Readers Digest used to have a monthly feature entitled “My Most Unforgettable Character.” I have many in my life, but there is one who I met for less than an hour and whose name I never learned, only his wartime Navy nickname: “Ski.”
It was in the late summer of 1979. I was stationed in Chicago while attending law school on the Excess Leave Program. My wife was hosting a Sunday afternoon wedding or baby shower and I was tasked with getting the boys, then aged 8 and 6, out of the house. In that morning’s paper, I had seen a blurb announcing that USS Silversides, a WWII submarine undergoing renovation as a memorial, was holding tours at 3:00 pm each Sunday. The boys and I headed for Navy Pier.
To understand the rest of this story, it is necessary to learn just a little about USS Silversides. (Historical Note: Submarines are traditionally referred to as “boats” rather than “ships”.)
USS Silversides (SS-236) is a Gato-class boat, named for the silversides, a small fish marked with a silvery stripe along each side of its body. She was launched on 26 August 1941 and commissioned on 15 December 1941, eight days after the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor. Silversides made 14 war patrols in the Pacific, received twelve battle stars for World War II service, and was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation. She is credited with sinking 23 ships, the third-most of any allied World War II submarine, behind only the USS Tang and USS Tautog. The tonnage of the ships sunk by Silversides amounted to 90,080 tons, second only to the Tang's total. Judged by such standards, Silversides has the most prolific combat record of any still-extant American submarine.
[Historical Note: Tang’s records are truly amazing when one considers that she made only five war patrols before she was lost. USS Tang (SS-306), a Balao-class boat was built and launched in 1943 and was sunk by one of her own torpedos on her fifth war patrol, after only 10 months of service. Nonetheless, Tang sank 31 ships displacing 227,800 tons, a record unequaled by any American submarine before or since. Her commanding officer, LCdr Richard H. O'Kane, USN, received the Medal of Honor for her last two engagements (October 23, 1944 and October 24, 1944). Commander O’Kane had learned his trade in Wahoo as XO under the legendary Mush Morton.
USS Tautog (SS-199), a Tambor-class boat, was credited with sinking 26 Japanese ships, for a total of 72,606 tons.]
Silversides was a lucky boat. She lost only one of her sailors during the war. On 10 May 1942, just after 0800, she engaged a Japanese gunboat in a 75 minute surface action. Firing her 3 inch deck gun, she heavily damaged the enemy vessel. During this action, one of her deck gunners, Torpedoman’s Mate 3 Mike Harbin, was killed in action by enemy machine gun fire. The only man lost in action aboard Silversides during World War II, Petty Officer Harbin was buried at sea later that evening.
On 17 December 1942, Silversides departed Brisbane, Australia on her fourth war patrol. On the night of Christmas Eve, the submarine's pharmacist's mate, PhM1 Thomas Moore, informed the Captain that Fireman Second Class George Platter was suffering from appendicitis. There was no way to get Petty Officer Platter to a medical facility. As the only medically trained member of the crew (submarines did not rate having a ship’s surgeon), “Doc” Platter performed a successful emergency appendectomy on FM2 Platter using the wardroom table as an operating table, ether as anesthesia and a tea strainer as the mask, and rudimentary “surgical instruments” primarily fashioned by the ships motor machinists mates from galley utensils. The operation was over early on Christmas morning, and FM2 Platter was standing watches within 6 days.
After the war, Silversides was decommissioned and placed in reserve as a training ship for naval reservists at Chicago, Illinois. On 30 June 1969 her name was struck from the Naval Vessel Register.
The City of Chicago acquired the boat with the intention of using her as a war memorial. On 24 May 1973, Silversides became a part of the Combined Great Lakes Navy Association in Chicago and was moored behind Chicago's Naval Armory. She was moved to Navy Pier in 1979. [She is now permanently berthed at Muskegon, Michigan.]
Now, at the time the boys and I visited, she had just moved to Navy Pier where she was tended by a small crew of dedicated volunteers. Several of the active duty sailors assigned to Naval Reserve Center, Chicago to train the reservists were actually living aboard the boat.
We walked out along the pier and joined the other 12 or so people who had mustered on the forward deck at the forward torpedo loading hatch. Two active duty (but on liberty) sailors were guiding the tour. A coffee can was passed for donations and the tour was about to begin when we heard a shout from the pier.
“Ahoy, the boat. Hold the tour.” Two couples were walking down the pier. They were in their 60s, the men wearing aloha shirts and khakis and the ladies in sun dresses. They hurried up the brow and joined the tour.
A flight of wooden stairs had been built to allow people to enter the boat through the forward torpedo room. I held the boys back to keep them from being stepped on. We were right behind the foursome.
As the guide explained the layout of the torpedo room (“ten 21-inch torpedo tubes--six forward, four aft--with a wartime load of 24 torpedoes…”), and the berthing arrangement of the torpedo room in which bunks were literally atop the spare torpedoes, one of the men whispered to his friend, “that was my buddy, Tex’s bunk” pointing to one of the bunks and shaking his head. “He was transferred to Harder and is still on patrol.”
Oh, wow, I thought. This is something to remember. I decided to stick close to the two men.
As the tour continued and we moved aft through officer’s country, beneath which was the forward battery room, the “old guy” continued to regale his friend with his stories of the daily life of a submariner. We looked into the wardroom (the officers dining room which is just a bit larger than a large booth in a modern restaurant), we heard of the famous appendectomy. We next moved into the control room, beneath the conning tower, the warfighting center of the boat. From here on her tenth war patrol, she sank 6 enemy ships. And then it happened…..
The old guy pointed aft to what appeared to be a telephone booth. “That was my battle station, the radio room.” Oh, yeah, he’s a Silversides sailor! Then, pointing to a large fitting in the overhead, he said “That’s where this happened.” He held up his right hand to show the ring and little fingers were missing above the large knuckle.
“What happened,” his buddy asked?
“Oh, we were diving and that valve opened. I went to close it and caught my fingers in it. I got it closed, but . . . Anyway, they took me to sickbay, that bunk right there (pointing to a single bunk), and Doc bandaged me up. Then the skipper,Cap’n Coye, he came back and said ‘Well done, Ski, you saved my boat.’ Can you imagine that? The skipper himself said that to me.”
Well, yeah, I can, Ski. I mean, you saved his boat.
The tour moved aft, through the crew’s quarters, the galley, the engine rooms and maneuvering room to the after torpedo room. The guides gave a summing up, listing Silversides’ many accomplishments, and directing folks to the wooden stairs that led topside through the after torpedo loading hatch. Once again, I held the boys back to avoid the rush.
The two old guys had stepped away and I was behind their wives. One woman sighed impatiently. “Gawd. I need a cigarette. How long have we been down here?”
“About 45 minutes,” I offered.
“How long were they down here,” the other woman asked?
“Sixty to seventy-five days,” I replied.
“Gawd,” the first woman repeated.
“Excuse me ladies, but is one of you married to ‘Ski’? Did he serve in Silversides?”
“Oh, that’s my husband,” the first woman answered. “These are our friends who have been visiting us from Iowa. We live in Centralia and this morning my husband just up and said ‘we ought to take them up and show them the boat.’ The boat, the boat, the boat. That’s all he ever talks about. The boat, the boat, the boat.”
Well, sure he does. I mean, damn! He saved the boat!
The crowd had gone and she and her friend started topside, followed by the Iowan husband. I started the boys up.
As I looked back, there was Ski, all by himself, leaning on one of the after torpedo tubes. He was looking forward the length of the boat through the open watertight doors. There were tears on his cheeks and I knew that he was seeing things we could only—imperfectly—imagine.
And for a minute, he looked 20. I’ll never forget him.
20 April 2011
19 April 2011
IT’S TIME FOR THE “BIRTHERS” TO GO HOME
I don’t know if the President was born within the United States or its territories or not. I also don’t care. Has anyone suggested that his mother was not a US citizen at the time of his birth? Every year countless US citizens are born abroad, the children of US citizens who happen to be outside the United States. My eldest son is one such child, born in the Republic of the Philippines while I was stationed there in the Marine Corps. Is he constitutionally eligible to be President. Under the principle of jus sanguinis, there is no doubt! Likewise Barack Obama.
So, instead of wasting a lot of time on an hysterically irrelevant argument over the geography of the President’s birth, go after him for his policies. Lord knows, there is plenty of ammunition for that fight.
But the birthers have had their 15 minutes of fame. It is time for them to go home.
So, instead of wasting a lot of time on an hysterically irrelevant argument over the geography of the President’s birth, go after him for his policies. Lord knows, there is plenty of ammunition for that fight.
But the birthers have had their 15 minutes of fame. It is time for them to go home.
13 April 2011
SORRY MR. PRESIDENT. IT JUST WON’T DO.
For anyone listening to the President’s budget speech today, there must have been at least one “huh?” moment. Mine was when he said “We must live within our means.” His idea of “living within ones means” differs from the rest of us, because his prescription for doing so would, if we tried it, land us in jail.
If I say to my family, “Listen, we have to learn to live within our means,” it means that we have to reduce spending. Period. But in the President’s world, it means that we can keep on spending and just take the money we need from others.
He wants more taxes. In his world, his decision to agree that taxes on income above $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples) would not be increased is a “tax cut”. He says that he had to make that agreement so that taxes on income under that level would not increase. So what is a tax increase for some people becomes a tax cut for others. Only in the delusional world of Democratic party politics does that make sense.
But to return to my dilemma. When I say to my family that we must live within our means, I do not have the option of saying “But don’t worry, we can keep on spending. I’ll just stick up Mr. Warbucks for the rest.” The President can take your money and mine and spend it on his desires, even if they are not our desires.
Be honest and say that, Mr. President. Don’t try to con us with false analogies.
If I say to my family, “Listen, we have to learn to live within our means,” it means that we have to reduce spending. Period. But in the President’s world, it means that we can keep on spending and just take the money we need from others.
He wants more taxes. In his world, his decision to agree that taxes on income above $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples) would not be increased is a “tax cut”. He says that he had to make that agreement so that taxes on income under that level would not increase. So what is a tax increase for some people becomes a tax cut for others. Only in the delusional world of Democratic party politics does that make sense.
But to return to my dilemma. When I say to my family that we must live within our means, I do not have the option of saying “But don’t worry, we can keep on spending. I’ll just stick up Mr. Warbucks for the rest.” The President can take your money and mine and spend it on his desires, even if they are not our desires.
Be honest and say that, Mr. President. Don’t try to con us with false analogies.
08 April 2011
WHININ' HARRY REID
I don’t know about you, but I have had it up to here with “Whinin” Harry Reid.
In January 2009, Reid and his kindred spirit in the House, Nancy Pelosi, were heard repeatedly telling us that “elections have consequences. Promising a transparent legislature, they shepherded two massive bills through the Congress that most members admitted they had never read. When the American people let it be known that they did not care for Obamacare, Whinin' Harry and his side kick responded that the people had elected a Democratic Party majority in both houses and “elections have consequences.” The bills were rammed through.
Of course, what their majorities did not do was to carry out the people’s business. So fixated were they on health care “reform” and financial “reform”, they failed to adopt a budget for 2011. Deeming it too politically dangerous, they opted for continuing resolutions, even after FY11 kicked in. And then came November…
The Republican majority in the House took up its responsibility to adopt a budget for 2011. Whinin' Harry and Nancy and their ilk do not like that budget. The folks who completely ignored the minority during the health care circus now demand that they keep control. Reid saw his majority cut from 59 to 52, and Pelosi was dumped onto the ash heap of history.
So, what’s a congress to do?
Whine and moan, apparently. And it is that sanctimonious whining that makes me sick. All of a sudden, legislative riders are not acceptable. (Now, for the record, I wish the Framers of 1787 had adopted the provision that was later incorporated in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America: “Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” Const, Art I, sec 20. I.e., no riders. But they didn’t, and Harry and Nancy made good use of them.)
“We’re happy to debate these, but on a legislative vehicle, not a spending vehicle,” Reid said Thursday.
But in 2009, Whinin' Harry and Nancy plastered many such “legislative” riders onto a government-funding bill similar to the one now being negotiated. Apropos the current standoff, the Democrats gave money and power to Planned Parenthood and other family-planning clinics. In fact, they did it twice, starting with a rider to an emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, clearly expressing their concern with women’s health. In the same funding bill, they relaxed restrictions on travel to Cuba, implemented taxpayer-funded health benefits for the same-sex partners of federal employees, blocked the expenditure of funds for the development of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site in—drum roll, please—Nevada, and repealed a school-voucher program in the District of Columbia.
So, its OK for Whinin' Harry to use riders on a budget bill when it is his rider!
Sorry, Harry, but elections have consequences. Live with it and get to work for the people.
In January 2009, Reid and his kindred spirit in the House, Nancy Pelosi, were heard repeatedly telling us that “elections have consequences. Promising a transparent legislature, they shepherded two massive bills through the Congress that most members admitted they had never read. When the American people let it be known that they did not care for Obamacare, Whinin' Harry and his side kick responded that the people had elected a Democratic Party majority in both houses and “elections have consequences.” The bills were rammed through.
Of course, what their majorities did not do was to carry out the people’s business. So fixated were they on health care “reform” and financial “reform”, they failed to adopt a budget for 2011. Deeming it too politically dangerous, they opted for continuing resolutions, even after FY11 kicked in. And then came November…
The Republican majority in the House took up its responsibility to adopt a budget for 2011. Whinin' Harry and Nancy and their ilk do not like that budget. The folks who completely ignored the minority during the health care circus now demand that they keep control. Reid saw his majority cut from 59 to 52, and Pelosi was dumped onto the ash heap of history.
So, what’s a congress to do?
Whine and moan, apparently. And it is that sanctimonious whining that makes me sick. All of a sudden, legislative riders are not acceptable. (Now, for the record, I wish the Framers of 1787 had adopted the provision that was later incorporated in the Constitution of the Confederate States of America: “Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.” Const, Art I, sec 20. I.e., no riders. But they didn’t, and Harry and Nancy made good use of them.)
“We’re happy to debate these, but on a legislative vehicle, not a spending vehicle,” Reid said Thursday.
But in 2009, Whinin' Harry and Nancy plastered many such “legislative” riders onto a government-funding bill similar to the one now being negotiated. Apropos the current standoff, the Democrats gave money and power to Planned Parenthood and other family-planning clinics. In fact, they did it twice, starting with a rider to an emergency supplemental spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, clearly expressing their concern with women’s health. In the same funding bill, they relaxed restrictions on travel to Cuba, implemented taxpayer-funded health benefits for the same-sex partners of federal employees, blocked the expenditure of funds for the development of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site in—drum roll, please—Nevada, and repealed a school-voucher program in the District of Columbia.
So, its OK for Whinin' Harry to use riders on a budget bill when it is his rider!
Sorry, Harry, but elections have consequences. Live with it and get to work for the people.
06 April 2011
FOLLY ON THE POTOMAC
I listened yesterday as the President intentionally misled the press and to the American people. To protect his base, he criticized the Republican majority in the House for “wasting time” on the 2011 budget when FY 11 was already half over.
He has no one to blame but himself and his party. By law, proposed FY 2011 were supposed to be offered up by the House, the Senate and the White House by April 2010, a year ago, a time when the Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. None of the three offered up a proposal.
As most people know, the Democrats failed to do so because they were still fixated on passing Obamacare and they knew that any budget they offered would be so politically poisonous that they tried to put it off until after the November elections. Instead, Pelosi, Reed and Obama punted.
Well, Paul Ryan has offered up a 2012 budget for the House and the President says it will be heartily debated. Good. That is also what was supposed to happen last year, but for reasons of political expediency, it did not. To hear Democrats criticize the House majority for simply trying to do what their own party failed to do last year is distressing.
It is time for the President to man up and tell the whole truth.
He has no one to blame but himself and his party. By law, proposed FY 2011 were supposed to be offered up by the House, the Senate and the White House by April 2010, a year ago, a time when the Democratic party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. None of the three offered up a proposal.
As most people know, the Democrats failed to do so because they were still fixated on passing Obamacare and they knew that any budget they offered would be so politically poisonous that they tried to put it off until after the November elections. Instead, Pelosi, Reed and Obama punted.
Well, Paul Ryan has offered up a 2012 budget for the House and the President says it will be heartily debated. Good. That is also what was supposed to happen last year, but for reasons of political expediency, it did not. To hear Democrats criticize the House majority for simply trying to do what their own party failed to do last year is distressing.
It is time for the President to man up and tell the whole truth.
25 February 2011
THE SLEEPER AWAKES
I feel a little like Rip Van Winkle. Last Fall, after I recuperated from shoulder surgery, I planned to get back into blogging on a regular basis.
“Hah,” said Fate.
My Dell laptop developed an ultimately fatal disease. The battery died, Ava ate the recharger, and then the elf-thingy in the computer refused to allow any strange power cords to power up the machine. (Unlike those computer geeky people who talk about those apocryphal bits ‘n bytes ‘n mother boards ‘n such, I actually know what makes computers work. It’s black magic and the elfs put the magic in exactly the wrong place at the right time!)
At any rate, I just couldn’t get motivated to get a new laptop. Like many depressed people, I get a little down during the holidays and the dark days of winter. When “Jingle Bells” or Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” inevitably takes you back to An Hoa on Christmas Eve, 1968, the slump gets a little lower.
But I am finally getting back in battery. I went HP this time, and I’m happy so far. It has survived one road trip to Tampa last week where I spoiled the grandkids while Molson (now a Lieutenant Colonel, USAF) made a short jaunt to the sand box.
Next Tuesday, my computer and I set off for Phoenix, via St. Louis, for a special time with my sister and brother in law. More about that in a week or so.
Many thanks to the folks who have expressed their concerns and offered their prayers. The road back is longer and steeper than I had imagined, but I’m on my way.
“Hah,” said Fate.
My Dell laptop developed an ultimately fatal disease. The battery died, Ava ate the recharger, and then the elf-thingy in the computer refused to allow any strange power cords to power up the machine. (Unlike those computer geeky people who talk about those apocryphal bits ‘n bytes ‘n mother boards ‘n such, I actually know what makes computers work. It’s black magic and the elfs put the magic in exactly the wrong place at the right time!)
At any rate, I just couldn’t get motivated to get a new laptop. Like many depressed people, I get a little down during the holidays and the dark days of winter. When “Jingle Bells” or Bing Crosby’s “White Christmas” inevitably takes you back to An Hoa on Christmas Eve, 1968, the slump gets a little lower.
But I am finally getting back in battery. I went HP this time, and I’m happy so far. It has survived one road trip to Tampa last week where I spoiled the grandkids while Molson (now a Lieutenant Colonel, USAF) made a short jaunt to the sand box.
Next Tuesday, my computer and I set off for Phoenix, via St. Louis, for a special time with my sister and brother in law. More about that in a week or so.
Many thanks to the folks who have expressed their concerns and offered their prayers. The road back is longer and steeper than I had imagined, but I’m on my way.
08 October 2010
LIES, DAMNED LIES, AND STATISTICS
The apocryphal statement that there are three types of falsehood—lies, damned lies, and statistics—may once again be proved in today's Department of Labor report on employment figures for September. DOL says that employment “edged down” with a loss of 95,000 non-farm jobs, but the percentage remained unchanged at 9.6%. The White House desperately wants some positive number to use in the run up to the November elections, and any molding of the numbers that can help get the desired result will be warmly received.
Since last Spring, the numbers have been inflated by the addition of hundreds of thousands of temporary census workers. As many of those as possible were kept on the rolls for as long as possible. For the first time I can remember, I had visits from multiple census workers, each asking me to confirm the exact information I had mailed in April. I’m glad these folks had “jobs,” but I wish they had been producing something more than favorable numbers for the Democratic Party to use in their press releases. The last of those jobs ended in September.
But there are still ways to cook the books. In New York, folks who were “employed” for two days—as poll workers in the primary elections—are now being counted as employed in September.
“How,” you ask?
In September, the New York City Board of Elections refused to hire any poll workers—previously deemed to be independent contractors—until they filled out IRS forms that would then make them reportable as “employed.” Tens of thousands of poll workers were then in place to be counted by DOL which collects its numbers during the week in which the election was conducted.
But, as the Gallup organization reported, “. . . monitoring of job market conditions suggests that there was a sharp increase in the unemployment rate during the last couple of weeks of September.” Read the full report here. Gallup reports that the true unemployment figure for September is probably closer to 10.1%, rather than the 9.6% reported by the DOL today.
The October numbers will not be reported until after the November 2 mid-term elections. I expect that Robert Gibbs will trumpet this report as just another sign that the President’s “plan” is working. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, indeed.
Since last Spring, the numbers have been inflated by the addition of hundreds of thousands of temporary census workers. As many of those as possible were kept on the rolls for as long as possible. For the first time I can remember, I had visits from multiple census workers, each asking me to confirm the exact information I had mailed in April. I’m glad these folks had “jobs,” but I wish they had been producing something more than favorable numbers for the Democratic Party to use in their press releases. The last of those jobs ended in September.
But there are still ways to cook the books. In New York, folks who were “employed” for two days—as poll workers in the primary elections—are now being counted as employed in September.
“How,” you ask?
In September, the New York City Board of Elections refused to hire any poll workers—previously deemed to be independent contractors—until they filled out IRS forms that would then make them reportable as “employed.” Tens of thousands of poll workers were then in place to be counted by DOL which collects its numbers during the week in which the election was conducted.
But, as the Gallup organization reported, “. . . monitoring of job market conditions suggests that there was a sharp increase in the unemployment rate during the last couple of weeks of September.” Read the full report here. Gallup reports that the true unemployment figure for September is probably closer to 10.1%, rather than the 9.6% reported by the DOL today.
The October numbers will not be reported until after the November 2 mid-term elections. I expect that Robert Gibbs will trumpet this report as just another sign that the President’s “plan” is working. Lies, damned lies, and statistics, indeed.
20 September 2010
I'LL BE OFF THE NET. . .
. . . but just while I recuperate from shoulder surgery. See you on the back sided.
14 September 2010
FLAG BURNERS BEWARE!
Since at least the mid-1960’s, the liberal left has taken for granted that certain acts, e.g., burning an American flag, during a protest are “protected speech” under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
In the past few weeks, however, the loony left has gone berserk over the possibility that a pastor in Florida might burn a Koran. To do something so disrespectful of a another culture runs contrary to their views of diversity and apparently cannot have First Amendment ramifications. The President, the Secretaries of Defense and State, and General David Petraeus, Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), either spoke to or otherwise directed comments to this lone citizen, asserting in language that is eerily reminiscent of the Espionage Act of 1917, that he was endangering US troops. The pastor was even allowed to have coffee with a bunch of FBI agents who dropped in at the behest of the Attorney General.
Ever since now-Vice President Biden took to task Judge Robert Bork for his scholarly writing, asserting that his comments in such writings disqualified him for confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Supreme, candidates for the Court have asserted a “principle” that candidates and serving Justices ought not comment on cases that might come before the Court. They routinely do so in order to avoid being “borked” by the Senate.
In a recent interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, appears to have departed from that principle. Breyer, a Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court, said that it is likely that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect persons from being arrested and tried for burning the Koran. In so doing, he misquotes one of the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
Schenck was the Secretary of the Socialist Party during World War I. A “war protester”, he had printed and then distributed or mailed 15,000 leaflets to men eligible for the draft. The leaflets advocated opposition to the draft. They suggested that the draft was identical to slavery, outlawed by the 13th Amendment, and contained statements such as: "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights", "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain." 249 U. S. at 51.
Schenck was tried under the Espionage Act of 1917 which prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America's enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment. He was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison.
On appeal, Schenck asserted, inter alia, that his actions were protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a Civil War veteran, wrote that “when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." 249 US at 52.
Because Schenck was later watered down in a series of cases, including Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)(government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action), it is primarily remembered for the quote that Breyer botched.
Justice Holmes wrote that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." 249 US at 52 (emphasis added). The resulting test announced by the Court was stated thusly: “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.” Id. (emphasis added).
So Breyer—and this is surprising for a man of his judicial experience and intellect—left out an important word. If the theater is, in fact, burning, it is quite permissible to shout “fire.”
In the interview, Breyer suggested that any “speech”, which now apparently includes burning some books or flags or ROTC buildings, can be suppressed if it would upset people in other parts of the world. (Stephanopolous posed his question on the ability of modern media to instantaneously spread around the globe the happenings in a kooky little congregation in Florida.)
So, protesters beware. It looks as if Breyer, for one, would return to Schenck and might allow prosecutions under the Espionage Act of 1917 for acts that would impede military operations or give support to America’s enemies during wartime (something that the President who appointed him had fun doing while your reporter was getting shot at on a daily basis). At least one man in the current government recognizes that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars!
Justice Breyer, can you spell "recusal"?
In the past few weeks, however, the loony left has gone berserk over the possibility that a pastor in Florida might burn a Koran. To do something so disrespectful of a another culture runs contrary to their views of diversity and apparently cannot have First Amendment ramifications. The President, the Secretaries of Defense and State, and General David Petraeus, Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), either spoke to or otherwise directed comments to this lone citizen, asserting in language that is eerily reminiscent of the Espionage Act of 1917, that he was endangering US troops. The pastor was even allowed to have coffee with a bunch of FBI agents who dropped in at the behest of the Attorney General.
Ever since now-Vice President Biden took to task Judge Robert Bork for his scholarly writing, asserting that his comments in such writings disqualified him for confirmation as an Associate Justice of the Supreme, candidates for the Court have asserted a “principle” that candidates and serving Justices ought not comment on cases that might come before the Court. They routinely do so in order to avoid being “borked” by the Senate.
In a recent interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, appears to have departed from that principle. Breyer, a Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court, said that it is likely that the First Amendment to the Constitution does not protect persons from being arrested and tried for burning the Koran. In so doing, he misquotes one of the landmark decisions of the Supreme Court, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
Schenck was the Secretary of the Socialist Party during World War I. A “war protester”, he had printed and then distributed or mailed 15,000 leaflets to men eligible for the draft. The leaflets advocated opposition to the draft. They suggested that the draft was identical to slavery, outlawed by the 13th Amendment, and contained statements such as: "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights", "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain." 249 U. S. at 51.
Schenck was tried under the Espionage Act of 1917 which prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America's enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment. He was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison.
On appeal, Schenck asserted, inter alia, that his actions were protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a Civil War veteran, wrote that “when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." 249 US at 52.
Because Schenck was later watered down in a series of cases, including Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)(government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action), it is primarily remembered for the quote that Breyer botched.
Justice Holmes wrote that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." 249 US at 52 (emphasis added). The resulting test announced by the Court was stated thusly: “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.” Id. (emphasis added).
So Breyer—and this is surprising for a man of his judicial experience and intellect—left out an important word. If the theater is, in fact, burning, it is quite permissible to shout “fire.”
In the interview, Breyer suggested that any “speech”, which now apparently includes burning some books or flags or ROTC buildings, can be suppressed if it would upset people in other parts of the world. (Stephanopolous posed his question on the ability of modern media to instantaneously spread around the globe the happenings in a kooky little congregation in Florida.)
So, protesters beware. It looks as if Breyer, for one, would return to Schenck and might allow prosecutions under the Espionage Act of 1917 for acts that would impede military operations or give support to America’s enemies during wartime (something that the President who appointed him had fun doing while your reporter was getting shot at on a daily basis). At least one man in the current government recognizes that Iraq and Afghanistan are wars!
Justice Breyer, can you spell "recusal"?
11 September 2010
LEST WE FORGET
Today marks the ninth anniversary of the attack on America by radical Islam. Not all Muslims, mind you, but the attack was conceived, planned, executed and celebrated by huge numbers of Muslims around the world.
Now I don’t hold with burning books, whether they be Christian Bibles burned by Hamas (an Islamic theocracy)or by the American government. Likewise, I don’t agree with burning works of philosophy such as the Koran, Mao's Little Red Book, or Mein Kampf. They may be of great interest to historians, students of comparative theology, and political scientists, and should be preserved for study. Just because I don’t think a book has any application to my life does not require me to seek its destruction. The destruction of the written word is dangerous, because it is the first tumble down a slippery slope.
So the morons in Kansas and Florida who have decided that a book burning is really good way to spend a Saturday, should be ignored, not raised to international stature. But the useful idiots who loudly attempt to separate Islam from the attack should be equally ignored.
There is an entire stream of Islam, not just a few isolated, theologically ignorant dopes, that intends to do us in and impose their theocracy upon us. Anyone who thinks differently is living in Fantasy Land.
Now I don’t hold with burning books, whether they be Christian Bibles burned by Hamas (an Islamic theocracy)or by the American government. Likewise, I don’t agree with burning works of philosophy such as the Koran, Mao's Little Red Book, or Mein Kampf. They may be of great interest to historians, students of comparative theology, and political scientists, and should be preserved for study. Just because I don’t think a book has any application to my life does not require me to seek its destruction. The destruction of the written word is dangerous, because it is the first tumble down a slippery slope.
So the morons in Kansas and Florida who have decided that a book burning is really good way to spend a Saturday, should be ignored, not raised to international stature. But the useful idiots who loudly attempt to separate Islam from the attack should be equally ignored.
There is an entire stream of Islam, not just a few isolated, theologically ignorant dopes, that intends to do us in and impose their theocracy upon us. Anyone who thinks differently is living in Fantasy Land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)