The Bosque Boys

My day calendar reminds me that today is Benjamin Franklin's birthday.

Brief biography from The Independence Hall Association of Philadelphia.

Benjamin Franklin, born in Boston, Massachusetts, on January 17, 1706, may by his life alone be the most profound statement of what an American strives to be.

PBS biography.

He was one of the most extraordinary human beings the world has
ever known. Born into the family of a Boston candle maker, Benjamin
Franklin became the most famous American of his time. He helped
found a new nation and defined the American character. Writer,
inventor, diplomat, businessman, musician, scientist, humorist,
civic leader, international celebrity . . . genius.

The Papers of Benjamin Franklin. Yale collection online.

A link page from The Independence Hall Association of Philadelphia. Includes a link to a virtual tour.

Informed speculation.

From The Telegraph U.K, link from Brits at Their Best.

David Smiley died this month at the age of 92.

Colonel David Smiley, who died on January 9 aged 92, was one of the most celebrated cloak-and-dagger agents of the Second World War, serving behind enemy lines in Albania, Greece, Abyssinia and Japanese-controlled eastern Thailand.

After the war he organised secret operations against the Russians and their allies in Albania and Poland, among other places. Later, as Britain's era of domination in the Arabian peninsula drew to a close, he commanded the Sultan of Oman's armed forces in a highly successful counter-insurgency.

After his assignment in Oman, he organised – with the British intelligence service, MI6 – royalist guerrilla resistance against a Soviet-backed Nasserite regime in Yemen. Smiley's efforts helped force the eventual withdrawal of the Egyptians and their Soviet mentors, paved the way for the emergence of a less anti-Western Yemeni government, and confirmed his reputation as one of Britain's leading post-war military Arabists.
. . .
During the Second World War he was parachuted four times behind enemy lines. On one occasion he was obliged to escape from Albania in a rowing boat. On another mission, in Japanese-controlled eastern Thailand, he was stretchered for three days through the jungle with severe burns after a booby-trap meant for a senior Japanese officer exploded prematurely.

Read the whole story.

I hope to do more thinking about this question over the next week or two as we get ready for a new president of the United States. Prompted by reflections on Farmer and Mariner's thoughts on education and presidents, I offer the following.

To begin, let's take a little known, but successful U.S. President as judged by most historians: James K. Polk.

Three things stand out about him to my mind.

First, he remained rational in emotional times, making rational decisions. For example, Polk, a Democrat, came into office with looming conflicts betwen the U.S. and Great Britain and Mexico. With Mexico over the recent aquistion of Texas, combined with the claim of Texas for territory down to the Rio Grande. With Great Britain over the boundary between the U.S. and Canada in the Northwest. Both issues generated lots of emotion. His own party had campaigned on the slogan of "54 40" or fight!" In other words, take all the disputed territory in the Northwest or go to war with Britain. But, when in office, instead of being swayed by the emotion of the moment and going to war with the British Empire (especially since war with Mexico seemed likely), he entered into negotiations that resulted in the present boundary between British Columbia and Washington State and eastward.

Second, as seen above, he was willing to be unpopular with his own party. Polk did not simply follow what seemed the prevailing opinion of the moment among voters. In addition to acting rationally in the above situation, he risked rejection by elements of his own party.

Third, he kept focused on his goals. He wanted to ensure that Texas was safely part of the United States, and he wanted to add California, then part of Mexico. When negotiations broke down, he used military force--probably upon a pretext--to acquire California and the Southwest, plus force Mexico to recognize that Texas was now part of the United States. As the War with Mexico proceeded, however, some Democrats pushed for the conquest and aquisition of all Mexico. Polk, instead, entered into new negotiations from a position of military superiority on the battlefield, gaining his goals.

From Polk: the ability to analyze a situation rationally and act accordingly, the willingness to go against one's own party if deemed necessary, and the steadiness to hold to rational goals.

From NPR:

"While it is true that Barack Obama did not actually invent the light bulb, no one has ever thrown a switch quite like him."

They did not really say that. I made up that line.

But this story this morning about how Barack is going to make reading cool again is in that vein.

First, let me remind you that I really do like this fellow. I do think he is smart and cool and am convinced that he loves his country. I concur wholeheartedly with President Bush's statement of the obvious: "we are rooting for his success because his success will be our national success." Also, I am impressed with the President-elect's love for words. I enjoy his writing (his memoir and his major speeches in which you can clearly see his hand and style coming through).

However, sometimes the breathless mainstream fawning just goes a bit too far.

"Barack Obama is a reader."

How refreshing.

Not only that, he is a writer: "You actually have both a writer and a reader in the White House who is articulate and eloquent in his own right."

Wow. He really is the new Lincoln.

Another expert commentator observes: "And it's clear that he reads not just for entertainment, but to stimulate whatever gifts he has that make him the incredible speaker that he is."

So, he won't just be reading My Pet Goat.

While the NPR story mentions the claims that the current president reads a lot, we certainly understand why this is going to be totally different. And while Laura Bush gets an obligatory mention as a "former librarian and voracious reader," NPR reporter Lynn Neary neglects to mention that Mrs. Bush, in partnership with the Library of Congress, initiated the National Book Festival back in 2001, which, in actual fact, has become a substantial institution to promote interest and excitement in books. A fact, evidently, not germane to the story of the new President and his potential to positively change our reading habits for the better.

As NPR suggests, maybe Barack really is the new Oprah.

According to a Carnegie Mellon study, published Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine and big news today, insufficient sleep makes on more susceptible to colds.

What would we do without these kinds of scientific breakthroughs?

And the award goes to:

Alec Baldwin

"30 Rock"

Tina Fey

Really!?!

And if you don't think they deserve all these accolades, awarded by snarky Hollywood insiders, who love knowingly quick-witted shows about snarky Hollywood insiders, then you can "suck it!"

"30 Rock" is, in fact, a cute show. Yes, the gag gets a bit strained, especially if you don't work in the entertainment industry--but, no matter, it is smart and funny, worth watching (relatively speaking), and it deserves to stay on the air despite its traditionally anemic ratings.

But, come now, this evidently insatiable desire to exalt "30 Rock" and Tina Fey over obviously more-deserving shows and stars is growing tiresome.

We get it. You love Tina Fey. You love how she put Sarah Palin in her place. You love Alec Baldwin. You admire his politics. You swoon over his hip sense of ironic detachment. You love the show about doing a network show. We get it. You really love yourselves. Now move on. There are some truly brilliant comedies out there ("The Office" to name one).

A note on Tina Fey: I really hate this, but I just don't have anything for her anymore. Too bad for me. She was a real favorite (an intellectual brick house: smart, sexy, and funny--the ultimate winning hand). But no more. The crush is over.

And, of course, it was the Sarah Fey-lin gag that killed that loving feeling. By the time it was through, the whole bit was just so "played." When I first heard Tina Fey was going to do Palin I had my doubts. Tina Fey is a comic genius--but she is not a great actress. She is great playing Tina Fey--but anything more than that is a real stretch. But, on that first night, she hit Palin out of the park. It was a pitch-perfect tour de force. But she went down hill from there, pushing a one-gag bit way beyond its viability.

If you listen carefully, she does not really sound much like Palin (her impersonation is actually a lot more Bob and Doug McKenzie than Sarah). Upon closer inspection, Tina Fey is not nearly as attractive as Palin. Over the long haul, the Tina Fey character was thin and tinny. The gag relied way too much on a beauty contest Sarah Palin entered in her late teens. Because of her limited acting ability, Tina Fey's Sarah Palin increasingly drew on a generic dopey bubble-brained bimbo stock character. By the end of the run, there was nothing left in the tank.

And what did Tina Fey do when there was nothing left? She kept coming with the cartoon, piling on the hackneyed sexist stereotypes to camouflage the lack of penetrating content. Why? Because her friends kept laughing. And she was on the side of the angels. Maybe this wasn't completely fair--but it was for the cause. Sometimes you have to be a "mean girl" when the whole world hangs in the balance. And Sarah Palin had it coming. She had dared to insinuate that Barack Obama's stint as a community organizer had not prepared him to be President of the United States. She was fair game.

Anyhow, when I look at Tina Fey now, I no longer see a sharp attractive woman at the peak of her creative powers with a heart for the underdog. Now, I only see the bully, willing to slash and burn to be popular. It worked. Congratulations, Tina Fey. You are the toast of town.

In an essay for TIME entitled "The Bush Administration's Most Despicable Act," Klein makes this assertion:

"This is not the America I know," President George W. Bush said after the first, horrifying pictures of U.S. troops torturing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in April 2004. The President was not telling the truth. "This" was the America he had authorized on Feb. 7, 2002, when he signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention — the one regarding the treatment of enemy prisoners taken in wartime — did not apply to members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. That signature led directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. It was his single most callous and despicable act. It stands at the heart of the national embarrassment that was his presidency.

Full essay.

Here is a link to the text of the Geneva Convention from the UN website. Here is the relevant portion. I've put into boldface those that Islamic terrorists do not meet. In the document, "Parties" refers to the signing countries. Since the terrorists are not the official forces of a specific country, they cannot count as regular troops.

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

So, let's summarize Klein's mistakes. (1) He does not demonstrate how the Geneva Convention could apply to captured terrorists. (2) He assumes that not treating terrorists according to the non-applicable Geneva Convention automatically led to abuses such as at Abu Ghraib. (3) He does not offer a rigorous, legal definition of torture, thereby allowing him to include underwear on the head and dog leashes. (4) He ignores successful follow-up actions based on intelligence obtained by water-boarding.

At least TIME magazine is a declining forum for this nonsense.

Story here, forwarded by Photognome.

In a nutshell, the sun has cycles in its intensity. During intense periods the sun can release strong magnetic storms into the solar system. Such magnetic storms can disrupt electronic devices on earth. For example, in 1989 a solar storm caused power outages in Quebec.

A study recently completed looks at the effect of a major storm on modern economies. The last really, really big storm was in 1859. It shorted out telegraph wires, starting fires. If a storm of similar magnitude occured today in our electronic communications, satellite-dependent, interconnected-power-grid world, major whooey would hit the fan.

The study called for plans to be made.

For those of us conservative, liberty-loving types, we believe we should be pro-active, not passively waiting for someone (i.e. the government) to take care of us.

So, readers, what can we do. For starters, how about at all times having power-outage kits in our houses. Things like candles, flashlights and batteries in the package. How about "blizzard kits"? A shelf with canned and dry foods, including powdered milk and canned meat, to last a week at least. A first-aid kit.

As you've guessed, I think everyone should have these sorts of things on hand to deal with more ordinary kinds of disruptions.

A file of printed copies of bank records, retirment account statements, insurance policies, etc.

Any suggestions for alternative heating and cooking if the grid goes down? I have a couple of small propane tanks and a camp stove for cooking. Maybe I should look into a propane heater. (Here in SW Oklahoma a major ice storm several years ago put many counties into a pre-industrial state for about a week.)

One of the Christmas gifts I received is a day-by-day calendar that gives English words that have fallen out of use. Put together by Jeffrey Kacirk, each day also includes a tidbit of history.

Today's word is shamocrat: One who pretends to be possessed of wealth, influence, rank, or indeed any quality which is only conspicous by its absence. Citation is to John Farmer's Americanisms Old and New (1889).

I thought of this word when listening to a portion of Barak Obama's address on the economy. When it comes to economic knowledge, the guy is a shamocrat. The New Deal did not bring the Great Depression to an end. As a general rule seen in modern history, increased government control and manipulation of an economy does not bring prosperity, rather, economies are damaged by too much government involvment. Some regulation is necessary to prevent abuse and preserve free markets, we learned in the late 19th century. But too much government involvment results in ordinary people being trapped in underperforming economies.

Recessions are not catastrophes signaling the end of free markets. Though they are painful, they seem a necessary evil in free markets. Our nation has survived about twenty recessions and depressions in its history. Would it be nice to have no recessions? Of course. But we rarely are given the choice between perfection and imperfection. Rather, we must choose between various imperfections, choosing the lesser evil. Totally free markets led to abuses, so has too much government involvment.

Obama's plan seems the idea of a shamocrat.