-class, pro-union, Northern whites who remained loyal to the New Deal but suspected that Great Society programs weren’t meant to help them—were, in fact, coming at their expense. Zelizer again has the numbers: “Only thirty-eight out of seventy-one Democrats elected” in 1964 “were reelected to the House in 1966. Just twenty-three of the forty-seven freshman Democrats who had been elected in Republican districts in 1964—not counting the freshmen who had defeated Democratic incumbents—were victorious.” Two years earlier, the conservative coalition seemed finished. Now the liberal one did. Emboldened conservatives attacked “Great Society play money,” rallying votes against a modest bill to exterminate rats in city neighborhoods. Moynihan was now jeering at antipoverty programs in the pages of The Public Interest: “Toss a rock in the lobby of the Office of Economic Opportunity headquarters in Washington today, and one will hit, at random, a steely-eyed budget examiner intent on a systems analysis of health services in Hough, a bearded youth determined to overthrow the ‘entrenched autocracy’ of the Democratic Party machine in some Eastern industrial slum, a former regional director of the Peace Corps worried about Comanche reaction to the latest batch of VISTA volunteers, and a Negro lawyer concerned how to double the number of Head Start projects in his home state before the next election.” L.B.J. began warning that if Congress didn’t raise taxes the country would suffer a “ruinous spiral of inflation” and “brutally higher interest rates.” The other option, scaling back the costs of the Vietnam War, seemed out of the question. Against the best advice, he had been sending in more troops; ultimately, the number exceeded half a million, and total Pentagon spending reached Second World War levels. Johnson was afraid to pull out, for fear of being labelled soft on Communism. Still a creature of Congress, he remembered the convulsions over the “loss” of China and the Korean War. Johnson had been Minority Leader during much of Joe McCarthy’s rampage and found himself powerless to stop it. This time, the protest was coming from the left on campuses and among the intellectuals and the press. The broad public hadn’t yet turned against the Vietnam War. It was the battle at home that was cause for alarm. Strife over civil rights was moving west and north. Protests in Birmingham and Selma had given way to riots in Watts, which erupted less than a week after L.B.J. signed the Voting Rights Act. Riots in Detroit and Newark followed, in the summer of 1967. Such conflict doomed the “third civil-rights bill”—a housing law that would have redressed discriminatory real-estate practices in the North. The bill cleared the House, but it was killed in the Senate by Everett Dirksen, the Illinois senator who had been instrumental in passing the first two bills. There had been racial violence in Chicago, and although whites had committed most of it, Zelizer explains that “Dirksen, like a growing number of Republicans, blamed civil rights activists tied to the black power movement.” After losing a skirmish with Wilbur Mills over taxes, L.B.J. muttered, “I’m not master of nothing. . . . We cannot make this Congress do one damn thing that I know of.” Former allies turned against him, too. Eugene McCarthy, who had helped him mount an eleventh-hour run at the 1960 Presidential nomination, became the Pied Piper of the “Dump Johnson” movement organized by antiwar Democrats. College students converged in New Hampshire for the 1968 primary, and McCarthy’s strong second-place finish proved crippling to Johnson. After Robert Kennedy jumped in, Johnson concluded that he might not even get nominated. He withdrew, and the leaden mantle passed to his Vice-President, Humphrey. Captive to his own rotten bargain, Humphrey insisted that the calamitous war policy was working and so was lumped in with his party’s despised establishment elders. Humphrey and McCarthy, both Minnesotans and pioneers of the new liberal politics, battled through to the nominating Convention in Chicago. The factions of the “responsible” Democratic Party had stayed together about as long as the Beatles. But, like the Beatles, they left an enduring legacy, if not one that they had envisioned. Even as the new liberal party had been forming, a new conservative party had been, too—along the axis that united the Dixie states and the Southwest. Lasting majority rule, however, would elude conservatives just as it had Democrats. Beginning with Richard Nixon, in 1968, Republicans won five of the next six Presidential elections, only to be repeatedly thwarted in Congress, outnumbered and bullied and kept off committees, just as the liberals had been. Like the liberals, they were exasperated by the deals their leaders kept making with the other side. In 1973, House bomb-throwers, following the example of the Democratic Study Group, formed the Republican Study Committee. Forty years later, it helped orchestrate a government shutdown. To date, the most ingenious practitioner of responsible party politics has been Newt Gingrich. All its principles can be found in his “Contract with America”: the stark agenda (balance the budget, cut back welfare), the institutional reforms (term limits, limits as well for committee chairs), the implicit threat to discipline heretics. With it came the ideologically unified party that progressives had once dreamed of, complete with caucusing, late-night strategy sessions, and political-action committees. The result was not only a House majority, won in 1994, but British-style cohesion. Under Gingrich, the House of Representatives became, at last, the American House of Commons. “The Republican Party in the House is the most disciplined political party we have ever seen in the history of America,” Barney Frank said at the time. Gingrich’s reign was short-lived, but many of his reforms went forward. In 2004, House Speaker Dennis Hastert announced a new House rule: no bill would go to the floor for a vote unless “a majority of the majority” supported it. He meant a majority of Republicans, in order to reduce the danger of bipartisan passage. (This is what stopped the immigration law passed by the Senate in 2013 from reaching the House.) And when the numbers weren’t there the conservative party remained firm in its opposition. L.B.J. had mustered as many Republican votes as possible for Medicare, lest it be seen as a “Democratic bill.” President Obama didn’t have that option. It was gone from politics, though it took him a while to realize it. In 1950, when the American Political Science Association report was published, Schlesinger wondered whether the new sorting-out was feasible “without a reorganization of our parties on taut ideological lines” that might inflame antagonisms rooted deep in the native temper. The report, drawing comfort from the very consensus it wished to do away with, confidently insisted that sharpening their disagreements wouldn’t put a forbidding “ideological wall” between the two parties. The Second World War had destroyed all the colossal isms save one, Communism, and it had no future in America. Even as Democrats and Republicans became more partisan, both sides would gravitate toward the center, where most voters were, and both would offer competing solutions to problems most voters could agree needed solving, such as securing voting rights and providing health care for the elderly. The authors of the report did not consider that partisan conviction might create its own pathology. Today, no one is confused about who is a Democrat and who is a Republican. But it hasn’t made it easier for the parties to govern, separately or together. ♦ Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19970683 2015-01-14 08:36:47 2015-01-14 08:36:47 open open a-critic-at-large-january-19-2015-issue-the-power-of-congress-before-l-b-j-progressives-saw-bipartisanship-as-a-blight-what-happened-by-sam-tanen-19970683 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Universal Credit Rating Group, which was launched jointly by Russia and China, will release its first ratings already this year. Moody’s Downgrade Moscow, St. Petersburg Ratings MOSCOW, January 13 (Sputnik) — The first ratings of Universal Credit Rating http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/14/universal-credit-rating-group-which-was-launched-jointly-by-russia-and-china-will-release-its-first-ratings-already-this-year-moody-s-downgrade-m-19969876/ Wed, 14 Jan 2015 05:29:47 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Universal Credit Rating Group, which was launched jointly by Russia and China, will release its first ratings already this year. Moody’s Downgrade Moscow, St. Petersburg Ratings MOSCOW, January 13 (Sputnik) — The first ratings of Universal Credit Rating Group (UCRG), which was created with the participation of Russia and China, are expected as early as 2015, the Head of the Research Department at RusRating Alexander Ovchinnikov told Sputnik on Tuesday. "In our opinion, the first ratings [will] appear
during the current year," Ovchinnikov told Sputnik. According to him, the project is in its final stage. "[The information is] gathered, the headquarters in Hong Kong [is] [working]
, and accreditation with the local regulator is underway. Moreover, there are preliminary agreements [with] other local agencies and investment funds joining the project soon," Ovchinnikov said. The RusRating analyst emphasized that the agency was created as a reaction to the bankruptcy of American investment funds with unreasonably high ratings. "When the issue of creating an agency alternative to the "Big Three" [Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch Group] was raised, we in fact offered [a] project that was ready to be launched and was supported by the governments of Russia and China," Ovchinnikov said. According to the analyst, UCRG satisfies the demand of those investors who have repeatedly criticized the Big Three agencies for standardized approaches that overestimate the opportunities of the developed economies while underestimating those of the developing ones. UCRG was officially created in June 2013 as a partnership between the Chinese Dagong, the Russian RusRating and the American Egan-Jones ratings agencies. According to Ovchinnikov, new members will also be engaged in the partnership in the future. Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Lou Sheehan Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19969876 2015-01-14 05:29:47 2015-01-14 05:29:47 open open universal-credit-rating-group-which-was-launched-jointly-by-russia-and-china-will-release-its-first-ratings-already-this-year-moody-s-downgrade-m-19969876 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Fitness Trackers Only Help Rich People Get Thinner And even for people who can afford it, buying a FitBit doesn't lead to better health. Using it does. Olga Khazan Jan 12 2015, 10:46 AM ET http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/12/fitness-trackers-only-help-rich-people-get-thinner-and-even-for-people-who-can-afford-it-buying-a-fitbit-doesn-t-lead-to-better-health-using-it-d-19964055/ Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:00:16 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Fitness Trackers Only Help Rich People Get Thinner And even for people who can afford it, buying a FitBit doesn't lead to better health. Using it does. Olga Khazan Jan 12 2015, 10:46 AM ET POSTED BUT NOT WRITTEN BY LOUIS SHEEHAN Last year I bought a Lumo Lift, a device that tracks calories and buzzes whenever its wearer slouches. I wore it for about two weeks, wrote an article about it, and put it in a drawer. There it has sat, forlorn and uncharged, ever since. My experience is apparently not unusual. The authors of a new editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association point out that fitness trackers, like the FitBit and Jawbone, only work if they're worn consistently, in the right way, and by people who actually need to become more healthy. And despite the gadgets' proliferation in recent years, each one of those factors is kind of a long shot. The authors, Mitesh Patel, David Asch, and Kevin Volpp of the University of Pennsylvania, point to a survey showing that only about one or two percent of Americans use wearables. (Depending on the definition of "wearable," other surveys have found a much higher number—about 20 percent.) Among those who buy them, about half are younger than 35 and nearly a third earn more than $100,000 a year, the JAMA authors write. In other words, they're not likely to be the people who need the most help to lose weight. Related Story Slouching Towards Not Slouching On top of that, they note, more than half of people who buy fitness trackers stop using them. A third do so within six months. And for the rest, consistency is a struggle: An earlier report from PricewaterhouseCoopers found that among people who own any kind of wearable device, only 10 percent wear it every day and 7 percent wear it a few times a week. The rest are fair-weather FitBitters, donning their devices a few times a month or less. The PwC report, too, found that the young, wealthy, and educated are more likely to own the devices. So does this mean that fitness trackers—an industry that's expected to grow to $50 billion by 2018—aren't very good at actually increasing fitness? The authors of the JAMA article don't go quite that far. "If wearable devices are to be part of the solution, they either need to create enduring new habits, turning external motivations into internal ones (which is difficult), or they need to sustain their external motivation (which is also difficult)," they write. Wearable devices tend to better hack our lazy, hedonic-treadmill brains if they are integrated into smartphones, the devices we rarely leave home without, or send out visual or auditory reminders. One option might be for employers to deploy fitness trackers in workplace-wide fitness competitions ... but these types of contests, Patel and his colleagues note, tend to engage the already-active fitness buffs of the office, and not the people who just need to get off the couch. Instead, the authors recommend something along these lines: Individuals form teams that provide peer support and promote a sense of accountability to use the device and stay engaged in the new behavior—perhaps aiming for everyone to achieve a minimum amount of activity (eg, 7000 steps per day), rather than simply rewarding the power walkers. For example, teams might be selected at random in a regular drawing, but winning teams would only be eligible to collect their reward if the team had achieved its targeted behavior on the previous day. Of course, whether people would stay in a job where they were rewarded based on the jogging abilities of their co-workers is another question. </p> 19964055 2015-01-12 20:00:16 2015-01-12 20:00:16 open open fitness-trackers-only-help-rich-people-get-thinner-and-even-for-people-who-can-afford-it-buying-a-fitbit-doesn-t-lead-to-better-health-using-it-d-19964055 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan scape plan squirrel escape plans An unwary ground squirrel will often scramble away when surprised. But a vigilant squirrel at a site that recently hosted a snake is more likely to do an acrobatic leap. http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/12/scape-plan-squirrel-escape-plans-an-unwary-ground-squirrel-will-often-scramble-away-when-surprised-but-a-vigilant-squirrel-at-a-site-that-recentl-19964042/ Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:55:35 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Why ground squirrels go ninja over nothing Rodents recently spooked by snakes wave their tails as wariness signal BY SUSAN MILIUS 7:00AM, JANUARY 5, 2015 California ground squirrel SECRET NINJA A California ground squirrel is much more capable than it looks when it comes to battling rattlesnakes that lurk to feast on baby-squirrel nuggets. DAS_MILLER/FLICKR, (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) Magazine issue: Vol. 187 No. 1, January 10, 2015 EMail logo EMail Print logo Print Twitter logo Twitter Facebook logo Facebook Reddit logo Reddit Google+ logo Google+ SPONSOR MESSAGE Whole scientific careers have gone into understanding why a harmless handful of fluff like a California ground squirrel taunts rattlesnakes. Now Rulon Clark and his team at San Diego State University are exploring the puzzle of why the squirrels also seem to taunt rocks, sticks and the occasional shrub. On spotting a snake, a California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) stares and sniffs, or if the snake is uncoiled, may even kick sand at it. And in bursts, the squirrel flags its tail left and right “like a windshield wiper,” Clark says. A rattler can strike a target 30 centimeters away in less than 70 milliseconds. But ground squirrels twist and dodge fast enough to have a decent chance of escape. Also, adult squirrels from snake country have evolved some resistance to venom. So taunting is worth the risks as a signal to neighboring squirrels and to the snake that its ambush attempt has been discovered. After getting publicly and lengthily squirreled, snakes often just slip away. Posted, but not written by, Louis Sheehan Escape plan squirrel escape plans An unwary ground squirrel will often scramble away when surprised. But a vigilant squirrel at a site that recently hosted a snake is more likely to do an acrobatic leap. Credit (diagram): B.J. Putman and R.W. Clark/Behavioral Ecology 2014 Yet the squirrels also nyah-nyah tail flag at places where snakes might be but aren’t. To see if flagging indicates wariness, Clark and his colleagues built a squirrel startler that shoots out a cork using the classic spring that launches gag snakes out of cans (see video below). At spots with no sign of real snakes, squirrels mostly nibbled seeds in apparent tranquility with only a rare tail flag. The pop of a cork typically sent these squirrels scampering off on four speed-blurred paws. But when a squirrel revisited a worrisome spot where it had recently seen a snake (tethered by researchers), there was more and faster tail flagging. When the cork popped, more than half the squirrels flipped. “All four legs came off the ground and their tails were torquing around,” Clark says. Those just-in-case tail flags could tell a still-hidden snake that this is one wary squirrel ready for extreme body displacement, Clark and Breanna Putman report in an upcoming Behavioral Ecology. Earlier work showed that frequent flaggers often escaped attacks. So flagging may persuade a smart snake to wait for an easier target. Credit: Rulon Clark/YouTube </p> 19964042 2015-01-12 19:55:35 2015-01-12 19:55:35 open open scape-plan-squirrel-escape-plans-an-unwary-ground-squirrel-will-often-scramble-away-when-surprised-but-a-vigilant-squirrel-at-a-site-that-recentl-19964042 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Omaha Daily Bee, January 11, 1915 http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/12/omaha-daily-bee-january-11-19960548/ Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:17:28 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn99021999/1915-01-11/ed-1/seq-1/ Posted by Lou Sheehan</p> 19960548 2015-01-12 03:17:28 2015-01-12 03:17:28 open open omaha-daily-bee-january-11-19960548 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan ‘Cowardice: A Brief History,’ by Chris Walsh By JAMES BOWMANJAN. 9, 2015 http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/10/cowardice-a-brief-history-by-chris-walsh-by-james-bowmanjan-9-19952428/ Sat, 10 Jan 2015 03:24:15 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>SUNDAY BOOK REVIEW ‘Cowardice: A Brief History,’ by Chris Walsh By JAMES BOWMANJAN. 9, 2015 “Cowardice” is not quite one of those words, like “honor,” whose meaning was once understood by everyone but is now understood by almost no one. Yet its meaning has lately become more elusive. Are suicide bombers “cowardly,” as we are so often assured they are, or insanely courageous? Is it more cowardly to refuse to fight or to fight for fear of being called a coward for not fighting? Some people claim to have the answers to such questions about this once familiar and unproblematic subject, but they tend to disagree. There is no consensus as to who is a coward and who is not — or even about whether the question is one of any importance. Cowardice, whatever it means, must seem a matter of individual choice, like everything else, and the implied judgment made by the term probably requires that we decline to use it at all. Chris Walsh, an associate director of the College of Arts and Sciences Writing Program at Boston University, purports to offer a historical investigation of the subject in “Cowardice: A Brief History,” but his book is much more of a social and cultural survey of attitudes toward cowardice during various periods of American history. The limitation, by and large, to American examples is presumably for the sake of keeping the book to a manageable size and the brief history briefer rather than longer, but the lack of foreign comparisons obscures what distinguishes the American attitude from that of the old European honor culture. Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan The book can be seen as a kind of extended footnote to William Ian Miller’s “The Mystery of Courage” (2000), and it has some of the same problems, not least a tendency to mystification. Miller’s book is one of Walsh’s central texts — along with Stephen Crane’s “The Red Badge of Courage,” James Jones’s “The Thin Red Line” and a sermon titled “The Curse of Cowardice,” delivered in Hanover, Va., by Samuel Davies in 1758 to recruit soldiers for the French and Indian War. These Walsh keeps coming back to after ranging further afield among an impressive array of primary sources. But then, for a subject like cowardice, nearly all the sources are primary. Perhaps the most important thing we learn from this book comes from its very existence. Ours could be the first time and place in which cowardice has been thought a subject worthy of academic study. Near the beginning, we find a Google graph showing that the word is much less used today than it was 200 or even 100 years ago. The decline is a steady one until shortly after the beginning of the present century, when there is a small but unmistakable uptick. The author is surely right to say that this is owing to popular debate about terrorism since 9/11, but I wonder if the graph for “honor,” “courage,” “virtue” or any other words that now sound “judgmental” would not describe a similar pattern. The book’s “working definition” of a coward, naturally hedged with numerous qualifications, is “someone who, because of excessive fear, fails to do what he is supposed to do.” “Excessive” begs the question. What makes this fear excessive? The fact that it provokes cowardice — which is then defined by the excessive fear. But it bespeaks a definitional need to probe within, to find the coward’s true feelings in order to authenticate his cowardice. Does he have “excessive” fear? Yes? Then he’s a proper coward instead of, presumably, only pretending to be one. But surely it is one definition of a coward, and perhaps a better one to be working with, that it is something no one ever pretends to be. Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story By contrast, courage is often pretended — perhaps so often as to approach always — which is what makes it so much more rewarding as a subject for study. If the mask is fascinating because of what it hides, what it hides is mere fear, which is rather lacking in nuance. What is there to say about it once it has been named? A quick survey of books with “fear” in their titles suggests that all are written for the purpose of dismissing or getting rid of it. Giving way to fear, which is what the coward does, is more interesting, however, because of its public dimension, since it is the rare act of cowardice that entirely escapes public observation. The coward emulates the writer or analyst (or vice versa), by bringing into the light of day that which belongs to the shadowiest realm of the psyche. About Henry Fleming, the problematic hero of “The Red Badge of Courage,” Walsh has this to say: “When he thinks that having made his ‘mistakes in the dark’ meant that he was still a man, the implication is that any sin so thoroughly a matter of social perception is no sin at all.” It is not really as sin that Henry sees his own act of cowardice; rather it is as a potential cause for (public) shame. If it is also a sin, that does not concern him: only the prospect of being known as cowardly. This is in the nature of the thing. We all care more about being publicly acknowledged as sinners than about committing sins in the first place, but cowardice is itself nearly always a public acknowledgment. Or at least that is the traditional way to look at it. Part of Walsh’s purpose is to tease us with the idea that maybe there is more to it than that. Maybe bravery itself conceals a kind of cowardice. Of the scene in which Henry runs from battle so desperately that, if you didn’t know the direction of his flight, you wouldn’t know if he was charging or fleeing, Walsh writes: “Cowardice and courage become merely arbitrary names we give to physiological reactions to environmental conditions.” At least that’s what the coward tells himself! There is a similar definitional problem with “duty,” to which the book devotes a chapter. “Examining specific mentions of ‘duty’ in relation to cowardice,” we read, “suggests an increasingly common understanding that duty is trivial, absurd or downright pernicious.” This is no doubt true, but of course such things could only be said in a context of denial that the duty in question is a duty at all. What seems dubious, logically, is retaining the idea of duty while disparaging it in such terms. Or is it? Maybe, just as there could be said to be a cowardly shadow to someone who acts courageously because he is afraid to be a coward, so there is also a kind of ghostly dutifulness in someone who takes on the duty of defying the very idea of duty. This kind of thinking seems to me oversubtle, a backhanded way of justifying bad behavior. But insofar as there is a demand for a book on cowardice from a reputable university press, it must be because a sizable contingent of people will not think of it in this way. For whatever reason, we want to be told that the standards by which people used to be judged have to be re-examined — as cowardice has been in the last century, mainly on therapeutic grounds — if not abolished altogether. Those who are interested in such standards, whether pro or con, will find this book an indispensable addition to their libraries. COWARDICE A Brief History By Chris Walsh Illustrated. 292 pp. Princeton University Press. $27.95. James Bowman, a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, is the author of “Honor: A History” and “Media Madness.”</p> 19952428 2015-01-10 03:24:15 2015-01-10 03:24:15 open open cowardice-a-brief-history-by-chris-walsh-by-james-bowmanjan-9-19952428 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan Wal-Mart: An economic cancer on our cities In Asheville, N.C., a dense downtown generated jobs and tax revenue and restored the city's soul Charles Montgomery http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/10/wal-mart-an-economic-cancer-on-our-cities-in-asheville-n-c-a-dense-downtown-generated-jobs-and-tax-revenue-and-restored-the-city-s-soul-charles-m-19952347/ Sat, 10 Jan 2015 02:53:15 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Sunday, Nov 10, 2013 11:30 AM PST Wal-Mart: An economic cancer on our cities In Asheville, N.C., a dense downtown generated jobs and tax revenue and restored the city's soul Charles Montgomery Not written by, but rather, merely posted by Louis Sheehan Downtown Asheville, North Carolina (Credit: SeanPavonePhoto via Shutterstock/Salon) Excerpted from "Happy City" Most of us agree that development that provides employment and tax revenue is good for cities. Some even argue that the need for jobs outweighs aesthetic, lifestyle, or climate concerns—in fact, this argument comes up any time Walmart proposes a new megastore near a small town. But a clear-eyed look at the spatial economics of land, jobs, and tax regimes should cause anyone to reject the anything-and-anywhere-goes development model. To explain, let me offer the story of an obsessive number cruncher who found his own urban laboratory quite by chance. Joseph Minicozzi, a young architect raised in upstate New York, was on a cross-country motorcycle ride in 2001 when he got sidetracked in the Appalachian Mountains. He met a beautiful woman in a North Carolina roadside bar and was smitten by both that woman and the languid beauty of the Blue Ridge region. Now they share a bungalow with two dogs in the mountain town of Asheville. Asheville is, in many ways, a typical midsize American city, which is to say that its downtown was virtually abandoned in the second half of the twentieth century. Dozens of elegant old structures were boarded up or encased in aluminum siding as highways and liberal development policies sucked people and commercial life into dispersal. The process continued until 1991, when Julian Price, the heir to a family insurance and broadcasting fortune, decided to pour everything he had into nursing that old downtown back to life. His company, Public Interest Projects, bought and renovated old buildings, leased street-front space out to small businesses, and rented or sold the lofts above to a new wave of residential pioneers. They coached, coddled, and sometimes bankrolled entrepreneurs who began to enliven the streets. First came a vegetarian restaurant, then a bookstore, a furniture store, and the now-legendary nightclub, the Orange Peel. When Price died in 2001, the downtown was starting to show signs of life, but his successor, Pat Whelan, and his new recruit, Minicozzi, still had to battle the civic skeptics. Some city officials saw such little value in downtown land that they planned to plunk down a prison right in the middle of a terrain that was perfect for mixed-use redevelopment. The developers realized that if they wanted the city officials to support their vision, they needed to educate them—and that meant offering them hard numbers on the tax and job benefits of revitalizing downtown. The numbers they produced sparked a eureka moment among the city’s accountants because they insisted on taking a spatial systems approach, similar to the way farmers look at land they want to put into production. The question was simple: What is the production yield for every acre of land? On a farm, the answer might be in pounds of tomatoes. In the city, it’s about tax revenues and jobs. To explain, Minicozzi offered me his classic urban accounting smackdown, using two competing properties: On the one side is a downtown building his firm rescued—a six-story steel-framed 1923 classic once owned by JCPenney and converted into shops, offices, and condos. On the other side is a Walmart on the edge of town. The old Penney’s building sits on less than a quarter of an acre, while the Walmart and its parking lots occupy thirty-four acres. Adding up the property and sales tax paid on each piece of land, Minicozzi found that the Walmart contributed only $50,800 to the city in retail and property taxes for each acre it used, but the JCPenney building contributed a whopping $330,000 per acre in property tax alone. In other words, the city got more than seven times the return for every acre on downtown investments than it did when it broke new ground out on the city limits. When Minicozzi looked at job density, the difference was even more vivid: the small businesses that occupied the old Penney’s building employed fourteen people, which doesn’t seem like many until you realize that this is actually seventy-four jobs per acre, compared with the fewer than six jobs per acre created on a sprawling Walmart site. (This is particularly dire given that on top of reducing jobs density in its host cities, Walmart depresses average wages as well.) Minicozzi has since found the same spatial conditions in cities all over the United States. Even low-rise, mixed-use buildings of two or three stories—the kind you see on an old-style, small-town main street—bring in ten times the revenue per acre as that of an average big-box development. What’s stunning is that, thanks to the relationship between energy and distance, large-footprint sprawl development patterns can actually cost cities more to service than they give back in taxes. The result? Growth that produces deficits that simply cannot be overcome with new growth revenue. In Sarasota County, Florida, for example, Minicozzi found that it would take about three times as long for the county to recoup the land and infrastructure costs involved in developing housing in a sprawl pattern as compared with downtown. If all went well, the county’s return on investment for sprawl housing would still be barely 4 percent. “Cities and counties have essentially been taking tax revenues from downtowns and using them to subsidize development and services in sprawl,” Minicozzi told me. “This is like a farmer going out and dumping all his fertilizer on the weeds rather than on the tomatoes.” The productive richness of the new Asheville approach becomes even clearer when you consider the geographic path taken by dollars spent at local businesses. Money spent at small and local businesses tends to stay in a community, producing more local jobs, while money spent at big national chains tends to get sucked out of the local economy. Local businesses tend to use local accountants, printers, lawyers, and advertisers, and their owners spend more of their profits in town. National retailers, on the other hand, tend to send such work back to regional or national hubs, and their profits to distant shareholders. Every $100 spent at a local business produces at least a third more local economic benefit and more than a third more local jobs. The arrival of a Walmart in any community has been shown to produce a blast radius of lower wages and higher poverty. Price, Whelan, and Minicozzi helped convince the city of Asheville to fertilize that rich downtown soil. The city changed its zoning policies, allowing flexible uses for downtown buildings. It invested in livelier streetscapes and public events. It stopped forcing developers to build parking garages, which brought down the cost of both housing and business. It built its own user-pay garages, so the cost of parking was borne by the people who used it rather than by everyone else. All of this helped make it worthwhile for developers to risk their investment on restoring old buildings, producing new jobs and tax density for the city. Retail sales in the resurgent downtown have exploded since 1991. So has the taxable value of downtown properties, which cost a fraction to service than sprawl lands. The reborn downtown has become the greatest supplier of tax revenue and affordable housing in the county—partly because it relieves people of the burden of commuting, and partly because it mixes high-end lofts with modest apartments. All of this, while growing what one local newspaper emotionally described as, “a downtown that—after decades of doubt and neglect—is once again the heart and soul of Asheville.” By investing in downtowns rather than dispersal, cities can boost jobs and local tax revenues while spending less on far-flung infrastructure and services. In Asheville, North Carolina, Public Interest Projects found that a six- story mixed-use building produced more than thirteen times the tax revenue and twelve times the jobs per acre of land than the Walmart on the edge of town. (Walmart retail tax based in national average for Walmart stores.) (Scott Keck, with data from Joe Minicozzi / Public Interest Projects) By paying attention to the relationship between land, distance, scale, and cash flow—in other words, by building more connected, complex places—the city regained its soul and its good health. Excerpted from “Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design” by Charles Montgomery, published in November 2013 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, LLC. Copyright © 2013 by Charles Montgomery. All rights reserved. </p> 19952347 2015-01-10 02:53:15 2015-01-10 02:53:15 open open wal-mart-an-economic-cancer-on-our-cities-in-asheville-n-c-a-dense-downtown-generated-jobs-and-tax-revenue-and-restored-the-city-s-soul-charles-m-19952347 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan Afghan government likely to withstand a burgeoning Taliban insurgency within the coming year after the US combat troops withdrawal. © Flickr/ isafmedia http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/07/afghan-government-likely-to-withstand-a-burgeoning-taliban-insurgency-within-the-coming-year-after-the-us-combat-troops-withdrawal-flickr-isafmed-19936731/ Wed, 07 Jan 2015 04:14:02 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Afghan government likely to withstand a burgeoning Taliban insurgency within the coming year after the US combat troops withdrawal. © Flickr/ isafmedia Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan WASHINGTON, January 6 (Sputnik) – The government of Afghanistan will most likely be able to withstand a burgeoning Taliban insurgency within the coming year after the US combat troops withdrawal, two analysts told Sputnik. "I am pretty confident we are not going to see a collapse of the [Afghan] regime in 2015. There will likely be an ongoing insurgency but the Afghan state and its security forces are not a house of cards that are going to be blown away by the Taliban wind," expert advisor to Stratfor, a global intelligence firm, on Middle Eastern and South Asian affairs Kamran Bokhari told Sputnik Monday. Bokhari, who is also the author of "Political Islam in the Age of Democratization", said the reality on the ground is much different from that of the 1990s, when the Taliban was able to advance in Kabul after the collapse of the Soviet-backed regime. © REUTERS/ Lucas Jackson According to the analyst, the Taliban would be unable to become a guerrilla group out of an insurgent terrorist force, because the United States will still be providing air support to Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Therefore, US air power will prevent the Taliban from massing troops and will help disrupt its logistical movements. Moreover, Afghanistan's cooperation with Pakistan would be critical, Bokhari noted, as it would help to "squeeze the Taliban from both directions." The analyst noticed there has been more collaboration with Pakistan since new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani came into office. Finally, Bokhari underlined that Afghanistan over the past few years has been witnessing the emergence of an actual state, a development the country has not seen since the Communist regime in Kabul fell in the early 1990s. © US Army / Staff Sgt. Shane Hamann Meanwhile, the Afghan government is also pursuing peace talks with the Taliban. Khalil Nouri, founder of an Afghan think tank, the New World Strategies Coalition, also said the Taliban may need to come to the negotiating table because it is unlikely that they will fight their way into power. "Mullah Omar [spiritual leader, commander of the Taliban] needs to consider this. The Taliban have very little chance of coming to power again primarily because they have little mass popular support. When the majority does not want you, then you are doomed," Nouri told Sputnik. The United States will not abandon Afghanistan because it has too much of a strategic interest in it, he added. Afghanistan will become an "Observation-Tower-State" that will help the United States monitor Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan more closely, according to the expert. "The US and NATO have invested too much time and capital in Afghanistan. That will not go to waste, as it did during the post-Soviet withdrawal in 1989, when the United States turned its back on Afghanistan," Nouri said. Nouri was less optimistic than Bokhari about Afghanistan's future development and indicated that poor economic conditions and corruption would likely destabilize the state before a Taliban reemergence does. The United States withdrew combat troops from Afghanistan in the end of December 2014 after a 14-year occupation. The withdrawal raised fears of growing insurgent violence and questions on whether or not the ANSF can adequately defend the country. According to the UN, a record number of civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014. The new US mission that started on January 2, Resolute Support, will focus on training and advising the ANSF. On January 1, President Ghani wrote on his Twitter that "from now on, we must take the responsibility of securing Afghanistan," and the United States "will train/advise the ANSF to prevail." Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19936731 2015-01-07 04:14:02 2015-01-07 04:14:02 open open afghan-government-likely-to-withstand-a-burgeoning-taliban-insurgency-within-the-coming-year-after-the-us-combat-troops-withdrawal-flickr-isafmed-19936731 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan The Tragedy of the American Military The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America int http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/06/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military-the-american-public-and-its-political-leadership-will-do-anything-for-the-military-except-take-it-seriously--19932237/ Tue, 06 Jan 2015 08:46:06 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>The Tragedy of the American Military The American public and its political leadership will do anything for the military except take it seriously. The result is a chickenhawk nation in which careless spending and strategic folly combine to lure America into endless wars it can’t win. James Fallows JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2015 Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan In mid-September, while President Obama was fending off complaints that he should have done more, done less, or done something different about the overlapping crises in Iraq and Syria, he traveled to Central Command headquarters, at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida. There he addressed some of the men and women who would implement whatever the U.S. military strategy turned out to be. The part of the speech intended to get coverage was Obama’s rationale for reengaging the United States in Iraq, more than a decade after it first invaded and following the long and painful effort to extricate itself. This was big enough news that many cable channels covered the speech live. I watched it on an overhead TV while I sat waiting for a flight at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. When Obama got to the section of his speech announcing whether he planned to commit U.S. troops in Iraq (at the time, he didn’t), I noticed that many people in the terminal shifted their attention briefly to the TV. As soon as that was over, they went back to their smartphones and their laptops and their Cinnabons as the president droned on. Usually I would have stopped watching too, since so many aspects of public figures’ appearances before the troops have become so formulaic and routine. But I decided to see the whole show. Obama gave his still-not-quite-natural-sounding callouts to the different military services represented in the crowd. (“I know we’ve got some Air Force in the house!” and so on, receiving cheers rendered as “Hooyah!” and “Oorah!” in the official White House transcript.) He told members of the military that the nation was grateful for their nonstop deployments and for the unique losses and burdens placed on them through the past dozen years of open-ended war. He noted that they were often the face of American influence in the world, being dispatched to Liberia in 2014 to cope with the then-dawning Ebola epidemic as they had been sent to Indonesia 10 years earlier to rescue victims of the catastrophic tsunami there. He said that the “9/11 generation of heroes” represented the very best in its country, and that its members constituted a military that was not only superior to all current adversaries but no less than “the finest fighting force in the history of the world.” If any of my fellow travelers at O’Hare were still listening to the speech, none of them showed any reaction to it. And why would they? This has become the way we assume the American military will be discussed by politicians and in the press: Overblown, limitless praise, absent the caveats or public skepticism we would apply to other American institutions, especially ones that run on taxpayer money. A somber moment to reflect on sacrifice. Then everyone except the few people in uniform getting on with their workaday concerns. The public attitude evident in the airport was reflected by the public’s representatives in Washington. That same afternoon, September 17, the House of Representatives voted after brief debate to authorize arms and supplies for rebel forces in Syria, in hopes that more of them would fight against the Islamic State, or ISIS, than for it. The Senate did the same the next day—and then both houses adjourned early, after an unusually short and historically unproductive term of Congress, to spend the next six and a half weeks fund-raising and campaigning full-time. I’m not aware of any midterm race for the House or Senate in which matters of war and peace—as opposed to immigration, Obamacare, voting rights, tax rates, the Ebola scare—were first-tier campaign issues on either side, except for the metaphorical “war on women” and “war on coal.” VIDEOMilitary Spending is Broken Why does civilian technology grow ever cheaper and more reliable while military technology does the opposite? An animated explainer narrated by James Fallows. This reverent but disengaged attitude toward the military—we love the troops, but we’d rather not think about them—has become so familiar that we assume it is the American norm. But it is not. When Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a five-star general and the supreme commander, led what may have in fact been the finest fighting force in the history of the world, he did not describe it in that puffed-up way. On the eve of the D-Day invasion, he warned his troops, “Your task will not be an easy one,” because “your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened.” As president, Eisenhower’s most famous statement about the military was his warning in his farewell address of what could happen if its political influence grew unchecked. At the end of World War II, nearly 10 percent of the entire U.S. population was on active military duty—which meant most able-bodied men of a certain age (plus the small number of women allowed to serve). Through the decade after World War II, when so many American families had at least one member in uniform, political and journalistic references were admiring but not awestruck. Most Americans were familiar enough with the military to respect it while being sharply aware of its shortcomings, as they were with the school system, their religion, and other important and fallible institutions. Now the American military is exotic territory to most of the American public. As a comparison: A handful of Americans live on farms, but there are many more of them than serve in all branches of the military. (Well over 4 million people live on the country’s 2.1 million farms. The U.S. military has about 1.4 million people on active duty and another 850,000 in the reserves.) The other 310 million–plus Americans “honor” their stalwart farmers, but generally don’t know them. So too with the military. Many more young Americans will study abroad this year than will enlist in the military—nearly 300,000 students overseas, versus well under 200,000 new recruits. As a country, America has been at war nonstop for the past 13 years. As a public, it has not. A total of about 2.5 million Americans, roughly three-quarters of 1 percent, served in Iraq or Afghanistan at any point in the post-9/11 years, many of them more than once. The difference between the earlier America that knew its military and the modern America that gazes admiringly at its heroes shows up sharply in changes in popular and media culture. While World War II was under way, its best-known chroniclers were the Scripps Howard reporter Ernie Pyle, who described the daily braveries and travails of the troops (until he was killed near the war’s end by Japanese machine-gun fire on the island of Iejima), and the Stars and Stripes cartoonist Bill Mauldin, who mocked the obtuseness of generals and their distance from the foxhole realities faced by his wisecracking GI characters, Willie and Joe. From Mister Roberts to South Pacific to Catch-22, from The Caine Mutiny to The Naked and the Dead to From Here to Eternity, American popular and high culture treated our last mass-mobilization war as an effort deserving deep respect and pride, but not above criticism and lampooning. The collective achievement of the military was heroic, but its members and leaders were still real people, with all the foibles of real life. A decade after that war ended, the most popular military-themed TV program was The Phil Silvers Show, about a con man in uniform named Sgt. Bilko. As Bilko, Phil Silvers was that stock American sitcom figure, the lovable blowhard—a role familiar from the time of Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners to Homer Simpson in The Simpsons today. Gomer Pyle, USMC; Hogan’s Heroes; McHale’s Navy; and even the anachronistic frontier show F Troop were sitcoms whose settings were U.S. military units and whose villains—and schemers, and stooges, and occasional idealists—were people in uniform. American culture was sufficiently at ease with the military to make fun of it, a stance now hard to imagine outside the military itself. “Full-victory—nothing else”: General Dwight D. Eisenhower gives the order to paratroopers in England the night before they board planes to join the first assault in the D-Day invasion of Europe. (U.S. Army Signal Corps/AP) Robert Altman’s 1970 movie M*A*S*H was clearly “about” the Vietnam War, then well into its bloodiest and most bitterly divisive period. (As I point out whenever discussing this topic, I was eligible for the draft at the time, was one of those protesting the war, and at age 20 legally but intentionally failed my draft medical exam. I told this story in a 1975 Washington Monthly article, “What Did You Do in the Class War, Daddy?”) But M*A*S*H’s ostensible placement in the Korean War of the early 1950s somewhat distanced its darkly mocking attitude about military competence and authority from fierce disagreements about Vietnam. (The one big Vietnam movie to precede it was John Wayne’s doughily prowar The Green Berets, in 1968. What we think of as the classic run of Vietnam films did not begin until the end of the 1970s, with The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now.) The TV spin-off of Altman’s film, which ran from 1972 through 1983, was a simpler and more straightforward sitcom on the Sgt. Bilko model, again suggesting a culture close enough to its military to put up with, and enjoy, jokes about it. Let’s skip to today’s Iraq-Afghanistan era, in which everyone “supports” the troops but few know very much about them. The pop-culture references to the people fighting our ongoing wars emphasize their suffering and stoicism, or the long-term personal damage they may endure. The Hurt Locker is the clearest example, but also Lone Survivor; Restrepo; the short-lived 2005 FX series set in Iraq, Over There; and Showtime’s current series Homeland. Some emphasize high-stakes action, from the fictionalized 24 to the meant-to-be-true Zero Dark Thirty. Often they portray military and intelligence officials as brave and daring. But while cumulatively these dramas highlight the damage that open-ended warfare has done—on the battlefield and elsewhere, to warriors and civilians alike, in the short term but also through long-term blowback—they lack the comfortable closeness with the military that would allow them to question its competence as they would any other institution’s. The battlefield is of course a separate realm, as the literature of warfare from Homer’s time onward has emphasized. But the distance between today’s stateside America and its always-at-war expeditionary troops is extraordinary. Last year, the writer Rebecca Frankel published War Dogs, a study of the dog-and-handler teams that had played a large part in the U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the reason she chose the topic, she told me, was that dogs were one of the few common points of reference between the military and the larger public. “When we cannot make that human connection over war, when we cannot empathize or imagine the far-off world of a combat zone
these military working dogs are a bridge over the divide,” Frankel wrote in the introduction to her book. It’s a wonderful book, and dogs are a better connection than nothing. But
dogs! When the country fought its previous wars, its common points of reference were human rather than canine: fathers and sons in harm’s way, mothers and daughters working in defense plants and in uniform as well. For two decades after World War II, the standing force remained so large, and the Depression-era birth cohorts were so small, that most Americans had a direct military connection. Among older Baby Boomers, those born before 1955, at least three-quarters have had an immediate family member—sibling, parent, spouse, child—who served in uniform. Of Americans born since 1980, the Millennials, about one in three is closely related to anyone with military experience. Interactive graphic: The first map above (in green) shows per-capita military enlistments from 2000 to 2010, grouped by 3-digit zip code. The second (in red) shows the home towns of deceased soldiers from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Enlistment rates vary widely—in 2010, only 0.04 percent of the Upper East Side of Manhattan (zip code prefix 101) enlisted, while the U.S. Virgin Islands (prefix 008) had an enlistment rate of 0.98 percent. When it comes to lives lost, U.S. territories (particularly Guam) shoulder an outsized burden. (Map design and development: Frankie Dintino. Sources: Department of Defense, US Census Bureau) The most biting satirical novel to come from the Iraq-Afghanistan era, Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, by Ben Fountain, is a takedown of our empty modern “thank you for your service” rituals. It is the story of an Army squad that is badly shot up in Iraq; is brought back to be honored at halftime during a nationally televised Dallas Cowboys Thanksgiving Day game; while there, is slapped on the back and toasted by owner’s-box moguls and flirted with by cheerleaders, “passed around like everyone’s favorite bong,” as platoon member Billy Lynn thinks of it; and is then shipped right back to the front. The people at the stadium feel good about what they’ve done to show their support for the troops. From the troops’ point of view, the spectacle looks different. “There’s something harsh in his fellow Americans, avid, ecstatic, a burning that comes of the deepest need,” the narrator says of Billy Lynn’s thoughts. “That’s his sense of it, they all need something from him, this pack of half-rich lawyers, dentists, soccer moms, and corporate VPs, they’re all gnashing for a piece of a barely grown grunt making $14,800 a year.” Fountain’s novel won the National Book Critics Circle Award for fiction in 2012, but it did not dent mainstream awareness enough to make anyone self-conscious about continuing the “salute to the heroes” gestures that do more for the civilian public’s self-esteem than for the troops’. As I listened to Obama that day in the airport, and remembered Ben Fountain’s book, and observed the hum of preoccupied America around me, I thought that the parts of the presidential speech few Americans were listening to were the ones historians might someday seize upon to explain the temper of our times. Always supportive of the troops: Crowds in Macon welcome back 200 members of the Georgia National Guard's 48th Infantry Brigade Combat Team returning from Afghanistan, September 2014. (David Goldman/AP) I. Chickenhawk Nation If I were writing such a history now, I would call it Chickenhawk Nation, based on the derisive term for those eager to go to war, as long as someone else is going. It would be the story of a country willing to do anything for its military except take it seriously. As a result, what happens to all institutions that escape serious external scrutiny and engagement has happened to our military. Outsiders treat it both too reverently and too cavalierly, as if regarding its members as heroes makes up for committing them to unending, unwinnable missions and denying them anything like the political mindshare we give to other major public undertakings, from medical care to public education to environmental rules. The tone and level of public debate on those issues is hardly encouraging. But for democracies, messy debates are less damaging in the long run than letting important functions run on autopilot, as our military essentially does now. A chickenhawk nation is more likely to keep going to war, and to keep losing, than one that wrestles with long-term questions of effectiveness. Americans admire the military as they do no other institution. Through the past two decades, respect for the courts, the schools, the press, Congress, organized religion, Big Business, and virtually every other institution in modern life has plummeted. The one exception is the military. Confidence in the military shot up after 9/11 and has stayed very high. In a Gallup poll last summer, three-quarters of the public expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the military. About one-third had comparable confidence in the medical system, and only 7 percent in Congress. Too much complacency regarding our military, and too weak a tragic imagination about the consequences if the next engagement goes wrong, have been part of Americans’ willingness to wade into conflict after conflict, blithely assuming we would win. “Did we have the sense that America cared how we were doing? We did not,” Seth Moulton told me about his experience as a marine during the Iraq War. Moulton became a Marine Corps officer after graduating from Harvard in 2001, believing (as he told me) that when many classmates were heading to Wall Street it was useful to set an example of public service. He opposed the decision to invade Iraq but ended up serving four tours there out of a sense of duty to his comrades. “America was very disconnected. We were proud to serve, but we knew it was a little group of people doing the country’s work.” Moulton told me, as did many others with Iraq-era military experience, that if more members of Congress or the business and media elite had had children in uniform, the United States would probably not have gone to war in Iraq at all. Because he felt strongly enough about that failure of elite accountability, Moulton decided while in Iraq to get involved in politics after he left the military. “I actually remember the moment,” Moulton told me. “It was after a difficult day in Najaf in 2004. A young marine in my platoon said, ‘Sir, you should run for Congress someday. So this shit doesn’t happen again.’ ” In January, Moulton takes office as a freshman Democratic representative from Massachusetts’s Sixth District, north of Boston. What Moulton described was desire for a kind of accountability. It is striking how rare accountability has been for our modern wars. Hillary Clinton paid a price for her vote to authorize the Iraq War, since that is what gave the barely known Barack Obama an opening to run against her in 2008. George W. Bush, who, like most ex-presidents, has grown more popular the longer he’s been out of office, would perhaps be playing a more visible role in public and political life if not for the overhang of Iraq. But those two are the exceptions. Most other public figures, from Dick Cheney and Colin Powell on down, have put Iraq behind them. In part this is because of the Obama administration’s decision from the start to “look forward, not back” about why things had gone so badly wrong with America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But such willed amnesia would have been harder if more Americans had felt affected by the wars’ outcome. For our generals, our politicians, and most of our citizenry, there is almost no accountability or personal consequence for military failure. This is a dangerous development—and one whose dangers multiply the longer it persists. Ours is the best-equipped fighting force in history, and it is incomparably the most expensive. By all measures, today’s professionalized military is also better trained, motivated, and disciplined than during the draft-army years. No decent person who is exposed to today’s troops can be anything but respectful of them and grateful for what they do. Yet repeatedly this force has been defeated by less modern, worse-equipped, barely funded foes. Or it has won skirmishes and battles only to lose or get bogged down in a larger war. Although no one can agree on an exact figure, our dozen years of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and neighboring countries have cost at least $1.5 trillion; Linda J. Bilmes, of the Harvard Kennedy School, recently estimated that the total cost could be three to four times that much. Recall that while Congress was considering whether to authorize the Iraq War, the head of the White House economic council, Lawrence B. Lindsey, was forced to resign for telling The Wall Street Journal that the all-in costs might be as high as $100 billion to $200 billion, or less than the U.S. has spent on Iraq and Afghanistan in many individual years. [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan Yet from a strategic perspective, to say nothing of the human cost, most of these dollars might as well have been burned. “At this point, it is incontrovertibly evident that the U.S. military failed to achieve any of its strategic goals in Iraq,” a former military intelligence officer named Jim Gourley wrote recently for Thomas E. Ricks’s blog, Best Defense. “Evaluated according to the goals set forth by our military leadership, the war ended in utter defeat for our forces.” In 13 years of continuous combat under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the longest stretch of warfare in American history, U.S. forces have achieved one clear strategic success: the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Their many other tactical victories, from overthrowing Saddam Hussein to allying with Sunni tribal leaders to mounting a “surge” in Iraq, demonstrated great bravery and skill. But they brought no lasting stability to, nor advance of U.S. interests in, that part of the world. When ISIS troops overran much of Iraq last year, the forces that laid down their weapons and fled before them were members of the same Iraqi national army that U.S. advisers had so expensively yet ineffectively trained for more than five years. “Did we have the sense that America cared how we were doing? We did not,” Seth Moulton told me about his experience as a marine during the Iraq War. “We are vulnerable,” the author William Greider wrote during the debate last summer on how to fight ISIS, “because our presumption of unconquerable superiority leads us deeper and deeper into unwinnable military conflicts.” And the separation of the military from the public disrupts the process of learning from these defeats. The last war that ended up in circumstances remotely resembling what prewar planning would have considered a victory was the brief Gulf War of 1991. After the Vietnam War, the press and the public went too far in blaming the military for what was a top-to-bottom failure of strategy and execution. But the military itself recognized its own failings, and a whole generation of reformers looked to understand and change the culture. In 1978, a military-intelligence veteran named Richard A. Gabriel published, with Paul L. Savage, Crisis in Command: Mismanagement in the Army, which traced many of the failures in Vietnam to the military’s having adopted a bureaucratized management style. Three years later, a broadside called Self-Destruction: The Disintegration and Decay of the United States Army During the Vietnam Era, by a military officer writing under the pen name Cincinnatus (later revealed to be a lieutenant colonel serving in the reserves as a military chaplain, Cecil B. Currey), linked problems in Vietnam to the ethical and intellectual shortcomings of the career military. The book was hotly debated—but not dismissed. An article about the book for the Air Force’s Air University Review said that “the author’s case is airtight” and that the military’s career structure “corrupts those who serve it; it is the system that forces out the best and rewards only the sycophants.” Today, you hear judgments like that frequently from within the military and occasionally from politicians—but only in private. It’s not the way we talk in public about our heroes anymore, with the result that accountability for the career military has been much sketchier than during our previous wars. William S. Lind is a military historian who in the 1990s helped develop the concept of “Fourth Generation War,” or struggles against the insurgents, terrorists, or other “nonstate” groups that refuse to form ranks and fight like conventional armies. He wrote recently: The most curious thing about our four defeats in Fourth Generation War—Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan—is the utter silence in the American officer corps. Defeat in Vietnam bred a generation of military reformers
Today, the landscape is barren. Not a military voice is heard calling for thoughtful, substantive change. Just more money, please. During and after even successful American wars, and certainly after the standoff in Korea and the defeat in Vietnam, the professional military’s leadership and judgment were considered fair game for criticism. Grant saved the Union; McClellan seemed almost to sabotage it—and he was only one of the Union generals Lincoln had to move out of the way. Something similar was true in wars through Vietnam. Some leaders were good; others were bad. Now, for purposes of public discussion, they’re all heroes. In our past decade’s wars, as Thomas Ricks wrote in this magazine in 2012, “hundreds of Army generals were deployed to the field, and the available evidence indicates that not one was relieved by the military brass for combat ineffectiveness.” This, he said, was not only a radical break from American tradition but also “an important factor in the failure” of our recent wars. Partly this change has come because the public, at its safe remove, doesn’t insist on accountability. Partly it is because legislators and even presidents recognize the sizable risks and limited payoffs of taking on the career military. When recent presidents have relieved officers of command, they have usually done so over allegations of sexual or financial misconduct, or other issues of personal discipline. These include the cases of the two famous four-star generals who resigned rather than waiting for President Obama to dismiss them: Stanley A. McChrystal, as the commander in Afghanistan, and David Petraeus in his post-Centcom role as the head of the CIA. The exception proving the rule occurred a dozen years ago, when a senior civilian official directly challenged a four-star general on his military competence. In congressional testimony just before the Iraq War, General Eric Shinseki, then the Army’s chief of staff, said that many more troops might be necessary to successfully occupy Iraq than plans were allowing for—only to be ridiculed in public by Paul Wolfowitz, then Shinseki’s superior as the deputy secretary of defense, who said views like Shinseki’s were “outlandish” and “wildly off the mark.” Wolfowitz and his superior, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, ostentatiously marginalized Shinseki from that point on. In that case, the general was right and the politicians were wrong. But more often and more skillfully than the public usually appreciates, today’s military has managed to distance itself from the lengthening string of modern military failures—even when wrong. Some of this PR shift is anthropological. Most reporters who cover politics are fascinated by the process and enjoy practitioners who love it too, which is one reason most were (like the rest of the country) more forgiving of the happy warrior Bill Clinton than they have been of the “cold” and “aloof” Barack Obama. But political reporters are always hunting for the gaffe or scandal that could bring a target down, and feel they’re acting in the public interest in doing so. Most reporters who cover the military are also fascinated by its processes and cannot help liking or at least respecting their subjects: physically fit, trained to say “sir” and “ma’am,” often tested in a way most civilians will never be, part of a disciplined and selfless-seeming culture that naturally draws respect. And whether or not this was a conscious plan, the military gets a substantial PR boost from the modern practice of placing officers in mid-career assignments at think tanks, on congressional staffs, and in graduate programs across the country. For universities, military students are (as a dean at a public-policy school put it to me) “a better version of foreign students.” That is, they work hard, pay full tuition, and unlike many international students face no language barrier or difficulty adjusting to the American style of give-and-take classroom exchanges. Most cultures esteem the scholar-warrior, and these programs expose usually skeptical American elites to people like the young Colin Powell, who as a lieutenant colonel in his mid-30s was a White House fellow after serving in Vietnam, and David Petraeus, who got his Ph.D. at Princeton as a major 13 years after graduating from West Point. And yet however much Americans “support” and “respect” their troops, they are not involved with them, and that disengagement inevitably leads to dangerous decisions the public barely notices. “My concern is this growing disconnect between the American people and our military,” retired Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George W. Bush and Barack Obama (and whose mid-career academic stint was at Harvard Business School), told me recently. The military is “professional and capable,” he said, “but I would sacrifice some of that excellence and readiness to make sure that we stay close to the American people. Fewer and fewer people know anyone in the military. It’s become just too easy to go to war.” Citizens notice when crime is going up, or school quality is going down, or the water is unsafe to drink, or when other public functions are not working as they should. Not enough citizens are made to notice when things go wrong, or right, with the military. The country thinks too rarely, and too highly, of the 1 percent under fire in our name. A new F-35, part of the first delivery of an anticipated 144 planes, in a hanger at Luke Air Force Base, in Glendale, Arizona, before an unveiling ceremony, March 2014 (Ross D. Franklin/AP) II. Chickenhawk Economy from the archives The Draft: Why the Country Needs It "If citizens are willing to countenance a decision that means that someone's child may die, they may contemplate more deeply if there is the possibility that the child will be theirs." Read the full story by James Fallows in the April 1980 Atlantic America’s distance from the military makes the country too willing to go to war, and too callous about the damage warfare inflicts. This distance also means that we spend too much money on the military and we spend it stupidly, thereby shortchanging many of the functions that make the most difference to the welfare of the troops and their success in combat. We buy weapons that have less to do with battlefield realities than with our unending faith that advanced technology will ensure victory, and with the economic interests and political influence of contractors. This leaves us with expensive and delicate high-tech white elephants, while unglamorous but essential tools, from infantry rifles to armored personnel carriers, too often fail our troops (see “Gun Trouble,” by Robert H. Scales, in this issue). We know that technology is our military’s main advantage. Yet the story of the post-9/11 “long wars” is of America’s higher-tech advantages yielding transitory victories that melt away before the older, messier realities of improvised weapons, sectarian resentments, and mounting hostility to occupiers from afar, however well-intentioned. Many of the Pentagon’s most audacious high-tech ventures have been costly and spectacular failures, including (as we will see) the major air-power project of recent years, the F-35. In an America connected to its military, such questions of strategy and implementation would be at least as familiar as, say, the problems with the Common Core education standards. Those technological breakthroughs that do make their way to the battlefield may prove to be strategic liabilities in the long run. During the years in which the United States has enjoyed a near-monopoly on weaponized drones, for example, they have killed individuals or small groups at the price of antagonizing whole societies. When the monopoly ends, which is inevitable, the very openness of the United States will make it uniquely vulnerable to the cheap, swarming weapons others will deploy. The cost of defense, meanwhile, goes up and up and up, with little political resistance and barely any public discussion. By the fullest accounting, which is different from usual budget figures, the United States will spend more than $1 trillion on national security this year. That includes about $580 billion for the Pentagon’s baseline budget plus “overseas contingency” funds, $20 billion in the Department of Energy budget for nuclear weapons, nearly $200 billion for military pensions and Department of Veterans Affairs costs, and other expenses. But it doesn’t count more than $80 billion a year of interest on the military-related share of the national debt. After adjustments for inflation, the United States will spend about 50 percent more on the military this year than its average through the Cold War and Vietnam War. It will spend about as much as the next 10 nations combined—three to five times as much as China, depending on how you count, and seven to nine times as much as Russia. The world as a whole spends about 2 percent of its total income on its militaries; the United States, about 4 percent. Yet such is the dysfunction and corruption of the budgeting process that even as spending levels rise, the Pentagon faces simultaneous crises in funding for maintenance, training, pensions, and veterans’ care. “We’re buying the wrong things, and paying too much for them,” Charles A. Stevenson, a onetime staffer on the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former professor at the National War College, told me. “We’re spending so much on people that we don’t have the hardware, which is becoming more expensive anyway. We are flatlining R&D.” Here is just one newsworthy example that illustrates the broad and depressingly intractable tendencies of weapons development and spending: the failed hopes for a new airplane called the F-35 “Lightning.”
Today’s weapons can be decades in gestation, and the history of the F-35 traces back long before most of today’s troops were born. Two early-1970s-era planes, the F-16 “Fighting Falcon” jet and the A-10 “Thunderbolt II” attack plane, departed from the trend of military design in much the same way the compact Japanese cars of that era departed from the tail-fin American look. These planes were relatively cheap, pared to their essentials, easy to maintain, and designed to do a specific thing very well. For the F-16, that was to be fast, highly maneuverable, and deadly in air-to-air combat. For the A-10, it was to serve as a kind of flying tank that could provide what the military calls “close air support” to troops in combat by blasting enemy formations. The A-10 needed to be heavily armored, so it could absorb opposing fire; designed to fly as slowly as possible over the battlefield, rather than as rapidly, so that it could stay in range to do damage rather than roaring through; and built around one very powerful gun. There are physical devices that seem the pure expression of a function. The Eames chair, a classic No. 2 pencil, the original Ford Mustang or VW Beetle, the MacBook Air—take your pick. The A-10, generally known not as the Thunderbolt but as the Warthog, fills that role in the modern military. It is rugged; it is inexpensive; it can shred enemy tanks and convoys by firing up to 70 rounds a second of armor-piercing, 11-inch-long depleted-uranium shells. The tragedy of the F-35 is that a project meant to correct problems in designing and paying for weapons has come to exemplify them. And the main effort of military leaders through the past decade, under the Republican leadership of the Bush administration and the Democratic leadership of Obama, has been to get rid of the A-10 so as to free up money for a more expensive, less reliable, technically failing airplane that has little going for it except insider dealing, and the fact that the general public doesn’t care. The weapon in whose name the A-10 is being phased out is its opposite in almost every way. In automotive terms, it would be a Lamborghini rather than a pickup truck (or a flying tank). In air-travel terms, the first-class sleeper compartment on Singapore Airlines rather than advance-purchase Economy Plus (or even business class) on United. These comparisons seem ridiculous, but they are fair. That is, a Lamborghini is demonstrably “better” than a pickup truck in certain ways—speed, handling, comfort—but only in very special circumstances is it a better overall choice. Same for the first-class sleeper, which would be anyone’s choice if someone else were footing the bill but is simply not worth the trade-off for most people most of the time. Each new generation of weapons tends to be “better” in much the way a Lamborghini is, and “worth it” in the same sense as a first-class airline seat. The A-10 shows the pattern. According to figures from the aircraft analyst Richard L. Aboulafia, of the Teal Group, the “unit recurring flyaway” costs in 2014 dollars—the fairest apples-to-apples comparison—stack up like this. Each Warthog now costs about $19 million, less than any other manned combat aircraft. A Predator drone costs about two-thirds as much. Other fighter, bomber, and multipurpose planes cost much more: about $72 million for the V-22 Osprey, about $144 million for the F-22 fighter, about $810 million for the B-2 bomber, and about $101 million (or five A‑10s) for the F-35. There’s a similar difference in operating costs. The operating expenses are low for the A-10 and much higher for the others largely because the A-10’s design is simpler, with fewer things that could go wrong. The simplicity of design allows it to spend more of its time flying instead of being in the shop. In clear contrast to the A-10, the F-35 is an ill-starred undertaking that would have been on the front pages as often as other botched federal projects, from the Obamacare rollout to the FEMA response after Hurricane Katrina, if, like those others, it either seemed to affect a broad class of people or could easily be shown on TV—or if so many politicians didn’t have a stake in protecting it. One measure of the gap in coverage: Total taxpayer losses in the failed Solyndra solar-energy program might come, at their most dire estimate, to some $800 million. Total cost overruns, losses through fraud, and other damage to the taxpayer from the F-35 project are perhaps 100 times that great, yet the “Solyndra scandal” is known to probably 100 times as many people as the travails of the F-35. Here’s another yardstick: the all-in costs of this airplane are now estimated to be as much as $1.5 trillion, or a low-end estimate of the entire Iraq War. The condensed version of this plane’s tragedy is that a project meant to correct some of the Pentagon’s deepest problems in designing and paying for weapons has in fact worsened and come to exemplify them. An aircraft that was intended to be inexpensive, adaptable, and reliable has become the most expensive in history, and among the hardest to keep out of the shop. The federal official who made the project a symbol of a new, transparent, rigorously data-dependent approach to awarding contracts ended up serving time in federal prison for corruption involving projects with Boeing. (Boeing’s chief financial officer also did time in prison.) For the record, the Pentagon and the lead contractors stoutly defend the plane and say that its teething problems will be over soon—and that anyway, it is the plane of the future, and the A-10 is an aging relic of the past. (We have posted reports here on the A-10, pro and con, so you can see whether you are convinced.) In theory, the F-35 would show common purpose among the military services, since the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps would all get their own custom-tailored versions of the plane. In fact, a plane designed to do many contradictory things—to be strong enough to survive Navy aircraft-carrier landings, yet light and maneuverable enough to excel as an Air Force dogfighter, and meanwhile able to take off and land straight up and down, like a helicopter, to reach marines in tight combat circumstances—has unsurprisingly done none of them as well as promised. In theory, the F-35 was meant to knit U.S. allies together, since other countries would buy it as their mainstay airplane and in turn would get part of the contracting business. In fact, the delays, cost overruns, and mechanical problems of the airplane have made it a contentious political issue in customer countries from Canada and Holland to Italy and Australia. Interactive map: Parts from the F-35 are sourced from over 250 locations around the globe, spanning 11 countries and, in the U.S., more than 90 congressional districts. Hover over any red dot to see a list of contractors. (Map design and development: Frankie Dintino. Source: Center for International Policy.) The country where the airplane has least been a public issue is the United States. In their 2012 debates, Mitt Romney criticized Barack Obama for supporting “green energy” projects, including Solyndra. Neither man mentioned the F-35, and I am still looking for evidence that President Obama has talked about it in any of his speeches. In other countries, the F-35 can be cast as another annoying American intrusion. Here, it is protected by supplier contracts that have been spread as broadly as possible. “Political engineering,” a term popularized by a young Pentagon analyst named Chuck Spinney in the 1970s, is pork-barrel politics on the grandest scale. Cost overruns sound bad if someone else is getting the extra money. They can be good if they are creating business for your company or jobs in your congressional district. Political engineering is the art of spreading a military project to as many congressional districts as possible, and thus maximizing the number of members of Congress who feel that if they cut off funding, they’d be hurting themselves. A $10 million parts contract in one congressional district builds one representative’s support. Two $5 million contracts in two districts are twice as good, and better all around would be three contracts at $3 million apiece. Every participant in the military-contracting process understands this logic: the prime contractors who parcel out supply deals around the country, the military’s procurement officers who divide work among contractors, the politicians who vote up or down on the results. In the late 1980s, a coalition of so-called cheap hawks in Congress tried to cut funding for the B-2 bomber. They got nowhere after it became clear that work for the project was being carried out in 46 states and no fewer than 383 congressional districts (of 435 total). The difference between then and now is that in 1989, Northrop, the main contractor for the plane, had to release previously classified data to demonstrate how broadly the dollars were being spread. Whatever its technical challenges, the F-35 is a triumph of political engineering, and on a global scale. For a piquant illustration of the difference that political engineering can make, consider the case of Bernie Sanders—former Socialist mayor of Burlington, current Independent senator from Vermont, possible candidate from the left in the next presidential race. In principle, he thinks the F-35 is a bad choice. After one of the planes caught fire last summer on a runway in Florida, Sanders told a reporter that the program had been “incredibly wasteful.” Yet Sanders, with the rest of Vermont’s mainly left-leaning political establishment, has fought hard to get an F-35 unit assigned to the Vermont Air National Guard in Burlington, and to dissuade neighborhood groups there who think the planes will be too noisy and dangerous. “For better or worse, [the F-35] is the plane of record right now,” Sanders told a local reporter after the runway fire last year, “and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.” It’s going to be somewhere, so why not here? As Vermont goes, so goes the nation. The next big project the Air Force is considering is the Long Range Strike Bomber, a successor to the B-1 and B-2 whose specifications include an ability to do bombing runs deep into China. (A step so wildly reckless that the U.S. didn’t consider it even when fighting Chinese troops during the Korean War.) By the time the plane’s full costs and capabilities become apparent, Chuck Spinney wrote last summer, the airplane, “like the F-35 today, will be unstoppable.” That is because even now its supporters are building the plane’s “social safety net by spreading the subcontracts around the country, or perhaps like the F-35, around the world.” Admiral Mike Mullen, the then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a press conference in Baghdad in August 2011. (Joseph Epstein) III. Chickenhawk Politics Politicians say that national security is their first and most sacred duty, but they do not act as if this is so. The most recent defense budget passed the House Armed Services Committee by a vote of 61 to zero, with similarly one-sided debate before the vote. This is the same House of Representatives that cannot pass a long-term Highway Trust Fund bill that both parties support. “The lionization of military officials by politicians is remarkable and dangerous,” a retired Air Force colonel named Tom Ruby, who now writes on organizational culture, told me. He and others said that this deference was one reason so little serious oversight of the military took place. T. X. Hammes, a retired Marine Corps colonel who has a doctorate in modern history from Oxford, told me that instead of applying critical judgment to military programs, or even regarding national defense as any kind of sacred duty, politicians have come to view it simply as a teat. “Many on Capitol Hill see the Pentagon with admirable simplicity,” he said: “It is a way of directing tax money to selected districts. It’s part of what they were elected to do.” In the spring of 2011, Barack Obama asked Gary Hart, the Democratic Party’s most experienced and best-connected figure on defense reform, to form a small bipartisan task force that would draft recommendations on how Obama might try to recast the Pentagon and its practices if he won a second term. Hart did so (I was part of the group, along with Andrew J. Bacevich of Boston University, John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School, and Norman R. Augustine, the former CEO of Lockheed Martin), and sent a report to Obama that fall. [Here is that memo.] He never heard back. Every White House is swamped with recommendations and requests, and it responds only to those it considers most urgent—which defense reform obviously was not. Soon thereafter, during the 2012 presidential race, neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney said much about how they would spend the billion and a half dollars a day that go to military programs, except for when Romney said that if elected, he would spend a total of $1 trillion more. In their only direct exchange about military policy, during their final campaign debate, Obama said that Romney’s plans would give the services more money than they were asking for. Romney pointed out that the Navy had fewer ships than it did before World War I. Obama shot back, “Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.” It was Obama’s most sarcastic and aggressive moment of any of the debates, and was also the entirety of the discussion about where those trillions would go. Jim Webb is a decorated Vietnam veteran, an author, a former Democratic senator, and a likely presidential candidate. Seven years ago in his book A Time to Fight, he wrote that the career military was turning into a “don’t break my rice bowl” culture, referring to an Asian phrase roughly comparable to making sure everyone gets a piece of the pie. Webb meant that ambitious officers notice how many of their mentors and predecessors move after retirement into board positions, consultancies, or operational roles with defense contractors. (Pensions now exceed preretirement pay for some very senior officers; for instance, a four-star general or admiral with 40 years of service can receive a pension of more than $237,000 a year, even if his maximum salary on active duty was $180,000.) Webb says it would defy human nature if knowledge of the post-service prospects did not affect the way some high-ranking officers behave while in uniform, including “protecting the rice bowl” of military budgets and cultivating connections with their predecessors and their postretirement businesses. “There have always been some officers who went on to contracting jobs,” Webb, who grew up in an Air Force family, told me recently. “What’s new is the scale of the phenomenon, and its impact on the highest ranks of the military.” Of course, the modern military advertises itself as a place where young people who have lacked the chance or money for higher education can develop valuable skills, plus earn GI Bill benefits for post-service studies. That’s good all around, and is part of the military’s perhaps unintended but certainly important role as an opportunity creator for undercredentialed Americans. Webb is talking about a different, potentially corrupting “prepare for your future” effect on the military’s best-trained, most influential careerists. If more members of Congress or the business and media elite had had children in uniform, the United States would probably not have gone to war in Iraq. “It is no secret that in subtle ways, many of these top leaders begin positioning themselves for their second-career employment during their final military assignments,” Webb wrote in A Time to Fight. The result, he said, is a “seamless interplay” of corporate and military interests “that threatens the integrity of defense procurement, of controversial personnel issues such as the huge ‘quasi-military’ structure [of contractors, like Blackwater and Halliburton] that has evolved in Iraq and Afghanistan, and inevitably of the balance within our national security process itself.” I heard assessments like this from many of the men and women I spoke with. The harshest ones came not from people who mistrusted the military but from those who, like Webb, had devoted much of their lives to it. A man who worked for decades overseeing Pentagon contracts told me this past summer, “The system is based on lies and self-interest, purely toward the end of keeping money moving.” What kept the system running, he said, was that “the services get their budgets, the contractors get their deals, the congressmen get jobs in their districts, and no one who’s not part of the deal bothers to find out what is going on.” Of course it was the most revered American warrior of the 20th century, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned most urgently that business and politics would corrupt the military, and vice versa. Everyone has heard of this speech. Not enough people have actually read it and been exposed to what would now be considered its dangerously antimilitary views. Which mainstream politician could say today, as Eisenhower said in 1961, that the military-industrial complex has a “total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—[that] is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government”? Seth Moulton, a few days after his victory in last fall’s congressional race, said that the overall quality and morale of people in the military has dramatically improved since the days of a conscript force. “But it’s become populated, especially at the highest ranks, by careerists, people who have gotten where they are by checking all the boxes and not taking risks,” he told me. “Some of the finest officers I knew were lieutenants who knew they were getting out, so weren’t afraid to make the right decision. I know an awful lot of senior officers who are very afraid to make a tough choice because they’re worried how it will look on their fitness report.” This may sound like a complaint about life in any big organization, but it’s something more. There’s no rival Army or Marine Corps you can switch to for a new start. There’s almost no surmounting an error or a black mark on the fitness or evaluation reports that are the basis for promotions. Every institution has problems, and at every stage of U.S. history, some critics have considered the U.S. military overfunded, underprepared, too insular and self-regarding, or flawed in some other way. The difference now, I contend, is that these modern distortions all flow in one way or another from the chickenhawk basis of today’s defense strategy. At enormous cost, both financial and human, the nation supports the world’s most powerful armed force. But because so small a sliver of the population has a direct stake in the consequences of military action, the normal democratic feedbacks do not work. I have met serious people who claim that the military’s set-apart existence is best for its own interests, and for the nation’s. “Since the time of the Romans there have been people, mostly men but increasingly women, who have volunteered to be the praetorian guard,” John A. Nagl told me. Nagl is a West Point graduate and Rhodes Scholar who was a combat commander in Iraq and has written two influential books about the modern military. He left the Army as a lieutenant colonel and now, in his late 40s, is the head of the Haverford prep school, near Philadelphia. “They know what they are signing up for,” Nagl said of today’s troops. “They are proud to do it, and in exchange they expect a reasonable living, and pensions and health care if they are hurt or fall sick. The American public is completely willing to let this professional class of volunteers serve where they should, for wise purpose. This gives the president much greater freedom of action to make decisions in the national interest, with troops who will salute sharply and do what needs to be done.” I like and respect Nagl, but I completely disagree. As we’ve seen, public inattention to the military, born of having no direct interest in what happens to it, has allowed both strategic and institutional problems to fester. “A people untouched (or seemingly untouched) by war are far less likely to care about it,” Andrew Bacevich wrote in 2012. Bacevich himself fought in Vietnam; his son was killed in Iraq. “Persuaded that they have no skin in the game, they will permit the state to do whatever it wishes to do.” “Our military and defense structures are increasingly remote from the society they protect,” Gary Hart’s working group told the president. Mike Mullen thinks that one way to reengage Americans with the military is to shrink the active-duty force, a process already under way. “The next time we go to war,” he said, “the American people should have to say yes. And that would mean that half a million people who weren’t planning to do this would have to be involved in some way. They would have to be inconvenienced. That would bring America in. America hasn’t been in these previous wars. And we are paying dearly for that.” With their distance from the military, politicians don’t talk seriously about whether the United States is directly threatened by chaos in the Middle East and elsewhere, or is in fact safer than ever (as Christopher Preble and John Mueller, of the Cato Institute, have argued in a new book, A Dangerous World?). The vast majority of Americans outside the military can be triply cynical in their attitude toward it. Triply? One: “honoring” the troops but not thinking about them. Two: “caring” about defense spending but really viewing it as a bipartisan stimulus program. Three: supporting a “strong” defense but assuming that the United States is so much stronger than any rival that it’s pointless to worry whether strategy, weaponry, and leadership are right. The cultural problems arising from an arm’s-length military could be even worse. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., a retired Air Force major general who now teaches at Duke law school, has thought about civic-military relations through much of his professional life. When he was studying at the National Defense University as a young Air Force officer in the early 1990s, just after the first Gulf War, he was a co-winner of the prize for best student essay with an imagined-future work called “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.” His essay’s premise was cautionary, and was based on the tension between rising adulation for the military and declining trust in most other aspects of government. The more exasperated Americans grew about economic and social problems, the more relieved they were when competent men in uniform, led by General Thomas E. T. Brutus, finally stepped in to take control. Part of the reason for the takeover, Dunlap explained, was that the military had grown so separate from mainstream culture and currents that it viewed the rest of society as a foreign territory to occupy and administer. Recently I asked Dunlap how the real world of post-2012 America matched his imagined version. “I think we’re on the cusp of seeing a resurgence of a phenomenon that has always been embedded in the American psyche,” he said. “That is benign antimilitarism,” which would be the other side of the reflexive pro-militarism of recent years. “People don’t appreciate how unprecedented our situation is,” he told me. What is that situation? For the first time in the nation’s history, America has a permanent military establishment large enough to shape our dealings in the world and seriously influence our economy. Yet the Americans in that military, during what Dunlap calls the “maturing years of the volunteer force,” are few enough in number not to seem representative of the country they defend. “It’s becoming increasingly tribal,” Dunlap says of the at-war force in our chickenhawk nation, “in the sense that more and more people in the military are coming from smaller and smaller groups. It’s become a family tradition, in a way that’s at odds with how we want to think a democracy spreads the burden.” People within that military tribe can feel both above and below the messy civilian reality of America. Below, in the burdens placed upon them, and the inattention to the lives, limbs, and opportunities they have lost. Above, in being able to withstand hardships that would break their hipster or slacker contemporaries. “It’s become just too easy to go to war,” says Admiral Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “I think there is a strong sense in the military that it is indeed a better society than the one it serves,” Dunlap said. “And there is some rationality for that.” Anyone who has spent time with troops and their families knows what he means. Physical fitness, standards of promptness and dress, all the aspects of self-discipline that have traditionally made the military a place where misdirected youth could “straighten out,” plus the spirit of love and loyalty for comrades that is found in civilian life mainly on sports teams. The best resolution of this tension between military and mainstream values would of course come as those who understand the military’s tribal identity apply their strengths outside the tribe. “The generation coming up, we’ve got lieutenants and majors who had been the warrior-kings in their little outposts,” Dunlap said of the young veterans of the recent long wars. “They were literally making life-or-death decisions. You can’t take that generation and say, ‘You can be seen and not heard.’ ” In addition to Seth Moulton, this year’s Congress will have more than 20 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, including new Republican Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Joni Ernst of Iowa. The 17 who are already there, including Democratic Representatives Tulsi Gabbard and Tammy Duckworth and Republican Representatives Duncan D. Hunter and Adam Kinzinger, have played an active role in veterans’ policies and in the 2013 debates about intervening in Syria. Gabbard was strongly against it; some of the Republican veterans were for it—but all of them made arguments based on firsthand observation of what had worked and failed. Moulton told me that the main lesson he’ll apply from his four tours in Iraq is the importance of service, of whatever kind. He said that Harvard’s famed chaplain during Moulton’s years as an undergraduate physics student, the late Peter J. Gomes, had convinced him that “it’s not enough to ‘believe’ in service. You should find a way, yourself, to serve.” Barring unimaginable changes, “service” in America will not mean a draft. But Moulton says he will look for ways “to promote a culture where more people want to serve.” For all the differences in their emphases and conclusions, these young veterans are alike in all taking the military seriously, rather than just revering it. The vast majority of Americans will never share their experiences. But we can learn from that seriousness, and view military policy as deserving at least the attention we give to taxes or schools. What might that mean, in specific? Here is a start. In the private report prepared for President Obama more than three years ago, Gary Hart’s working group laid out prescriptions on a range of operational practices, from the need for smaller, more agile combat units to a shift in the national command structure to a different approach toward preventing nuclear proliferation. Three of the recommendations were about the way the country as a whole should engage with its armed forces. They were: Appoint a commission to assess the long wars. This commission should undertake a dispassionate effort to learn lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq concerning the nature of irregular, unconventional conflict, command structures, intelligence effectiveness, indigenous cultural factors, training of local forces, and effective combat unit performance. Such a commission will greatly enhance our ability to know when, where, how, and whether to launch future interventions. Clarify the decision-making process for use of force. Such critical decisions, currently ad hoc, should instead be made in a systematic way by the appropriate authority or authorities based on the most dependable and persuasive information available and an understanding of our national interests based on 21st-century realities. Restore the civil-military relationship. The President, in his capacity as commander-in-chief, must explain the role of the soldier to the citizen and the citizen to the soldier. The traditional civil-military relationship is frayed and ill-defined. Our military and defense structures are increasingly remote from the society they protect, and each must be brought back into harmony with the other. Barack Obama, busy on other fronts, had no time for this. The rest of us should make time, if we hope to choose our wars more wisely, and win them. To read more about the arguments for and against the F-35, see this list of articles and official statements compiled by James Fallows. [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19932237 2015-01-06 08:46:06 2015-01-06 08:46:06 open open the-tragedy-of-the-american-military-the-american-public-and-its-political-leadership-will-do-anything-for-the-military-except-take-it-seriously--19932237 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan 13 Enif http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/06/13-enif-19931009/ Tue, 06 Jan 2015 02:55:05 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>ORDERS F10T8F80 F185T24F87 F185T18F117 F187T8F80 F226T6F117 F226T8F80 F226T4F147 F226T11F186 F226T8F228 F254T11F228 F40T20F147 F40G=DAZE F10AF105 F80AF129 Lou Sheehan, Louis Sheehan F87AF152 F117AF172 F147AF180 F185AF193 F186AF212 F187AF129 F226AF193 F228AF212 F254AF180 F240L F240W167W13W84 F6U F101U F102U F177U F217U W8B30F6 F6W95W248W38 F101W181W150W125 F102W181W150W125 F177W181W150W125 F217W181W150W125 F143L F148L Lou Sheehan, Louis Sheehan F215L F218L F143W76W95W8 F148W76W95W8 F215W76W95W8 F218W76W95W8 F12L F12W166W84 W37B1F216 I37T1F216 F216L F216W243W8 F39U F58U F69U F183U F154G=JUNO W38B30F51 F51W33W121W117 F244W33W121W117 F39W58W238W159 F39T1F58 F58W9W213 F69W9W213 F183W9W213 W58B1F211 F211L F211W38 F48L F48W26W166W84 W68B1I F209L F245L F209W95W8 F245W95W8 F138R11 F174AF56 W79B1F138 F196W121W117W20 F21U F32U F155U F157U F166U F197U F241U F197X F155X W84B30F149 F149W13W58W38 F21W166W207W180 F32W166W207W180 F155W166W207W180 F157W166W207W180 F166W166W207W180 F197W166W207W180 F241W166W182W247 W103B1I W115B1I F230W1W217W103 W234B1I W245B2F230 V100F230 F219T2F230 F219W1W223 W223B1I W161B1I W166B1F86 I166T2F86 F86L F86W84 W172B1I F200L F202L F200W8 F202W8 W182B1I W186B1I F182X F182W166W84 F20L F60L F151L F176L F194L F20W103W181W8 F60W103W181W8 F151W103W181W8 F176W103W181W8 F194W103W181W8 W243B1F220 I243T1F220 F220L F220W8 F249W182W166W84 W250B1I END Total Orders = 134 </p> 19931009 2015-01-06 02:55:05 2015-01-06 02:55:05 open open 13-enif-19931009 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan The Real Story of How America Became an Economic Superpower Adam Tooze's study of the two world wars traces a new history of the 20th century. DAVID FRUMDEC 24 2014, 5:23 AM ET The Atlantic http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/06/the-real-story-of-how-america-became-an-economic-superpower-adam-tooze-s-study-of-the-two-world-wars-traces-a-new-history-of-the-20th-century-dav-19930939/ Tue, 06 Jan 2015 02:38:41 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan The Real Story of How America Became an Economic Superpower Adam Tooze's study of the two world wars traces a new history of the 20th century. DAVID FRUMDEC 24 2014, 5:23 AM ET Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan Wikipedia/The Atlantic Very rarely, you read a book that inspires you to see a familiar story in an entirely different way. So it was with Adam Tooze’s astonishing economic history of World War II, The Wages of Destruction. And so it is again with his economic history of the First World War and its aftermath, The Deluge. They amount together to a new history of the 20th century: the American century, which according to Tooze began not in 1945 but in 1916, the year U.S. output overtook that of the entire British empire. Yet Tooze's perspective is anything but narrowly American. His planetary history encompasses democratization in Japan and price inflation in Denmark; the birth of the Argentine far right as well as the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia. The two books narrate the arc of American economic supremacy from its beginning to its apogee. It is both ominous and fitting that the second volume of the story was published in 2014, the year in which—at least by one economic measure—that supremacy came to an end. “Britain has the earth, and Germany wants it.” Such was Woodrow Wilson’s analysis of the First World War in the summer of 1916, as recorded by one of his advisors. And what about the United States? Before the 1914 war, the great economic potential of the U.S. was suppressed by its ineffective political system, dysfunctional financial system, and uniquely violent racial and labor conflicts. “America was a byword for urban graft, mismanagement and greed-fuelled politics, as much as for growth, production, and profit,” Tooze writes. Related Story How the Great War Shaped the World The United States might claim a broader democracy than those that prevailed in Europe. On the other hand, European states mobilized their populations with an efficiency that dazzled some Americans (notably Theodore Roosevelt) and appalled others (notably Wilson). The magazine founded by pro-war intellectuals in 1914, The New Republic, took its title precisely because its editors regarded the existing American republic as anything but the hope of tomorrow. Yet as World War I entered its third year—and the first year of Tooze’s story—the balance of power was visibly tilting from Europe to America. The belligerents could no longer sustain the costs of offensive war. Cut off from world trade, Germany hunkered into a defensive siege, concentrating its attacks on weak enemies like Romania. The Western allies, and especially Britain, outfitted their forces by placing larger and larger war orders with the United States. In 1916, Britain bought more than a quarter of the engines for its new air fleet, more than half of its shell casings, more than two-thirds of its grain, and nearly all of its oil from foreign suppliers, with the United States heading the list. Britain and France paid for these purchases by floating larger and larger bond issues to American buyers—denominated in dollars, not pounds or francs. “By the end of 1916, American investors had wagered two billion dollars on an Entente victory,” computes Tooze (relative to America’s estimated GDP of $50 billion in 1916, the equivalent of $560 billion in today’s money). That staggering quantity of Allied purchases called forth something like a war mobilization in the United States. American factories switched from civilian to military production; American farmers planted food and fiber to feed and clothe the combatants of Europe. But unlike in 1940-41, the decision to commit so much to one side’s victory in a European war was not a political decision by the U.S. government. Quite the contrary: President Wilson wished to stay out of the war entirely. He famously preferred a “peace without victory.” The trouble was that by 1916, the U.S. commitment to Britain and France had grown—to borrow a phrase from the future—too big to fail. Tooze's Wilson is no dreamy idealist. His animating idea was a startling vision of U.S. exceptionalism. Tooze’s portrait of Woodrow Wilson is one of the most arresting novelties of his book. His Wilson is no dreamy idealist. The president’s animating idea was an American exceptionalism of a now-familiar but then-startling kind. His Republican opponents—men like Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Elihu Root—wished to see America take its place among the powers of the earth. They wanted a navy, an army, a central bank, and all the other instrumentalities of power possessed by Britain, France, and Germany. These political rivals are commonly derided as “isolationists” because they mistrusted the Wilson’s League of Nations project. That’s a big mistake. They doubted the League because they feared it would encroach on American sovereignty. It was Wilson who wished to remain aloof from the Entente, who feared that too close an association with Britain and France would limit American options. This aloofness enraged Theodore Roosevelt, who complained that the Wilson-led United States was “sitting idle, uttering cheap platitudes, and picking up [European] trade, whilst they had poured out their blood like water in support of ideals in which, with all their hearts and souls, they believe.” Wilson was guided by a different vision: Rather than join the struggle of imperial rivalries, the United States could use its emerging power to suppress those rivalries altogether. Wilson was the first American statesman to perceive that the United States had grown, in Tooze’s words, into “a power unlike any other. It had emerged, quite suddenly, as a novel kind of ‘super-state,’ exercising a veto over the financial and security concerns of the other major states of the world.” Wilson hoped to deploy this emerging super-power to enforce an enduring peace. His own mistakes and those of his successors doomed the project, setting in motion the disastrous events that would lead to the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and a second and even more awful world war. What went wrong? “When all is said and done,” Tooze writes, “the answer must be sought in the failure of the United States to cooperate with the efforts of the French, British, Germans and the Japanese [leaders of the early 1920s] to stabilize a viable world economy and to establish new institutions of collective security.
Given the violence they had already experienced and the risk of even greater future devastation, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain could all see this. But what was no less obvious was that only the US could anchor such a new order.” And that was what Americans of the 1920s and 1930s declined to do—because doing so implied too much change at home for them: “At the hub of the rapidly evolving, American-centered world system there was a polity wedded to a conservative vision of its own future.” President Woodrow Wilson (far right) stands with other leaders of the Council of Four at the Paris Peace conference in 1919. (Wikipedia) Periodically, attempts have been made to rehabilitate the American leaders of the 1920s. The most recent version, James Grant’s The Forgotten Depression, 1921: The Crash That Cured Itself, was released just two days before The Deluge: Grant, an influential financial journalist and historian, holds views so old-fashioned that they have become almost retro-hip again. He believes in thrift, balanced budgets, and the gold standard; he abhors government debt and Keynesian economics. The Forgotten Depression is a polemic embedded within a narrative, an argument against the Obama stimulus joined to an account of the depression of 1920-21. As Grant correctly observes, that depression was one of the sharpest and most painful in American history. Total industrial production may have dropped by 30 percent. Unemployment spiked at perhaps close to 12 percent (accurate joblessness statistics don’t exist for this period). Overall, prices plummeted at the steepest rate ever recorded—steeper than in 1929-33. Then, after 18 months of extremely hard times, the economy lurched into recovery. By 1923, the U.S. had returned to full employment. Grant presents this story as a laissez-faire triumph. Wartime inflation was halted. Borrowing and spending gave way to saving and investing. Recovery then occurred naturally, without any need for government stimulus. “The hero of my narrative is the price mechanism, Adam Smith’s invisible hand,” he notes. “In a market economy, prices coordinate human effort. They channel investment, saving and work. High prices encourage production but discourage consumption; low prices do the opposite. The depression of 1920-21 was marked by plunging prices, the malignity we call deflation. But prices and wages fell only so far. They stopped falling when they become low enough to entice consumers into shopping, investors into committing capital and employers into hiring. Through the agency of falling prices and wages, the American economy righted itself.” Reader, draw your own comparisons! Grant’s argument is not new. The libertarian economist Murray Rothbard argued a similar case in his 1963 book, America’s Great Depression. The Rothbardian story of the “good” depression of 1920 has resurfaced from time to time in the years since, most spectacularly when Fox News star Glenn Beck seized upon it as proof that the Obama stimulus was wrong and dangerous. Grant tells the story with more verve and wit than most, and with a better eye for incident and character. But the central assumption of his version of events is the same one captured in Rothbard’s title half a century ago: that America’s economic history constitutes a story unto itself. America's "forgotten depression" through the lens of Dow Jones industrial averages from 1918 to 1923 (Wikipedia) Widen the view, however, and the “forgotten depression” takes on a broader meaning as one of the most ominous milestones on the world’s way to the Second World War. After World War II, Europe recovered largely as a result of American aid; the nation that had suffered least from the war contributed most to reconstruction. But after World War I, the money flowed the other way. Take the case of France, which suffered more in material terms than any World War I belligerent except Belgium. Northeastern France, the country’s most industrialized region in 1914, had been ravaged by war and German occupation. Millions of men in their prime were dead or crippled. On top of everything, the country was deeply in debt, owing billions to the United States and billions more to Britain. France had been a lender during the conflict too, but most of its credits had been extended to Russia, which repudiated all its foreign debts after the Revolution of 1917. The French solution was to exact reparations from Germany. Britain was willing to relax its demands on France. But it owed the United States even more than France did. Unless it collected from France—and from Italy and all the other smaller combatants as well—it could not hope to pay its American debts. Americans, meanwhile, were preoccupied with the problem of German recovery. How could Germany achieve political stability if it had to pay so much to France and Belgium? The Americans pressed the French to relent when it came to Germany, but insisted that their own claims be paid in full by both France and Britain. Germany, for its part, could only pay if it could export, and especially to the world’s biggest and richest consumer market, the United States. The depression of 1920 killed those export hopes. Most immediately, the economic crisis sliced American consumer demand precisely when Europe needed it most. True, World War I was not nearly as positive an experience for working Americans as World War II would be; between 1914 and 1918, for example, wages lagged behind prices. Still, millions of Americans had bought billions of dollars of small-denomination Liberty bonds. They had accumulated savings that could have been spent on imported products. Instead, many used their savings for food, rent, and mortgage interest during the hard times of 1920-21. But the gravest harm done by the depression to postwar recovery lasted long past 1921. To appreciate that, you have to understand the reasons why U.S. monetary authorities plunged the country into depression in 1920. Grant rightly points out that wars are usually followed by economic downturns. Such a downturn occurred in late 1918-early 1919. “Within four weeks of the
Armistice, the [U.S.] War Department had canceled $2.5 billion of its then outstanding $6 billion in contracts; for perspective, $2.5 billion represented 3.3 percent of the 1918 gross national product,” he observes. Even this understates the shock, because it counts only Army contracts, not Navy ones. The postwar recession checked wartime inflation, and by March 1919, the U.S. economy was growing again. As the economy revived, workers scrambled for wage increases to offset the price inflation they’d experienced during the war. Monetary authorities, worried that inflation would revive and accelerate, made the fateful decision to slam the credit brakes, hard. Unlike the 1918 recession, that of 1920 was deliberately engineered. There was nothing invisible about it. Nor did the depression “cure itself.” U.S. officials cut interest rates and relaxed credit, and the economy predictably recovered—just as it did after the similarly inflation-crushing recessions of 1974-75 and 1981-82. But 1920-21 was an inflation-stopper with a difference. In post-World War II America, anti-inflationists have been content to stop prices from rising. In 1920-21, monetary authorities actually sought to drive prices back to their pre-war levels. They did not wholly succeed, but they succeeded well enough. One price especially concerned them: In 1913, a dollar bought a little less than one-twentieth of an ounce of gold; by 1922, it comfortably did so again. James Grant hails this accomplishment. Adam Tooze forces us to reckon with its consequences for the rest of the planet. Every other World War I belligerent had quit the gold standard at the beginning of the war. As part of their war finance, they accepted that their currency would depreciate against gold. The currencies of the losers depreciated much more than the winners; among the winners, the currency of Italy depreciated more than that of France, and France more than that of Britain. Yet even the mighty pound lost almost one-fourth of its value against gold. At the end of the conflict, every national government had to decide whether to return to the gold standard and, if so, at what rate. World War I made the U.S. the world’s leading creditor and the unofficial custodian of the gold standard. The American depression of 1920 made that decision all the more difficult. The war had vaulted the United States to a new status as the world’s leading creditor, the world’s largest owner of gold, and, by extension, the effective custodian of the international gold standard. When the U.S. opted for massive deflation, it thrust upon every country that wished to return to the gold standard (and what respectable country would not?) an agonizing dilemma. Return to gold at 1913 values, and you would have to match U.S. deflation with an even steeper deflation of your own, accepting increased unemployment along the way. Alternatively, you could re-peg your currency to gold at a diminished rate. But that amounted to an admission that your money had permanently lost value—and that your own people, who had trusted their government with loans in local money, would receive a weaker return on their bonds than American creditors who had lent in dollars. Britain chose the former course; pretty much everybody else chose the latter. The consequences of these choices fill much of the second half of The Deluge. For Europeans, they were uniformly grim, and worse. But one important effect ultimately rebounded on Americans. America’s determination to restore a dollar “as good as gold” not only imposed terrible hardship on war-ravaged Europe, it also threatened to flood American markets with low-cost European imports. The flip side of the Lost Generation enjoying cheap European travel with their strong dollars was German steelmakers and shipyards underpricing their American competitors with weak marks. Such a situation also prevailed after World War II, when the U.S. acquiesced in the undervaluation of the Deutsche mark and yen to aid German and Japanese recovery. But American leaders of the 1920s weren’t willing to accept this outcome. In 1921 and 1923, they raised tariffs, terminating a brief experiment with freer trade undertaken after the election of 1912. The world owed the United States billions of dollars, but the world was going to have to find another way of earning that money than selling goods to the United States. That way was found: more debt, especially more German debt. The 1923 hyper-inflation that wiped out Germany’s savers also tidied up the country’s balance sheet. Post-inflation Germany looked like a very creditworthy borrower. Between 1924 and 1930, world financial flows could be simplified into a daisy chain of debt. Germans borrowed from Americans, and used the proceeds to pay reparations to the Belgians and French. The French and Belgians, in turn, repaid war debts to the British and Americans. The British then used their French and Italian debt payments to repay the United States, who set the whole crazy contraption in motion again. Everybody could see the system was crazy. Only the United States could fix it. It never did. Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes with a saying of his father’s, a mining engineer: “If man accumulates enough combustible material, God will provide the spark.” So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the developed world roared back upon the United States. The Great Depression overturned parliamentary governments throughout Europe and the Americas. Yet the dictatorships that replaced them were not, as Tooze emphasizes in The Wages of Destruction, reactionary absolutisms of the kind re-established in Europe after Napoleon. These dictators aspired to be modernizers, and none more so than Adolf Hitler. From left to right, Britain's Neville Chamberlain, France's Édouard Daladier, Germany's Adolf Hitler, and Italy's Benito Mussolini and Count Ciano prepare to sign the Munich Agreement in 1938. (Wikipedia) “The United States has the Earth, and Germany wants it.” Thus might Hitler’s war aims have been summed up by a latter-day Woodrow Wilson. From the start, the United States was Hitler’s ultimate target. “In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler’s aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the United States as the dominant global superpower,” Tooze writes. “The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order.” Of course, Hitler was not engaged in rational calculation. He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, “this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death.” He dreamed of conquering Poland, Ukraine, and Russia as a means of gaining the resources to match those of the United States. The vast landscape in between Berlin and Moscow would become Germany’s equivalent of the American west, filled with German homesteaders living comfortably on land and labor appropriated from conquered peoples—a nightmare parody of the American experience with which to challenge American power. Could this vision have ever been realized? Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that Germany had already missed its chance. “In 1870, at the time of German national unification, the population of the United States and Germany was roughly equal and the total output of America, despite its enormous abundance of land and resources, was only one-third larger than that of Germany,” he writes. “Just before the outbreak of World War I the American economy had expanded to roughly twice the size of that of Imperial Germany. By 1943, before the aerial bombardment had hit top gear, total American output was almost four times that of the Third Reich.” The basis of the modern European order was America’s rise to dominance a century ago. That dominance may soon end. Germany was a weaker and poorer country in 1939 than it had been in 1914. Compared with Britain, let alone the United States, it lacked the basic elements of modernity: There were just 486,000 automobiles in Germany in 1932, and one-quarter of all Germans still worked as farmers as of 1925. Yet this backward land, with an income per capita comparable to contemporary “South Africa, Iran and Tunisia,” wagered on a second world war even more audacious than the first. The reckless desperation of Hitler’s war provides context for the horrific crimes of his regime. Hitler’s empire could not feed itself, so his invasion plan for the Soviet Union contemplated the death by starvation of 20 to 30 million Soviet urban dwellers after the invaders stole all foodstuffs for their own use. Germany lacked workers, so it plundered the labor of its conquered peoples. By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today’s liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born). On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe collapsed. The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy. Tooze’s story ends where our modern era starts: with the advent of a new European order—liberal, democratic, and under American protection. Yet nothing lasts forever. The foundation of this order was America’s rise to unique economic predominance a century ago. That predominance is now coming to an end as China does what the Soviet Union and Imperial Germany never could: rise toward economic parity with the United States. That parity has not, in fact, yet arrived, and the most realistic measures suggest that the moment of parity won’t arrive until the later 2020s. Perhaps some unforeseen disruption in the Chinese economy—or some unexpected acceleration of American prosperity—will postpone the moment even further. But it is coming, and when it does, the fundamental basis of world-power politics over the past 100 years will have been removed. Just how big and dangerous a change that will be is the deepest theme of Adam Tooze's profound and brilliant grand narrative. Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19930939 2015-01-06 02:38:41 2015-01-06 02:38:41 open open the-real-story-of-how-america-became-an-economic-superpower-adam-tooze-s-study-of-the-two-world-wars-traces-a-new-history-of-the-20th-century-dav-19930939 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan Enif http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/06/enif-19930922/ Tue, 06 Jan 2015 02:35:31 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>ORDERS Lou Sheehan F247G=HIVE W68B1I F12U F48U F240U F149U F249U W84B30F244 F244W13W58W38 F149G=JUNO F48T4F240 F240W13W167W2 F48W166W26W64 F12W166W26 W161B1I W166B1I W182B1F21 I182T2F21 F21L F21W166W84 F249W166W182W247 W186B1F182 I186T4F182 F182L F182W11W180W207 F32L F157L F166L F241L F32W182W166W84 F157W182W166W84 F166W182W166W84 F241W182W166W84 F216T2P F216L F216W55W111W37 P192AC F155W166W84 F197W166W84 W234B1F86 F86L I234T4F86 F86W247W182W166 F183T4P F186T4P F183L F183W38 F186W121W117 F228W121W117 F183X F143U F148U F215U F218U F80U F87U F117U F147U F211U F41U F154U W38B30F187 F187W33W121W117 F226W33W121W117 F10W33W121W117 F80W33W121W117 F87W33W121W117 F41G=JUNO W58B1F39 I58T3F39 F39L F39W38 W79B1F174 F196T5F138 F196T7F174 F196AF29 F138AF56 F174AF56 F254T41F40 F185AF112 F254AF193 F40AF198 F58L Louis Sheehan F69L F58W58W38 F69W58W38 F211W58 F143W9W23 F148W9W23 F215W9W23 F218W9W23 F40Q F117W33W121W117 F147W33W121W117 W223B1I F20U F60U F151U F176U F194U F200U F202U F209U F245U F51U W8B30F51 F51W95W248W38 W37B1I W89B2I F230W217W1W245 W103B1F230 W115B1I F6L F101L F102L F177L F217L F220W181W8W243 W172B1I W243B1I F219U W245B1F219 W250B1I F20T1F51 F245T3F51 F20W181W103W217 F60W181W103W217 F151W181W103W217 F176W181W103W217 F194W181W103W217 F200W181 F202W181 F209W95W76 F245W95W76 F6W181W8 F101W181W8 F102W181W8 F177W181W8 F217W181W8 END Total Orders = 139 </p> 19930922 2015-01-06 02:35:31 2015-01-06 02:35:31 open open enif-19930922 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan
Given the violence they had already experienced and the risk of even greater future devastation, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain could all see this. But what was no less obvious was that only the US could anchor such a new order.” And that was what Americans of the 1920s and 1930s declined to do—because doing so implied too much change at home for them: “At the hub of the rapidly evolving, American-centered world system there was a polity wedded to a conservative vision of its own future.” President Woodrow Wilson (far right) stands with other leaders of the Council of Four at the Paris Peace conference in 1919. (Wikipedia) Periodically, attempts have been made to rehabilitate the American leaders of the 1920s. The most recent version, James Grant’s The Forgotten Depression, 1921: The Crash That Cured Itself, was released just two days before The Deluge: Grant, an influential financial journalist and historian, holds views so old-fashioned that they have become almost retro-hip again. He believes in thrift, balanced budgets, and the gold standard; he abhors government debt and Keynesian economics. The Forgotten Depression is a polemic embedded within a narrative, an argument against the Obama stimulus joined to an account of the depression of 1920-21. As Grant correctly observes, that depression was one of the sharpest and most painful in American history. Total industrial production may have dropped by 30 percent. Unemployment spiked at perhaps close to 12 percent (accurate joblessness statistics don’t exist for this period). Overall, prices plummeted at the steepest rate ever recorded—steeper than in 1929-33. Then, after 18 months of extremely hard times, the economy lurched into recovery. By 1923, the U.S. had returned to full employment. Grant presents this story as a laissez-faire triumph. Wartime inflation was halted. Borrowing and spending gave way to saving and investing. Recovery then occurred naturally, without any need for government stimulus. “The hero of my narrative is the price mechanism, Adam Smith’s invisible hand,” he notes. “In a market economy, prices coordinate human effort. They channel investment, saving and work. High prices encourage production but discourage consumption; low prices do the opposite. The depression of 1920-21 was marked by plunging prices, the malignity we call deflation. But prices and wages fell only so far. They stopped falling when they become low enough to entice consumers into shopping, investors into committing capital and employers into hiring. Through the agency of falling prices and wages, the American economy righted itself.” Reader, draw your own comparisons! Grant’s argument is not new. The libertarian economist Murray Rothbard argued a similar case in his 1963 book, America’s Great Depression. The Rothbardian story of the “good” depression of 1920 has resurfaced from time to time in the years since, most spectacularly when Fox News star Glenn Beck seized upon it as proof that the Obama stimulus was wrong and dangerous. Grant tells the story with more verve and wit than most, and with a better eye for incident and character. But the central assumption of his version of events is the same one captured in Rothbard’s title half a century ago: that America’s economic history constitutes a story unto itself. America's "forgotten depression" through the lens of Dow Jones industrial averages from 1918 to 1923 (Wikipedia) Widen the view, however, and the “forgotten depression” takes on a broader meaning as one of the most ominous milestones on the world’s way to the Second World War. After World War II, Europe recovered largely as a result of American aid; the nation that had suffered least from the war contributed most to reconstruction. But after World War I, the money flowed the other way. Take the case of France, which suffered more in material terms than any World War I belligerent except Belgium. Northeastern France, the country’s most industrialized region in 1914, had been ravaged by war and German occupation. Millions of men in their prime were dead or crippled. On top of everything, the country was deeply in debt, owing billions to the United States and billions more to Britain. France had been a lender during the conflict too, but most of its credits had been extended to Russia, which repudiated all its foreign debts after the Revolution of 1917. The French solution was to exact reparations from Germany. Britain was willing to relax its demands on France. But it owed the United States even more than France did. Unless it collected from France—and from Italy and all the other smaller combatants as well—it could not hope to pay its American debts. Americans, meanwhile, were preoccupied with the problem of German recovery. How could Germany achieve political stability if it had to pay so much to France and Belgium? The Americans pressed the French to relent when it came to Germany, but insisted that their own claims be paid in full by both France and Britain. Germany, for its part, could only pay if it could export, and especially to the world’s biggest and richest consumer market, the United States. The depression of 1920 killed those export hopes. Most immediately, the economic crisis sliced American consumer demand precisely when Europe needed it most. True, World War I was not nearly as positive an experience for working Americans as World War II would be; between 1914 and 1918, for example, wages lagged behind prices. Still, millions of Americans had bought billions of dollars of small-denomination Liberty bonds. They had accumulated savings that could have been spent on imported products. Instead, many used their savings for food, rent, and mortgage interest during the hard times of 1920-21. But the gravest harm done by the depression to postwar recovery lasted long past 1921. To appreciate that, you have to understand the reasons why U.S. monetary authorities plunged the country into depression in 1920. Grant rightly points out that wars are usually followed by economic downturns. Such a downturn occurred in late 1918-early 1919. “Within four weeks of the
Armistice, the [U.S.] War Department had canceled $2.5 billion of its then outstanding $6 billion in contracts; for perspective, $2.5 billion represented 3.3 percent of the 1918 gross national product,” he observes. Even this understates the shock, because it counts only Army contracts, not Navy ones. The postwar recession checked wartime inflation, and by March 1919, the U.S. economy was growing again. As the economy revived, workers scrambled for wage increases to offset the price inflation they’d experienced during the war. Monetary authorities, worried that inflation would revive and accelerate, made the fateful decision to slam the credit brakes, hard. Unlike the 1918 recession, that of 1920 was deliberately engineered. There was nothing invisible about it. Nor did the depression “cure itself.” U.S. officials cut interest rates and relaxed credit, and the economy predictably recovered—just as it did after the similarly inflation-crushing recessions of 1974-75 and 1981-82. But 1920-21 was an inflation-stopper with a difference. In post-World War II America, anti-inflationists have been content to stop prices from rising. In 1920-21, monetary authorities actually sought to drive prices back to their pre-war levels. They did not wholly succeed, but they succeeded well enough. One price especially concerned them: In 1913, a dollar bought a little less than one-twentieth of an ounce of gold; by 1922, it comfortably did so again. James Grant hails this accomplishment. Adam Tooze forces us to reckon with its consequences for the rest of the planet. Every other World War I belligerent had quit the gold standard at the beginning of the war. As part of their war finance, they accepted that their currency would depreciate against gold. The currencies of the losers depreciated much more than the winners; among the winners, the currency of Italy depreciated more than that of France, and France more than that of Britain. Yet even the mighty pound lost almost one-fourth of its value against gold. At the end of the conflict, every national government had to decide whether to return to the gold standard and, if so, at what rate. World War I made the U.S. the world’s leading creditor and the unofficial custodian of the gold standard. The American depression of 1920 made that decision all the more difficult. The war had vaulted the United States to a new status as the world’s leading creditor, the world’s largest owner of gold, and, by extension, the effective custodian of the international gold standard. When the U.S. opted for massive deflation, it thrust upon every country that wished to return to the gold standard (and what respectable country would not?) an agonizing dilemma. Return to gold at 1913 values, and you would have to match U.S. deflation with an even steeper deflation of your own, accepting increased unemployment along the way. Alternatively, you could re-peg your currency to gold at a diminished rate. But that amounted to an admission that your money had permanently lost value—and that your own people, who had trusted their government with loans in local money, would receive a weaker return on their bonds than American creditors who had lent in dollars. Britain chose the former course; pretty much everybody else chose the latter. The consequences of these choices fill much of the second half of The Deluge. For Europeans, they were uniformly grim, and worse. But one important effect ultimately rebounded on Americans. America’s determination to restore a dollar “as good as gold” not only imposed terrible hardship on war-ravaged Europe, it also threatened to flood American markets with low-cost European imports. The flip side of the Lost Generation enjoying cheap European travel with their strong dollars was German steelmakers and shipyards underpricing their American competitors with weak marks. Such a situation also prevailed after World War II, when the U.S. acquiesced in the undervaluation of the Deutsche mark and yen to aid German and Japanese recovery. But American leaders of the 1920s weren’t willing to accept this outcome. In 1921 and 1923, they raised tariffs, terminating a brief experiment with freer trade undertaken after the election of 1912. The world owed the United States billions of dollars, but the world was going to have to find another way of earning that money than selling goods to the United States. That way was found: more debt, especially more German debt. The 1923 hyper-inflation that wiped out Germany’s savers also tidied up the country’s balance sheet. Post-inflation Germany looked like a very creditworthy borrower. Between 1924 and 1930, world financial flows could be simplified into a daisy chain of debt. Germans borrowed from Americans, and used the proceeds to pay reparations to the Belgians and French. The French and Belgians, in turn, repaid war debts to the British and Americans. The British then used their French and Italian debt payments to repay the United States, who set the whole crazy contraption in motion again. Everybody could see the system was crazy. Only the United States could fix it. It never did. Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes with a saying of his father’s, a mining engineer: “If man accumulates enough combustible material, God will provide the spark.” So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the developed world roared back upon the United States. The Great Depression overturned parliamentary governments throughout Europe and the Americas. Yet the dictatorships that replaced them were not, as Tooze emphasizes in The Wages of Destruction, reactionary absolutisms of the kind re-established in Europe after Napoleon. These dictators aspired to be modernizers, and none more so than Adolf Hitler. From left to right, Britain's Neville Chamberlain, France's Édouard Daladier, Germany's Adolf Hitler, and Italy's Benito Mussolini and Count Ciano prepare to sign the Munich Agreement in 1938. (Wikipedia) “The United States has the Earth, and Germany wants it.” Thus might Hitler’s war aims have been summed up by a latter-day Woodrow Wilson. From the start, the United States was Hitler’s ultimate target. “In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler’s aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the United States as the dominant global superpower,” Tooze writes. “The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order.” Of course, Hitler was not engaged in rational calculation. He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, “this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death.” He dreamed of conquering Poland, Ukraine, and Russia as a means of gaining the resources to match those of the United States. The vast landscape in between Berlin and Moscow would become Germany’s equivalent of the American west, filled with German homesteaders living comfortably on land and labor appropriated from conquered peoples—a nightmare parody of the American experience with which to challenge American power. Could this vision have ever been realized? Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that Germany had already missed its chance. “In 1870, at the time of German national unification, the population of the United States and Germany was roughly equal and the total output of America, despite its enormous abundance of land and resources, was only one-third larger than that of Germany,” he writes. “Just before the outbreak of World War I the American economy had expanded to roughly twice the size of that of Imperial Germany. By 1943, before the aerial bombardment had hit top gear, total American output was almost four times that of the Third Reich.” The basis of the modern European order was America’s rise to dominance a century ago. That dominance may soon end. Germany was a weaker and poorer country in 1939 than it had been in 1914. Compared with Britain, let alone the United States, it lacked the basic elements of modernity: There were just 486,000 automobiles in Germany in 1932, and one-quarter of all Germans still worked as farmers as of 1925. Yet this backward land, with an income per capita comparable to contemporary “South Africa, Iran and Tunisia,” wagered on a second world war even more audacious than the first. The reckless desperation of Hitler’s war provides context for the horrific crimes of his regime. Hitler’s empire could not feed itself, so his invasion plan for the Soviet Union contemplated the death by starvation of 20 to 30 million Soviet urban dwellers after the invaders stole all foodstuffs for their own use. Germany lacked workers, so it plundered the labor of its conquered peoples. By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today’s liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born). On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe collapsed. The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy. Tooze’s story ends where our modern era starts: with the advent of a new European order—liberal, democratic, and under American protection. Yet nothing lasts forever. The foundation of this order was America’s rise to unique economic predominance a century ago. That predominance is now coming to an end as China does what the Soviet Union and Imperial Germany never could: rise toward economic parity with the United States. That parity has not, in fact, yet arrived, and the most realistic measures suggest that the moment of parity won’t arrive until the later 2020s. Perhaps some unforeseen disruption in the Chinese economy—or some unexpected acceleration of American prosperity—will postpone the moment even further. But it is coming, and when it does, the fundamental basis of world-power politics over the past 100 years will have been removed. Just how big and dangerous a change that will be is the deepest theme of Adam Tooze's profound and brilliant grand narrative. Posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan [ One of my intentions with this blog is to simply collect articles of interest to me for purposes of future reference. I do my best to indicate who has actually composed the articles. NONE of the articles have been written by me. Further, this ‘blog’ will contain various drafts of unknown writings just to be saved in the event they are needed by me, etc.– Louis Sheehan ] Feel free to ignore this blog! I am intending to use it as a repository of various writings: drafts, doodles, etc. If there ARE any articles here, they are posted but not written by: Lou Sheehan </p> 19930939 2015-01-06 02:38:41 2015-01-06 02:38:41 open open the-real-story-of-how-america-became-an-economic-superpower-adam-tooze-s-study-of-the-two-world-wars-traces-a-new-history-of-the-20th-century-dav-19930939 publish 0 0 post 0 Lou Sheehan Louis Sheehan Enif http://Louis9J9Sheehan9esquire.blog.ca/2015/01/06/enif-19930922/ Tue, 06 Jan 2015 02:35:31 +0100 Beforethebigbang <p>ORDERS Lou Sheehan F247G=HIVE W68B1I F12U F48U F240U F149U F249U W84B30F244 F244W13W58W38 F149G=JUNO F48T4F240 F240W13W167W2 F48W166W26W64 F12W166W26 W161B1I W166B1I W182B1F21 I182T2F21 F21L F21W166W84 F249W166W182W247 W186B1F182 I186T4F182 F182L F182W11W180W207 F32L F157L F166L F241L F32W182W166W84 F157W182W166W84 F166W182W166W84 F241W182W166W84 F216T2P F216L F216W55W111W37 P192AC F155W166W84 F197W166W84 W234B1F86 F86L I234T4F86 F86W247W182W166 F183T4P F186T4P F183L F183W38 F186W121W117 F228W121W117 F183X F143U F148U F215U F218U F80U F87U F117U F147U F211U F41U F154U W38B30F187 F187W33W121W117 F226W33W121W117 F10W33W121W117 F80W33W121W117 F87W33W121W117 F41G=JUNO W58B1F39 I58T3F39 F39L F39W38 W79B1F174 F196T5F138 F196T7F174 F196AF29 F138AF56 F174AF56 F254T41F40 F185AF112 F254AF193 F40AF198 F58L Louis Sheehan F69L F58W58W38 F69W58W38 F211W58 F143W9W23 F148W9W23 F215W9W23 F218W9W23 F40Q F117W33W121W117 F147W33W121W117 W223B1I F20U F60U F151U F176U F194U F200U F202U F209U F245U F51U W8B30F51 F51W95W248W38 W37B1I W89B2I F230W217W1W245 W103B1F230 W115B1I F6L F101L F102L F177L F217L F220W181W8W243 W172B1I W243B1I F219U W245B1F219 W250B1I F20T1F51 F245T3F51 F20W181W103W217 F60W181W103W217 F151W181W103W217 F176W181W103W217 F194W181W103W217 F200W181 F202W181 F209W95W76 F245W95W76 F6W181W8 F101W181W8 F102W181W8 F177W181W8 F217W181W8 END Total Orders = 139 </p> 19930922 2015-01-06 02:35:31 2015-01-06 02:35:31 open open enif-19930922 publish 0 0 post 0 Louis Sheehan Lou Sheehan
No comments:
Post a Comment