I know that there are some out there that shy away from revisionist histories. The entire genre has gotten a bad reputation due to the power of the truly crank cases, whether it be Holocaust denial, Howard Zinn’s indictments on American History (or western civilization in general) or Pat Buchanan’s ode to Nazi Germany. Yet, there are plenty of other works that fall into the genre that are not meant to do anything more than to increase our understanding of the events of yesteryear. Tears in the Darkness is of this second order.

            Written by Michael and Elizabeth Norman, Tears in the Darkness is a fine example of how new histories should written. The authors have achieved a wonderfully rich narrative that manages to give the reader insight into the minds of all three sides of the battle for Bataan and the well-known aftermath. This look at the largest defeat in American History is needed to further explain just why it happened, something that many times has been lost with the depictions of the minutiae of individual histories and stories.

            The history is laid out into a dual track, as the chapters that are numbered tell the overall story and the named sections at the end of each chapter introduce and follow Ben Steele, the one survivor that had dealings with most aspects of Bataan, from being one of the garrison soldiers, battlers and prisoners. He was one of the defeated forced to march and then suffered the barbaric prison system that the Japanese put in place.

            One of the great aspects of this book is the inclusion of the Japanese point of view. What does get glossed over in many histories of Bataan is the fact that it was a defeat for America that could have been prevented, but the egoism of MacArthur as well as the inherent racism on all sides of the conflict did much to ensure that it would not be easy for wither side in the war. There is much benefit for researchers to see exactly how closed the Japanese system was, the devaluation of their own lives for the idea of Emperor and chain of command needed to be stressed, as we know that not all of the officers agreed with the policies of their governments. The inside look at the letters of the common soldier also was a nice plus.  

            As we enter the 4^th of July weekend, books like Tears in the Darkness should be added to reading lists for all interested in the continuing battle for freedom and history. I could not have asked for a more meaningful book at this point of year.

Powered by Qumana

Just what is the problem with the left, do they believe that there will not be any future elections?

            There is a common saying when dealing with Barak Obama, if Bush or a Republican did that …Nothing is truer than Obama’s war on philanthropy. It seems that charitable giving is suspect in the eyes of Obama and his myrmidons. He has more than once spoken of the need to end the charity deduction from income taxes, in effect ending the income source of quite a few needed organizations. One cannot help to wonder just why Obama is so against charities.

            One answer may be his Marxist economic theory (not trying to be pejorative). Obama and many of his Democrat friends believe that all monies earned belong to the government and anything that is kept by the earner is a subsidy from the government. These people barely cover their contempt for the worker, but yet always try and fool the people through the dastardly use of class war-fare rhetoric designed to pit one American against another. The approach works on many voters on the left and the poor have always been receptive to any plan that gives them something for nothing.

            Yet, the poor are the very ones that will be hurt by Obama and his war on philanthropy. No more will there be any incentive for many to donate to food banks or homeless shelters, not that they do these things for the tax break – it just sometimes helps. If the givers have to give even more to the Federal monster, there will certainly be less to give to charity. Not that this worries many on the left, as study after study shows that conservatives and religious people tend to out give the “progressive-leftists” by healthy margins.

            Further muddying the waters, Obama plans to pay for his socialized Medicine scheme through the elimination of charitable giving deductions among other ideas to punish the actual taxpayers. The bitter pill, as they say, is that by giving people one thing (health-care) he will be denying many beds and food, all at a time when we have a major recession and no sight of improvement on the horizon. I just have to ask, what would the media say if Bush did this?

Powered by Qumana

On Redeye –

She is going after Geraldo after Neda is murdered by the same people that Obama wants to come to the BBQs on July 4th.

I laughed and laughed:

Rocco Mediate became the story of the 2008 US Open, seemingly coming out of no where to force an 18 hole play-off against Tiger Woods. The story is told by Rocco and the great John Feinstein in, Are You Kidding Me? Rocco is known on the tour as a talkative and fun guy, and this book is of the same. Rocco tells of his life with a light touch that cements his place with the best on the PGA Tour.
This is not a swing by swing account of the Torrey Pines match, but rather a biography of Rocco as a player on the tour. His story is interesting because he is interesting, but the obvious hand of Feinstein makes this another great golf book to read. The struggles of the journeyman golfer that finds age and injuries starting to do him in just as the greatest golfer in a generation (and one of all-times) is beginning to devour the tour is compelling reading for all fans of the sport. I was spell bound in the early chapters and found that I read the book in far less time than I could have played a round.
As this is the weekend for the US Open, this book was a great reminder about the true drama that can be a golf match, even if Tiger still prevails.

I will the first to admit that I am quite shocked by Obama’s lack of support for a popular uprising against the tyrannous regime in Tehran. Although I personally have suspected that the man has no moral compass what so ever and does not value liberty in the least, I half expected some lip service to freedom and justice. Obama is not someone who cares about the average person, let alone those of subjected to tyranny.
I ask just why is this the case? Why does Obama lack the ability to understand the history of freedom and tyranny of the world? I do wonder, is Obama so thoroughly contemptuous of America that he cannot ever see that those opposed to us might just be evil bastards?

Obama’s contempt of Britain continues unabated, at least if we are to believe the UK media (I do).

“In an escalating diplomatic row over the transfer of the former terrorist suspects, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the transfer with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in what was said to be an uneasy conversation. Privately Whitehall officials accused America of treating Britain, with whom it is supposed to have a “special relationship”, with barely disguised contempt.”

It seems that we simply dumped these terror trained jihadis off onto a tropical paradise and allowed them no supervision, all without the consent of the Crown, which has dominion over its colony of Bermuda. Obama’s people are calling the UK’s people liars. When will we learn that we have elected children to government? Again, the worse thing to be these days is a friend to this country…

Will there ever be a Palestinian State? I remain doubtful for many reasons, none short of the fact that there is no will for peace or a state on the Arab side of the question. Listening to what the Arab leaders say is the first step in finding out what they truly want, and there is little doubt that they want a true and lasting peace with Israel.

            On Sunday, Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu finally responded to the provocative and needlessly anti-Israeli Cairo speech of President Obama. In the Cairo speech, Obama showed that he lacked historical knowledge on the issues at question and further impressed upon the world that he was firmly on the Arab side of the question and therefore would hold the Jewish state to task. Obama has decided that all of the problems in the Middle East are linked to the Arab-Israeli troubles and blames Israel for the continued impasse. Obama was quite forceful in demanding a total end to what he calls settlements and hinted at the removal of Jews from the West Bank.

            Bibi responded well to Obama’s naïve speech in a deep and meaningful way.

"I turn to all Arab leaders tonight and I say: “Let us meet. Let us speak of peace and let us make peace. I am ready to meet with you at any time.  I am willing to go to Damascus, to Riyadh, to Beirut, to any place- including Jerusalem. 

I call on the Arab countries to cooperate with the Palestinians and with us to advance an economic peace. An economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it. Together, we can undertake projects to overcome the scarcities of our region, like water desalination or to maximize its advantages, like developing solar energy, or laying gas and petroleum lines, and transportation links between Asia, Africa and Europe."

This is nothing new, as Israeli leaders have all wanted peace and each and every one of those leaders was willing to risk their personal careers for peace. What has remained unspoken by far too many is the lack of reciprocal feelings from the Arab leaders.

            As we all know too well, the Middle East is filled with Muslim countries that do not bother to hide themselves. Iran calls itself The Islamic Republic, stresses the religion of Islam. The same is true for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, etc…Yet, each and every one of these countries denounces Israel for being a Jewish State. Why is this never put in context? Why is it surprising?

            After Bibi’s speech, Arab leader after Arab leader came forward (with jimmy Carter no less) to blast Israel for stating the context into which the Israelis are willing to give up Judea and Samaria to the Arabs for the creation of Palestine. They are outraged that Israel refuses to allow a new terror state to be founded next door. They are outraged that after the founding of Palestine, Israel will not allow the return of millions of Arabs to ISRAEL. This is a huge stumbling block to Arab leaders. They demand both the creation of Palestine then the right for those “Palestinians” to NOT LIVE IN PALESTINE. They demand that Israel both create the state and then allow unfettered immigration inside Israeli borders.

            That clause may be a bridge too far for rational thought. One, why would Israel create a Palestine just to then take in the citizens that the state is supposedly in creation? Second, does Obama or any other person that ascribes to the Arab side not see the hypocrisy of demanding first that all of Palestinian lands must be Juden frei, demand the relocation of Jews living in the West Bank and then demanding that the much smaller state absorb the citizens of the new State? I ask, then why demand a two-state solution when all rhetoric points to a single state solution (that becomes the final solution)?

            No, we are a long way from a sustainable Palestine. There is yet the founding spirit that most countries need to begin. Plus, what stops these people from simply declaring a state with what they have and going from there?

Powered by Qumana