Gaza and the West Bank...

While my sources are a little more than 2 years old (found HERE), it would seem that construction of both the settlements and the barrier are progressing at a rapid pace in the West Bank territories, and in the Golan Heights. It would seem that you are correct, and no NEW settlements have been constructed in Gaza, at least 21 are still operating under Israeli civilian leadership outside of the afore mentioned understanding that the settlements would be abandoned and torn down completely. Less than half have been destroyed, as promised in 2002.

The interesting thing about Gaza is that, while the settlements are still being constructed in the West Bank... the level of violence is almost non-existent compared with Gaza. Could it be that Jordan is the more "reliable" partner in this process, and the the violence in Gaza is indicative of a less-than-enthusiastic Egyptian effort to keep the border closed? Or is it more likely that the presence of the Israeli military in the West Bank is a greater deterrent than the THREAT of Israeli military presence in Gaza?

The choices seem so grim... if you "surgically" strike the terror targets, you risk missing vital targets. If you attack in force, you risk massive civilian damage and death. If you retailiate in kind, you are giving up the initiative and simply fighting a "reactionary" fight... always taking the first punch, as it were. Displacing Palestinians in Gaza simply moves them to another location... it does not remove the threat of violence from them, and is far more likely to breed more violent problems in the future.

Gaza and West Bank Settlements

If I recall correctly the Israelis closed all of their settlements in Gaza 4 years ago and withdrew all Israeli settlers, I believe this is true for the West Bank also. That is what made it possible for the Palestinians to try and start building their own State and creating their own government.

Now I'm pulling from memory here but the Israelis no longer have any settlements within the Palestinian controlled areas of West Bank or Gaza and any new construction is occuring outside of those lines.

Regarding "Ship of Fools"...

I don't disagree with anything Ryan posted. I have, in the past, voiced the concern that, as long as Hamas was the elected representatives of the Palestinian people (and they still hold the majority in the PA by a whopping 94%), the US would have to be willing to have some level of relations with the terrorist group. The game changes when radical terrorists gain enough support amongst the people to become a "government"... look at Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the Revolutionary Council in Iran. Terrorists DO become governments, occasionally.

HOWEVER... no government, no matter how much support they have, can be allowed to operate a terror campaign against a civilian population for as long as Hamas has continued theirs, and not draw the wrath of the rest of the world. Hamas had an opportunity to gain legitimacy through their elections... but refused it and continued their attacks and terror strikes against Israel.

So, understanding that I am FULLY in support of Israel's right to defend itself and its population... can I voice the opinion that an "invasion" of Gaza is a bad idea?

As Ryan pointed out, even the rest of the Arab world is beginning to admit that there is NO winning for Hamas in this regard. Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon have all made it quite clear that they would have no "official" hand in the Hamas effort, and Egypt has kept it's border with Gaza CLOSED from day one. Iran is the only nation openly supporting Hamas, and Syria is undoubtedly doing the same, behind the scenes. This is a level of "good will" from the Arab world that Israel hasn't seen since Camp David. I know there are protests and demonstrations in Jordan and Lebanon on a daily basis, in support of Hamas... but those protesters are PALESTINIANS... not Jordanian or Lebanese nationals.

By continuing with the campaign as they have been (and Hamas attack capability has been reduced by 75% over the last 10 days, by US estimates), Israel doesn't risk alienating their closest Arab neighbors into open hostility. Civilian Palestinian casualties have been minimal (generally speaking), and haven't drawn undo protests from anyone but Hamas and the anti-Israeli crowd here in the US. Let's face it... if even Egypt and Lebanon can't complain about the actions of Israel in light of the Hamas attacks, who the hell can?

What more would invading Gaza give Israel, anyway? The risk of rocket attacks doesn't decrease, but the chance of Israeli casualties does, along with the number of Palestinian civilians to suffer in the attacks (which are guaranteed to rise).

I heard one conservative pundit (Bill Bennett) suggest that the smartest strategy might be to make traffic OUT of Gaza the only traffic available. Let those that WANT to leave the area leave, and know that those staying are aware of the risks involved. Isolate the terrorists in an area where support and supply are not available, until such time as the attacks stop or a more aggressive response is deemed suitable.

Again, I support Israel's right to defend itself and secure its citizen's safety and security... no question. If I have issues with Israel at all (and I'm not saying I do), it is simply that so many of their policies conflict with stated positions and goals... like the continued construction of settlements in the Gaza and West Bank areas, AFTER assurances that no more settlements would be built. There is a big part of me that thinks that STOPPING the construction would take some of the wind out of Hamas sails, and would certainly remove the opportunity for outside (meaning left-wing American) criticism of Israeli policy. Last I heard, the majority of Israelis agreed with ME on this... stop the construction of settlements in the PA areas of Gaza and the West Bank.

Anyway... I guess I'm just not convinced that an invasion of Gaza is in Israel's best interest. Can anyone show me it is?

Let's bear in mind...

Had we stopped at Palermo, and not crossed to mainland Italy... or even stopped with the "front" stretching 55 km north of Naples (many felt Naples a key to Mediterranean control)... the confusion in strategic and command control in Normandy immediately after June 6th would NOT have been there. Rommel wouldn't have NEEDED the release of the 20th Panzer from Calais reserve to Normandy... because he'd have had elements from his former North Africa Corps already in place.

How many more German divisions would have been needed to make the nearly impossible task of landing 100,000 troops on the beach at Normandy an actual impossibility? Six? Eight? Ten? Kesselring could have afforded to spare as many as ten divisions IF he knew the Italian campaign was over, or even stalled indefinitely.

In my eyes, the success of the Italian campaign can't be underscored enough... it tied up needed resources and material that could have done much more for the Nazi cause somewhere else, either in Russia or in France.

I have even thought that a more conservative commander in the theater might have reduced the cost of the Allied advance through the pennisula... but is this true? I'm not convinced that a defensive "holding" action couldn't have been fought with far less than Kesselring had... but Clark was a hard-driving commander who wanted "forward movement" from his units. This forced the Germans (especially Hitler) to keep the troops in Italy, rather than move them to more strategically viable areas of Europe.

I'd also point out that, while I'm not defending each and every action that Clark took in the campaign... his biggest critics were almost ALL the British commanders that demanded the Italian campaign in the first place... ESPECIALLY Alexander (commanding XV Army Group, Europe), whom he eventually REPLACED on the recommendation of both Ike and Churchill!

No, the more I ponder this question, the more I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to Clark and the guys on the ground (including the Brits who demanded the invasion). Want to know why?

Because Ike liked him, and Ike ok'd the plan. Ike recognized ability and talent... otherwise, Patten would have been State-side before the Normandy operation ever kicked off. Ike voiced his reservations about such operations as Market-Garden just enough to make sure that Monty and his boys KNEW no one was taking the fall for their poor planning... and he did the same in Italy. If he felt that the mistakes made in Italy were as bad as some critics have made them out to be, he wouldn't have replaced Alexander with Clark. Alexander has the juice, after all... born an Earl, made a Viscount after North Africa, one of only a handfull of British Field Marshalls, and a holder of the Victory Cross from his service with the Irish Guards in WWI... even Rudyard Kipling wrote about him! Is THIS the kind of guy Ike is likely to replace with someone who made "mistake after mistake"?

More importantly, I am more and more convinced that the "mistakes" of the Italian campaign were of the sort that no one has considered the alternatives for. The move on Rome rather than the move to exploit the gap in the German positions (known as the Winter Line) was a direct contradiction to Alexander's orders... and could have cost him his command. Instead, it showed the most substantial "political" gains of the war prior to the June 6th invasion of Normandy (only 2 days before, I admit). Did Clark know the date for Overlord? I don't know... but his taking of Rome on the 4th was a HUGE boost to Allied moral and a HUGE blow to Axis confidence.

Finally, let's look at what we "learned" from the Italian campaign. The most successfull and decorated units of D-Day were units that won their "stripes" in Italy: 2nd Ranger Battallion, 3 Infantry Division, 2nd Armored Division, 82 Airborn Division, et al. Another 7 divisions were redeployed in August of '44 to do exactly what Ryan suggested should have been done without Italy... invade southern France (Operation Dragoon). Would this operation have been as successfull if it were mounted from Algiers rather than Italy? Who can say?

I guess a better question for us all would be: Were the mistakes made in planning and executing operations in Italy any worse than the mistakes made in planning and executing Market-Garden, Overlord, and the drives on Metz, Antwerp, Paris, and Cherbourg? Italy wasn't what history sees as a "road" to Berlin... but that doesn't make it any less of an advantage to fight, does it? For all that went wrong with the British "raid on Diep"... how many lives were saved at Normandy because of what was accomplished at Diep?

I'd define "failure" as something that contributes nothing to the final effort, the ultimate goal. Italy DID get us closer to winning the war in Europe. I can't see comparing it to a "failure" of the sort history shows us in Gallipoli, or Verdun, or Austerlitz, or even Lee's efforts at Gettysburg.

Ok, concession time.

After having thoroughly reviewed the situation with books, maps and online, and via a chat with Jambo, I concede that the Italian campaign should have never occurred. Why? Because there were better options.

If you launch a cross-Mediterranean amphibious attack from Algeria into Marseilles simultaneous, or even better - 24 hours after Normandy, then there are 4 things that could happen, all of them good for the Allies, and preferable to events such as Monte Cassino and the whole of the boot:

1.) If Kesserling hooks North and West to meet the Southern France invasion (and I'm almost certain Hitler would have demanded that because he wasn't about to pull the reserves from Calet), then you (the Allies) get to meet those German divisions in terrain much less friendly for defense. Southern France would have been much prefferable to the dug in slopes of Italy, and you still tie up those 500,000 German men just the same.

2.) If he doesn't swing around, or if you can disable the Kesserling divisions to the point punching through, then you own the entire left flank of the advancing Panzer divisions on their way to repel the D-Day invasion. Overlord forces and lets call it "Underlord" (a Southern France/Mediterranean based invasion) fight their way in until they hook up in the middle, splitting and/or decimating those German forces.

3.) With Underlord, if needs be, if one simply "wants" to take Rome for the sake of taking Rome, now you come in from the North, past Milan into Verona and drop down; and given you own Northern Africa, Sicily, and the Mediterranean Sea, the remaining Italian based German forces are cut off on both ends, with no routes to resupply.

4.) If the Kesserling Italian based divisions are by and large redeployed to the Eastern Front - because now there is no Italian invasion and Overlord and "Underlord" are yet to occur so there is no need to keep the bulk in Italy - then the Red Army is further and further depleted until, as Jambo said, they are "bled white." Thus reducing the ability for that Iron Curtain to descend post war. Russia would have eventually slogged through the added Kesserling divisions, one way or the other, but now they are that much less of a threat to the West post war given that added depletion of men and resources.

The question is then, why did FDR agree to invading the boot? Surely all of these options were at some point laid on the table after Sicily but prior to the Italian invasion. There is only one answer and it involves the difference in how Churchill and FDR read Stalin. I agree with Jambo's assessment that both Stalin and Churchill's every move was made conscious of limiting eachother's post war sphere's of influence. So my question is why did FDR not see what Churchill clearly did? Jambo mentioned that perhaps Roosevelt wanted the war over and placating Stalin's request for that front aided this. But my question then is, what is the downside to NOT placating Stalin by refusing an Italian front? What would he do? Pack up the Red Army, hand back Kirsk and go home? My contention is that Roosevelt simply did not see "Uncle Joe", as he referred to Stalin, as the threat he clearly was. Churchill did. Thus the Italian campaign went forward based soley on FDR's intent to keep ol' Joey Stalin happy and swilling his potato mash (as his rank and file swallowed potato mashers, I might add). FDR had many shining war time moments, this was not one of them.

The Italian Campaign.

First let me say that my original text message, in which I praised the Allied Italian Campaign, was motivated primarily by BATTLEFIELDS description (and of course my prior knowledge) of the hard fighting and immense sacrifice our troops engaged in on the slopes of Italy. Jambo, quite appropriately, assumed I meant it was admirable from a strategic approach (and by the way, we all know he concurs with the bravery demonstrated in that campaign). However, I allowed the strategic dispute to go on to see if it could in fact be "defended" as a necessary campaign, namely because I just couldn't imagine such a monumental strategic disaster on the part of the Allied Forces at that point in the war, or the thought that 300,000 Allied lives were in effect "wasted" or at least "unnecessarily" lost. Thus, I needed to defend this campaign as neccessary.

That being said ... as much as I hate to admit it, the general historical consensus was that it was a strategic mistake, and worse, poorly executed. The Italian peninsula was primed for defense in that the terrain was a natural ally of Field Marshal Kesserling: “A Gefreiter (corporal) with Zeiss binoculars and a field telephone could rain artillery on every living creature in sight” (Rich Atkinson, "Day of Battle"). From the ring of mountains from which Germans could observe every detail of the Salerno landings, to the peaks north of the Garigliano River where they dug in for the winter, the hilltop villages between Rome and the Arno Valley fortified by generations of "condottieri," the mountain range between Florence and Bologna, and the heights overlooking the rivers and canals that the Eighth Army had to cross when it attempted its right hook at the end of 1944, the Germans had every possible terrain advantage.

So, if one of the two primary goals was to get to Berlin "as soon as possible", then it was a failure. And the long slog up the Peninsula could have been avoided by simply landing an amphibian assault force, across the Mediterranean, into Southern Vichy controlled France as a shortcut to Berlin. Seriously, the US and British invaded West North Africa with troops directly all the way from the US and England in "Operation Torch" with 3 Task Forces stretching from south of Casablanca to Algiers. This could have been done, especially given the North African campaigns had hardened the experience of US troops 1000 fold by the time they would have initiated such a campaign.

But with all that said we are left with the second objective of the Italian Campaign - tying up German forces from the Eastern Front and the soon to be tested Atlantic Wall. Many assessments of the Italian campaign primarily assess German forces in Italy alone, and ignore the over all larger deployment in the Mediterranean Theater. Taken as a whole the German commitment was substantial given the fact that massive Soviet forces were driving West toward Berlin and the Allies were preparing the cross-Channel invasion. Thus this limited their ability to focus their dwindling resources on the defense of the Atlantic Wall as well as the Red Army's drive toward Berlin.

The bottom line: the Allies had the resources for the Italian diversions. The Germans did not.

And, as we all know, and Titus previously pointed out, history rewards the winners, and Rome did fall. And the "what if" game which comes into play without the 26 German divisions tied up and 500,000 killed in the Mediterranean vastly complicates everything from Overlord to Paris to the Ardenne to Stalingrad.

So my point is, as bad as the Allied casualty rates were, as bad as the terrain, planning and and still questionable necessity was, I'd hate to imagine the European invasion from June 6th 1944 on, WITHOUT the Italian Campaign consuming those German resources.

Ship of fools.

There are Israeli commandos and IDF regulars mounted on the Palestinian border, awaiting orders to go in ... I think those orders will come.

So, after 2 years of HAMAS shelling border towns, 6000 rockets raining down, and dozens of Israeli civilian casualties, the only flourishing democracy in the Near East has decided to act in defense of her peoples. They have now killed, according to UN estimates, 379 Palestinians. 310 are known HAMAS militants, the West knows them as terrorists. Even the most dovish of Israeli political factions, commentators and newspapers (and yes, they do exists in Israel) are in support of this action, even going so far as to question aloud in their various mediums what took the government so long. The Jerusalem Post has current Israeli civilian support near 91%. Hell, even Egypt has more or less told HAMAS, hey, we told you so. But lets get back to that other number - 310.

Now think about that ratio, for anyone still blindly, ignorantly claiming a moral equivalency between the two sides in this conflict. There are Israeli troops currently on the border, closer, easier to strike in proximity, yet HAMAS continues to shell towns behind them. Now we could go on and on with decades of examples since 1948 of the painstaking efforts of Israel to both coexist and avoid civilian casualties when war was necessary. But lets just review just a few recent ones, shall we?

First, Israel is a democracy by every standard. HAMAS, to this day, has the destruction of the State of Israel in its charter. There are more freely elected Muslims in the Israeli Kanessa then in all Middle Eastern nations, combined. Upon confirming the death of a Israeli citizen HAMAS agents distribute leaflets in the streets of their victory in killing yet another "infidel." When Palestinian civilian casualties occur the IDF does a follow up investigation to ensure all proper policies and procedures were followed and there was no blatant recklessness on the part of her armed forces. HAMAS stores their rockets in civilian neighborhoods next to entire families, quite literally, and even launches from those civilian sites. When IDF forces mark one of those rocket sites for targeting they first send out a 2 minute warning via a robo call to the neighboring civilian's home, urging them to immediately evacuate. In contrast HAMAS has recently, just in time for Christmas, legalized Crucifixion as punishment for the ominously defined "infidel." Nice huh? Crucifixion, at Christmas time. Oh, and should anyone think "infidel" is defined only by Israelis or Zionists, HAMAS shelled a pilgrimage of Christians on their way to Bethlehem ... also for Christmas.

One could (and I'm sure has) write entire books full of chapters distinguishing the absence of a moral equivalency. Now understand, no honest soul claims that Israel has been perfect in her defense nor response, but there is no perfect defense, and it should be noted how apt those descriptive words are - defense ... response.

I am of the opinion that most Western powers are all verbally dancing around the obvious (France now is offering to broker a cease fire) - there is no peace to keep. Namely, because there is no victor. A victory must be established, then, and only then, can peace be established. And clearly that victor MUST be Israel. How do you begin a negotiation, a discussion, rely on a so called "partner in peace", when your "partner" has your very destruction in its charter? What is the jumping off point? What is the rationale for opening discussions? And that brings us to the 800 lb gorilla in the room that NO ONE in any Western government will dare say out loud. No government representative, chief executive or UN member will cross the grand puba of politically incorrect statements and just admit to the ONLY "peace plan" that can work - HAMAS must be defeated. There is no other way. And not just for Israeli's but for the suffering people of Palestine - suffering, I say, under the yoke of hate and violence HAMAS injects into each succeeding generation. And what is heart breakingly sad were a TRUE era of acceptance and coexistence established in Palestine they could quickly become one of the wealthiest and most prosperous lands in all the region - they could trade, build, and buy with the two huge economies they share a border with - Israel and Egypt. And even sell their goods to another border nation, the wealthy Jordanians.

But this bright future will never manifest by trying to "talk" HAMAS out of its terrorist manifesto and commitment, nor by waiting and hoping for their particular brand of Islam to spontaneously undergo a reformation. That poison must be removed, or that land will never heal.

Oh ... and the subject line? Not only does it described those claiming a moral equivalency or avoiding publicly uttering the necessary route to peace, but a literal ship set sail in the Mediterranean Sea. Just a few dozen people, including Westerners, that were intent on docking in Palestine - to bring aid and demonstrate support in Gaza, and protest Israeli "attacks." One of those on board was a former US Congresswoman. True story. Cynthia McKinney. She lost a reelection bid in her Georgia congressional district a few years ago after wondering aloud on a radio program if 9/11 was an inside job with the help of Israeli agents. Her father went on to claim she was defeated by one word - JEWS. She most recently ran for president (of the United States) as the Green Party nominee, where she garnered a commanding 0.25% of the national vote.

The Israeli Navy wisely turned the ship around.

Funny what a single text and 2 glasses of wine can start.

I'm doing some research at the moment, so I'll save the response to Jambo's for tomorrow, but for now I think the point Titus made must be emphasized - 26 hardened German divisions in France or Belgium, rather then Italy, and the "what-if's" begin to mount.

Also, I came across this. I next to never quote anyone considered "Hollywood royalty", but I like Robin Williams, and I like his "speech for peace" even better. Oh, and that Arabic on his shirt reads: I LOVE NEW YORK.


“I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for
peace. So, here’s one plan.

1) The US will apologize to the world for our “interference” in their affairs, past &present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those “good ole boys”, we will never “interfere” again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea, the Middle East, and the Philippines. They don’t want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We’ll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They’re illegal!!! France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don’t like it there, change it yourself and don’t hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don’t need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5) No foreign “students” over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don’t attend
classes, they get a “D” and it’s back home baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don’t like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not “interfere.” They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don’t need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us “Ugly Americans” any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH...learn it…or LEAVE...Now, isn’t that a winner of a plan?

The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.” She’s got a baseball bat and she’s yelling, ‘you want a piece of me?’ "

"I feel sorry for my Ma..."

The more I think about this, the more I agree with Jambo.

The Italian peninsula is a narrow, mountainous band of rugged highlands broken only by thin strips of swampy river deltas along the coasts and almost no flat plains to allow the Allies to use armor to its fullest potential.

By the winter '43-'44, Ike wanted a defensive line further north of Naples than he had, so the determination to push the Germans north of Rome was made... but Kesselring had highly disciplined troops who were happy to end their retreat from North Africa and eager to dig into such easily defensible areas as those provided by Italy's topography. He also knew he couldn't count on the Italians to stay in the fight, but COULD count on the Italian winter, which began to put snow in the mountain passes that year as early as Oct 10th.

The Krauts had a plan that if Italy pulled out of the Axis alliance, then the defensive line would be drawn from Pisa to Rimini (about 300 km north of Rome) to protect the southern approaches to the Fatherland. Had we fought only THAT far... the Italian campaign wouldn't have cost 312,000 allied casualties.

None the less... we inflicted 546,000 on the Germans ALONE. That's an awful lot of troops that WEREN'T fighting in France or Russia at the same time. Was there bad planning? Of course... Anzio and Monte Cassino are great examples. Were mistakes made? Obviously... because I don't think a casualty ratio of 3 Germans for every 2 Allied troops is an acceptable ratio, even in 1944-45.

Still... like Jambo keeps reminding us all... history remembers the victors, and things might have played out quite differently had those 26 crack German divisions been fighting in France, or defending against the Vistula-Oder Offensive in Poland... rather than slugging it out for every inch in Italy.

A really good "what if", though... I must say.

"I don't know... Italy, somewhere..."

In hindsight, all that Jambo said is true... and perhaps he has understated the facts a bit.

If the campaign was to drain resources away from Nazi Germany and keep Americans "in the fight" after Africa (as FDR and his cabinet claimed it was), then it did just that. This gives lie to the strategy that many of the British high command initially fronted of knocking Italy out of the war quickly, and demoralizing Germany's eastern allies and supporters. The fighting in Italy wasn't over quickly... in fact, German forces in Italy didn't surrender until May 7th 1945, just one day before the German total capitulation on the 8th.

The drives to take Palermo, Salerno, Rome and Trieste were meat-grinders on the men, machines and supplies of the Allied effort. The only "saving grace" that the effort had in its composition was that, of all the campaigns in Europe during the War, this was the most multi-national... there was an entire Indian division there, units from Siam, a Polish infantry division, Carpathian "grenadiers" (I'm not sure what they did... they might still have been "mounted!") and three Brazilian "light" divisions. This spread the "cost" of the campaign across a greater number of allies than simply having the US and UK do it all.

The main point is still true... everything the Allies gained from liberating MOST of the "boot", they already had with the capture of Sicily and the destruction/capture of the Italian Navy... and that goes for the liberation of Rome, too. As much of a media and propaganda surge as that was... no one needed to "liberate" Pius XII, did they? No tanks or troops crossed the frontier (although Kesselring had a battalion of SS ready to seize the Vatican, if called to do so).

The pressure from Stalin and the British commanders (thank you, Monty) to take the boot was a lot for FDR and Churchhill to deal with, and the concession to invade wasn't made lightly, I'm sure. FDR was convinced that US troops needed to stay in the fight between the North African campaign and D-Day... and Italy was the only choice.

I hesitate to go as far as Jambo did and say it was a total waste... but anything north of Rome was extrenious and wasteful... no question there.

Where the hell is Monte Cassino?

So I'm watching Mike and Mike at 5 AM because my head cold prevents me sleeping, when Ryan texts me about the BATTLEFIELDS series on the Military Channel. No argument from me, it's top of the line production and one of the very best series concerning WWII. Then Ryan goes on and tells me how underrated the Italian campaign was, the overall strategic importance, the third front, the propaganda. None of which, I will add here, this wonderful show says. Know why? Because it isn't true.

The Italian Campaign was one of the biggest overall tragic wastes of WWII. In scope and casualties it far outshines Operation Market Garden, and misses pushing said operation out of number one in the West only because it finally did succeed in capturing Italy.

Once Sicily falls, the entire Med is the Allies to play with. From bases in North Africa and Sicily, a two pronged invasion coinciding with the Normandy invasion of 6 June 1944 on the southern coast of France (which does happen 15 Aug 1944) achieves the same goal of drawing resources from the main thrust of the invasion. All the thousands upon thousands of Allied casualties were for nothing because the Wermacht losses were marginal. Italy is a defensive action commander's wet dream. Add to that the blunders of Clark, commander of 5th Army, and you have a strategic failure. FDR buckles under Stalin's pressure for a third front, refuses to listen to the warnings of Churchill concerning Communist post war policies dictating their offensive movements, and throws men and material away into a needless Italian campaign.

Even General Burnside would have looked at Monte Cassino and said, "Not today, boys." And that's BURNSIDE we're talking about. And Monte Cassino is only ONE of many mistakes made on the campaign. All the Allied successes in the boot were bypass actions. My contention is the ENTIRE BOOT should have been bypassed.

Thoughts?

Hmmm... compromise? HA!

This month, a Congressman from Texas has submitted a proposal that, for all intents and purposes, solves the "economic stimulus" problem in 60 short days, and with (literally) no effort on the part of the Federal Government.

How?

By declaring the first two months (after the passage of the Bill) a Federal tax holiday, and suspending ALL Federal income and corporate taxes. It's pretty straight-forward... an easy read, as these things go... you can find the text HERE.

The long and short is that WE keep an extra 35% of our paychecks, and the Feds use the balance of the "bail-out" fund to keep Social Security and the rest of the "machine" running for the 60-day holiday. This equates to a 17% tax reduction for each and every working American in 2009, and will pump $333 BILLION dollars back into the economy with the first paycheck people receive... and this coming immediately on the heals of the holiday shopping season and all the credit card and charge bills we wracked up.

So, I'm of the opinion that NO action will be taken with this, because Pelosi/Reid/Obama only want the "relief" coming from their hands, and not remaining in the hands of the people that earned it in the first place. This will NOT make the list of Bills presented to the Congress on Jan 5th (the Dems will hang it up in review committee), and instead they will push their $786 BILLION dollar relief package, which will constitute another $750-1500 check for ALL Americans, not just for those working and paying taxes.

If this DOES fall out as I have predicted, and the GOP doesn't take the time and effort to point out to the American people just how wasteful and extraneous the Dem plan is compared to simply allowing you to KEEP 100% of your first two-months of salary in 2009... then they deserve the shape the country is destined to fall into over the next four years.

The very BEST of wishes...

I, too, hope that everyone that sees this site had a fantastic and very blessed Christmas this year, and that the New Year brings much joy and prosperity, as well.

I'm particularly pleased that all here insisted in using "Christmas" as the term to describe the holiday, and not simply "holiday". The birth of Christ is THE reason for this season, after all... and (as all should know) there is no "holiday" if you take the "holy" away.

So that none here forget, I hope everyone had an opportunity to revisit those wonderful childhood programs like "Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown!", wherein one Linus Van Pelt (himself, named after the second Bishop of Rome and the first successor to Peter himself) explains, in no uncertain terms, exactly what Christmas is all about...

"'And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.'"

That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown!

Merry Christmas

I want to wish all of you a Merry Christmas. Most of the time my day isn't complete unless I have at least read the posts of the day. Jambo and I speak regularly and have gotten pretty close and one of these days I hope to be able to feel like that about all of ya.

I want to make an observation, I went to Church tonight with my family and it has to be true that god is forgiving. I walked in the church for a service for the first time in years and I didn't get struck down and the roof was still intact when I left. We had a visiting pastor (the resident paster that we had took a call to North Carolina closer to his home and we don't have a new one yet), I didn't recognize 80% of the people in the church and I still felt like I belonged there. It was a very good experience and it was nice to reaffirm why we celebrate Christmas in person with my faith intact.

Merry Christmas
Badboy and Family

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

I'd like to say a sincere Merry Christmas to the original Bund brothers (and you ARE like brothers to me), and the impressive veteran I am yet to meet.

So I'm sitting here today, feeling like a heel. Not only did I receive a card with pictures included from NEPA, today a box arrives with sweet confections and baked goods from Biloxi, MS. First, I thank you both, and your respective better halves - please tell them I said so. My self assigned "heel" feeling is due to my negligence in not issuing a reciprocating holiday package ... then something occurred to me. So given the late date in the month this gift is certain to both get to you on time and please the eye. There is one catch, there is an expiration date of 12/25/08, after which it will no longer be valid:

Titus - you were RIGHT, I was WRONG ... about everything. Every argument, every squabble, every disagreement. Limbaugh is an insufferable boob, and FDR should be on the $10 bill before Reagan gets so much as a shilling.

Jambo - your new New Deal is without flaw. It is genius incarnate. I find no quarrel with a single syllable. Socrates himself would have refused the Hemlock if only to live one day closer to its realization. It deserves to be voted into ... strike that ... DECLARED law tomorrow.

Merry Christmas!
(and do bare in mind that expiration date).

And I read only my own posts?

Dork, I wasn't arguing when and where depressions vs recessions historically occurred. THAT is not my point. My assigning a "legacy of failure" to the New Deal era is based on what it represented in redefining governments role in both times of crisis and the every day.

The New Deal is the Demarcation line, in my opinion, of when "government" is redefined. Its interventionism, it's the "answer", it's the standard for all other social "wars" chief executives would declare against in the future be it poverty, housing, health care etc.

The New Deal made possible, as a precedent setting redefining era, all other defunct, bloated, social agendas that tip toed into the wet dreams of succeeding government social engineering interventionist chief executives that followed. THAT depicts a legacy of endless reproduction of failure via government programs - none of which are possible without the FDR government interventionist model. Thus the New Deal legacy is one of failure (and that's without even getting into success/failure rates of the individual programs I might add).

Send the ever distracting Trevor to clean the latrines, and then actually READ what I am writing next time.

Talk about stubborn...

Dude, do you read anything that is posted by someone OTHER than yourself?

No one is arguing that "Government" has shown a propensity to GROW from one fiscal year to the next... but YOU seem to be the only one that is arguing that it ONLY shows this growth from 1932 to the present, and that there were NO signs or evidence of "BIG Government" prior to the New Deal.

However, let's take a look at your "legacy of failure":

Since 1789, there have been no less than SEVEN national "depressions"...

1807-1814
1819-1823
1869-1870
1873-1896 (the Long Depression)
1901
1907
1929-1933 (the Great Depression)

Since 1933, there have been SEVEN recessions...

1937
1953
1957
1973
1980
1990
2001

BUT no "depressions". No recession has has lasted longer than two years since 1933... why?

Because since 1933, our "New Deal" focus in domestic fiscal policy has had a measurable "Keynesian" bend to it... deficit spending during slow economic times with increased taxes and/or spending reductions in strong economies.

Like James said earlier... history is the judge and presents all the evidence. Anything else is conjecture and "what-if", right?

So, before 1932... at least 7 depressions lasting a total of more than 40 years. No New Deal politics.

After 1932... no depressions, but 7 (arguably 5) recessions, none of which lasted longer than 24 months. Seven New Deal administrations (9 if you count Clinton and Bush as "New Deal").

There's my evidence in support of Keynesian economics as found in American domestic policy... or, in other words, New Deal economics.

Saint Roosevelt

"Biased concerns?" "Biased concerns", Titus? That is how you describe all the facts, figures, citations, and sources I presented, they boil down to "a few biased concerns?" And I suppose your defenses are some how "unbiased", huh? And now your point, about unemployment (perhaps the most glaring example of New Deal failures), is that without those 3.3 million people employed by the government the US unemployment rate would have been even higher? That's ridiculous as a point of defense. Of course without those programs unemployment would have been higher, that's undeniable. The point is even WITH the full implementation of those programs and all of New Deal, unemployment still remained at a staggering 1/5th of the US workforce. Sometimes I think you come to this site to argue with Mike Church, instead of F. Ryan.

Look, I can go on all day about how unemployment was not solved by the New Deal. How without WWII the New Deal would have been more clearly shown as an abject failure. And maybe I am right. But that's the point - WWII did come on the heels of full New Deal implementation, so I can't prove my theory. I can point to unemployment as a failure and Jambo will point to the TVA. I can point to the inherent flaw of a Social Security program, and Titus, you will point to public works we still use today. The value of individual aspects within the New Deal can be debated as success or failures until the second coming. What I want to do in closing this argument is 2 things:

1.) Acknowledge that the New Deal did in fact inspire hope that "someone" was doing "something." That can not be over stated. Even the most conservative of professors in South MS I came across were quick to acknowledge badboy's point. Also, FDR's actions during WWII epitomizes admirable executive leadership - I just felt it necessary to include that amidst this discussion.

2.) Briefly explain why the New Deal left America worse off for the experience. Whichever form debate over it takes, one thing is undeniable. The New Deal forever changed the role of government in the individual American's life. And it redefined, probably forever, the expectations of government during times of economic crisis. FDR's ability to make (the percentage that did get through) the New Deal law/policy, enabled all his successor's to expand, bloat, and grow government in a way that would otherwise been impossible without the New Deal precedent. It also changed the individual's expectations of government on behalf of her citizens to the point that government is now not only seen as "a" solution, but "the" solution to every crisis. And, in my opinion, has surpassed even that threshold of "crisis" and entered into a US where even the slightest inconvenience requires a government solution. THAT is the greatest failure of the New Deal - it set America on a course for an ever growing, controlling, power increasing, wasteful federal government. Now you can say that is the fault of FDR's successor's, fine, whatever makes you feel as if "Saint Roosevelt's" good name is left intact. But the point is the New Deal enabled all that was to follow in the federal government's social programs pipeline. Whether or not New Deal was socialist in nature can be debated, but what I think is obvious to the objective eye is that it put America on a trajectory of incremental socialism that it remains on to this day.

And in my opinion, THAT is a legacy of failure.

Hear, hear!

Well said, Baddboy!

There is no question that I am just pretentious enough to forget the broader picture and focus only on my own opinions of the politics. The Greatest Generation was a slice of American society that not only appreciated the freedoms and liberties our Country affords us all, but understood the price of defending and maintaining those freedoms and liberties could run very high indeed, and was paid by ALL of society... not just the military.

I won't keep defending the New Deal any further, other than to say that it was a measure of government intervention at a time when intervention was absolutely necessary. Not all of it worked, but for anyone (conservative or otherwise) to suggest it was a failure based only on biased concerns against Social Security, GEICO, federal retirement benefits, or any other New Deal legacy is simply inaccurate and wrong.

The other side of this coin is that, in today's world, can we blame our modern society and it's lack of civic pride and sense of duty on government intervention, or on "society's" demands for instantaneous and immediate gratification of all wants, needs and desires, with no sacrifice or effort on the part of the individual?

I mean, who can doubt that the Greatest Generation knew that anything was possible with a day's honest work and a real sense of pride in our efforts? Who can question the lack of the same in today's generation?

All politics aside

It seems that there has been alot of debate and disagreement about the previous "New Deal" politics and "The Greatest Generation". I think you guys have figured out by now that alot of times I don't always look at things from a strictly political or historical point of view and that at times I speak from an emotional or gut feeling. In my opinion whether you are a fan of the thenew deal or an opponent in the end those programs instilled hope in alot of people that at the time didn't have any. There are times in history that decisions made by the government that may not have been fiscally prudent but for the times were emotionally necessary for the people.

If you take a walk about this beautiful country of ours as I have been given the privelige of doing either through my military travels or through my fathers I have seen the things that may not have necessarily been fiscally prudent but in the end gave us things to be proud of and things that when we look upon them and think about the men and women that have poured their sweat and tears into these projects quite literally have brought tears to my eyes.

I am by my own nature a moderate conservative. There are programs that I think are a complete farce and have done nothing but bring people down and leave them down just based on their never ending supply of dollars with no expectation of working to earn them and no expectation of repayment. We forget that today a mans pride is no longer guaged by a days wage for a days work. Back in the day a man was not a man without a job and a days wage. A man without a job could not support his family and by that definition alone he was a failure. If you want to guage the success or failure of the new deal you cannot fail to include the personal pride a man received by feeling that he had done a days work, had earned a days pay and now his family could eat one more day fulfilling his requirement as a man in soceity of that day. There are times when the socialogical aspect of some government programs is neglected and in this case we have only been focusing on the fiscal. I would encourage all of us to remember that the definition of what a man was then vs what the definition of a man is now has changed and that alot of those new deal programs helped men of those times reclaim their pride and by that definition alone the new deal was a success.

The Greatest Generation...

Let's ponder this a bit...

The generation that fought through the Great Depression and WWII is almost unanimously known as the "Greatest Generation". Why?

Is it because they went fifteen years "without"? Did they sacrifice more than the generation that won (or lost) the Civil War 80 years earlier? Were they more capable or more willing than the generation that opted to throw off the blanket of "British" citizenship and all it brought with it and to take up the title of "American"? Does the generation today have any chance to gain the same results as their grandparents?

Even with the "New Deal" on the books by 1939, America was willing to accept rationing, the need for Victory Gardens, the reasoning behind aluminum/rubber/steel/grease drives. This gives lie to the statement that New Deal politics bred a dependence on the Government that wasn't there previously. It wasn't the policies of the New Deal that bred that dependence, but I do think it was (to a certain degree) the result of the "Party" of the New Deal... especially Johnson and his "Great Society" era. Ike and Nixon had their hands in it, too... fear not, but the bulk of the blame goes to the "mentality" that there is NO problem too big that Government can't fix.

Detractors of the New Deal routinely cite the well-documented fact that, even when the actual "depression" ended by 1932, unemployement remained at more than 21% until AFTER the recession of 1937 ended. This, they claim, shows that the New Deal and it's work programs did NOTHING to improve a stagnant domestic employement situation. I disagree.

By 1934, the WPA and the CCC were employing 3.3 million men and women (ranging in age from 14 to 54) at an average annual salary of $1200. Without these 3.3 million jobs and the $3.96 BILLION dollars they were earning every year, where would these men and women find employment? Conservative pundits (claiming "Austrian School" ideals) say that the free market would have found work through the cyclic nature of the economy... meaning, I guess, that once the bottom was found, the job market would have gone UP like everything else did.

HOWEVER, the most glaring fact of the matter is that AT LEAST 21% of the viable work-force in this country REMAINED unemployed after 1934 and until 1939... so if GM, or IBM, or the State of New York, or any other big employer NEEDED to hire new help, 21% of the nation's work-force was available to hire. The only problem was... no one ever hired them. So how would putting an additional 3.3 million able-bodied workers BACK onto the streets have improved our national economy between 1934 and 1939?

The failings of the New Deal from 1930 to 1939 are not FDR's failings, but instead the failings of a GOP Congress that insisted on a balanced budget each and every year... a fiscal impossibility. Higher taxes in a time of massive economic down-turn is a deathtoll to an economy, and the higher taxes were the left-overs of the Hoover years that the GOP refused to relinquish.

Bah... have to go. More later...

And Atlas shrugged ...

I absolutely CRINGED when I saw Jambo's quasi chastisement of badboy for not having visited the D-Day museum. What little I know of him is that he's been in the military for quite some time and I KNEW a huge world wide list of historical sites was soon to follow. He has done via his service what I always wanted the Bund members to eventually do - take a pre-planned "historical vacation" throughout Europe, perhaps starting in Normandy. They have official tours set up that take you say, on a European WWII tour, or Napoleon's campaigns, etc. But within 2 minutes of the guide's voice cranking up we'd have our own map out and be marching in our own direction anyway, so we might as well pick 12 sites over 2 weeks and do it ourselves. I understand coordinating the money, time and schedules is a monumental task, but something that should be doable AT SOME POINT in the years to come.

Oh, and that .50 cal machine gun fire DOES get your attention. But then again, it's sort of surreal to suggest that badboy needs to go to a museum to claim he's heard one .. he,he. But if you guys wait and go on June 6th I'm sure they'll have the same treatment, including those very well presented regular briefings. A (presumably once a real officer) CO addressed the crowd as if he was giving instructions to the invasion force, in a WWII uniform, and delivered with all the vigor of a real pre action briefing. A good time.

****

Ok, I'll take your math on the average age of the WWII soldier, although the 26 years of age number still strikes me as awfully high. At any rate you write: "My contention" is very simple... that the experiences that these "young adults" had from 1930 to 1941 shaped them into the MEN that beat Germany and Japan back into the Bronze Age in four years." While the "bronze age" comment was a nice touch, this statement is HIGHLY subjective to say the least. I think it is fair to say that they were more "hardened" if you will, due to facing extremely tough economic times, meaning they "grew up" in a hurry compared to their roaring 20's counterparts; but that was a result of The Depression itself, and not any aspects of the New Deal. My contention has always been that what made them so exceptional was that they were just "normal" guys prior to Pearl Harbor. "Average Joes" that in a time of crisis and calls for tremendous sacrifice they rose to the challenge and quite literally saved the world. But again, this is all subjective - bottom line: they ARE the Greatest Generation (although it occurs to me that the "founders" or "Revolutionary" generation weren't too shabby themselves).

And look, I don't have any patience for Hannity throwing around those, previously unknown to him, phrases either. I think Limbaugh & Beck have a bit of a better grasp, all the way up to Hugh Hewitt, Medved whom have an absolute understanding. The point is, regardless of their (or my, or these historical economists I listed) disagreeing with you (Titus) or even Jambo, on the recovery aspects of the New Deal, we ALL seem to agree that Obama's so called recovery plan is the worst of both worlds, and doomed to sink us into a sharper recession, or dare I say, a depression.

Wow... that's some list!

Waterloo... that would be something to see. Agincourt, Gettysburg, Normandy, Hastings... Waterloo is definately one of those places. I'm jealous...

Funny how three out of five of those battlefields is in France, isn't it?

I'm serious, too... TAKE PICS! Let's get some picture-pages up on this site, and if we can't get people to participate in the actual debates and discussions, perhaps we can shed a little "culture" on the masses.

I hope they do the live-fire demonstration while you guys are there... I will never forget what a .50 caliber M2HB machine gun sounds like at close range! That was a RUSH!

I'm not worthy...I'm not worthy

Just for the record, I have been to the USS Alabama, USS North Carolina, National Air and Space Museum, Pearl Harbor...twice, Normandy France...twice, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Manassas, the SAC Museum, the Pima County Air Museum which is one of the largest privately held collections of military aircraft in the world, the Naval Air Museum, the Berlin Wall when it still stood, Dachau concentratin Camp in Munich and if there is an American Cemetary in France or Germany I have most likely been there too. The list goes on and on but I have not been to the D-Day museum, the new WWII monument or the new Korean War Memorial. The latter two will be taken care of in June when I go up to my daughters graduation in June. Oh ya and if it makes any difference I have also been to Waterloo.
I am looking forward to going to the D-Day museum with Jambo, we have been looking for some time to hang out for a while and things have just been crazy for the both of us lately.

Can you get my phone to work?

Long story, Baddboy is laughing his skinny butt off.

Anyway, Titus, do you have Ray's silk maps? I remember having the one from France but cannot find it. Am I hallucinating? I have made arrangements to go back to my old house and pick up the remainders of my small articles. Is it there or do you have them?

I bring this up because guess who has never stepped foot in the D Day Museum? Yes indeed, our very own Baddboy. Probably has never been aboard the USS Alabama either, but one thing at a time. When I rectify this egregious situation the week after New Years, I was hoping to bring one of the maps to show to the curator. If you have both of them I won't bother. If one is hiding in that house I have work to do.

The next line delivered in the title, after, of course, the phone has been handed to the pit boss, is "I dropped it in the urinal and it won't work!" Happened last night.

Juuust a bit wrong...

Dude... what is wrong with you? How could you be THIS wrong? On THIS topic?

The average age of an enlisted man in WWII was 26.2 years old, according to the US Census Bureau. The average age of a commissioned officer was 25.9. That means that the average soldier, sailor and marine was 15 years old when the market crashed in '29... plenty old enough to understand and experience fully the impact of that economic event on their lives and livelihood. "My contention" is very simple... that the experiences that these "young adults" had from 1930 to 1941 shaped them into the MEN that beat Germany and Japan back into the Bronze Age in four years. The same "boys" that built the Golden Gate and Camp David are the same "men" that stormed Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima. The bridges were sturdy, just like the men that built them.

Two years ago, we here at the Bund were the ONLY people using terms like "Austrian School" and "Keynesian economics" outside of the halls of higher education or the terminally anal bean-counters of the world. Now, the terms are bantered about by the likes of Church, Limbaugh and Hannity as if they were a routine part of the American lexicon.

The Austrian School of economic theory (as it exists today) says that an artificially inflated amount of money driving a credit-dominated economy will eventually lead to a bubble "crash" ("collapse" was the term they used in 1929). This does seem to define the modern economy as those currently in the White House, and those about to move into the White House, want to see American economic policy. This situation is the RESULT of an unregulated free-market speculation-pricing economy, as it was prior to October, 1929.

Keynesian theory says that government regulation and government policy work in a cyclical (literally, a "counter-cyclical") pattern... deficit spending when in a recession or a depression, and higher taxes and-or less spending in boom times to counter inflation. THIS is the policy (perhaps strategy is a better term) that reaped the MOST rewards for Reagan after the election of 1980... he increased defense spending and outlays to foreign governments while cutting taxes and domestic spending. The reversal of this strategy beginning in 1993 showed the start of the Booming 90s and carried us through the set-backs of the "tech-crash" of 2000 and the market hit after 9-11.

Where Obama and the "new Democrats" are WRONG now is in the fact that they are actively trying to RAISE taxes while at the same time SPENDING as much as 100% MORE than we are spending now. This is what Hoover did in 1932, when he initiated his own "relief" programs AND raised taxes by 15% across the board... he dug the US deeper into the depression than we had been at anytime before.

In my eyes, increased deficit spending with STATIC tax rates would help if the spending was focused on domestic programs... infrastructure, education, and yes... public works. National high-speed rail transport as a focus of policy is an example, as is a subsidized work-study program for college and university education... killing multiple birds with single stones, as it were. The same goes for deficit spending on national defense... and this is the area we need the most focus on, in my opinion. Winning the War on Terror by winning the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan could fill all our needs very easily... but these are NOT focuses of either the outgoing or the incoming Administrations, no matter what Ryan says.

My "beef" isn't with conservatives comparing Obama with FDR... my beef is with conservatives deriding New Deal policies as failures from the start by using terms like "Austrian School" and "Keynesian Theory" without knowing what the terms even mean. I guaranty you that Reagan was a Keynesian 100%... and Hoover was the fan-club president of the Austrian School.

It doesn't get any simpler than this:

When the economy is booming... tax more.

When the economy is hurting... tax less.

FDR was handicapped by a GOP that insisted on a balanced budget (practically impossible from 1934 on...). That same GOP insistence gave Clinton his best legacy feature... the 90's boom.

This isn't rocket science... it's 5th grade math!

History looks at the New Deal...

through the perspective of successes. So what, exactly, are the measurable and specific SUCCESSES of the New Deal?"

New Deal projects, from bridges to dams, allowed a national industrialization that won us a world war. Whether that was a goal of FDR or not is extremely debatable, but it is the single largest success.

The next is the consumer confidence it instilled in an American public. Not enough, mind you, to jack the economy right in less than a year, but unprecedented nevertheless, and for better or worse, the model all recovery actions are measured against.

What pisses me off more than anything is the lack of GOALS any new NEW DEAL plan has. To legislate a further $800 billion stimulus (Obama's current plan) to bail out a failing auto industry or to prop up a broken financial market are short term goals that do not take into account the ramification of their existence. Obama waves his wand, the money goes POOF! and suddenly, for the short term, there is no crisis. How long does the Peace last? These short term economic plans using unbelievable amounts of money are signs of economic appeasement that would make Neville Chamberlain roll in his grave.

Any new NEW DEAL policy has to have long term goals. TVA and BLM agencies in the '30s had long term goals and have reaped untold benefits. Every single current plan rolled out by the current lame duck admin or the incoming admin are dealing with immediate conditions and not long term plans.

Contrast that with the new NEW DEAL plans we've discussed in the past. All addressing long term issues, (energy, education, health care) and most self sustaining programs. I refuse to acknowledge a NEW DEAL title in anything Obama does until he can claim the same. Take the lifetime earnings of the TVA and BLM and match them against money spent in WPA and CCC and other labor programs and all of a sudden, FDR isn't socialist, he's a brilliant business man. THAT is the core of the New Deal. THAT is New Deal's legacy.

When Obama comes up with programs that PAY for the social programs he's going to create, or PAY for the recovery programs he's going to make, THEN he may assume the mantle of New Deal.

"Juuuust, a bit outside"

... as Bob Uker used to say. You seem to have missed my point by just a bit.

First, a smaller point. You wrote: "Lest we forget, the people most directly effected by the New Deal are the people we refer to today as the "Greatest Generation". Is this a coincidence?"

The "greatest generation" is defined, as far as I know, by the adults of WWII, both home and abroad, although "abroad" certainly gets the lion share nod in my eyes. So during the New Deal 30's they would have been children by and large. I mean being 25 years of age was considered "one of the older guys" in the military during WWII, and if I remember correctly the average age of the enlisted man was 19. Even if we call it 20 that puts them between 10 and 18 during the New Deal's realization. So yes, the children of New Deal "beneficiaries" can be argued to be the "most effected", I GUESS, but then it is EXACTLY coincidence given they were children. Unless you contend that having your father work for the WPA somehow makes you more likely to storm a German pill box ... at any rate, I'll move on.

My point in my last was not that EVERY SINGLE action under the New Deal failed. Or that those bridges weren't sturdy, for goodness sakes. What I am arguing is that the various federal interventions into private business (and you could fill a library on what I mean by "intervention" during the New Deal) can be legitimately argued, or "observed" as you pointed out, to have hurt recovery, not aide it. Yet even with that argument not yet settled, here we are about to go much further then "overregulate", or "over intervene", but rather flat out nationalization of whole sectors of industry. Now I admit, I went further in twisting a knife into the New Deal then was needed to make that point, but kicking that ol' cow is a favorite past time of mine and when I come across new evidence from credible sources (or even "funny" quotes like the Armstrong line) I am more then enthusiastic to share it with Pliny the Elder and Younger ... he, he. Call them "band wagon" economists if you want, but they ARE credible sources, and HARDLY conservative lackies (I mean come on, Columbia?).

And it is NOT me, or Limbaugh or Hannitty or anyone on the right that put forth this notion that Obama is the "new" New Dealer, no sir. Barak H. Obama did that himself, Joe Biden echoed it, and Jay Carney (a highly partisan left leaning journalist), who is the editor of TIME MAGAZINE put Barry on the cover in Roosevelt garb, right down to the cigarette holder, asking on the cover "Will Obama deliver the New, New Deal?." I even put that cover in a post on the sight.

Now I understand, for those of us always suspicious (to put it lightly) of the New Deal, coming across such information as I listed in my last, from credible sources, causes us (me) to enthusiastically endorse it, or at least present it, whereas your gut instinct is to defend the New Deal era. I think there are many reasons for your defense not the least of which is an emotional tie. Consider what you wrote - you "know people personally" who worked for the WPA. You "own WPA tools in your garage." I understand that there is a certain nostalgic appeal for an era where thinking people could proudly call themselves Democrats ... as opposed to today. Also, yes, those bridges were "sturdy" and I can not argue that the 3.3 million working on them (and various other projects) were asleep on the job, or weren't happy to be working (I primarily put that lyric in to get a rise out of you & Jambo). And I am not arguing for complete Laizze Fairre or the abolishment of the SEC. What I CAN argue is the point you agreed with me on: "We can point fingers at such obvious handicaps to an economy as high taxes, tariffs and excise costs as contributors to the duration of the crisis [the Great Depression], and we would probably be correct in our observations..." And use those measurable and specific New Deal mistakes to extrapolate out how disastrous it would be for Obama and company to go much, much further when implementing his stated "New, New Deal."

And by the way, we can agree to disagree on whether the real New Deal was "socialistic" in nature (although I don't know how else to describe Social Security), but if you have a problem with the linking of Obama's plainly socialist agenda to FDR's New Deal, then don't take that beef up with the "right." Take it to Obama and his cronies in the media. THEY are the ones making those claims ... and I and my conservative cohorts are simply responding by saying hey, the New Deal wasn't all it's been cracked up to be, and your plans Mr. Obama, would be even worse.

More "bandwagon" economists...

I still maintain that FDR was not a socialist.

The New Deal created jobs in an environment that needed them desperately. Were they necessary jobs? Vital jobs? High-paying, high-skill jobs? No, they weren't. They were very basic, guaranteed $1200/year labor positions given to mainly blue-collar workers left unemployed by the depression of 1929. The WPA was the largest, as Ryan said.

Ryan's point seems to be that too much government intervention in the private sector is a bad thing... and I agree 100%. The "nationalization" of any facet of private industry is a bad thing, both for the industry in question, and the nation as a whole. Again, I agree with Ryan whole-heartedly.

My concern is that he has been overly influenced by those conservative voices out there that claim to "channel" Reagan's ghost in a manner that we can ALL know exactly what the Gipper would have done to fix the problem, regardless of how history shows us he DIDN'T fix the problem.

First off, I am more than willing to allow Ryan, or anyone else, to voice their opinion concerning the politics behind such programs as the CCC, or the WPA... but I do take exception to the generalization that because some ultra-conservative author/pundit quoted Louis Armstrong lyrics about "lazy days" with the WPA, then ALL WPA workers (and thus, their efforts) were a complete waste of time and money. That is both unfair, and tragically untrue.

There is a movement today among such personalities as Buchanan, Hannity, Limbaugh, et al to link Obama's promised "prosperity" with promises made in the 30's by FDR and his kind (Governor Hughie Long, D-LA comes to mind)... a movement to show that the New Deal was a failure from beginning to end. Ryan is going to have to be far more detailed in his analysis than simply quoting books he probably hasn't read... (ouch! That's going to leave a mark!)

Can he show me documentation that workers in the WPA were any more likely than workers in the railroad industry, or the manufacturing industry, or the retail industry of the time to take extra breaks? Work less than 100% of their capacity every working hour? Drag their feet? Can he tell me he didn't do it HIMSELF while we worked together five nights a week in Biloxi? PLEASE!

The WPA built the Golden Gate Bridge, and did it under budget. They built the Rulo Bridge across the Mississippi River to Tennessee at Memphis that both James and I recall as "difficult to navigate". They built such enduring American vacation spots as the Black Hills National Monument, White Sands National Park, and the Blue Ridge National Parkway. They built each and every lock still functioning on the Mississippi River, as well as the locks at Sault Ste Marie (the Soo Locks), Michigan. They even built Camp David.

I have WPA tools in my workshop, and had two very close and dear relatives work for the New Deal "workfare" programs (only one of which was a Democrat, by the way)... gripe about the politics all you want, but the WPA got the work done and done well, and that is the testament I have to offer in regards to whether or not the WPA was a success or not. It did everything it was INTENDED to do... put 3.3 million men and women, both black and white, to work for a fair wage. HERE are my sources.

My second point is a bit more problematic. While we have the tangible results of the New Deal to debate over today, what we DON'T have is any evidence of what would have happened otherwise. We can point fingers at such obvious handicaps to an economy as high taxes, tariffs and excise costs as contributors to the duration of the crisis, and we would probably be correct in our observations... but simply saying that "liberal" policies prolonged the problem is neither measurable nor specific, and thus contributes nothing to the debate.

For every conservative that says that FDR's New Deal "prolonged" or "extended" the depression, I can show an example of "conservative" policy that contributed to the "crash" in the first place. Had the Feds "regulated" speculative stock prices (as they do now through the SEC) and limited the amount of "capital" brokers could extend into marginal buying and selling, the Crash of '29 wouldn't have happened at all. The problem is simply that the Feds WEREN'T regulating, and the Crash DID happen... so all the "what-ifs" in the world mean nothing. Hoover had a "hands-off" approach BEFORE the crash, and maintained a "hands-off" approach after the crash... and that cost the GOP 20 years of Executive leadership BECAUSE the Democrats not only promised to do SOMETHING, they DID SOMETHING.

On a further note, I find it troubling that so few "conservatives" recognize that Reagan is the President that implemented the "regulations" restricting oil price speculation, ensuring a moderated (if slightly elevated) cost per barrel of crude oil in 1982. That regulation was removed in 2002, when Bush revoked the regulations... and we have ALL seen the "free market" results of that action, haven't we? Every conservative pundit out there calling for more drilling and more refining, when the AMOUNT of oil on the market never went DOWN, it only went up! It wasn't a scarcity of oil that was driving crude prices to $150/barrel... it was the "free market" and its use of unregulated speculative pricing.

Some amount of "regulation" is vital to an economy of this size and scope. So many pundits on the radio and in the conservative press today want a return to the "gold standard" and the removal of the Federal Reserve (it was this plank that I think caused Ron Paul his credibility, even more than his call for the removal of the IRS). The problem is, the US economy is now so HUGE that all the gold reserves currently in existence aren't enough to back the amount of US currency already in circulation! To "back" the bills we already have out, we'd have to increase the buying power of a ONE DOLLAR bill by 650%, with almost NO increase in gold reserves available to us! The only way to do that is to destroy 6 out of every 10 dollars outstanding right now, and that equals INFLATION on a scale unknown even to survivors of the Great Depression. Doubt me? Look HERE.

The New Deal had flaws, and there were certainly aspects of it that didn't work... but to label it as a "failure" completely is an injustice to both history and the men and women that benefited from the efforts involved. Lest we forget, the people most directly effected by the New Deal are the people we refer to today as the "Greatest Generation". Is this a coincidence?

Torpedos In The Water

It is the contention of this man, this individual, this tax payer, this citizen that MY nation, OUR nation, THE nation, the United States of America, the greatest force for good and honest procurer of wealth the world has ever seen, is set on a course to cannibalize its' own dollar and plunge her citizens into a decade or more of economic darkness by embracing the worst of EuroSocialsim.

The approaches to our "free market" being either considered or enacted by our elected leaders would have been dismissed as unthinkable less then a decade ago. We would have chuckled as third world tin pot despots engaged in such moves as nationalizing "bad" mortgages, the auto industry and lending banks. We would have laughed at the Chavez's of the world whom would then appoint "Czars" or "ministers" to over see them. "Sad little men", we would have uttered, attempting to enact what has proven to fail throughout the 20th century, time and time again. "When will they learn?", we would of quipped as we clucked our tongue at them. "Free markets!", Capitalism! we would have shouted. "That is the answer!" Yet ... yet here we are.

"We are all Keynesian's now", Pat Buchanan once said disparagingly of President George W. Bush and his eventual successor. Was he wrong? We have the $700 billion Bush bank bailout, the $700 billion "stimulus package" Obama wants by inauguration to "jolt this economy back into shape", and the $800 billion fund Hank Paulson created to get consumers borrowing and buying again. These come on top of Bush $455 billion deficit, the $29 billion bailout of Bear Stearns, the $105 billion in pork to grease the $700 billion bailout, the $100 billion to $200 billion to keep Fannie and Freddie afloat, the $140-billion, and counting, for AIG, the $25 billion for the greening of GM, Ford and Chrysler, the $25 -$135 billion more to save the Detroit Three and the $20 billion for CitiGroup.

Does any one pause to note that a deficit of $1.4 trillion would be 10 percent of gross domestic product, dwarfing the postwar record 6 percent run by Ronald Reagan in the Jimmy Carter recession? Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't the bewailing of the "Reagan deficits" been a staple of Democratic arguments against "Ronnie the Great" since I was in short pants?

Consider what we are about to do. Bush, in 2008, spent 21 percent of GDP. States, counties and cities spent another 12 percent. Thus, one third of GDP is spent by government at all levels. Obama proposes to raise that by another 10 percent of GDP. We may soon be above 40 percent of gross domestic product controlled and spent by government.

That is socialism. There is no other way to describe it. Well ... Obama would claim we are simply being "our brothers keeper." But if I may further contort the Biblical quote, keeping him where?

And just where will we get the money? The only nation with the kind of cash on hand we need now - if we don't print the money and invite another gigantic value bubble - is China, with its $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. Can anyone tell me with a straight face that it is sound economic or national security policy for the world's last remaining superpower to borrow so heavily from the worlds last remaining, functioning, Communist Party?

Have we not learned from history? Despite belonging to opposing Parties both Obama and George W. Bush seemed to have come away from the 1929 crash with similar conclusions. The United States needs a second, or "new" New Deal. And however correctly or incorrectly they have interpreted those economic years, the answer is the same: government acting dramatically to find public solutions to private woes. And the centerpiece of "acting dramatically" in the new administration's "plan" can be summed up in three (despite Joe Biden's claims to two) words: "jobs, jobs, jobs." The problem they will impose on the rest of us is that economists at Princeton, Brown, Columbia, Stanford, the University of Chicago, University of Virginia, University of California (Berkeley) and other universities, none of which are hot beds of conservative activism, are presenting mounting evidence that double digit unemployment was prolonged by FDR's own New Deal policies. At its height the Depression saw 25% unemployment. In 1939, the height of full implementation of New Deal economic policies, it was still a staggering 17%.

Robert Bartley, who edited the Wall Street Journal for three decades and is now a commentator, has called for a fresh debate about the New Deal. Newspaper publisher Conrad Black, author of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Champion of Freedom, responded by claiming that if "workfare" recipients were included among the "employed," then New Deal unemployment rates were lower than the U.S. Department of Labor has reported for decades. Those tempted to agree with Black might listen to jazz great Louis Armstrong's 1940 tune "The WPA" -referring to FDR's biggest "workfare" program, the Works Progress Administration. Among the memorable lines: "Sleep while you work, rest while you play, lean on your shovel to pass the time away, at the WPA."

There's a fascinating split between economists and political historians about the New Deal. "The idea that FDR cured double-digit unemployment", wrote conservative author and commentator Thomas Sowell in a recent column, "was never pervasive among economists"; and even J.M. Keynes - a liberal icon - criticized some of FDR's policies as, "hindering recovery." Far too many for far too long have steered the discussion over the depression into more FDR friendly territory focusing on the personalities, elections, speeches, "Fireside Chats" and other aspects of Roosevelts undeniable charisma and magnetic personality, disregarding evidence about the economic consequences of New Deal policies.

Robert J. Samuelson, in his work, The Great Depression. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, produced a 1995 survey of economic historians which asked: "Taken as a whole, did government policies of the New Deal serve to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression?" Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed 'with provisos' (what provisos the survey does not state) and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, 27% agreed and 73% disagreed. It occurs to even the casual observer that the sentimental cache that FDR carries in the history department is at conflict with nearly half of their colleagues down the hall teaching economics.

Lowell E. Gallaway and Richard K. Vedder argue in their book: Out of Work: Unemployment and Government in Twentieth-Century America, New York University Press; Updated edition (July 1997), that "the Great Depression was very significantly prolonged in both its duration and its magnitude by the impact of New Deal programs." They suggest that without Social Security, work relief, unemployment insurance, mandatory minimum wages, and without government granted privileges for labor unions, business would have hired more workers and the unemployment rate during the New Deal years would have been 6.7% instead of 17.2%. The New Deal tripled federal taxes between 1933 and 1940 - excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, dividend taxes, excess profits taxes all went up, and FDR introduced an undistributed profits tax. A number of New Deal laws, including some 700 industrial cartel codes, made it more expensive for employers to hire people, and this discouraged hiring. Frequent changes in the tax laws and even FDR's anti-business rhetoric ("economic royalists") discouraged people from making investments essential for growth and jobs. New Deal securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. FDR issued antitrust lawsuits against some 150 employers and companies, making it harder for them to focus on business. FDR signed a law ordering the break-up of America's strongest banks, with the lowest failure rates. New Deal farm policies destroyed food - 10 million acres of crops and 6 million farm animals - thereby wiping out farm jobs and forcing food prices above market levels for 100 million American consumers.

And in another major work putting forth compelling evidence about the economic consequences of the New Deal, by Stanford University political historian David M. Kennedy in his 1999 book Freedom From Fear, winner of a Pulitzer Prize, he wrote: "Whatever it was, the New Deal was not a recovery program."

Yet here we are, about to not only double but quadruple down on the same approach FDR started and Johnson vaunted - government as the solution. But this federal incursion into the private sector will be blatantly socialist, for they will quite literally control the means of production in many critical, high profile industries and use record setting amounts our money (not to mention defecits) to do it in a way that would have made even FDR gasp in their breadth. And the most insidious aspect of all this is we face nothing approaching the very real economic crisis of FDR's administration or social crisis of Johnson's. This is madness incarnate. We have only 2 options - borrow the money from China or print more. Either choice evokes the powerful images of German workmen wheel barreling their paychecks home in useless Wiemar Republic currency.

And all of it, all of it, is for a single purpose: to make the case that your elected official is doing "something", "anything" to save YOU! Save a handful of congressmen and women in the House of Representatives the short term is the only terms under which these elected officials will negotiate or consider. What is next? The G-20 (or whatever God forsaken number they are up to now) decides that the only "safe" play is to introduce a single world-wide currency, boiling the most successful nations in the world down to the lowest common denominator of the Rupee or latest Swahili exchange?

The bottom line my fellow Americans is the more and more our government reduces your exposure to risk under the guise of doing "something" to ensure nary an economic downturn occurs, the more they limit the potential reward your hard work and skills can offer. There are always going to be economic down turns in a "free" society. They must come, they are a necessary evil so that real, reliable bottoms and prices in the market can be set. And each and every time we attempt to set a false bottom, allowing the government to draw an economic line saying, "here, and no farther shall we slide", the greater the velocity of that slide. We must occasionally allow the economy to tie an American company or industry to a tree and shoot it. Clearing the battlefield of uncompetitive and ill run business is a necessary thing. Should we have propped up the phonograph makers? Injected the South's currency with Northern dollars as the war turned so as to ease their economic downturn? Should American employees at Toyota or Nissan plants in the US have their tax dollars spent to prop up their competition? This entire foray is counter intuitive to not only the most basic business sense, but the human spirit's sense of hard work and fair play. Mr. Hyde is administering serum to Dr. Jekyll, and the town's people seem to be encouraged by the news!

Who among our leaders will stand up against such madness and have a real, connective dialogue with the American electorate about the fate we seem eager to seal? I see no one on the horizon. As if I am in a bad movie and am forced to watch to the bitter end. Find me an honest broker with the power of voice and determination of thought to combat this, I beg of you. A man once said: "The politician looks to the next election. The statesmen looks to the next generation."

Where are our statesman now? Are they too leaning on their shovels? Drunk from indulging in the overflowing federal trough at their feet? It would seem so ...

They are the Secret Service

HEHE they were pretty secret. When he made the first move towards his shoe they should have been all over him...but...the weren't. I'm not sure what the SOP was for that particular event but they definately came up short. The fact that he got the second shoe off was the biggest surprise to me and the fact that the POTUS detail was another 5-10 seconds behind the second shoe really made me start to wonder what the hell they were doing. I would love to have been a fly on the wall for that debrief.

As for the whole North Vancleave thing, why not Saucier or Escatawpa. Why does it always have to be Vancleave. Believe it or not there are a couple of us up here that do wear shoes and don't have to borrow mawmaws teeth to go to town.

SHOEGATE

After having spoken with Jambo earlier I was compelled to list the following link at the bottom of this post. He mentioned that he hadn't even heard of the incident, let alone seen it. The president made a surprise visit to Iraq, presumably his last as PoTUS; and he held a joint press conference with the Iraqi PM. At some point during the "presser", an Iraqi journalist stands up and throws a shoe, at high velocity, at the presidents head! Which Dubya dodged like a champ, I might add. Then he reaches down, takes off his other shoe and throws it, again at Bush's head. Then walks off, WALKS now, until a few steps later some of his fellow country men tackled him to the ground, he was later arrested. My question is, WHERE IN THE HELL WAS THE SECRET SERVICE? This has got to be the clearest breach of presidential security since Ronnie was shot. The seconds between the first and second shoe is an eternity in terms of a special highly trained agent getting a shot off. No one even jumped in front of the president ... NOTHING. Check it out ... twice. I have all the respect in the world for the highly skilled Treasury agents that protect the first family et al, but if I'm Bush or his chief of staff, that team is pulling counterfeit duty in North Vancleve by noon tomorrow.

Access the site here: SHOEGATE.

The many forms of trauma ...

Titus, that post, on the world without religion, was staggeringly well composed with its rapid machine gun fire list. Combined with its brevity I think it is one of the best posts this site has ever hosted. Good form man, really well done. And I mean that with all sincerity. It just levels the pompous self righteousness, "I'm just a little more clever then you because I don't believe in God", demeanor that permeates every bastardized pore of those whom feel compelled not just to minus religion from their own lives, but the lives of all in the public square. A stake through their heart, if you will.

On Katrina trauma ... we rode the storm out 2 hours north of Biloxi white sand, and it was brutal (albeit nothing like the Old Testament wrath Titus faced in his home), but mine is of a different brand. My wife had moved out and was living in a brick condo one block from the beach. And after "they" would allow us back down (the sate police, National Guard, Long Beach PD, fire and rescue, the sheriff deputies - take your pick) by showing your license and that you had residence South of the tracks, we went down (we got there maybe 7 or 10 days, maybe more I can't remember, after hit day). She and I went to the site where her condo was (a side note, she had moved out but we were still legally married and supposedly trying to "work it out", thus we rode the storm out together). I was stunned at the level of devastation. No homes or structures south of the tracks, just a mangled mesh of debris consisting of homes, clothes, cars, every possession imaginable, bulldozed like snow to the edges of the road making "debris walls" 8 to 10 feet high. It was literally like a great blanket of debris had fallen and a plow had been employed to create these rat mazes of roads to navigate in and out. Anyway, we recovered perhaps a laundry basket worth of goods. She had taken with her (from our family home which survived with damage), most of our family pictures. Miraculously some survived and we collected them amidst the flattened residence (and I mean, it was GONE), but with all the damage one would imagine: barely intact figures, make out a face or two amidst the water stains and cuts. So, to this day, when I see a damaged picture, be it ours in the closet or on TV, etc, I flash to the heart sickening feeling that my family was coming apart. The damaged photos of us seemed to capture, tragically, exactly what was happening to us ... torn, tattered, barely recognizable from its once pristine condition. Fortunately for me, and only by the grace of God, the shudder I get upon viewing any such photo is dispelled the very next moment ... when I smile, realizing we were able to fix what was most broken ... us ... and make new pictures, together.

A new "Favorite"...

Wild Bill of BoB fame has his own website. I simply couldn't NOT put it on our favorite links block, and it can be found HERE, too.

The man is simply amazing, isn't he?

How Sweet is this??

How much better can it possibly get? The Democrat Governor of Illinois is going to sell Obamas senate seat!!!! TO JESSE JACKSON JR !!!!!!!!! His dad couldn't get one legitimately, there's no way because of his name he's going to get one so what the hell...let's just buy one. I love this country.

Speaking of name recognition and the sale of a brand, Caroline Kennedy wants Hillary's seat. Don't know a whole lot about her but name alone should get her elected.

And then there was the wait in line

No I don't have the weather thing but if the wind is blowing and I can hear it through the roof I get a little sent back.

Mine is when I get into any trafic at all. My trauma/drama is from the Ivan evacuation and the 13 hours it took to get to Baton Rouge. I think I became a whole lot agoraphobic because of that experience and since then I have sworn not to evacuate because of a storm.

But to answer your question about what you should do...well...get the f__k over it!!!! ROFL

Trauma versus Drama

I haven't had the dreams in a while... but I've definitely had them since I've been here in PA.

No, my "trigger" isn't the sound of rain, or wind... but I did discover one just a few weeks ago. It was while I was giving a "tour" at the casino (not what you think... but too complicated to explain) and happened to be walking back from one side of the facility to the other outside. I was going past the area where the dumpsters and compactors are, and caught a whiff of the trash...

And I was INSTANTLY back to that first week after the storm, sitting on a folding lawn chair under the fantail of the Grand Casino barge in the 95 degree heat at 3 AM... smelling the most sickly-sweet odor of decay and rot that one can imagine for 12 hours at a stretch. Jude yacking and gagging next to me while he tried to eat a cold MRE. Dead silence... no bugs, no birds, just the odd siren (rare, because there wasn't anyone near that end of town) and the occasional heave from Jude... and never-ending stench.

It was AMAZING how clearly I saw all this in my head, just because I caught a whiff of old shrimp in one of the dumpsters... it staggered me! Stopped me in my tracks, literally! I could remember everything... how badly I wanted a shower, but couldn't take one... the smell, feel and taste of Purell hand sanitizer, because it was easier to "bathe" with that than it was with the all-too-precious water we had to walk to get everyday... how much it meant to find a pack of M&Ms in your MRE (or a GIANT Tootsie Roll!)... and how tired I was of "jalapeno cheese spread" as the treat-of-choice in my MREs.

THAT little trip to the dumpster, and the subsequent trip down "memory lane"... that flashed me back.

Whew.

More post trauma.

Some much needed rain came through the Gulf Coast last night. It started around eleven o'clock.

I still can't sleep when it rains, and I'm living on the first floor of a two story apartment. If rain is hitting MY roof I have a lot more to worry about than sleep.

Titus, do you still dream about the water coming into the house? Baddboy, any anxiety spilling over your way? Or is this post DRAMA and I need to shut up?

To be young... again...

Just a quick note...

For James, who has TWO daughters to see into adulthood, and for my sister, who has one...

And for the boys, who will CAUSE all this angst...

Our 16-year-old had to face the soul-crushing prospect of going an entire night without speaking to her boyfriend (because HE was grounded, not her)... and I can only find the words to describe her pain and suffering in that wonderful "Biblical" theme:

"Great wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Yes, the very phrase that Christ chose to employ when describing the suffering of souls that were refused the Kingdom of Heaven... THAT is the phrase that best describes this poor child's look at the dinner table. To look into this girl's red-rimmed eyes, streaked with the still-damp trails of tears already shed, one can only see the urge to continue with the "great wailing and gnashing of teeth"... nothing else.

Two hours later?

Boyfriend gets ungrounded, phone conversations are back on... all is well with the world again.

"Suffer the children to come onto Me... for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." Mark 10, 13-15