Well, it looks like we’ll have an actual vote this weekend.  Hold on tight, people!  This is going to be a bumpy ride.  Kucinich flipped, which almost cerainly means our Commander in Chief convinced him this bill will lead to Universal Health Care in the U.S.  Stupak is still holding out…

Share on Facebook

As a history buff in general, I am a particular fan of the Civil War. It was a weird war, as wars go; one which largely featured Napoleonic tactics despite the fact that the rise of rifled weaponry made such tactics suicidal. Some leaders adapted, albeit slowly, while others did not. Lee figured out the [...]]]>

As a history buff in general, I am a particular fan of the Civil War. It was a weird war, as wars go; one which largely featured Napoleonic tactics despite the fact that the rise of rifled weaponry made such tactics suicidal. Some leaders adapted, albeit slowly, while others did not. Lee figured out the value of field fortifications early on (in West Virginia) and put them to good use when fighting on the defensive later on. The fortifications he built around Petersburg and Richmond, and the long siege that followed, presaged the trench warfare on the western front during World War I. Sherman, with a couple notable exceptions, was smart enough to realize that an attack that consisted of nothing more than rows of targets neatly marching toward an entrenched opponent was an idiotic way to fight a war, opting for maneuver instead and paying close attention to logistics. At the other end of the spectrum, there were generals like John Bell Hood and Ambrose Burnside who threw away their troops in hopeless frontal assaults.

Picking a top five from this war is tough. The honorable mention list is long, including such luminaries as Winfield Scott Hancock (“the Superb”), one of the heroes of Gettysburg; Richard Taylor, who did great things under Jackson and then fought an inspired – if ultimately unsuccessful – war in the Trans-Mississippi. Sherman (and I suspect many will disagree with me here) doesn’t make my final cut. The “red clay minuet” that he danced with Joe Johnston was an operational masterpiece, and his “March to the Sea” called to mind Pattonesque audacity. And yet…

In actual battle, Sherman never really made his mark. He had strategic and operational gifts galore, but – with the exception of Shiloh where his stubborn defense helped save the day – he never stood out as a tactician. It’s close, and I truly admire this most American of American generals, but William Tecumsah doesn’t quite make my cut. Samuel Curtis, A.J. Smith, Patrick Cleburne, Edmund Kirby Smith, James Longstreet and Horatio Wright all deserve consideration too.

There are a few popular names that don’t, in my estimation, come close to making a “Top Five” cut. J.E.B. Stuart rode rings around McClellan, but he got himself lost during the Gettysburg campaign and – arguably – set Lee up for the disaster to follow. As for Little Mac, Lee called McClellan his toughest opponent once the war was over, but I think Bobby Lee was just being kind. McClellan’s contribution in organizing the Army of the Potomac was invaluable to the Union cause, but his timidity in leading that army bordered on the absurd. George Meade? He stumbled into victory at Gettysburg, thanks mostly to John Buford, Gouverneur Warren, Winfield Scott Hancock and Joshua Chamberlin, but did little to distinguish himself afterword. He was competent, but hardly exceptionally skilled or imaginative.

All that said, here’s my top five:

#5: Robert E. Lee – You can’t keep Lee off of this kind of a list, but he doesn’t deserve the top spot. His victories at Second Manassas and Chancellorsville were masterpieces that would be studied for years. Nobody, except Pat Cleburne, put up a more stubborn defense. Yet, for all of that battlefield brilliance, Lee’s strategic vision was badly flawed. George Washington understood that the first rule of rebellion is to keep the rebellious army intact and effective for as long as possible, refusing to risk the Continental Army in pitched battle. Lee’s aggressive nature led him to two disastrous invasions of the north in a futile effort to end the war quickly, when he should have been content to wait it out. That, combined with the utter foolishness of ordering Pickett’s Charge when it should have been damned clear to him (as it was to Longstreet) that it was doomed to fail, weighs heavily against all of his spectacular successes. Still, we’ll give Bobby the number five slot.

#4: George Thomas – He drove Grant nuts, because U.S.G. found him much too deliberate, but Thomas’ record speaks for itself. The Rock of Chickamauga prevented disaster in the west when the Confederates won their only significant victory there. At Missionary Ridge, it was his stubborn veterans who charged and took a position that nobody – including Grant and Thomas – thought could be captured. At Franklin/Nashville, he was the architect of the most decisive large-scale battle of the war, one that destroyed Confederate power in the western theater forever. Slow? Perhaps. Effective? You bet. Thomas was the north’s Longstreet, but he had the distinct advantage of being on the winning side.

#3: Ulysses S. Grant – If one forgets the bloody Forty Days Campaign, U.S. Grant would be the best general of the Civil War, hands down. Prior to the Forty Days, all he had done was to accept the surrender of two armies (Fort Donelson and Vicksburg), open up the Tennessee, Cumberland and Mississippi rivers, resurrect the Armies of the Tennessee and Cumberland (Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge) and – for the first time – put into effect a coordinated national strategy. But, then came the Forty Days. Yeah, Grant would ultimately win, but at a terrible price, one that – if at Cold Harbor if no place else – he didn’t have to pay. All in all, Grant deserves accolades, but much like his great opponent Robert E. Lee, he certainly had his failings.

#2: Stonewall Jackson – Old Blue Light: brilliant, driven and marginally insane. The only blemish on his record is his sleep-walking performance during the Seven Days campaign. (I don’t count Kernstown, which was basically a speed bump in Jackson’s spectacular Valley Campaign). He was equally good on the defensive, as he proved at Second Manassas, as he was on the offensive, as he showed at Chancellorsville. If he had been at Gettysburg, might have that battle turned out differently? I rather think it would have, suggesting that there are times in history when one man – or the lack of one man – can change everything.

#1: Nathan Bedford Forrest – No matter what happened, Nathan Bedford Forrest won. He was almost always outnumbered and outgunned. He won. He was occasionally outmaneuvered. He won. High command took away his finely trained troops leaving him to recruit scalawags and teenagers to fill his billets. He won. He was shot in the middle of battles. He won. The only soldier on either side to rise from private to general, Forrest’s axiom “get their firstest with the mostest” was problematic, since he rarely actually had the mostest. Like Grant, Forrest instinctively understood that his enemy was as worn-out and frightened as his troops and he had the knack for picking exactly the right moment to exploit the opposition’s fears.

Jefferson Davis, never one to admit to a mistake, said after the war that his greatest regret was not recognizing Forrest’s genius earlier and giving him greater responsibility. It is sometimes noted that, after the war, Forrest was instrumental in forming the KKK. Not as well known are the facts that: a) Forrest distanced himself from the KKK when it started lynching and burning crosses, and b) when it came time to surrender, Forrest (like Lee) dismissed the idea of conducting guerilla war and ordered his troops to return to their farms and to become good citizens of the reunited United States. Forrest was, and remains, one of a kind.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

My Darling Clementine (1946) When the Clantons steal his family’s cattle and kill his brother, Wyatt Earp signs on as sheriff of Tombstone and vows to bring them in. Cast: Henry Fonda, Linda Darnell, Victor Mature, Cathy Downs Dir: John Ford BW-97 mins, TV-PG. 8:00 PM EDT, TCM.

Tomorrow night is Wyatt Earp night on TCM with this [...]]]>

My Darling Clementine (1946)
When the Clantons steal his family’s cattle and kill his brother, Wyatt Earp signs on as sheriff of Tombstone and vows to bring them in.
Cast: Henry Fonda, Linda Darnell, Victor Mature, Cathy Downs Dir: John Ford BW-97 mins, TV-PG. 8:00 PM EDT, TCM.

Tomorrow night is Wyatt Earp night on TCM with this classic leading off the evening. !957’s Gunfight at the OK Corral with Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas is on at 10:00 PM.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Go here for the article, http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1043265_paper-challenge-2011-ford-mustang-v-6-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-v-6/

Some excerpts:

Verdict: It would have been a tie, but the convertible factor tips things in favor of the Mustang. Both cars look great in the flesh, though they do so in remarkably different ways. Round 1 score: 10-9 for the Mustang.

Verdict: A close round, with the Camaro’s more advanced rear [...]]]>

Go here for the article, http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1043265_paper-challenge-2011-ford-mustang-v-6-vs-2010-chevrolet-camaro-v-6/

Some excerpts:

Verdict: It would have been a tie, but the convertible factor tips things in favor of the Mustang. Both cars look great in the flesh, though they do so in remarkably different ways. Round 1 score: 10-9 for the Mustang.

Verdict: A close round, with the Camaro’s more advanced rear end landing a solid one at the bell. Round 2 score: 10-8, Camaro.

Share on Facebook

Go here for the article, http://www.sportscarmonitor.com/pictures/1043258_photo-history-47-years-of-fords-mustang_gallery-1#100307890

Share on Facebook

Don’t know what made this spring to mind, but it seems like a good day for it.

#5: Attitude – I suppose we must think of this in the past tense, since Ireland is wimping out in the face of jihadist aggression as quickly as the rest of western Europe. However, there was a time when [...]]]>

Don’t know what made this spring to mind, but it seems like a good day for it.

#5: Attitude – I suppose we must think of this in the past tense, since Ireland is wimping out in the face of jihadist aggression as quickly as the rest of western Europe. However, there was a time when the stereotypical Irish combination of wit, charm, pugnacity and home-spun wisdom set the gold standard for a national identity. If you subtract the IRA and “the troubles” (OK, and a long list of other atrocities on both sides) the genteel parts of the eternal feud between the Irish and the English is marvelously entertaining and there’s no doubt that the Irish get the best of it. Few things please an Irishman more than yanking the tail of the stuffy English lion and they do it so damned well.

And let us not forget the women. Can you beat Irish-women? (Actually, sometimes it’s necessary, and I know this because my blushing bride has Irish blood in her). With apologies to you Nordic types, southern belles and all the rest of the charming ladies who visit these pages, the fiery, red-haired Irish lass, in my book anyway, trumps all.

#4: The Quiet Man – Still the definitive Hollywood classic on Ireland. One of John Wayne’s best performances and Maureen O’Hara is marvelous as always, but Barry Fitzgerald steals the show. The Quiet Man is one of those movies I could watch every week and it would never get old.

#3: Beer – Guinness for me, thank you very much.

#2: Legends – I’m not talking about the rainbows, pots of gold and Lucky Charms here.  Rather, I’m referring to the rich mythological lore that weaves through Irish folk history. Whether it’s tales of kings like Conchobar mac Nessa, or simply the local story about the banshee who foresaw the tragic death of poor Daniel Fitzpatrick who used to live down the road, few peoples can spin a yarn like the Irish.

#1: Maureen O’Hara – Because she’s hot. Because she’s smart. Because she’s got the kind of temper that makes one certain she’s a firecracker in the sack. Because she could charm the mustache off of Rufus’ face. You all may argue with the rest, but as far as the top spot goes: there is no argument.

Share on Facebook

These fighters are sons of bitches. From the Times of London:

Dropping from 10,000ft, they glide in order to land unnoticed. The dogs often carry cameras and are trained to attack anyone carrying a weapon.

“Dogs don’t perceive height difference, so that doesn’t worry them. They’re more likely to be bothered by the roar of the [...]]]>

These fighters are sons of bitches. From the Times of London:

Dropping from 10,000ft, they glide in order to land unnoticed. The dogs often carry cameras and are trained to attack anyone carrying a weapon.

“Dogs don’t perceive height difference, so that doesn’t worry them. They’re more likely to be bothered by the roar of the engines, but once we’re on the way down, that doesn’t matter and they just enjoy the view,” said the dog handler. “It’s something he does a lot. He has a much cooler head than most recruits.”

Commandos from 14 countries, including British special forces and Royal Marines, took part in the Nato exercise. The use of dogs in High Altitude High Opening missions was pioneered by America’s Delta Force, which trained the animals to breathe through oxygen masks during the jump.

The SAS has adapted similar techniques and, according to special forces sources, bought a number of American-trained dogs for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. The dogs used by the British are fitted with a head camera, allowing special forces to see inside insurgent compounds, and Kevlar body armour.

As well as reconnaissance, the animals are trained to attack anyone carrying a weapon, although it is claimed that they will not attack those who are unarmed.

Cool story. I love dogs.

Share on Facebook

Mr. McSideous raised some interesting, real world issues about health insurance yesterday.  I’ll be addressing that soon, on this post.  But feel free to have at in the Open Thread in the meantime…

Today’s prospectus: Nancy Pelosi does not have the votes, otherwise she would have called a vote.  She’s promised to post all bills on-line [...]]]>

Mr. McSideous raised some interesting, real world issues about health insurance yesterday.  I’ll be addressing that soon, on this post.  But feel free to have at in the Open Thread in the meantime…

Today’s prospectus: Nancy Pelosi does not have the votes, otherwise she would have called a vote.  She’s promised to post all bills on-line at least 72 hours before a vote.  There is no bill on-line.  The President leaves Saturday for Indonesia.  Tick-tock, Nancy…

A Brief History of Insurance

I love gambling, statistics and human nature, and this tale involves all 3!

The history of insurance is the history of seafaring…

People like exotic things.  The harder to come by, the more valuable.  Traders know they can make more profit by selling exotic things to the locals.  What makes something exotic?  It’s lack of local availability.  Think about it.  If something is abundant in a region, like coal in Newcastle or bananas in Brazil, it has little value to the locals.  It’s everywhere.  So the locals will sell the stuff for very little, practically give it away.  People in Newcastle trip over coal and people in Brazil get hit in the head by falling ‘nanners.  Both are a nuisance.  But a banana in Norway?!  Now that’s a treat!  So a Norwegian will pay a huge sum for a banana.  But how to get the banana from Brazil to Norway?

That desire for greater profits pushed traders to take risks, traveling to exotic places.  The riskier the better.  All that risk meant that sometimes a ship sank, or a caravan was killed by highwaymen.  And, the drive to go to more and more exotic places meant traders had to pool resources with other traders, to afford the cost of a big enough ship and crew capable of traversing great distances across dangerous waters.

This is where the gamblers save the day. Sailors like to have a drink, or ten, and taverns like to make money, so there are always pubs located by ports.  So pubs became meeting places for merchants and investors.  The merchants would gather at the pubs to find other merchants to partner with, to find crews for their ships, and to find investors (gamblers) willing to take a flyer on one of their ventures.  The merchants and investors got depressed when one of the ships didn’t return, they lost money.  And the crew, they lost their lives.  Eventually one of the gamblers recognized that he could make money if he could successfully predict the number of ships that would fail to return successfully.  This gambler was the first actuary.  If one out of every 100 ships fails to return, charge the traders a little more than 1/100^th of the ship cargo’s value to insure the cargo.  When a merchant’s ship sinks give him the money you collected from the other 99, and skim a little off the top for yourself.  Voila, Insurance!   Yes, it should be no surprise that insurance is the product of a happy confluence of sailors, pubs and gamblers.

Insurance is spreading the risk of an unknown event across as many people involved with that event as possible, and charging each of them a fraction of their total risk should the event fail, with the promise of a 100% replacement of their total risk, should disaster strike.  It’s sort of a reverse lottery.  In a lottery a million people pay a buck, and one lucky person gets $900,000.  Nobody has risked more than a dollar and everyone has an equal chance of walking away $900,000 richer.  With insurance the insured all put up a dollar, and one unlucky person gets the $900,000.  How does this apply to medical insurance?  It doesn’t really, it applies to life insurance.  With life insurance the loser, the surviving spouse and/or kids, get the kitty.  No more dad, but you get a nice check.  If your dad was Vaclav Havel you’ve lost a Czech, but gained a check, so you’re even.

Now, the best analogy for Mr. McSideous and his situation with MediCal is fire insurance.  One of these gamblers figured out that home and business owners faced a similar situation as the seafaring merchants.  Sometimes a house or business burned down and the owner lost his property and the possessions stored within.  Someone (it may have been Ben Franklin) had the idea of employing a fire crew to put out fires, and stop homes and businesses from burning to the ground.  But who is going to pay for the equipment that crew needs?  And, who will pay the crew?  It’s more than just one home or business owner can afford, and any one, individual business or home would probably not burn in a given month, or year.  What to do?  Pool the potential losers.  Charge each home and business owner a fraction of the total cost to run a fire department and when any of their homes or businesses start on fire use the fire department to fight the fire.  Now, keep in mind, we’re not reimbursing them for their property or possessions, we’re just helping them PREVENT that loss.  See the connection?  Medical insurance helps you prevent death.  Life Insurance pays you if death occurs.  Property insurance pays you if your property is destroyed and fire insurance helps you prevent losing your building and possessions to fire.

But McRufus, you say, I own a home and I don’t pay fire insurance.  Oh yes you do.  Let’s return to that first fire department.  That first fire insurance scheme was very successful.  A lot of folks signed up.  But a lot didn’t.  How was the fire department to know if a building on fire was a subscriber, or not?  The insurance company put plaques on the exterior walls.  If word went out of a fire the fire crew rushed to the building and if it had a plaque, showing the owner was a client, they’d fight the fire and save the day.  No plaque?  They’d turn around and go back to the firehouse.

You can see where this led.  The firemen didn’t feel good about abandoning burning buildings and the citizens thought it was a little callous.  So, some communities started forming co-ops, manned and funded by the residents, and that’s where we are today.  If you live in a crowded enough area you pay property taxes and those taxes pay the salaries of the firemen and women, and buy the equipment they use to perform their duties.  If you live in a rural area you may have a volunteer fire department, you may even belong yourself.  Either way, if there’s a fire those crews will fight it.  They don’t first check and make sure the homeowner is paid up on his property taxes.  They put out the fire.  If someone was behind on his property taxes his neighbors make up the difference by paying a little more in property tax the next year.

So, just as some communities didn’t like watching folks’ homes burn to the ground because they didn’t have the foresight to buy fire insurance, some communities tired of seeing their neighbors die in the street because they didn’t have health insurance.  If you live in a crowded enough area there are probably clinics and hospitals that will take anyone, regardless of insurance, and if you live in a rural area you have resources too.  Each community deals with this in the manner that the local inhabitants feel is best for their needs.

Notice we do not have a national fire department.  How would that work?  How did it work for the residents of New Orleans who depended on the Federal government to prevent them from suffering in the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina?  I remember the logos on the men and equipment battling the World Trade Center fire.  Everyone read, “NYPD.”

Personally, I don’t want to live somewhere where people die in the streets.  Where people born with genetic defects are abandoned.  Where people struck by an unpredictable illness or accident are abandoned.  So me and my neighbors do something about that.  Some of us do.  Just like fire insurance, not all my neighbors keep up on their property taxes, but enough of us do to fund a good fire department.  When I go to the hospital I’m charged a little extra to pay for the patients treated who don’t have insurance.  I’m O.K. with that.  I don’t want to open my door one morning and trip over someone dying of tuberculosis while walking to the end of the driveway to get the newspaper.  The people in the state of Massachusetts believe they can improve on this system by providing insurance for all.  They believe this will get more people to follow preventative measures that will reduce the total cost of insuring their neighbors.  That makes sense to me too, but it’s not working out that way in reality.  It’s also not working out that way in Oregon.  Why?  We don’t know.

So, I’m fine with Oregonians caring for their neighbors the way they want, and Massachusetters caring for their neighbors the way they choose, and Freedonians caring for Freedonians the way I choose.  When your house is on fire a centralized, federal bureaucracy is not the most effective way to put out the flames.  My neighbor is much more likely to help me put out my house fire than a bureaucrat in Washington D.C. because if my home burns down my neighbors may catch fire too.  My neighbor is also more likely to help me if I suffer from an illness, injury or disease.  I am not against paying money to help those who cannot afford medical care.  I’m a proponent.  But let me and my neighbors figure out how we want to do that.  We’ll learn from what others are doing and work towards the best care possible.  That’s what Americans do.

Share on Facebook