Requiescat in pace, EIIR

The unspeakable inevitable. We have lost the last great Head of State on the world stage. It is more than the loss of a person, exceptional though she was. It is the end of an Age, an Age of dignity, civility, and grace.

I’m aware that the British monarchy is subject to differing interpretations, particularly to those with no palaces and Corgis, and to peoples with experience on the business end of British imperialism. I wouldn’t want to live under monarchy, The PM/Parliament is more dysfunctional than our President/Congress, a tragically pathetic statement. I do think there’s an argument to be made for constitutional monarchy, although the results are something of a genetic die roll, the current transition being Exhibit “A.” I’m arguing more of the late Queen personally, individually, and what she lent to the institution. What one American and recently nationalized Brit called:

"a mystical form of mutual affection binding sovereign and people. Queen Elizabeth’s great gift was her ability to maintain that affection over so many decades, many of them very difficult for her country. She did this by being constantly present in the nation’s life without ever seeming overbearing, and by taking care to stay out of politics. This allowed her to ask for, and receive, the love of her people without demanding of them the impossible—toleration for a suffocating presence or assent to political positions they might not share."

She was uniquely unifying in a polarized world. In Charles’ words, she embodied an:

"abiding love of tradition, together with that fearless embrace of progress, which make us great as nations. The affection, admiration and respect she inspired became the hallmark of her reign. And, as every member of my family can testify, she combined these qualities with warmth, humour and an unerring ability always to see the best in people."

That ability to see the best in people, over 70 decades in dealing with many in whom there was precious little “best” to be found, is something sorely lacking in the politics of our modern age, when ideology supersedes issues. Rancor in politics is nothing new, nor genuine humanity in politicians: the decades before the U. S. Civil War and Abraham Lincoln immediately come to mind.

But of Elizabeth II Regina I asserted, and maintain, that there is not her equal at any prominent level of government in any regime extant. More’s the pity. I don’t envy Charles. How could he but fail?

A darkening world just got a little darker.

“Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”

Requiescat in pace, EIIR

#Historiography - #Hiroshima & #Nagasaki - Part VIII

Selection of Sources

The sheer volume of sources cited in relevant bibliographies is impressive. Comparison between Richard Frank and Gar Alperovitz is indicative of general trends. Since Frank wrote his cited work in 1999, while Alperovitz was writing in 1965, it is better to compare sources with Alperovitz’s later work, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. While there is some overlap, it is surprisingly rare. Harry Truman as author, cited nine times by Alperovitz, received one citation from Frank. Alperovitz is more likely to cite primary works; diaries, committee notes, etc. However, Shapiro’s criticism of Alperovitz’s quotations noted above should be considered. The comparison is further hindered by the nature of the works. Frank was writing a narrative, while Alperovitz was advancing an argument. Thus, Alperovitz was more likely to use interpretive language like “inevitably,” “non sequitur,” and “myth,” although this cannot be considered definitive proof of bias, merely divergence of purpose and audience.

The Future of Bomb Historiography

In the conclusion to his 2016 book, Prompt and Utter Destruction, J. Samuel Walker discussed the frequent moral/immoral assertions of Hiroshima scholars. Walker stated, “No amount of historical evidence will bridge this gap; it arises to a large degree from the differing values, assumptions, priorities, and experiences that individual scholars bring to their work on the subject.” In an appendix entitled “Essay on Sources,” Walker noted the “fierce partisanship” that has often characterized the traditionalist versus revisionist polemic. He cites Frank’s Downfall as an example of recent “middle ground” scholarship. “By demonstrating serious deficiencies in both [traditionalist and revisionist arguments], they have provided much needed correctives to the over-simplified formulas and overheated arguments at the poles of the debate.” His essay is a valuable resource on topical historiography.

The topic also continues to be influenced by personal memory and experience. An estimated 325,000 World War II veterans remain alive in 2020. Many recall something to the effect of “I was on a troop ship headed for the invasion when the bomb saved my life.” Countless more grew up hearing such stories from fathers, uncles, brothers, and old neighbors pontificating on neighborhood porches. In 1988, Paul Fussell published a collection of essays entitled Thank God for the Atomic Bomb. In the eponymous essay, Fussell posited “the importance of experience, sheer, vulgar experience, in influencing, if not determining, one’s views about that use of the atomic bomb.” If history is to be inclusive, these perspectives cannot be ignored. As that experience passes from first person reality to second-hand memory, will its effect on the collective memory pass with it? Current scholarship indicates it will not.

On 4 January 2010, Tsutomu Yamaguchi died at the age of 93. To date, he is the only person certified by the Japanese government as a survivor of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

#Historiography - #Hiroshima and #Nagasaki Part VII

Traditionalists versus Revisionists

While scholarship is often categorized in terms of the military necessity of the bombings, the realities are more nuanced. Revisionists provide substantial evidence that political considerations were significant, but few address the issue of what effect, if any, this American nuclear advantage may have had on the subsequent Cold War. Most scholars acknowledge that the reasoning behind the bombings, and their effects, were multi-faceted. Implicit in most revisionist works is the assumption that, if it can be proved the bombings were primarily motivated by political and strategic considerations regarding Russian diplomacy, they were therefore illegitimate and immoral. Likewise, if the author’s morals discourage civilian casualties, justification for the bombings on any grounds will be difficult. Research on this topic will frequently reveal some form of the statement that “the overwhelming consensus of historians” now believe the bombings were unjustified. This is more a reflection of modern opinion of warfare in general than evidence of a scholarly monolith.

#Historiography - #Hiroshima and #Nagasaki Part VI

Renewed Traditionalism

Although Dr. Alperovitz’s work was widely lauded by a sympathetic audience, his provocative assertions attracted traditionalist scrutiny. In a 1978 article for Naval War College Review, Seton Hall professor Edward S. Shapiro argued that Alperovitz’s assertions were not new, many having been asserted by British physicist P. M. S. Blackett in 1948. Alperovitz could, however, be credited for his “copious documentation and aura of scholarly objectivity.” But coming as it did against the backdrop of American engagement in another conflict with a technologically and militarily inferior Asian enemy, Shapiro implied that Alperovitz may have intended portray the bombings as the origin of American diplomatic blunders that led to the Vietnam conflict, or worse, as an “example of American moral insensitivity and racism”39 at a time when the United States was deep in the throes of the Civil Rights movement. Shapiro called Alperovitz’s work “very much a product of radical sensibility of the 1960s,” and argued that Alperovitz’s greatest achievement may have been his impact “on some of the textbooks currently being used in university courses in American history,”41 though he cited no examples.

Shapiro believed Alperovitz mischaracterized quotes from such military authorities as General Douglas MacArthur and Admiral William Leahy. MacArthur had stated after the war that the atomic bomb was militarily unnecessary, “if by ‘unnecessary’ is meant not essential for ultimate victory.” MacArthur, and many U. S. officials, believed that the eventual defeat of Japan had been assured well prior to August, 1945. The timing and tactics necessary to achieve victory, however, were a matter of intense speculation. Admiral Leahy opposed the bombings because he believed that the naval blockade would successfully starve Japan into submission before any planned invasion became necessary. Shapiro claimed that Leahy’s autobiography stated his objection being “partially because he doubted it (the bomb) would in fact work,” and that Leahy admitted that continued conventional bombing and the blockade might have taken longer.” Given Frank’s air raid bombing findings noted earlier, it is difficult to argue fewer lives would have been lost. Indeed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would likely have suffered similar raids, in which case many of the same individuals killed by the atomic bombs would have died.

In 1999, noted historian Richard B. Frank released Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, an extensive examination of the final months of the Pacific war. Frank began with the 9-10 March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo. For more than 8 pages, Frank described the event in chilling detail, and a horrific death toll. “Prior to March 10, there had been only 1,292 deaths from all air raids on Tokyo,” but on this night, Frank cited multiple death tolls from various authorities ranging from 79,466 to 100,000. By November 1945, the Hiroshima prefecture police would release an official death toll of 78,150. Like Harper, Frank asserted that newly inaugurated U. S. President Harry S. Truman may have felt the weight of Roosevelt’s shadow. Truman’s own biographer said “it was not just that the greatest of men had fallen, but that the least of men –or at any rate the least likely of men- had assumed his place.” Psychological considerations aside, Truman had real reason to fear a potentially bloody invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. Former President Herbert Hoover urged Truman to soften his stance on unconditional surrender, feared “‛500,000 to 1,000,000’ American fatalities,” although Lt. General Thomas Handy labeled this catastrophic prediction “entirely too high.” Frank noted, however, that “the heaviest loss of the war [was] in March 1945.” Hoover may be forgiven if reports from Iwo Jima and Okinawa affected his views. Advocates of avoiding an invasion pointed to the expectation of a fanatical resistance by the Japanese on their home soil. Japanese officials had instituted self-defense drills for civilians, saying “Even killing just one American soldier will do… THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN” [emphasis in original]. Japanese Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki urged a hard line against the Americans, believing the Allies would shortly be forced to end the war for their ownreasons, saying on July 30, “Precisely at a time like this, if we hold firm, they will yield before we do.” Clearly, Japanese high command was not unanimously seeking the emergency exit.

Frank argued that the U. S. had reason to suspect the sincerity of Japanese peace overtures that Alperovitz esteemed so highly. “Americans of all ranks remembered very well the image of Japanese diplomats in ostensible parlays for peace” during the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. Nor was the Hiroshima bombing on 6 August immediately decisive. Frank stated that as late as the night of 8 August, “The government of Japan had not met formally to reassess the situation with the advent of the atomic bomb.” It would, in fact, take the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in the early morning hours of 9 August, and another 23,753-45,000 dead from the atomic bombing of Nagasaki later that morning, before the Japanese would surrender to Allied demands. Even after Japanese Emperor Hirohito announced his decision (breaking a deadlock among Japanese civil and military leaders) to surrender, Japanese Minister of War, Korechika Anami, in an announcement to the Army Ministry, stated, “I do not know what excuse I can offer but it is the decision of His Majesty that we accept the Potsdam Proclamation…. Your individual feelings and those of the men under you must be disregarded.” While the ultimate terms of the surrender may not be considered “unconditional,” the assertion that Japan was on the verge of surrender before the atomic bombings is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence. Further, the Americans were in no mood to spare Japanese feelings. Resentment over Pearl Harbor lingered, appalling casualties had been suffered in multiple Pacific island assaults, and an estimated 17.2 million deaths had been caused by Japanese aggression from 1931 to 1945, 10 million in China alone. Public opinion polls in America in October 1945 showed 85% approval, with fully 23% believing more bombs should have been dropped. Frank called the revisionist argument that the choice in 1945 was only between the atomic bomb and the horrific slaughter of a ground invasion “one of the most basic misconceptions of the military realities in 1945.” Admiral Leahy’s oft-quoted post-war assertion that the “use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima was of no material assistance in our war against Japan”59 was, for Frank, difficult to reconcile with Leahy’s support of Allied firebombing, and a naval blockade that was starving civilians and soldiers alike.

#Historiography : #Hiroshima & #Nagasaki Part V

Forty years after the war, renewed scholarship on the topic flourished in the mid-1980s. In the Summer-Fall, 1985 issue of the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Review, John L. Harper, then-visiting professor of U. S. foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University, reexamined the 1947 article by Stimson defending the use of the atomic bomb. Although he acknowledged Stimson was qualified to treat on the subject of America’s decision to deploy atomic weapons, he faulted Stimson’s failure to address why the bombings were preferred to alternative measures to bring the war to an end. Harper cited, as many revisionists do, the conclusions of the SBS that Japan would have surrendered in late 1945, regardless of other factors such as the atomic bomb and the entry of the Soviets into the war in Manchuria. Harper did note that the SBS assumed continued U. S. conventional bombing in the intervening months prior to a hypothetical Japanese surrender, potentially costing more Japanese lives than the atomic bombings themselves23 (Frank documented casualties from raids on Japan’s seven largest cities at over 126,000 dead and more than 1.4 million dwellings destroyed). Harper noted that the bombs were dropped without explicit prior warning, maximizing the expected shock of such a devastating new weapon.

Harper attributes the bombings to Truman’s concern for public opinion, which overwhelmingly supported the notion of unconditional surrender.26 He argued that the only logical reason for the Potsdam Declaration to omit the expressed intent of the U. S. government that “unconditional surrender” would not preclude retention of the Emperor, a known nonnegotiable in Japanese estimations, was that “doing so would have jeopardized the chance to employ the atomic bombs in a wartime situation.” It was this “immense psychological and diplomatic value” that led President Truman to deliberately leave the Potsdam Declaration vague regarding the fate of the Emperor. Truman’s own insecurity in the enormous shadow of recently deceased President Roosevelt, and his desire to cultivate an image of decisiveness, were significant, if not deciding, factors in Truman’s determination not to waste an opportunity to play America’s “master card.”28 He admitted that the ultimate value of the bombings may have been “that they gave the world an unforgettable preview of the future of general war,” which horrors may explain why nuclear weapons have never again been used in war.

In the fall of 1985, Rufus E. Miles, Jr., a former senior fellow of the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton, attacked what he termed the myth that dropping the atomic bombs saved “half a million American lives” from the planned November 1945 invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. Former President Truman had asserted this prediction in his 1955 memoir. Miles cites Winston Churchill’s post-war defense of such catastrophic casualty estimates, supported by the example of the U. S. assault on Okinawa.31 Presenting a bloody invasion as the sole alternative to the atomic bombings was a flawed assumption. Irrespective of his estimation that the bombings saved fewer than 20,000 American casualties, “perhaps even zero,”32 Miles asserts four alternatives: a negotiated peace, based on terms similar to those that eventually prevailed; intensified bombing and naval blockade succeeding no later than November; a land invasion of Southern Kyushu in November 1945; and a spring 1946 invasion of Honshu. Any of these alternatives, Miles argued, would have accomplished U. S. objectives and resulted in Japanese surrender by early 1946. Miles relied on the SBS to demonstrate that such enormous casualty estimates were unwarranted. He did not address whether the bombings were “a sound decision on other grounds,” but merely that casualty estimates were not warranted.

#Historiography - #Hiroshima and #Nagasaki Part IV

The Revisionists

Revisionist interpretations of the bombings began to appear very quickly following the end of the war. As euphoria began to wane, former war correspondent and journalist John Hersey published Hiroshima one year after the bombings. The story of six bombing survivors, Hersey’s book stood in stark relief against the clinical backdrop of official accounts. In the April 1947 issue of The English Journal, educator Robert Frank posited the question: “Hiroshima: Moral or Military?” In an exercise designed to examine the moral implications of a weapon that could, in sufficient quantities, annihilate human civilization, Frank’s students, a majority of whom initially supported the bombings and the U. S. monopoly (at that time) on atomic weapons, came to see the survivors depicted in Hersey’s book as human beings, not as “the enemy.” Through this humanization of the statistics regarding the dead and wounded, the question became: “Could such an act ever be justified in terms of military expediency?”10 Revisionists rejected the expediency argument, and an increasingly cynical American public began to agree.

The revisionist argument found its champion in Dr. Gar Alperovitz. Dr. Alperovitz is an American historian, author, and professor who earned his Ph.D. from Cambridge University. His 1965 book, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam –The use of the Atomic Bomb and the American confrontation with Soviet power, based on his doctoral dissertation, was one of the seminal works of revisionist World War II history. Arriving at a time when the United States was becoming increasingly mired in an unpopular war in Vietnam and mistrust of American government and foreign policy was building, the book found a receptive audience.

Dr. Alperovitz asserted that following victory over Germany, the United States was in a weakened diplomatic position with the Soviets dominating the battlefields of the European Theatre. He challenged the long-held assumption that newly-inaugurated President Harry S. Truman continued the conciliatory tone of the Roosevelt Administration, instead taking aggressive measures to counter Soviet influence on the post-war world. Truman adopted a hard line with the Soviets, advised by such officials as U. S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Averell Herriman, who believed Soviet “domination in Eastern Europe was intolerable,”14 though given Soviet success on the Eastern Front, it may have been inevitable. The Soviet entry into the war in the East had been assumed necessary to pin down Japanese forces in China to prevent reinforcement of the Home Islands, should a planned invasion be necessary. However, Dr. Alperovitz asserted that American control of the seas was, by spring 1945, so complete that such movement of troops by Japan would have been impossible, obviating fears of a massive Japanese troop buildup to resist such an invasion. With American expectations of China as a “faithful friend and ally,” Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew believed Soviet entry into the war should not be encouraged without Soviet agreement to “certain desirable political objectives.” Truman, an astute politician, no doubt valued a strong diplomatic hand with the Russians.

Dr. Alperovitz placed great emphasis on Japanese peace initiatives “as early as September 1944,” which in his estimation displayed increased urgency in the spring of 1945. However, the U. S. apparently did not consider such efforts sufficient or sincere. After the successful bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Truman had the diplomatic leverage he needed to exclude the Soviets from influence in the administration of post-war Japan, and minimize Soviet operations in Manchuria as a decisive factor in bringing the war to an end. According Stimson’s aide, Vannevar Bush, the bomb meant, “There was no necessity for any concessions to Russia at the end of the war.” Dr. Alperovitz concludes that deployment of the bomb following Los Alamos was a foregone conclusion, and political considerations, not military necessity, overrode all other factors in the American decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as soon as they became available, closing with an extended (albeit, edited) quote from physicist Dr. Leo Szilard: “Mr. [U. S. Secretary of State James F.] Byrnes did not argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order to win the war… Mr. Byrnes’… view [was] that our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe.” Extensively footnoted and with multiple appendices, Dr. Alperovitz’s book is perhaps the most well-documented revisionist work on the topic.

#Historiography - #Hiroshima and #Nagasaki Part III

Early Topical Historiography

The historiography of the bombings defies chronological delineation. It does, however, bear the clear imprint of two distinct viewpoints. The traditionalist perspective that the bombs were dropped to shorten a costly and devastating war, saving lives on all sides, dominated early literature. This was no accident, as the leaders associated with the decision actively strove to shape the narrative. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson wrote a lengthy defense of the government perspective in the February 1947 issue of Harper’s Magazine. Stimson unequivocally stated the aims of the Manhattan Project: to develop and deploy an atomic weapon for the purpose of hastening the end of the war. As a major participant in the decision, Stimson must be considered an authoritative source, but may have had a bias toward justifying what some considered a morally ambiguous decision and the project’s unprecedented investment.

Early historians tended to support this reasoning. In a review of noted historian Herbert Feis’ 1961 book Japan Subdued: The Atomic Bomb and the End of the War in the Pacific, Theodore McNelly describes Feis’ defense of traditionalist interpretation of the bombings. Although Feis acknowledged the findings of the U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey (SBS) that Japan would likely have surrendered by November 1945, even without the bombings, American state and military leaders could not be certain of this timing. While some within the Truman Administration argued for a non-deployment demonstration of the weapon with Japanese witnesses, they feared a failed detonation (a serious possibility) would harden Japanese resolve to fight on. Feis concluded that although U. S. officials may be faulted for not revealing the destructive potential of the weapon as a warning of the consequences of rejecting the Potsdam Declaration, such criticism has the benefit of hindsight the decision makers were denied. The decision was reasonable based on the information American officials had at the time.

#Historiography - #Hiroshima and #Nagasaki Part II

Historiographical Trends

Scholarly works on the bombings have been influenced by several trends in historiography in the second half of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Following the war, historicist methodologies retained preeminence. As the United States emerged victorious from what was largely regarded as a just war against clearly aggressive regimes in Germany and Japan, consensus history seemed primed for the same supremacy to which the nation itself was ascending. For twenty years following the war, a period of economic prosperity that one historian called “rather placid,” the vision of America as the champion of democracy in a growing global conflict with communism had broad appeal. As the 1950s gave way to the 1960s and the United States became increasingly embroiled in yet another conflict in Southeast Asia, a rising subculture of mistrust in traditional institutions and authority began to dominate academia. The “New Left,” or “Radical Historians” objected to traditionalist interpretations of the past, even progressive ones. Historians like Walter La Feber argued that U. S. foreign policy was dictated by the demands of capitalism and denied that the Soviet Union was a communist monolith intent on world domination.5 This revisionist perspective cast the triumphal leaders of the World War II era as aggressors, using America’s technological and industrial might to promote moneyed interests and confront Soviet “aggression,” which they believed was simply a natural reaction to U. S. attempts to maintain hegemony along its borders.

This wave of socially conscious scholarship found fertile ground in a nation preoccupied with what many viewed as an unjustified and increasingly costly war in Vietnam, and whose faith in its leadership was badly shaken by the Watergate scandal. Postmodernist interpretations seemed to fit a world where change was so rapid and widespread that continuity seemed not only elusive, but perhaps an illusion altogether.

#Historiography - #Hiroshima and #Nagasaki

I recently completed my first class of graduate school: Historiography, the study of the evolution of written history, essentially the history of history. My final project for the term was the historiography of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the next few posts, I'll share these thoughts with all three of you reading this page.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Perses Reborn

By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22141958

On the morning of 6 August 1945, twenty-nine-year-old marine engineer Tsutomu Yamaguchi was leaving Hiroshima following a business trip, taking the train to his home in Nagasaki. He forgot his travel papers and had to return to the office to get them. Thus, he was approximately three kilometers outside the city center when the world’s first atomic weapon exploded over Shima Hospital. Severely burned but alive, he managed to stagger to an air raid shelter, finally taking the train home the next day. Two days later, heavily bandaged, he reported for work. As he stood in his office, his superiors haranguing him for fantastical stories of a single bomb destroying an entire city, “Fat Man” exploded over Nagasaki.1

The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are among the most controversial military actions in history. More than seventy-five years later historians are still divided over the justification, if any is possible, for the most destructive weapon ever deployed. Historians have generally fallen on a spectrum between traditionalists who defend the bombings as necessary to swiftly end the war with Japan, and revisionists who argue that the bombings were unnecessary, immoral, and ushered the world into a nightmarish existence under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation. More than half a century of debate in the nuclear shadow has seen revisionist interpretations rise, ebb, and rise again. While the revisionist perspective has gained wide acceptance in popular opinion and education, it has failed to overtake traditionalist scholarly interpretation.

1. Twice Bombed: The Legacy of Yamaguchi Tsuotomu, 2011, directed by James Cameron, accessed 22 Sep 2020, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1931497/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

Graduate School

Well, it's official. I'm a graduate student. Not just enrolled, I've completed my first term, Historigraphy (with a 98.3), and am two week into my second, Historical Methods. I'm enrolled at Southern New Hampshire University pursuing a Master of Arts in Military History. Target graduation date is around October 2022.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be sharing some of my work here, but first, I wanted to share something I found very useful, one of the best bits of advice I've read so far (aside from "Don't get behind," and "Never ask a research question you already know the answer to").

William Cronan: Learning to Do Historical Research: A Primer. Drafting, Revising, and Editing.

A Little #Mask Common Sense

Oregon is one of an increasing number of states requiring “face coverings” to be worn in public places, unless you meet one of several exceptions, one of which is having a disability. Unfortunately, it's generally illegal under federal law to ask for proof of a disability. But that’s another subject.

So let’s talk just about masks. Viruses, and for that matter any contagion, cannot move on their own. They require a carrier, in most cases moisture droplets. Wearing any face covering will cut down on the volume of moisture droplets the wearer releases into the air. The simple fact that the inside of your mask gets hot and damp ought to convince you of this fact. While it is true that no mask, not even all but the most professional ones, will filter 100% of particles, it will reduce the volume, and that’s the actual goal. As for what you’re breathing in, again, reducing the volume of particles that other people are spewing into the air reduces the likely volume of particles you will walk through. So I don’t know if the “science” supports masks or not, or in what percentages. But the common sense does. Therefore, I usually wear one.

So that raises a question no one seems to be asking: If masks, “enhanced cleanings,” business closures, and “social distancing” are effective, shouldn’t we be seeing a precipitous drop in ALL communicable diseases? Shouldn’t other viruses that are not as contagious as COVID-19 be virtually eliminated? Are people still getting the flu as often? Bacterial infections? Common colds? Is this on anyone’s radar?

Some have made the argument that the packaging of disposable masks expressly states that they provide NO protection against COVID-19 or any other virus. This is partly a matter of relative filtering efficiency, but mainly it is simply a matter of liability. When someone inevitable gets, or makes someone else, sick while wearing their product, their lawyers can say “we told you right on the package…” This is the same reason why Lysol(TM) and other sanitizers say they kill “99.99%” of germs. In reality, if used properly, they kill 100% of germs (although, reading the label, it takes up to THIRTY MINUTES to do so), BUT, just in case they are used IMproperly, or some single virus cell magically survives, they can say “we told you some small percentage would survive.” But back to masks; not filtering 100% of virus particles is not the same as filtering ZERO percent of particles. Anything is still better than nothing.

What about hypoxia? Does wearing a mask lead to brain damage (which would be difficult to measure without a baseline reading beforehand)? Considering that doctors wear masks in the operating room for HOURS during surgery, an activity that certainly would not lend itself to a harmless reduction in brain O2 saturation, I tend to discount this argument, though they’re designed for sterile environments, and thus can afford to be less efficient. But certainly, if you already have trouble breathing, trying to breathe through any kind of restrictive filter is going to be more difficult.

Masks are uncomfortable, and if they’re comfortable, they’re probably not doing much of anything. They fog up my glasses. They get nasty very quickly, and if you’re not replacing or washing them regularly, then yeah, you’re not gonna like them much. Have I examined a cross section of peer-reviewed journals on mask efficiencies? No. Do I trust the government to be an unbiased source of benevolent enlightenment? HA! No. But I generally wear them because common sense tells me something is still better than nothing. Because wearing them advances the case for reopening businesses, many of which are suffering badly due to draconian lockdowns. And because I’m not an insensitive clod, or a person who has a legitimate excuse to not wear one. But don’t get all pissy with me if I happen not to have it with me, a friendly reminder will usually do. Being discourteous is uncalled for, especially if you’re wearing yours below your nose.

Who abandoned who?

You read that right. I’m a registered Democrat.

For the first time since the early 1990s, I no longer consider myself a Republican. Don’t misunderstand the meaning, I don’t mean to give anyone a false impression. I am NOT a Democrat, not a modern, “progressive” one, at least (although I was quite liberal in my early college days). I *might* be considered a “JFK” Democrat, or a “Truman” Democrat, maybe, remotely, even a “Bill Clinton” Democrat, a man who at least knew how to be reasonable and make a deal. Those balanced budgets in the mid-90s that Democrats are so proud of hawking were passed with a Republican Congress.

I still consider myself, much as I have for years, a conservative-leaning centrist. Reasonable. Sensible. Willing to recognize that there are those who sincerely disagree with me on fundamental issues, and willing to discuss them in a calm, adult manner. But after seeing recent Republicans, I simply cannot support the farce any longer. The modern Republican Party has become a shill, selling its soul and its principles for a cult of personality. And not even a good, decent, likable personality, but an angry, hostile, narcissistic, belligerent, misogynist, huckster. But maybe I’m just a “dumb Southerner.”

Again, let’s not overstate this. I agree with some… okay, a few, of the things the President has done. I’m happy to have Constructionists on the Supreme Court. Being a Textualist myself, and believing, like most of the Founding Fathers, that government is, at best, a necessary evil, rarely a positive good, and always an inefficient one, I appreciate jurists who will take the gift bestowed on us at our nation’s founding and apply it to the questions of modern life, not the other way around. Otherwise, if the document can “grow” to mean anything we want it to mean, it becomes meaningless. That’s not to say it is perfect. It has been amended 27 times, after all, one of which repealed a prior amendment.

The economy is fundamentally sound and unemployment is at historic lows (partly because of the misleading way we’ve been counting for years, but that’s another argument). But I believe this to be largely in spite of, not because of a reckless President who (The Art of the Deal not withstanding) is one of the singularly worst negotiators I’ve ever seen. I can’t remember who said it, but my philosophy is something to the effect of “Get your opponent to do what you want him to do and think it was his idea.” Negotiations are, by nature, bilateral. You want something, the other person wants something different. Both of you want to win, and neither wants to look foolish. Common ground is, by definition, found in the middle. No one wins an argument by calling people names on social media. Put down the phone and govern, Mr. President.

But beyond style, I’ve grown disgusted with watching people, some of whom I admired, do verbal and moral pretzeling to defend the plainly indefensible. Any reasonable adult knows what “but I need you to do me a favor” means in this context. The Republican line of defense has gone like this:

“He didn’t do it”

“Okay, he did it, but it wasn’t a big deal.”

“Okay, he did it, and it was a big deal, but it didn’t work, so no harm, no foul.”

“La-la-la-la-la-la, we’re not impeaching him.”

I’ve seen a sitting President mock, belittle, and outright slander a decorated war veteran, career diplomat, and several members of his own, hand-picked staff. Nearly every Trump appointee I respect and admire(d) is gone, apparently reaching much the same conclusion that I have. Tillerson, McMaster, Kelly, Sessions, Haley (although I’m a little perturbed at her, too), and most of all, Mattis. This President is a man, above all else, who doesn’t like to be told what he doesn’t want to hear, a fatal flaw in a leader in any capacity. People who will tell you, “I support you, but you’re wrong on this” are the most valuable people in your life. He hung an ally out to dry for a personal political objective, an ally that is fighting one of our most dangerous adversaries, an adversary who is playing him like a fiddle. He has since abandoned another ally, the Kurds, but they're probably getting used to us abandoning them.

I can no longer stomach supposedly fiscally conservative Republicans running massive deficits, whatever the reason, with no end in sight and no plan to get there. Our National Debt, ruinous twenty years ago, is a runaway freight train. It cannot NOT crash.

It’s no secret that I was, and am, not an Obama supporter. Nor Hillary Clinton. It has nothing to do with race or gender, I would vote for Condoleezza Rice in a heartbeat. I am neither racist nor misogynist. I will approach the coming election with no thought but the issues. And therein lies the rub.

Aside from the aforementioned spending issues, Republicans are wrong on immigration. Not in wanting to limit illegal immigration. Not in wanting to preserve finite resources. But by not presenting, indeed refusing to present, any reasonable solution that, most of all, has to include a path the citizenship starting with the "Dreamers." There’s no point in immigration reform if it doesn’t address that issue. Deporting 20 million people and telling them to get in line to come back is not a workable solution. It would be ruinous to their lives and the employers who depend on them. Yes, we have a system for legal immigration. But it’s overwhelmed, outdated, and under-resourced. We should be proud that America is a place people want to be, are willing to risk their lives to be. But insular, xenophobic isolationism that simply bars the door and turns up the music has never worked, and never will.

Republicans are wrong on climate change. Once again, let’s not get carried away. I’m not a doomsdayer. I don’t believe humans are parasites on “Mother Earth.” But the data is strong that the planet, overall, is warming, and humans are doing things that contribute to that. I’m not ditching my gas-powered vehicle, my smartphone, or my cheeseburger, but clearly, we need to think about the impact of what we, and countries all around the world, are doing before it really IS too late, whether that’s 2 years from now or two hundred. I don’t support the universal, knee-jerk progressive solution to every problem (massive new taxes and government control), but we need to be willing to have a conversation, the one thing neither side’s leadership has any vested interest in doing.

But none of this was the last straw. That came with the Republican decision to not even hold primaries. Joe Walsh put it better than I can in the Wall Street Journal recently, but the damage is done. Don’t tell me they’re expensive, I know that. And don’t tell me that they’re pointless just because the conclusion is foregone. I know Trump will be the nominee. Expressing my vote in the form of a freely cast ballot is one of the most sacred rights in American government. And by not brooking any dissent, not fielding any questions, not debating any issues, we are all, as Republicans and as Americans, poorer, and dumber. My only option to make any sort of choice this election is to vote in the Democratic primary. After that, I’ll change back to what I really am; non-affiliated.

I’ve also come to the conclusion that, as a political system, the Republican party is (or used to be) rational, responsible, and logical… but not kind. Oh, I certainly know kind Republicans, as individuals. I know kind Democrats. But the party itself? No. Sadly, I haven’t been, either. But God is working on me. I don’t see Him working on Republicans, large scale, and certainly not on our Narcissist in Chief. The phrase “compassionate conservative” was all too short lived. We’re failing people. And if we’re failing people, it doesn’t matter much what we’re succeeding at.

It’s all just words. But there’s a life behind them. A life that affects my family, my friends, my small orbit. A life that had to change.

Who Needs a Constitution?

On Wednesday, Oregon governor Kate Brown signed a bill granting Oregon’s Electoral College votes to the winner of the national vote in presidential elections, regardless of how Oregonians vote. By passing this bill, Oregon just ceded its voting power to the rest of the country. It is at least theoretically possible that Oregon could award all of its electoral votes to a candidate who lost the Oregon popular vote.

In 2016, Hillary won the national popular vote by 2,868,686 votes (a little more than Miami-Dade County, FL), of which Oregon contributed a surplus for her of 219,703 (roughly Jackson County, OR). If Donald had picked up 2,648,983 votes in the rest of the country (almost exactly the population of Dallas County, Texas, and a little over half of the voters that Libertarian Gary Johnson siphoned off), Oregon would have, under this law, ignored its own popular vote total, and would have cast its electoral votes for Trump. As much as a plurality of Oregonians claim to hate Trump, and a not insignificant fraction of which protested his election in the streets, imagine how those protests would have been amplified if Oregon had further legitimized his election via its electoral votes.

The Electoral College is working exactly the way the Founding Fathers intended. At the time, they didn’t want businessmen in New York and Boston, or landed gentry in Virginia, having the power to overrule 10 other “colonies.”

Your vote will now be determined by the simple unification of Southern California, Southern Arizona, New York City, Houston, Seattle, and Miami, regardless of how the rest of the country, let alone Oregon votes. Just as it would take virtually the entire rest of Oregon to overrule the Portland Metro area. All bills like this do is create paper Electoral landslides. It is the voting equivalent of “I dunno, wherever you want to eat.” You may love it when you're in the majority, but what if someone you don't agree with is in power? (Hint: Google "Current US President")

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

"Seven minutes and nineteen seconds left in the third quarter.”

"Seven minutes and nineteen seconds left in the third quarter.”

For football fans, this will immediately conjure up a readily identifiable quantification of time. Time past, and time remaining.

This is where I am, roughly speaking, assuming I didn’t screw up the math (a distinct possibility).

I’m a little over halfway through the third quarter.

Not time to panic, not even close… but time to consider some substantive adjustments to the game plan if I’m behind on the scoreboard.

The calculation is fairly simple, if overly simplified to keep the math easy, based on a life expectancy of 80 (Ps. 90:10), each 20 year period representing one fifteen-minute quarter. A ten year old may be said to be “halfway (seven minutes and thirty seconds) through the first quarter.” An 81 year old, a few minutes into overtime.

At age 52 years, two months and several days, I am little over a minute and a half past halfway through the third quarter.

So the question now becomes… and I leading? Or trailing?

The analogy breaks down somewhat, of course. Football games rarely end as abruptly as life can. While individual players may on rare occasion find their games cut short by injury, the whole game is not generally subject to event-ending medical emergencies, accidents, etc. I’m well aware of the significant likelihood of not making it to exactly age 80, kicking the bucket just as “time expires.”

But as a relative measure, taking note of being well past halftime can be an impetus for “checking the score.”

I’m certainly not getting blown out. I’m not catastrophically, or even chronically, ill. I’m not in jail or in the depths of some debilitating substance addiction that is keeping me gutter-bound and homeless. I’m not third-world destitute. I’m gainfully employed at a relatively well-paying, stable job. I’m a reasonably intelligent college graduate considering grad school. I’m married to a wonderful woman, have a total of five kids and step kids, all living in warm, safe homes. I have a few close friends and a couple of hobbies I enjoy. My problems are first-world: The grocery store is out of my favorite chips; my truck has some annoying electrical issues; I walked a couple of significant blisters on my feet two Sundays ago while hiking a local urban park.

Likewise, I’m not blowing anyone out, either, like, say, the Falcons were at a comparable time in Super Bowl LI. I’m not wealthy, overtly talented, or powerful. I’m not famous for anything, even in this ridiculous age when it seems all you need is a webcam and a YouTube account; “famous for being famous.”

The “score,” whatever it is, isn’t lopsided.

Which begs the question: What is the “score?” And what does that even mean? How does one “score” one’s life?

Far greater minds than mine have contemplated such questions, and I’m certainly not going to stumble upon the definitive answer in an obscure little blog post. In fact, there likely is no one answer. How well each of us “does life” is as unique as we are.

But for me, a little prudent coaching probably means a few adjustments to the game plan. I should get serious about school if I’m going back at all. I’m a little overweight and a little out of shape. There are a few things my diet would probably be better off without, especially to increase my odds of making it to “0:00.” I should be making my retirement calculations more specifically and realistically. I should be making more disciplined financial choices. I should be investing in the relationships that matter, divesting any that don’t.

And there is hope. The score isn’t final yet. Just ask the Patriots.

Maybe I should start by simply getting out from behind this keyboard and………….

Methinks they doth #protest too much... (or at least too senselessly): The #Trump #Election

News is, by nature, new information. I can't recall who it was, but some newspaper or website had an advertising slogan: "If you haven't seen it, it's still news."

Unfortunately, there's another common saying: "Old news." And these past few days, that's what we've seen over and over again. Old news. Shocking not a few, even among his supporters, Donald Trump managed to get himself elected President. The reaction among many went something like: Disbelief...shock... sadness... anger... and then a minority took it a step further... protest. Fewer still, but not nearly few enough, went further still: Disruption... destruction... violence. Many of the things they feared Trump would bring, they now bring themselves.

I've been of voting age for nine Presidential elections. I've voted for the winner exactly twice. Seven times in my life I've gone to bed knowing that the person I opposed would be my President for at least the next four years.

After each one of those elections, I did the same exact thing the following morning: I got up, showered, shaved, got dressed, and went to work. I did this because I realized that my well being and that of my family have far more to do with me getting off my ass than what person holds any political office.

I didn't vote for Trump. I find great uncertainty looking into the future, just as I would have in a Clinton Presidency, just for different reasons. My hope for his Presidency is what it always is: That his good decisions would be supported and his bad decisions would be hindered. Yet I cannot help but notice the irony of the clamoring masses in Portland (and other places) smashing windows on new car lots and overturning police cars (while a sympathetic Governor-elect does little to rein in the senseless rabble). The same people who are screaming "WE WILL NOT ACCEPT PRESIDENT TRUMP," just a few weeks ago were mocking Trump for suggesting he might not immediately accept the results of the election. "YOU HAVE TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS, THAT'S HOW ELECTIONS WORK!" they cried. That line served them well when the outcome was a seemingly foregone conclusion. It worked well four years ago, and eight, when the cry was "Obama won, GET OVER IT!"

I find the same irony here that I find in Colin Kaepernick (and a few copycats) kneeling during the National Anthem. "So... you're protesting a country that gives you the freedom to protest?"

Even a cursory study of American history, and I've made much more than a cursory study, will reveal that we've survived some pretty awful Presidents. We'll survive this one, too.

But, if you think our just and proper response to opposing viewpoints is for us to shit in our own nest, well, let me know how that works out for you. I'll be at work.

“From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide.” ― Abraham Lincoln

#QuoteoftheDay #HarperLee #RIPHarperLee

#QuoteoftheDay #God #RCSproul

#QuoteoftheDay #JusticeScalia #RIPScalia

#QuoteoftheDay #Forbes #Selfworth #Inspiration

#QuoteoftheDay #Perserverance #Edison

#QuoteoftheDay #Inspiration #HardWork

#QuoteoftheDay #CondiRice #Entitlement #politics

"If you are taught bitterness and anger, then you will believe you are a victim. You will feel aggrieved, and the twin brother of aggrievement is entitlement. So now you think you are owed something and you don't have to work for it and now you're on a really bad road to nowhere because there are people who will play to that sense of victimhood, aggrievement, and entitlement and you still won't have a job." - Dr. Condoleezza Rice

#QuoteoftheDay #TheDayTheMusicDied

"That'll be the day — when you say goodbye.
That'll be the day — when you make me cry.
You say you're gonna leave — you know it's a lie, 'cause
That'll be the day when I die." - Buddy Holly

#QuoteoftheDay #Faith #Doubt

#QuoteoftheDay #BlackHistoryMonth

"We should welcome to our ample continent all the nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples, and as fast as they learn our language and comprehend the duties of citizenship, we should incorporate them into the American body politic. The outspread wings of the American eagle are broad enough to shelter all who are likely to come." - Frederick Douglas

#QuoteoftheDay #Einstein #Curiousity

"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein

#QuoteoftheDay #Challenger

"Uh-oh." - Capt. Michael J. Smith, Pilot, Space Shuttle "Challenger", 28 January 1986

#QuoteoftheDay #NeverForget #HolocaustMemorialDay

"The things I saw beggar description… The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering… I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, their develops a tendency to charge these allegations to propaganda." - Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower

#QuoteoftheDay #AbeVigoda #RIPAbeVigoda

"I've always been content just to be working and making a modest living for my wife and child." - Abe Vigoda

#QuoteoftheDay #Failure #Hope #Edison