Now all of those Proles in Prada have something new and fresh to wear, in case they are beginning to think that their Ché t-shirts are becoming très démodé.
Rolling Stone scoops Girls Life and Seventeen
Yes, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston Marathon Bomber (I dispense with the media-obligatory "alleged" adjective), with 'surviving' here meaning that in addition to the four people killed in the terrorist attack, along with 265 injured (31 critically), he also managed to run over and kill his brother while fleeing the scene of a shootout.
But say what you will (and does it really matter to the publishers?), Tsarnaev is now declared an official rock star.
Rolling Stone sets about defending the cover (you know that they had the excuse written and proofed well before the publication) with the usual blather, which in this case is that it is a "riveting and heartbreaking account of how a charming kid with a bright future became a monster."
Further: "[T]he fact that Dzhokar Tsarnaev is young, and in the same age group as many of our readers, makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of the issue ..." (Really? Tsarnaev is in his 60s?)
By sheer coincidence I'm sure, the publishers hope that pandering to this terrorist rock star will cause a surge in its steadily declining circulation, as "newsstand sales – a major indicator of a magazine's health – tumbled 10% in the six-month period ending last December, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations." This is as it's forced to compete with rags mags like Spin and the new Blender.
Jann Wenner, the Dorian Gray that founded Rolling Stone, has his expected defenders. Erik Wemble, media critic of the Washington Post, affects a jaded ennui with the reaction and "our country's tedious outrage machine".
But cooler heads are righteously exploding with the comparison to Jim Morrison. There is a huge Twitter response ("horrible", "stupid", "tasteless") with threats of (even more) cancelled subscriptions. National drug store chains such as Walgreens, Rite-Aid, and CVS have announced that they will not stock the magazine, in addition to the Boston-area grocery outlet Roche Brothers. Boston Mayor-for-life Thomas Menino, hardly a reactionary conservative, blasted the story as an "obvious marketing strategy".
So Rolling Stone joins the parade of media that rolls over a tragedy to make a buck. It's enough to give 'pandering' a bad name.
But expect that the Chattering Class will roll out the First Amendment cliché, that the magazine has every right to expound on matters that should be hammered out, even provocatively, in the public square, and salute it for its 'courage'. I'm fine with that, for that right extends both to the courageous and the stupid. And so shall we all express our First Amendment disgust and God-given right to criticize that which we find reprehensible, and we can see how courageous Rolling Stone can be as it deals with the effect to its cause in the marketplace.
***** Update:American Digest provides us an advance copy of the next installment:
The Left is into catchy phrases to chant at their demonstrations; they might want to consider this entry.
(Radio Canada)
As many as 50 people could be dead after a massive explosion of a series of tanker cars in a runaway train that crashed into the small, historic community of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, a town of some 6,000 about ten miles from the United States border of Maine, in the early morning hours of 6 July.Twenty bodies have been confirmed and thirty are still missing and presumed dead as investigators and fire fighters dig through the remnants of the central town area.
Seventy-two tanker cars carrying crude oil derailed after rolling uncontrolled from the town of Nantes, about seven miles away, where the train had been parked for the night.The average slope of the track between the two towns is 1.2%, relatively steep, and by the time that the train slammed into Lac-Mégantic it was estimated to be travelling in excess of 60 miles per hour.The resulting fire and explosions rocked the small town all night.
(CTV)
The train had been left unattended in Nantes and the single engineer stated that he set eleven handbrakes prior to departing for the night.A small fire broke out minutes later and firefighters arrived to extinguish it, all within an hour.It is unknown whether this fire contributed to the reason that the train slipped its brakes.The CEO of Rail World Inc., parent company of the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic (MMA) Railway that owned the train, blamed the engineer, despite the ongoing investigation, in a contentious impromptu news conference on the street in Lac-Mégantic when he arrived to survey the damage after some five days.He had come under strong criticism for remaining in Chicago, where he said he could be more effective in communicating and coordinating the company response.
Whatever the proximate cause of this tragedy, one must consider that the trans-shipment of oil by rail car must have a more expedient alternative, and it does – pipelines.Hardly a new innovation, pipelines are restricted for this purpose despite the huge increase of oil production as a result of recovery from the tar sands of the Bakken Basin, which covers large areas of North Dakota and eastern Montana (which have seen a large positive economic impact), as well as huge reserves of the same field in Saskatchewan across the border in Canada. [Click them all to embiggen.]
The Obama administration has fought the development of these fields, relying instead on speculative new 'green' technology instead, at the insistence of powerful environmentalist lobbies entrenched in the Democrat Party.Obama has gone so far as to blithely assert that the price of fossil-fueled electricity needs to "skyrocket" in order to force the new technology on the people.("Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it – whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations.That will cost money.They will pass that money on to consumers.")
Part of Obama's stump speech during the last election (when he wasn't dismissing the Benghazi "road bump") was to tout the fact that oil production was higher than ever, but this was despite, not because of, federal interference into the oil sector.Oil production from shale oil took place on private leasings and state land; federal reserves (as well as off shore areas) remained locked up.
A key element of this battle has been the Keystone XL pipeline, adding to the already existing Keystone, which would extend the line from Hardisty, Alberta to the coast of Texas near Nederland and improve capacity.Construction of the line would employ as many as 40,000 workers and increase North American oil production by some 30%, but Obama remains beholden to his environmentalist base.Delay of the pipeline has already extended well beyond what is reasonable and it is the most 'studied' (or stalled) such plan in history.Excuses include concern over the possibility of the effect of a leak over a major aquifer in Nebraska, but the route was modified to take this into account long ago.Rhetoric obscures the fact that some 21,000 miles of pipeline crisscross Nebraska already, part of some 500,000 miles of such pipelines throughout the US.All this has been covered in great detail, though not necessarily in the main stream media. One embarrassing point for the 'Greens' is the report quietly released by State Department to the effect that the Keystone XL will have a negligible effect on the environment.
For example, lest anyone think that the delay is out of pure love of Mother Gaia, let's tie this together with those who benefit from the current impasse, and why.
Warren Buffett is a major Obama crony and environmentalist opponent of the Keystone XL, and his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. acquired the huge Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway soon after the election of Obama, with lines running through both the US and Canada."With modest expansion," all new oil production could be handled by the railway through 2030, thus Buffett makes megabucks as long as the XL pipeline lies dormant, through transporting oil acquired through his holdings in Conoco-Phillips petroleum.
Even more cynically, billionaire environmental activist and Democrat fundraiser Tom Steyer has bankrolled huge lobbying efforts and street performance art demonstrations to forestall the XL pipeline.Yet where does Steyer get his money?That would be through oil, gas, and pipeline companies such as Farallon Capital Management LLC.Farallon is the parent company of Kinder Morgan pipeline company which is building the TransMountain pipeline that extends from Edmonton, Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia.
The Canadians are developing their shale oil industry because they will see a major windfall to their economy thereby, and if the Americans insist on dithering away the opportunity to benefit as well, then Canada will be compelled to sell their bountiful product to the Chinese, who are eager to acquire it through their China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC).So Tom Steyer, the Cassandra of the dangers of the Keystone XL pipeline, stands to make a fortune off his own pipeline in order to sell North American oil, otherwise available to the US, to China.And just to grease the skids, CNOOC has acquired the Canadian oil and gas company Nexen, with the approval of the American Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS).The approval of the "multiagency group in Washington that vets significant foreign investment in the US" was required due to Nexen's large assets in the Gulf of Mexico. (The same committee approved the Chinese acquisition of the remnants of A123 Systems, one of the green companies that went toes up in the same manner as Solyndra, leaving the taxpayers footing the bill. Now the warning is that China will acquire valuable battery technology through the transfer.)
Toss in such cronies as Obama bundler Frank Brosens, whose Taconic Capital acquired six million shares of Nexen (Brosens was picked by Timothy Geithner to run TARP); Eric Mindich of Eton Park Capital Management which bought over 6.7 million shares of Nexen ($71,000 to Obama and $500,000 to Democrat candidates); David Shaw (up to $500,000 bundled to Obama, and a member of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology) has up to 6.5 million shares.Be sure to include Eric Holder, formerly a partner in Covington & Burling LLC, which was hired by Nexen to lobby on behalf of the acquisition.
The Manhattan Institute published a brief just last month that shows that pipelines are far safer than transporting petroleum products and natural gas by road or rail.As if on cue, the rail disaster at Lac-Mégantic has illustrated, as if by the flames of the burning town, the cynical exploitation of the oil issue by Democrat cronies.
To paraphrase Lyndon Johnson, Obama might say that, while his bundlers are Fat Cats, "at least they're our Fat Cats."
As yesterday was our Independence Day, I am drawn to
remember that the renderings of our national anthem on that day, more common
than usual, mark an example of what John Stuart Mill might consider our "degraded state of … patriotic feeling."Leaving aside one's taste in the variety of musical
arrangements, I am writing here of the lack of understanding of the full
meaning and text of what we know now as the Star
Spangled Banner.First, allow me to
flesh out some background:
The restored flag of Fort McHenry at the Smithsonian Institution
Francis Scott Key was a popular lawyer in and around Baltimore
during the time of the War of 1812 when he was deputized in September 1814 to
negotiate the release of American captives from the British.He and John Stuart Skinner set sail upon a
sloop under a flag of truce and were accepted by the British Vice Admiral Alexander
Cochrane and Major General Robert Ross aboard HMS Tonnant in Chesapeake Bay.While the negotiations were subsequently successful, the two Americans
were temporarily detained by the British since in the process they had also
become privy to the British plans for the assault on Baltimore.Key and Skinner were moved to HMS Surprise (note to fans of Patrick O'Brian)
and then back to their original sloop of HMS
Minden, from whence they viewed the bombardment of Fort McHenry through the
night of 13/14 September.(Fort McHenry was commanded by Major George
Armistead, uncle of the future Confederate Brigadier General Lewis Armistead of
the Battle of Gettysburg.Both died soon
after the battles due to the effects of the fighting, the younger the more so,
and they are buried alongside each other.)
Francis Scott Key
The bombardment ended up being ineffective, but that
would not have been known by those observing it at the time, for the effect was
quite astounding.The British were
experimenting with rockets and exploding bombs during the attack, and the
psychological effect, for what it was worth, was quite dramatic and an
early example of 'shock and awe'.
Key was apprehensive as he watched the bombardment
through the night and was much relieved by the dim sunlight of the morning when
he perceived through the fog and smoke that the American flag
commissioned by Armistead was still flying over the fort.A poet by avocation, he was moved to pen some
notes on the back of a letter, which he finished as a complete poem, the Defense of Fort McHenry, the morning
after he returned to shore and the American lines.
Fort McHenry today
Key had appended a note for the printer that the poem, if
sung, should be done to the tune of To Anacreon
in Heaven, a popular melody of the day.Much was made of that fact during the Bicentennial of the 1970s, during
the Age of Aquarius and the pop revisionism that held that practically anything
American could not be good.The tune was
labeled a drinking song and used as an excuse to deride the national anthem – I
remember among examples a television 're-enactment' of a street scene of the
time after the battle, with actors in period costume drunkenly belting out the
tune while swaying with tankards of ale. In fact, the original song was commissioned by
a gentlemen's society of amateur musicians in London and though it contained veiled
references to the benefits of wine and the ladies, it is foremost a salute to
the camaraderie of the "sons of Anacreon", an ancient Greek poet. By the time of Key and well before copyrights,
the melody was popular and had been ascribed to any number of songs, including patriotic
tributes to John Adams and Stephen Decatur, and even later used by Puccini as
part of an aria in Madama Butterfly.Due to its range of an octave and a half, I
find it laughable that any occasion worth its salt would expect people to
gather round the piano and their cups to perform a lustily rendered version of
the song.
The finished product was given to Captain Benjamin Eades,
who had copies printed and hastened with one to a nearby tavern where he knew
he could find the body of actors from the Holliday Street Theater.Ferdinand Durang was encouraged to perform
the new song and thus mounted a chair to sing it to the assembled crowd for the
first time.
The song quickly became popular and over the years became
the unofficial national anthem.Being
such, there were a few variations in the melody that was eventually
standardized in 1917 as a result of a panel, including John Phillip Sousa,
assembled by request of President Woodrow Wilson.Years later, partly as a result of an appeal
by the same John Phillip Sousa, and contrary to the spirit of tradition, the
song was officially made the national anthem by act of Congress in 1931.
The vast majority of Americans are completely unaware, I
am sure, that the words to the Star
Spangled Banner extend beyond the eight lines with which they are
accustomed – there are four stanzas, not just one.For that matter, they are only dimly aware of
what the words are, much less what they really mean.Here's a party trick: ask your friends to recite – not sing – the words.Few are able, for those of us who sing it have
become used to doing so in company of others and thereby are carried along,
almost unconsciously, by the collective memory of the crowd.A Harris poll in 2004 found that 61% of those
surveyed could not remember all the words, and only 39% could complete the
third line.As for their meaning, few
understand that the words they sing are not a declaration, but an unanswered
question:
O say can you see by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last
gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous
fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still
there;
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Again, the "rockets' red glare" and the noise
they produced had a dramatic effect yet they were notoriously inaccurate.Besides the psychological aspect against
troops in the open (they were used with some effect in driving off the small
contingent of the American army and militia – but not the Marines and sailors –at the Battle of Bladensburg the previous month), they had been marginally
effective against area targets but practically useless in this case against
point targets such as those at Fort McHenry and the nearby North Point.The drawback of the bombs can be found in the
song, for bombs of that time weren't supposed to burst in air, they were
supposed to burst on target.The unreliable fusing of the bombs and the errant
rockets, to a great extent responsible for the failure of the British naval
assault, spelled their last real use.
As to the rest of the song, it is the next stanza that
answers the question, reflecting Keys' joy at beholding the flag still flying
at dawn:
On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner, O! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
And was the enemy, with their mercenaries and indentured
conscripts, defeated in this contest?Yes indeed:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps'
pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
But it is the final stanza that carries the most import,
that sums up the patriotic resolution that finds its source in the God who has
founded and preserved such a new nation.And that is one of its greatest detriments to a revival of the true
meaning:
O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation.
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a
nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto:
"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Free men defending their homes and family; our land rescued by Heaven and its
Power; just war; "In God we trust"?These were such easily accepted and understood concepts in times past,
yet are so controversial today.Even our
current president has deleted references to God in quoting the Preamble to the
Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance early in his term, as well as
skipping out of the National Day of Prayer.
The only portrayed reference I have found of the extended
version of the song was a portion of the last stanza performed by Arnold
McCuller in the movie version of The Sum
of All Fears, otherwise known for its believable rendition of what an
atomic bomb exploding in a city would look like, but most particularly in its changing
of the terrorists from Arabs to some sort of European neo-Nazis, likely due to
taking a knee at the insistence of CAIR.(Tom Clancy, sitting alongside the director during an interview popularizing
the upcoming film, pointedly introduced himself as the man who wrote the book
that the director ignored.)
The national anthem is difficult to sing, truly, but the
current pop culture – and is there any other type of culture portrayed by the
mainstream media? – is nevertheless content to let the ignorance, willful or
otherwise, of this portion of our heritage lie fallow.
A common complaint among conservatives attends to the improper role of the judiciary in modern American political life: the activism that sees judges rushing in where politicians fear to tread.The hard questions, the hard decisions that actual statesmen (as opposed to mere politicians) would be expected to make are shunned – too controversial, potentially too costly in the next election, a threat to the projected life-long vocation of a career politician dedicated wholly to preparation, running, and consolidation of a permanent campaign.Better to let the Executive rule by regulations, his power suffused through the myriad apparatchiki in bureaucratic succession.
But worse yet, encourage the judges to over-reach and hand down not judgments but fiats, deciding not according to the laws of the legislature but by the lights of what they deem to be right and just.It is not the opinion of some benevolent despots robed in black but the Constitution that must steer their decisions.This was a favorite topic of Thomas Jefferson, who said, among his many quotes on the subject, "It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
Yet time has seen this republic march progressively (yes, pun intended) toward just such a situation, and a major indicator of the ability of the judiciary to create law, in the same manner as Roe vs Wade, was seen yesterday in the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as a result of the decision handed down with United States vs Windsor.
First, I am fully in favor of the traditional definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, though not perhaps for the reasons that you would suspect – a subject for a later posting.But here I am writing about how the Supreme Court in the opinion of Justice Kennedy has abrogated to itself an excuse to step in to express a judgment in an area that was not the purpose of the case.
Justice Antonin Scalia
But let me defer, as I often like to do on this subject, to the always erudite and compelling reasoning of Justice Scalia writing, in addition to Chief Justice Roberts, in the dissent, and a particularly scathing one at that (starting at p35).
This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law.Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former.We have no power to decide this case.And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation.The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.
The Court is eager – hungry – to tell everyone of its view of the legal question at the heart of this case.Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges' intrusion into their lives.They gave judges, in Article III, only the "judicial Power," a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete "Cases" and "Controversies."Yet the plaintiff and the Government agree entirely on what should happen in this lawsuit.They agree that the court below got it right: and they agreed in the court below that the court below that one got it right as well.What, then, are we doing here? ...
Some might conclude that this loaf could have used a while longer in the oven. But that would be wrong; it is already overcooked. The most expert care in preparation cannot redeem a bad recipe. The sum of all the Court's nonspecific hand-waving is that this law is invalid (maybe on equal-protection grounds, maybe on substantive-due-process grounds, and perhaps with some amorphous federalism component playing a role) because it is motivated by a "'bare ... desire to harm'" couples in same-sex marriages. ...
To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is called the Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. ...
It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here – when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.
The great jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is credited with the original quote that "Great cases like hard cases make bad law."But let us not stop there; he continued, "For great cases are called great, not by reason of their importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment."His opinion can otherwise be summed up with the story of his departure one evening from the residence of a friend, with whom he had enjoyed a delightful dinner and engaging conversation.As his carriage pulled away from the entrance, his friend, seized by a feeling of enthusiasm perhaps fueled by the after-dinner brandy, called out to him to "Go forth and do great things!"Holmes stopped the carriage and leaned out to reply, "No.I go forth to follow the law."
Two members of the House Armed Services Committee have proposed an amendment to the upcoming National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which would require all the services within the Defense Department to produce standardized camouflage field uniforms by 2018.Representatives Bill Enyart and Tammy Duckworth (both D-Illinois) introduced the measure as an attempt to cut defense spending, particularly in light of the new RIF (Reduction In Force) and their hope to cut back slightly on the hemorrhage of some 100,000 Soldiers and Marines (and several thousand from the Air Force and Navy) as part of the Sequester. Both Enyart and Duckworth are veterans, with Enyart rising through alternate time in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Illinois Air National Guard to become the Illinois Adjutant Major General, and Duckworth is a former Army helicopter pilot who lost both legs in action.
Enyart is quoted as saying, "Congress needs to exercise its oversight to make sure we don't do silly things." Left unexplained is how Congress itself is going to correct the myriad silly things that it does.
Army, Navy, and Marine camouflage uniforms (MSG Hayes, USA)
The US armed forces have branched out into a veritable kaleidoscope of camouflage uniforms since the beginning of the Global War on Terror or whatever the current term du jour may be. (Or according to Obama, whether we are even at war at all. Tolkien said, "It takes but one to make war, not two, and those who do not take up swords can still die upon them." This is a sentiment not lost upon the tens of millions of jihadis still highly dedicated to the Cause.)
I spent some detail in one of my more popular posts about the development of American camouflage, but an update to the subject is deserved with this news, particularly in light of some of the unresearched suppositions floating about since the announcement.Refer to that article should you have any questions about this post, as well as some information contained in a post on foreign camouflage.
The Marines started the service-specific ball rolling soon after 9/11 with their introduction of MARPAT, a pixilated woodland and desert style based on the revolutionary Canadian CADPAT, and no, the Marines did not "steal" the design as has been noted elsewhere – they cooperated quite closely with the Canadians to develop the design.The Marines wanted a more effective camouflage and useful uniform design, which this certainly was, and didn't want to wait on the hidebound DoD bureaucracy to get around to doing it for them.After all, there was a war on.
A Marine DI (Desert MARPAT) makes a suggestion to a Recruit (Woodland) (BI)
It has also been written that the Marines incorporated small Eagle, Globe & Anchor logos every few feet apart in order to prevent the other services from using it (a trademark stamp, as it were).The Commandant responsible for the introduction of MARPAT, General James Jones, did allow that it benefited the Marines for the enemy to know who they were up against. The Marine Corps developed a well honed reputation over the last couple of centuries and General Jones sought to capitilize on that to the benefit of the mission and the Marines. But the main reason for the Marine trademark was to prevent confusion with counterfeited copies, for the uniform involved more than just the color design – it was the special inks, the high quality cloth that would accept the ink, the machines that could process both, and the infra-red shielding capability, among other concerns.(The current Commandant, General James Amos, has stated that he wants to retain a distinct Marine field or combat uniform.)
The Army at the time was in the process of developing its own design but the project was hijacked in an attempt to have a quick design that would compete with the Marines.While the design of the Army Combat Uniform (ACU) was an improvement (other than the poor quality of the cloth), the camouflage selected, the Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) has been a dismal failure.The Army admitted as much in 2009 after a barrage of complaints from the field and added prodding by Rep John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania), who was then the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee on Defense (and who was thereby an example of the Stopped Clock principle of occasionally doing something right).The Army had to admit that all the research it had performed on a better camouflage (resulting in a Desert Brush design) was scrapped for no apparent reason in favor of the UCP which had no field testing whatsoever.By the next year, the Army had introduced a variant with the wonkish title of Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern (OCP) for the continuing operations in Afghanistan.This is produced by Crye Precision and used some of the research of the Natick Labs, and is popularly known as MultiCam.The design was a finalist in the previous competition that was forestalled by the sudden selection of UCP.
Incandescently ineffective - UCP (NBC)
With the Army then branching off with UCP, if the other services did not want to pick up the support costs of the previous field uniform system, they needed to develop their own patterns.
The Air Force then jumped in with its Tiger-stripe variation that used the same poor choice of colors as the UCP, and called the Airman Battle Uniform (ABU).The only real purpose was as a feel-good measure for the Air Force in its quest to have its airman feel like warriors. (This is not simply an editorial comment; it has been the stated goal of the Air Force for several decades. See the article referenced above.) Wearing of the ABU in a combat zone is now forbidden in favor of a design that actually works. Unfortunately, for the sake of uniformity and cost savings, the Air Force began wearing the Army UCP, but has now fortunately switched to MultiCam.
The Navy then added to a further fragmentation with its introduction of the Navy Working Uniform (NWU), in a blue and grey pixilated pattern that did nothing to hide anyone, except in the unfortunate case of someone falling overboard.The real and woefully unexplained reason behind such a strange selection was that it is a work uniform – it says so right in the title – and the pattern was chosen for its ability to hide or adapt to oil and paint stains that are part of everyday shipboard life, thus extending the usefulness and wear of the uniform. Despite the coloration, the design has been rather popular and utilitarian (other than its loose fit tends to catch on the many metal protubrances found aboard ship), but a major criticism of the NWU is that it is the latest version of a shipboard uniform that is still not flame retardant. The Navy was committed to such a safety measure for shipboard use after the famous collision between the USS John F Kennedy and the USS Belknap in 1975.
All in the Navy
The Navy has land combatant elements though, which certainly include the SEALs and other supporting personnel.With the Marine pattern 'copyrighted', the Navy developed its own desert and woodland variations called Area of Responsibility (AOR) 1 and 2 that are very close to the Marine MARPAT patterns, begging the question as to why the differences.Why indeed – thus the move to come up with one system.There has been an effort to keep this effective field camouflage system as sort of a fraternity pin aspect for the SEALs alone, with supporting sailors wearing the older DCU, and the ostensible reason being the initially low numbers of the uniforms coming on line.
Master CPO of the Navy wearing AOR 2, addressing sailors underway
Thus, considering that some units hither and yon still wear the old BDU (Woodland) and DCU (Desert) uniforms, that adds up to ten different camouflage patterns in use at one time, all in varying degrees of effectiveness (or not): one for the Army, one for the Air Force, two for the Marines, three for the Navy, and one for the actual combat area of Afghanistan.
It is not envisioned that only one pattern will prevail – it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt even to Army bean counters that there is no such thing as a universal design pattern, a point made, incidentally, after the 'universal' chocolate-chip desert pattern, supposedly good for all deserts, was rapidly replaced by the coffee-stain pattern at the end of the First Gulf War, but often it takes learning the same lesson several times over for a bureaucrat to understand it.The new camouflage system will likely take into account at least the usual woodland and desert variations, as well as the rarely mentioned winter variations (they're out there, packed away in case we have to re-take the Aleutians again). In theory, this new system would have to accommodate itself to the four basic climes of jungle (liberal: rain forest), woodland, desert, and mountain/alpine, with gear and a load-bearing system that could work across that spectrum.
Personally, I feel that the occasional mention of urban camouflage is of very limited utility, not only as an effective camouflage but also considering the third world nature of the 'urban' environments we have seen lately.Not even police departments, which operate almost exclusively in large urban areas, have developed a common sense of what would constitute such a pattern.
Remember that the real money issue will not be the uniforms so much as it is the associated field gear, which has to stretch across the spectrum of camouflage patterns for reasons of budget and logistics.Switching uniforms near the tarmac for an early morning call to arms is a blink of an eye compared to trying to switch out your full kit.
Should the new plan be implemented, this will be the first time since the coffee-stain pattern prevailed that we will have a standard uniform in the field.(I found myself among the British for a few days during the First Gulf War.It took them a while – we were all very busy at the time – to understand that I wasn't in the Army, until they carefully read the tape above my left breast pocket.Other examples abound in my career.)Other than the mild embarrassment of etiquette in mistaking one's service affiliation on the battlefield, there is everything to be said for a standard uniform and pattern based on combat effectiveness as opposed to service pride or, worse yet, budget considerations.
During Viet Nam, we all had the same 'Battle Fatigues (or Utilities)', but the Marines had their Eagle, Globe & Anchor with bold USMC on the left pocket; the Army had their patches.The style of the uniforms was the least of our worries.
On the other hand, the Marines have certainly earned the
privilege of capitalizing on their professionally ruthless reputation with
their mission to "locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver."Focused as we have been
on psychological operations in this Global War, it behooves us to consider the
effect that it has on the enemy of knowing that they are about to try to engage
one of the most effective combat forces in history.Prior to World War II, Marines had the metal
insignia of the Corps affixed to their doughboy-style helmets, and during the
war in the Pacific they would occasionally have some distinguishing items such
as the 'leopard spot' camouflage.During
Korea, the Marines retained the puttees strapped to their boots from the
previous war, another item that made them stand out, resulting in the Chinese nom de guerre of 'yellow legs'.(Aside:
during my career I also served briefly with the Turks, who in the Korean War
had the Turkish Brigade alongside 7th Marines during the devastating and Anabasis-like Battle of Chosin Reservoir.I heard from my Marine
training and the camaraderie of the Turkish Naval Infantry of how the Turks would
do us the unbidden favor of patrolling our lines at night searching for Chinese
infiltrators, approaching our positions from the rear armed with knives.Marines in fighting holes were occasionally startled
to feel a hand around their collar searching for the American-unique dog tag
chain, or a hand brushing across their ankle seeking the puttees.)Despite standardization then, it is still a
benefit in some circumstances to have a distinguishing characteristic, and the Enyart-Duckworth
bill allows for exceptions for special operations, though here we would be hung
up on that definition as it applies to the Marine Corps.
Cost savings could easily be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars over time, except for the costs of switching over to an entirely new system throughout the entire DoD and the associated cost of disposing – somehow – of such a tremendous backlog of uniforms.What is worrisome is that the same attitude that brought us the lamentable combat uniforms we now have (other than the Marines) is that it will involve the same sort of people who brought us the problem in the first place.It would be like the old story of the Ladies Auxiliary whose annual treasurer's report had the bake sale losing $100, the quilting bee contest losing $200, and the book sale losing $250, with the conclusion that they would do the bake sale again since that was the most successful.
The Army was already in the process of choosing an official replacement for the UCP for use world-wide.The deadline has been set for 14 June (the Army birthday) and it is not yet known how and to what extent this amendment for all the armed forces (if it passes) will affect that process.
US soldier in MultiCam (OCP)
MultiCam has proven very popular in Afghanistan with the US forces and has been adopted by the British (called Multi-Terrain Pattern or MTP), Australians, New Zealanders, Danish, Dutch, and Poles (some in slight variations) for use there, as well.Some countries are picking it up for use by their special operations troops (e.g., Argentina, Czech Republic, Ukraine, Sweden) and others for their entire military, such as Chile and Georgia, as well as Pakistan (which could present a particular potential problem – just something to ponder, shall we say).Russia is also using it with one of its many special units, but then the Russians seem to be using all variations of camouflage known to man simultaneously, spread throughout their wide variety of such special units.
British Royal Marine in MultiCam (MTP)
MultiCam has been successful in Afghanistan, and its design renders it useful in a wider number of areas than other types heretofore fielded, I strongly suspect, yet it is still not the universal answer.Considering its growing popularity with a number of countries, its usefulness would be attenuated by the confusion of the same pattern spread among potential adversaries.Thus while MultiCam would be a leading contender for a standard US field uniform, it is probably not a shoo-in or even a likely competitor.Add to that the fact that it uses seven colors, and now it falls into the "too expensive" category that budgeteers will be screaming about. After the substantial Army UCP embarrassment that took a Congressional inquiry to uncover, there could very well be an effort made to get it right this time, but we are still subject to all the current federal procurement and contracting nonsense that will likely include an environmentally sensitive approach, and the example of contractors naming their wives as CEOs and other Elizabeth Warren 'Fauxcahontas' set-aside angles.
While this sounds like a good idea, the Devil is always lurking in the details and it stands a chance of being as screwed up as anything that Robert McNamara could imagine.
***** Update: While we're on the subject of field uniforms, here is a change that is certainly for the better.
I posted this near the beginning of my web log experience, and this basic re-print is just as germane today.
Scott Johnson at Power Line commemorates this 69th anniversary of D-Day at Normandy, the largest amphibious attack in history by far, and has resurrected two great articles.The first, ‘Too Much, Too Late’, is by Professor David Gelertner of Yale, originally published in the Wall Street Journal in 2004.Prof Gelertner takes on the phrase ‘the greatest generation’ by the sanctimonious pandering of the “cultural establishment ... especially intense among members of the 1960s generation who once chose to treat all present and former veterans like dirt.”He continues by saying that if we cared about the topic of World War II, our children should be taught at least four topics:
The major battles of the war – When I was a child in the 1960s, names like Corregidor and Iwo Jima were still sacred, and pronounced everywhere with respect. ... Today the Battle of Midway has become niche-market nostalgia material, and most children (and many adults) have never heard of it. Thus we honor "the greatest generation."
The bestiality of the Japanese – If we forget this we dishonor the thousands who were tortured and murdered, and put ourselves in danger of believing the soul-corroding lie that all cultures are equally bad or good. Some Americans nowadays seem to think America's behavior during the war was worse than Japan's – we did intern many loyal Americans of Japanese descent. That was unforgivable – and unspeakably trivial compared to Japan's unique achievement, mass murder one atrocity at a time. ... In the Japanese-occupied Philippines alone, at least 131,028 civilians and Allied prisoners of war were murdered. The Japanese committed crimes against Allied POWs and Asians that would be hard still, today, for a respectable newspaper even to describe....
The attitude of American intellectuals – such as “Our entry into the war, under the slogan of 'Stop Hitler!' would actually result in the immediate introduction of totalitarianism over here. ... The American masses can best help [the German people] by fighting at home to keep their own liberties." ... Why rake up these Profiles in Disgrace? Because in the Iraq War era they have a painfully familiar ring.
The veterans’ neglected voice – World War II produced an extraordinary literature of first-person soldier narratives – most of them out of print or unknown. ... The Library of America includes two volumes on "Reporting World War II," but where are the soldiers' memoirs versus the reporters'?
Next is ‘First Wave at Omaha Beach’ by S L A Marshall, one of the best-known (and official) historians of World War II and Korea, published in The Atlantic in November 1960.He begins by explaining how “the passing of the years and the retelling of the story have softened the horror of Omaha Beach on D Day.”This has occurred, in his opinion, by the fact that the initial reports from which the standard account had been built were based on the immediate statements of the survivors. But Marshall returned to the enormous amount of detail accumulated during the field research afterward in order to make some sort of sense of the overall magnitude of the assault (though he modestly neglects to mention that he was in charge of that research and that it began with the landing of his team while the battle was still being fought).
He draws you into the story by building on the fact that Omaha Beach (one of five assault beaches, in addition to the paratroop landing zones inland) covered a two-division front landing (enormous, to the uninitiated) but only six rifle companies were relatively effective as units during the initial assault, since the others (some three times that number) had been "shattered and foundered before they could start to fight."He goes on to explain, from his faded notes, what can best be discerned about the fate of the first wave of the assault comprising Able and Baker Companies, 116th Infantry, 29th Division.
Normally, I would say ‘read the whole thing’. Rather, I implore you to read it all, and I wish that if any one article on the topic could be thrust upon our atrophied and effete public education system, it should be this. Trying to excerpt some lines or paragraphs to give one the gist of the assault would be woefully inadequate.
These articles should not be lost, and my thanks go to Scott Johnson for providing them.
W H Auden’s ‘Epitaph for an Unknown Soldier’ sums it all up succinctly:
To save your world you asked this man to die: Would this man, could he see you now, ask “Why?”
The Onion has been a satirical 'news' service since about the late 1980s, and in the true sense of satire it has provided some truly trenchant wit and irony in examining the vice and folly of political life in America.With the steadily mounting number and severity of scandals of the current administration, and the American public increasingly annoyed with pundits who will stare directly in the camera and challenge our intelligence and credulity, The Onion now ponders the response of the Press and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) in the hypothetical case of Obama murdering a local couple, in "Media Having Trouble Finding Right Angle On Obama's Double-Homicide", all delivered in the style of the reportage of the two Chechnyan jihadis in our midst who bombed the Boston Marathon.
(Faithful readers will know that I have a penchant for gallows humor, and this effort sates my appetite at least for the afternoon.)
I am sure that agents of the Secret Service, the FBI, and the IRS are already looking into the story with such tangy examples as:
WASHINGTON – More than a week after President Barack Obama's cold-blooded killing of a local couple, members of the American news media admitted Tuesday that they were still trying to find the best angle for covering the gruesome crime.
"I know there's a story in there somewhere," said Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, referring to Obama's home invasion and execution-style slaying of Jeff and Sue Finowicz on Apr. 8."Right now though, it's probably best to just sit back and wait for more information to come in.After all, the only thing we know for sure is that our president senselessly murdered two unsuspecting Americans without emotion or hesitation."Added Meacham, "It's not so cut and dried." …
"What exactly is the news hook here?" asked Rick Kaplan, executive producer of the CBS Evening News."Is this an upbeat human-interest story about a 'day in the life' of a bloodthirsty president who likes to kill people?Or is it more of an examination of how Obama's unusual upbringing in Hawaii helped to shape the way he would one day viciously butcher two helpless citizens in their own home?" …
"There's been some debate around the office about whether we should report on this at all," Washington Post senior reporter Bill Tracy said while on assignment at a local dog show."It's enough of a tragedy without the press jumping in and pointing fingers or, worse, exploiting the violence." …
The article is accompanied by a photograph of a typical press bull pen (are we still allowed to use that term?) with the caption:
Associated Press reporters investigate any possible gym training regimens the president might have used to get into peak physical condition for the murders.
Heh.
Of course, be sure the read the whole thing, by all means.
***** Update: This is satire, of course, but then how do you explain the actual quote in the same vein from Charles Pierce of the Boston Globe in 2004: "If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old age."
