There’s something profoundly tragic about the failed presidency of Barack Obama. He was supposed to be a new kind of president, a man who embodied hope and would transcend petty politics and even race. Instead, we’re left with a downgraded America that is stagnating under the weight of its bloated government. As tragic as that alone is, even this is but a mere symptom of Mr. Obama’s larger fundamental failure: He simply does not trust the Americans who entrusted him with the presidency.
Most presidents, we believe, ascend to the Oval Office, but for the 44th president, the reverse seems true. Whatever majesty the White House can muster must rise to the grandiosity of Barack Obama. “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” said the man who writes autobiographies and later would claim to control the rise of the oceans.
As recently as this month, the food-stamp president of 13 million unemployed Americans declared himself the fourth-most-accomplished president in the history of the United States, eclipsing, in his own mind, President Reagan and even our nation’s father, George Washington. That in only three years. Barack the Magnificent won’t allow trivialities like $15 trillion debts or historic national credit downgrades dissuade him.
Mr. Obama may care deeply for America, but he believes in only one thing: Barack Obama. And you are not Barack Obama.
Where once the American flag was hailed universally as the ultimate symbol of freedom, we who live under it have slowly but surely surrendered our liberties to an insatiable government. Consider our decline in just the past two generations. Our grandfathers, who stood against evil and shed their blood to stop it, never would have tolerated their own government becoming so totalitarian that it would dictate to them what car they should drive, what (if any) health insurance they should choose or even what light bulb they should buy.
Has our generation been worthy of earlier Americans’ sacrifices? Or have we surrendered their hard-fought victories in return for false promises of a big-government utopia that never materializes? Look no further than the politicians we elect. We have chosen as our president a man who believes we are unworthy, not of the previous generations’ sacrifices, but rather unworthy of freedom itself.
The sum total of Mr. Obama’s political philosophy, the unifying theme of his presidency, amounts to this: You cannot be trusted to live as a free American.
President Obama’s first major legislative action, the failed $787 stimulus, revealed his fundamental distrust of free Americans. A president who actually trusts his people would stand aside as they freely chose how to invest their capital and their labor. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, simply doesn’t believe you are smart enough to know what’s best for you. He commandeered nearly $1 trillion dollars from the taxpayers and redirected it as he saw fit. That he squandered billions on crony boondoggles such as the Solyndra solar-panel company or laughable efforts to measure the malt-liquor habits of Buffalonians and the like is evidence merely of his incompetence. That he trusted only himself to allocate taxpayers’ money in the first place - even if he had had the capacity to do so brilliantly - is evidence of a much larger offense: This president distrusts his subjects.
Obamacare is a modern-day monument to government arrogance. So untrustworthy are Americans that they cannot be allowed to decide for themselves whether to purchase health insurance or, if so, how much. Likewise, physicians are too untrustworthy to provide you with care without first consulting the government’s “best practices” guidelines. Obamacare would solve both.
Untrustworthy bankers would become angelic under the restrictions of Dodd-Frank. Untrustworthy bloggers would fall in line under the Stop Online Piracy Act. Untrustworthy manufacturers would create the only jobs worth having under the dictates of the National Labor Relations Board. And untrustworthy energy consumers would act responsibly only under the restrictions of “cap and trade” or at least a dictatorial Environmental Protection Agency.
For statists like Mr. Obama, no matter how bloated our government has become, America is forever just one legislative act away from utopia, if only those untrustworthy Americans would just get in line. The man who ran on hope has instead embraced a tragic pessimism that views all free Americans with disdain as either incompetent rubes in need of his salvation or unrighteous villains in need of his rules. Either way, Mr. Obama embraces a command-and-control government and rejects American freedom.
Mr. Obama’s distrust of Americans is his fatal flaw, and Republicans would be wise to exploit it fully. The GOP should resist the temptation simply to become a cleverer version of autocrats who pull the same powerful levers of government but in different directions. Instead, they should become the party that embraces liberty.
If the 2012 election is between Republicans and Democrats or even between conservatives and liberals, Republicans might win. But if the election is instead between a bloated, ineffectual government that distrusts its subjects and Americans who still yearn to breathe free, Republicans will win. Only then will voters have a dramatic choice between a party that trusts Americans to be free and a party that does not.
Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a Washington Times columnist, is a radiologist and President Obama’s cousin. He blogs at miltonwolf.com.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
The dirty secret in Uncle Sam’s Friday trash dump
Releasing information on the Friday before a big holiday is a time-tested way to bury bad news. So when the Government Accountability Office’s fiscal 2011 financial statements for the federal government were released on the Friday before Christmas, it made sense to read them closely.
Since 1997, the United States has been a rare example of a government willing to publish financial statements using accrual accounting, which counts the cost of promises made as well as cash paid out. And the GAO’s professionalism over the years has won it a reputation for impartiality and effectiveness.
That professionalism is evident in the GAO analysis of the net present value of the Social Security and Medicare promises Washington has made to Americans. “Net present value” means the total that would have to be set aside today to pay the costs of these programs in the future. The government puts these numbers in appendices, rather than in headlines. But the costs are real.
In fiscal 2011, the cost of the promises grew from $30.9 trillion to $33.8 trillion. To put that in context, consider that the total value of companies traded on U.S. stock markets is $13.1 trillion, based on the Wilshire 5000 index, and the value of the equity in U.S. taxpayers’ homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion. Said another way, there is not enough wealth in America to meet those promises.
If the government followed corporate accounting rules, that $2.9 trillion increase would be added to the $1.3 trillion cash deficit for fiscal 2011 that has been widely reported. And a $4.2 trillion deficit is something that Americans need to know about.
The Treasury acknowledges the need to show an accrual-based deficit, but the only retirement accruals it includes in its “Citizen’s Guide” to the GAO numbers are for promises to direct government employees and veterans. Promises to the rest of Americans are excluded, even though they are multiples larger than the $10.2 trillion of government debt held by the public.
The latest GAO numbers are particularly interesting because of a change in accounting standards that requires the government to explain why the cost grew by $2.9 trillion. Fully $1.5 trillion of that reflects the aging of all 312 million Americans by one year. In the GAO report from fiscal 2001, the cost of promises was $17 trillion. The growth in the cost from $17 trillion to $33.8 trillion averages about $1.7 trillion per year. The GAO doesn’t specify numbers for the other nine years, but one suspects that aging has driven most of the growth in the cost of the promises.
The cost would have been a lot worse but for two assumptions that the GAO found questionable.
First, Medicare’s cost projections assume legally required decreases in reimbursement rates to doctors that Congress has ignored for years — the so-called doc fix. For these projections to be realized, Congress would have to abide by its own cost controls and allow an immediate 27 percent cut to doctors’ rates, which is very unlikely.
Second, the Medicare projections assume that the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) will reduce health-care cost growth by 1.1 percent per year, despite doubts voiced by the GAO and a panel appointed by the Medicare board of trustees.
The panel and the GAO recommended including an alternate scenario in the year-end figures, in which the doc fix continues and the ACA cost reductions do not materialize. The result is a $12.4 trillion increase in the cost of the promises, to more than $46 trillion. Given Congress’s history with the doc fix, and the general paralysis in Washington, it’s hard to argue with the GAO’s lack of confidence in Congress’s ability to honor its own cost controls.
If the government were a company, its huge and growing off-balance-sheet liabilities would set off alarm bells. But investor confidence has not been lost — Treasurys can still be sold at very attractive yields.
Confidence has been shaken, though, among the American people. Congress’s approval ratings are at record lows. Anger is flaring across the political spectrum, reflecting a sense that something has broken in our country.
In such an environment, is it right to release critical financial information the Friday before Christmas? Is it acceptable that politicians are not required to describe the cost of the promises they have made?
In 1990, the government required that companies begin to account for the net present value of retirement promises, not just current-year cash flows. General Motors began complying in 1992; and it recorded a $33.1 billion (pretax) charge to reflect the value of its promises up to that point, which led to what was then the largest annual loss in U.S. corporate history. Seventeen years later, the “free until accounted for” promises were a major factor in GM’s bankruptcy.
The United States is stronger than General Motors. And the good news is that small changes in health-care cost trends have a large impact on the government’s long-term promises. Our system is fixable. But our politics are toxic, and each side is dug into an ideological trench. In such an environment, when hard choices need to be made about promises and taxes, why should information be buried in an appendix?
Americans deserve better. One way for Washington to start earning back our trust is by giving us all the information, even if it is unpleasant.
Since 1997, the United States has been a rare example of a government willing to publish financial statements using accrual accounting, which counts the cost of promises made as well as cash paid out. And the GAO’s professionalism over the years has won it a reputation for impartiality and effectiveness.
That professionalism is evident in the GAO analysis of the net present value of the Social Security and Medicare promises Washington has made to Americans. “Net present value” means the total that would have to be set aside today to pay the costs of these programs in the future. The government puts these numbers in appendices, rather than in headlines. But the costs are real.
In fiscal 2011, the cost of the promises grew from $30.9 trillion to $33.8 trillion. To put that in context, consider that the total value of companies traded on U.S. stock markets is $13.1 trillion, based on the Wilshire 5000 index, and the value of the equity in U.S. taxpayers’ homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion. Said another way, there is not enough wealth in America to meet those promises.
If the government followed corporate accounting rules, that $2.9 trillion increase would be added to the $1.3 trillion cash deficit for fiscal 2011 that has been widely reported. And a $4.2 trillion deficit is something that Americans need to know about.
The Treasury acknowledges the need to show an accrual-based deficit, but the only retirement accruals it includes in its “Citizen’s Guide” to the GAO numbers are for promises to direct government employees and veterans. Promises to the rest of Americans are excluded, even though they are multiples larger than the $10.2 trillion of government debt held by the public.
The latest GAO numbers are particularly interesting because of a change in accounting standards that requires the government to explain why the cost grew by $2.9 trillion. Fully $1.5 trillion of that reflects the aging of all 312 million Americans by one year. In the GAO report from fiscal 2001, the cost of promises was $17 trillion. The growth in the cost from $17 trillion to $33.8 trillion averages about $1.7 trillion per year. The GAO doesn’t specify numbers for the other nine years, but one suspects that aging has driven most of the growth in the cost of the promises.
The cost would have been a lot worse but for two assumptions that the GAO found questionable.
First, Medicare’s cost projections assume legally required decreases in reimbursement rates to doctors that Congress has ignored for years — the so-called doc fix. For these projections to be realized, Congress would have to abide by its own cost controls and allow an immediate 27 percent cut to doctors’ rates, which is very unlikely.
Second, the Medicare projections assume that the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) will reduce health-care cost growth by 1.1 percent per year, despite doubts voiced by the GAO and a panel appointed by the Medicare board of trustees.
The panel and the GAO recommended including an alternate scenario in the year-end figures, in which the doc fix continues and the ACA cost reductions do not materialize. The result is a $12.4 trillion increase in the cost of the promises, to more than $46 trillion. Given Congress’s history with the doc fix, and the general paralysis in Washington, it’s hard to argue with the GAO’s lack of confidence in Congress’s ability to honor its own cost controls.
If the government were a company, its huge and growing off-balance-sheet liabilities would set off alarm bells. But investor confidence has not been lost — Treasurys can still be sold at very attractive yields.
Confidence has been shaken, though, among the American people. Congress’s approval ratings are at record lows. Anger is flaring across the political spectrum, reflecting a sense that something has broken in our country.
In such an environment, is it right to release critical financial information the Friday before Christmas? Is it acceptable that politicians are not required to describe the cost of the promises they have made?
In 1990, the government required that companies begin to account for the net present value of retirement promises, not just current-year cash flows. General Motors began complying in 1992; and it recorded a $33.1 billion (pretax) charge to reflect the value of its promises up to that point, which led to what was then the largest annual loss in U.S. corporate history. Seventeen years later, the “free until accounted for” promises were a major factor in GM’s bankruptcy.
The United States is stronger than General Motors. And the good news is that small changes in health-care cost trends have a large impact on the government’s long-term promises. Our system is fixable. But our politics are toxic, and each side is dug into an ideological trench. In such an environment, when hard choices need to be made about promises and taxes, why should information be buried in an appendix?
Americans deserve better. One way for Washington to start earning back our trust is by giving us all the information, even if it is unpleasant.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Where No Mortgage News Is Fit to Print
The New York Times op-ed page and the left-wing echo chamber.
When Joe Nocera was given a regular op-ed column in the New York Times, there was kind of a collective “uh-oh” among people who have watched the gradual slide of that page into Krugmanism and ideological irrelevance. I was one of them, but thought there might be some hope. Some of his columns in the Times business section had suggested a glimmering of a willingness to consider other points of view and even facts.
At first, I was disappointed. As he said in today’s column, he called my dissent from the majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission “lonely” and “loony.” That was fairly nasty, but I have been called much worse by the hard Left. We had a few more skirmishes, and then he made a truly serious error, blindly following his lefty views in calling the Tea Party “terrorists.” At that point, I wrote him:
Joe: Weren’t you one of the ones on the left who blamed Gabby Giffords’ shooting on right-wing rhetoric? As the victim of some very vicious and threatening e-mails from the left, I find it somewhat peculiar that you and your colleagues would be stirring up the dogs of war by calling your opposition terrorists at war on America. This sounds a bit hypocritical (or worse) to me. Wouldn’t it be better for someone in your position—writing for a newspaper that (given your recent attack on the WSJ) must stand for sober non-ideological discussion—to call for civility, rather than stirring up hatred? Would I be wrong to consider you no better than those who send me equally unbalanced e-mail? Peter
His response, I agreed, would be confidential; but a little while later, he publicly retracted the charge, and I wrote him again to note the praise he then received from the New York Times ombudsman.
I thought, at this point, that he would avoid following his colleague Paul Krugman over the ideological cliff. It was Krugman who famously wrote—when Fannie and Freddie were coming apart—that all the right-wing talk about those two firms acquiring subprime loans were lies. They weren’t even allowed by law to do so, said Krugman, once again following ideas he’d heard in the left-wing echo-chamber rather than doing even the most basic research into the facts. Krugman has disgraced himself as a scholar, but I still had some hope for Nocera.
During the past summer, I pointed out to him that another of his colleagues, Gretchen Morgenson, along with Josh Rosner, had written a book, Reckless Endangerment, that blamed the financial crisis largely on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That certainly didn’t penetrate; he’s now back in full-blinder mode refusing to look at facts—indeed, not even reading the things he cites as facts—in order to make an ideological point that will keep him in tune with the editorial position of his employer.
Nocera’s column today follows the SEC’s suit against Fannie and Freddie executives for “materially false” disclosures about the exposure of each firm to subprime loans. News articles over the weekend make clear what the SEC is arguing, so I won’t do it in this piece. Suffice it to say that in order to claim that Fannie, Freddie, and their executives misstated their exposure to subprime loans, the SEC had to decide what a subprime loan was. Reasonably, as is clear from the complaints, they concluded that a subprime loan was one that had a higher rate of serious delinquency (more than 90 days overdue) than a prime loan. It turns out that the standards used by the SEC are more inclusive than those my American Enterprise Institute colleague Ed Pinto and I have been using, and more inclusive than those I used in my dissent from the majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Fannie and Freddie had even more low quality loans than we’d thought.
But Nocera’s column is full of errors that show he has not—as he claimed—read the complaints. For example, he states that there are “no damning e-mails in the complaint, with executives contradicting their public statements.” No. No e-mails, but the complaint against Freddie has something worse—that, over many years, the firm coded hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages it was acquiring as “subprime” or “subprime-like,” even though its executives were reporting to the public and investors that their exposure to subprime loans was “less than 1 percent.” As to e-mails, those have already been published in an article by Charles Calomiris in the Wall Street Journal several weeks ago. He quoted from the chief risk officer of Freddie telling the chairman that the loans they were buying were poor quality and would cause losses. But the risk officer was ignored.
Even more seriously, he notes that the complaints didn’t have any “default data.” Leaving aside the question of whether that was necessary to show material misstatements about their subprime exposures, the complaints cite high rates of “serious delinquency,” which is of course a mortgage that is virtually in default, but not yet foreclosed. Since Fannie and Freddie are now insolvent, and have already cost the taxpayers about $150 billion, one would think there would be little argument about whether the loans they held were in fact subprime. But Nocera manages to do so, largely by following the absurd argument—another product of the left-wing echo-chamber—that Fannie and Freddie’s loans were not subprime because others were worse.
Now, in Noceraworld, even the SEC is part of the Wallison/Pinto cabal. Nocera writes: “The [SEC’s] complaint is extraordinarily weak. Taking cues from the Wallison/Pinto school of inflated data, it claims that Fannie and Freddie failed to reveal to investors the true extent of their subprime portfolios.” Ah, the power! I hope we can exercise it responsibly.
When Joe Nocera was given a regular op-ed column in the New York Times, there was kind of a collective “uh-oh” among people who have watched the gradual slide of that page into Krugmanism and ideological irrelevance. I was one of them, but thought there might be some hope. Some of his columns in the Times business section had suggested a glimmering of a willingness to consider other points of view and even facts.
At first, I was disappointed. As he said in today’s column, he called my dissent from the majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission “lonely” and “loony.” That was fairly nasty, but I have been called much worse by the hard Left. We had a few more skirmishes, and then he made a truly serious error, blindly following his lefty views in calling the Tea Party “terrorists.” At that point, I wrote him:
Joe: Weren’t you one of the ones on the left who blamed Gabby Giffords’ shooting on right-wing rhetoric? As the victim of some very vicious and threatening e-mails from the left, I find it somewhat peculiar that you and your colleagues would be stirring up the dogs of war by calling your opposition terrorists at war on America. This sounds a bit hypocritical (or worse) to me. Wouldn’t it be better for someone in your position—writing for a newspaper that (given your recent attack on the WSJ) must stand for sober non-ideological discussion—to call for civility, rather than stirring up hatred? Would I be wrong to consider you no better than those who send me equally unbalanced e-mail? Peter
His response, I agreed, would be confidential; but a little while later, he publicly retracted the charge, and I wrote him again to note the praise he then received from the New York Times ombudsman.
I thought, at this point, that he would avoid following his colleague Paul Krugman over the ideological cliff. It was Krugman who famously wrote—when Fannie and Freddie were coming apart—that all the right-wing talk about those two firms acquiring subprime loans were lies. They weren’t even allowed by law to do so, said Krugman, once again following ideas he’d heard in the left-wing echo-chamber rather than doing even the most basic research into the facts. Krugman has disgraced himself as a scholar, but I still had some hope for Nocera.
During the past summer, I pointed out to him that another of his colleagues, Gretchen Morgenson, along with Josh Rosner, had written a book, Reckless Endangerment, that blamed the financial crisis largely on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That certainly didn’t penetrate; he’s now back in full-blinder mode refusing to look at facts—indeed, not even reading the things he cites as facts—in order to make an ideological point that will keep him in tune with the editorial position of his employer.
Nocera’s column today follows the SEC’s suit against Fannie and Freddie executives for “materially false” disclosures about the exposure of each firm to subprime loans. News articles over the weekend make clear what the SEC is arguing, so I won’t do it in this piece. Suffice it to say that in order to claim that Fannie, Freddie, and their executives misstated their exposure to subprime loans, the SEC had to decide what a subprime loan was. Reasonably, as is clear from the complaints, they concluded that a subprime loan was one that had a higher rate of serious delinquency (more than 90 days overdue) than a prime loan. It turns out that the standards used by the SEC are more inclusive than those my American Enterprise Institute colleague Ed Pinto and I have been using, and more inclusive than those I used in my dissent from the majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Fannie and Freddie had even more low quality loans than we’d thought.
But Nocera’s column is full of errors that show he has not—as he claimed—read the complaints. For example, he states that there are “no damning e-mails in the complaint, with executives contradicting their public statements.” No. No e-mails, but the complaint against Freddie has something worse—that, over many years, the firm coded hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages it was acquiring as “subprime” or “subprime-like,” even though its executives were reporting to the public and investors that their exposure to subprime loans was “less than 1 percent.” As to e-mails, those have already been published in an article by Charles Calomiris in the Wall Street Journal several weeks ago. He quoted from the chief risk officer of Freddie telling the chairman that the loans they were buying were poor quality and would cause losses. But the risk officer was ignored.
Even more seriously, he notes that the complaints didn’t have any “default data.” Leaving aside the question of whether that was necessary to show material misstatements about their subprime exposures, the complaints cite high rates of “serious delinquency,” which is of course a mortgage that is virtually in default, but not yet foreclosed. Since Fannie and Freddie are now insolvent, and have already cost the taxpayers about $150 billion, one would think there would be little argument about whether the loans they held were in fact subprime. But Nocera manages to do so, largely by following the absurd argument—another product of the left-wing echo-chamber—that Fannie and Freddie’s loans were not subprime because others were worse.
Now, in Noceraworld, even the SEC is part of the Wallison/Pinto cabal. Nocera writes: “The [SEC’s] complaint is extraordinarily weak. Taking cues from the Wallison/Pinto school of inflated data, it claims that Fannie and Freddie failed to reveal to investors the true extent of their subprime portfolios.” Ah, the power! I hope we can exercise it responsibly.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Gingrich's Past vs. Romney & Obama's
By Thomas Sowell
If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.
What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.
But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?
This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: "We are going to change the United States of America."
Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.
Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock -- and he publicly admitted it -- the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.
Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.
While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years -- followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.
Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.
In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama -- and better than Mitt Romney.
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich's past, rather than on the nation's future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.
Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.
If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.
What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.
But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?
This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama's broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election: "We are going to change the United States of America."
Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.
Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does Newt Gingrich's personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics' claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock -- and he publicly admitted it -- the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.
Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.
While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years -- followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.
Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.
Did Gingrich ruffle some feathers when he was Speaker of the House? Yes, enough for it to cost him that position. But he also showed that he could produce results.
In a world where we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available, the question is whether Newt Gingrich is better than Barack Obama -- and better than Mitt Romney.
Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?
Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.
Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich's past, rather than on the nation's future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.
Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.
Monday, December 19, 2011
One president, please, with a side of Rice - Washington Times
Republican diners haven't yet picked their entree, but they've narrowed it down to the steak or the fish. Still, just as interesting as their main course will be their side selection: Will they go for a drab salad, or something more exciting? Maybe a spicy Rice dish?
Yes, that Rice: Condi. She's rested and ready - and buff.
America's first black female secretary of state is quietly positioning herself to be the top choice of the eventual Republican presidential nominee, ready to deliver bona fide foreign-policy credentials lacking among the candidates. The 56-year-old has recently raised her profile, releasing her memoir in November and embarking on a monthlong book tour.
After 2 1/2 years as a professor at Stanford, Miss Rice is reportedly getting "antsy" to get back into the political game. "She's ready to go," said one top source.
Ready indeed. She still rises at 5:30 a.m. and runs through a vigorous P90X workout. (Her guns are now a match for those of first lady Michelle Obama.) Sure, she's been playing a lot of golf, and no doubt banging on the piano (sometimes with cellist Yo-Yo Ma), but she's clearly ready for more.
Her addition to the ticket, which wouldn't come until late next summer, would dramatically change the dynamics of the 2012 election. As a black woman - her family has roots in the Deep South stretching back to before Civil War era, and worked as sharecroppers after emancipation - she would mute Democrats' charges of racism among conservatives, especially tea party members. And her sex would likely prompt moderate women to take a serious look at the Republican ticket.
Plus, her selection would be a giant chess move to counter the expected replacement of Vice President Joseph R. Biden with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sure, the White House denies and denies, but that should really make any political watcher more suspicious. One White House insider even told me that the position swap was the only reason Mrs. Clinton joined the administration in the first place.
Unlike 2008, when Miss Rice repeatedly played down all suggestions that she might like to join the Republican ticket as the vice presidential candidate, she is actively staying mum, while quietly encouraging speculation that she is ready to run.
Clearly, the 2012 election is shaping up to be all about the U.S. economy. Everything Mr. Obama has tried has failed, so American voters are looking for someone who can actually fix the problems. But what the Republican presidential hopefuls lack is foreign-policy experience.
Cue Miss Rice. With Vladimir Putin set to reascend to the Russian presidency, the Soviet scholar is perfectly suited for what's coming next.
Of course, like any black conservative (see Cain, Herman), she is mostly reviled in the black liberal community. In the midst of the Bush administration, Eugene Robinson, a columnist for The Washington Post, asked, "How did she come to a worldview so radically different from that of most black Americans?" Funny thing is, she is, unlike Barack Obama, an "American black."
And Miss Rice, in her inimitable way, had a response. "Why would I worry about something like that?" she said about the criticism. "The fact of the matter is I've been black all my life. Nobody needs to tell me how to be black."
The White House, through its Chicago mafia, was intent on taking out Mr. Cain. Unfortunately, he proved an easy target. But they were clearly frightened by a strong American black, even as a veep candidate. And yes, it won't be Mr. Cain - he is completely done.
But imagine the debate, whether it's against Mr. Biden or Mrs. Clinton: Miss Rice would bring a huge resume - not to mention a real understanding of the world, on which top Democrats seem to clueless. Talk to Iran? Um, maybe not. Negotiate with Mr. Putin: Been tried, doesn't work. And all issues of race would be moot.
There are a few other women available as down-ticket choices: Rep. Michele Bachmann will certainly be considered, as will Nikki Haley, the South Carolina governor who last week endorsed Mitt Romney. But nearly no one on the Republican side - man or woman - can deliver what Miss Rice can. And while you haven't yet heard her name when the political pundits tick off the top tier of vice-presidential players, you're about to. Starting today.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Yes, that Rice: Condi. She's rested and ready - and buff.
America's first black female secretary of state is quietly positioning herself to be the top choice of the eventual Republican presidential nominee, ready to deliver bona fide foreign-policy credentials lacking among the candidates. The 56-year-old has recently raised her profile, releasing her memoir in November and embarking on a monthlong book tour.
After 2 1/2 years as a professor at Stanford, Miss Rice is reportedly getting "antsy" to get back into the political game. "She's ready to go," said one top source.
Ready indeed. She still rises at 5:30 a.m. and runs through a vigorous P90X workout. (Her guns are now a match for those of first lady Michelle Obama.) Sure, she's been playing a lot of golf, and no doubt banging on the piano (sometimes with cellist Yo-Yo Ma), but she's clearly ready for more.
Her addition to the ticket, which wouldn't come until late next summer, would dramatically change the dynamics of the 2012 election. As a black woman - her family has roots in the Deep South stretching back to before Civil War era, and worked as sharecroppers after emancipation - she would mute Democrats' charges of racism among conservatives, especially tea party members. And her sex would likely prompt moderate women to take a serious look at the Republican ticket.
Plus, her selection would be a giant chess move to counter the expected replacement of Vice President Joseph R. Biden with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sure, the White House denies and denies, but that should really make any political watcher more suspicious. One White House insider even told me that the position swap was the only reason Mrs. Clinton joined the administration in the first place.
Unlike 2008, when Miss Rice repeatedly played down all suggestions that she might like to join the Republican ticket as the vice presidential candidate, she is actively staying mum, while quietly encouraging speculation that she is ready to run.
Clearly, the 2012 election is shaping up to be all about the U.S. economy. Everything Mr. Obama has tried has failed, so American voters are looking for someone who can actually fix the problems. But what the Republican presidential hopefuls lack is foreign-policy experience.
Cue Miss Rice. With Vladimir Putin set to reascend to the Russian presidency, the Soviet scholar is perfectly suited for what's coming next.
Of course, like any black conservative (see Cain, Herman), she is mostly reviled in the black liberal community. In the midst of the Bush administration, Eugene Robinson, a columnist for The Washington Post, asked, "How did she come to a worldview so radically different from that of most black Americans?" Funny thing is, she is, unlike Barack Obama, an "American black."
And Miss Rice, in her inimitable way, had a response. "Why would I worry about something like that?" she said about the criticism. "The fact of the matter is I've been black all my life. Nobody needs to tell me how to be black."
The White House, through its Chicago mafia, was intent on taking out Mr. Cain. Unfortunately, he proved an easy target. But they were clearly frightened by a strong American black, even as a veep candidate. And yes, it won't be Mr. Cain - he is completely done.
But imagine the debate, whether it's against Mr. Biden or Mrs. Clinton: Miss Rice would bring a huge resume - not to mention a real understanding of the world, on which top Democrats seem to clueless. Talk to Iran? Um, maybe not. Negotiate with Mr. Putin: Been tried, doesn't work. And all issues of race would be moot.
There are a few other women available as down-ticket choices: Rep. Michele Bachmann will certainly be considered, as will Nikki Haley, the South Carolina governor who last week endorsed Mitt Romney. But nearly no one on the Republican side - man or woman - can deliver what Miss Rice can. And while you haven't yet heard her name when the political pundits tick off the top tier of vice-presidential players, you're about to. Starting today.
• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.
© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Daily Maverick :: Amundsen, Scott, Shackleton: gentlemen adventurers of Antarctic
Amundsen, Scott, Shackleton: gentlemen adventurers of Antarctic
For men of the early twentieth century, the polar caps were the last real geographic extremities remaining to be conquered and explored. The goal of reaching the South Pole first set up a classic competition between British and Norwegian explorers, Robert F Scott and Roald Amundsen. J BROOKS SPECTOR looks back on the race into nothingness.
Tweet
Twenty-five years ago, I helped put together an international festival in Japan to celebrate the spirit of exploration. The project was the brainchild of Yuichiro Miura, the man who had once skied down Mt. Everest – and then climbed it again at the age of 75, just because it was there. Miura had also arranged for Sir Edmund Hillary, the man who had first conquered that mountain, to join this event. My task was to bring a team of active duty US astronauts to participate. All of these explorers were obviously brave – but they were also unusually modest and much given to denigrating their own uniqueness – whatever they had done was only because they were part of a larger team.
A subtext for the gathering was to add a final punctuation mark at the end of the age of Earth-bound exploration and – in those more innocent years before the Challenger disaster – to encourage the redirection of humanity’s energies onward into space exploration. We now know, of course, that it would be much harder, but then we could have learned much of that from a contemplation of the varied fates of the three contemporary polar explorers – Amundsen, Shackleton and Scott – as well.
The great terrestrial age of exploration, of course, had begun in the fifteenth century with the early voyages of men like Vasco da Gama and Columbus; continued through great voyages of exploration and science like those of Cook, Franklin and Darwin; and then reached a culmination with Amundsen’s march across Antarctica to the South Pole, a hundred years ago on 14 or 15 December (depending on which day of the antipodean International Date Line he had been standing on).
For men of the early twentieth century, save for a few mountains like Everest and K-2, the polar caps were the last real geographic extremities remaining to be conquered and explored. The optimism of the late Victorian and Edwardian eras made it seem certain everything was within the grasp of humankind – or shortly would be. Once Robert Peary and Mathew Henson had reached the North Pole in 1909 (even though their achievement remains disputed by champions of another would-be claimant, Frederick Cook), Antarctica was the one big geographic prize left. However, British derring-do and a near-mythic stiff upper lip – plus more lethal romanticism and obdurateness – were outdone by meticulous Scandanavian planning and preparation. The goal of reaching the South Pole first ultimately set up a classic competition between British and Norwegian explorers, Robert F Scott and Roald Amundsen.
Captain Robert Falcon Scott had already commanded a UK government-funded expedition to the Antarctic in 1901-04, years before his fatal journey. Scott’s three-man party joined him with his friend, Dr Edward Wilson and another adventurer-scientist, Ernest Shackleton. This expedition came within 660km of the Pole – and Scott returned home a national hero. However, following this trip, Scott and Shackleton had a less than friendly parting of the ways, leading Shackleton to skipper his own four-man expedition in 1907-09. This privately supported effort got a far as 160km of the Pole on 9 January 1909 before they too were forced to turn back. As a US Public Broadcasting Corporation documentary described Shackleton’s expedition:
“Shackleton earned the admiration of generations of explorers by making the agonising decision to turn back within 97 miles of the pole rather than risk the lives of his men. Writing to his wife Emily, he quipped, ‘I thought you'd rather have a live donkey than a dead lion.’ A second party, including Sir Douglas Mawson, was the first to reach the South Magnetic Pole with an epic 1,260-mile march and to scale the volcanic Mount Erebus. The expedition also supported significant scientific research.”
Robert Falcon Scott
When Scott learned that his former expedition mate’s latest effort had also failed, Scott decided to go for a second try. Given his own status as a certified national hero, Scott ended up making his preparations under the glare of full-on media attention, unaware that yet another rival was secretly planning to claim the prize instead.
Norwegian Captain Roald Amundsen was also a highly regarded explorer, having navigated the North West Passage above Canada and Alaska, as well as having been one of the first men to winter south of the Antarctic Circle. Amundsen’s dream since childhood had been to be the first person to reach the North Pole, but once that goal was snapped from his grasp, he turned his attention southward instead. In contrast to Scott’s efforts, Amundsen carried out his preparations close-hold to prevent anyone from trying to stop him.
Meanwhile Scott continued with his highly public prep, even deciding to take along some paying guests, such as army captain Lawrence Oates who volunteered to take charge of the draft ponies. Scott’s expedition left Cardiff in June 1910. En route to the Antarctic, Scott stopped in Australia where he received an enigmatic telegram from the Atlantic island of Madeira that read: “Beg leave to inform you Fram [Amundsen’s ship] proceeding Antarctic. Amundsen”.
Amundsen, still playing a very close hand, did not tell his crew where they were headed until reaching Madeira, where he offered them the opportunity to disembark if they wished – although none did. Amundsen’s team all had significant experience in the Arctic and he was convinced that using cross-country skis and sled dogs would be the best way to carry out a race across the Antarctic.
In January, Scott’s party set up camp on Ross Island in McMurdo Sound, just off the continent. Scott had planned to use the route Shackleton had pioneered, up the Beardmore Glacier and then on to the Polar Plateau to the actual goal. Prior to the actual run, his supply teams set up food and equipment caches along the planned route. However, these advance trips led to breakdowns of Scott’s motorised transports and also inflicted real suffering on his draft ponies. As a result, the main “One Ton” supply depot ended up being placed less far south than Scott had planned – setting in motion some of the fatal problems that doomed Scott’s return from the Pole.
By contrast, Amundsen had correctly guessed there was a viable alternative to the Shackleton route. The Norwegian expedition arrived at the Bay of Whales in January, about 640km from the British camp, and they took a risk in placing their base camp on the ice sheet. Using dog teams to preposition supplies, these were placed further south than Scott's supplies. Amundsen set off for the Pole early in the season but severe temperatures of -40°C drove the Norwegians back to their base, leading to a mutiny among the team. Amundsen then regrouped and dropped the size of the Polar party from eight down to five and this smaller group left for their race to the Pole on 20 October, using some fifty dogs in teams.
Roald Amundsen
Ten days later, Scott left his own base camp with support parties, motorised sleds, dogs and ponies for his own run at the Pole. Amundsen was aware of Scott's motorised transports (certainly an innovation back in 1911) but he did not know that mechanical failures had led to their abandonment, setting Scott’s run in trouble from the beginning. Along the way, it became clear that his ponies were unsuited for the extreme conditions and they were successively killed to provide meat for the explorer team. Eventually the men began to pull their supply sleds themselves after the dog teams were sent back as well – something that exhausted the men as well. As a BBC documentary described Scott’s motivation in making the men haul their supplies explained, it “was exhausting work but Scott believed it was less cruel than using animals and more noble.”
By contrast, Amundsen’s group was making fast progress via the Axel Heiberg Glacier and across the Polar Plateau. And at 3pm on 15 December 1911 (or 14 December, depending on that date line question), the Norwegians reached the Pole where expedition team member Olav Bjaaland took the historic photos and Amundsen wrote in his diary, “So we arrived and were able to plant our flag at the geographical South Pole. God be thanked!” Amundsen's tasks now were to make a safe return and be first with the news of his achievement.
By then, Scott had chosen his final team for the last push, adding a fifth man to the group, Scotsman Lt. Henry “Birdie” Bowers, because his character appealed to Scott. Bowers was strong, versatile and determined. However, while making it a five-man group supplemented manpower, it created new difficulties with rations and fuel.
Scott and his final team reached the Pole on 17 January 1912; but it was more than a month after Amundsen had left. Bowers saw the Norwegian camp and cached supplies, as well as their marker flag and a note for Scott to deliver to the Norwegian king in the event Amundsen did not make it home. But by that time the temperature had dropped even lower than it had been for Amundsen. As a result, Scott’s diary entry was significantly gloomier than his rival’s: “The POLE. Yes, but under very different circumstances from those expected. Great God! This is an awful place and terrible enough for us to have laboured to it without the reward of priority.”
Then Scott’s men began to die. Petty Officer Evans died on 17 February. A month later, Captain Oates, now crippled with frostbite, walked out of the party's tent on his 32nd birthday. Scott wrote Oates had said as he left “I am just going outside and may be some time.” Scott added “We knew that Oates was walking to his death... it was the act of a brave man and an English gentleman.” Only a few days later, the three remaining team members were waiting for death in a swirling blizzard, even as their supply depot was just 17kms away. Scott’s last diary entry read “We shall stick it out to the end, but we are getting weaker, of course, and the end cannot be far. It seems a pity but I do not think I can write more – R Scott.”
Thirty-five years later, English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams wrote the musical score for the heroic UK film, “Scott of the Antarctic”. He eventually reshaped the themes into his evocative “Symphony Antarctica”. Besides the usual orchestra and an augmented percussion section, Vaughan Williams added the organ, a women’s chorus, a solo soprano, a narrator and a wind machine.
The composer selected texts to come at the beginning of each movement, drawing from works by Shelley; Psalm 104; Coleridge and Scott’s own diary entry that read: “I do not regret this journey; we took risks, we knew we took them, things have come out against us, therefore we have no cause for complaint.”
Well-loved recordings of this work feature Sir John Gielgud and Sir Ralph Richardson for the voiceovers. The work makes it easy to contemplate Scott’s doomed expedition – and, with it, the passing of the last vestiges of splendid amateurism in exploration. DM
For men of the early twentieth century, the polar caps were the last real geographic extremities remaining to be conquered and explored. The goal of reaching the South Pole first set up a classic competition between British and Norwegian explorers, Robert F Scott and Roald Amundsen. J BROOKS SPECTOR looks back on the race into nothingness.
Tweet
Twenty-five years ago, I helped put together an international festival in Japan to celebrate the spirit of exploration. The project was the brainchild of Yuichiro Miura, the man who had once skied down Mt. Everest – and then climbed it again at the age of 75, just because it was there. Miura had also arranged for Sir Edmund Hillary, the man who had first conquered that mountain, to join this event. My task was to bring a team of active duty US astronauts to participate. All of these explorers were obviously brave – but they were also unusually modest and much given to denigrating their own uniqueness – whatever they had done was only because they were part of a larger team.
A subtext for the gathering was to add a final punctuation mark at the end of the age of Earth-bound exploration and – in those more innocent years before the Challenger disaster – to encourage the redirection of humanity’s energies onward into space exploration. We now know, of course, that it would be much harder, but then we could have learned much of that from a contemplation of the varied fates of the three contemporary polar explorers – Amundsen, Shackleton and Scott – as well.
The great terrestrial age of exploration, of course, had begun in the fifteenth century with the early voyages of men like Vasco da Gama and Columbus; continued through great voyages of exploration and science like those of Cook, Franklin and Darwin; and then reached a culmination with Amundsen’s march across Antarctica to the South Pole, a hundred years ago on 14 or 15 December (depending on which day of the antipodean International Date Line he had been standing on).
For men of the early twentieth century, save for a few mountains like Everest and K-2, the polar caps were the last real geographic extremities remaining to be conquered and explored. The optimism of the late Victorian and Edwardian eras made it seem certain everything was within the grasp of humankind – or shortly would be. Once Robert Peary and Mathew Henson had reached the North Pole in 1909 (even though their achievement remains disputed by champions of another would-be claimant, Frederick Cook), Antarctica was the one big geographic prize left. However, British derring-do and a near-mythic stiff upper lip – plus more lethal romanticism and obdurateness – were outdone by meticulous Scandanavian planning and preparation. The goal of reaching the South Pole first ultimately set up a classic competition between British and Norwegian explorers, Robert F Scott and Roald Amundsen.
Captain Robert Falcon Scott had already commanded a UK government-funded expedition to the Antarctic in 1901-04, years before his fatal journey. Scott’s three-man party joined him with his friend, Dr Edward Wilson and another adventurer-scientist, Ernest Shackleton. This expedition came within 660km of the Pole – and Scott returned home a national hero. However, following this trip, Scott and Shackleton had a less than friendly parting of the ways, leading Shackleton to skipper his own four-man expedition in 1907-09. This privately supported effort got a far as 160km of the Pole on 9 January 1909 before they too were forced to turn back. As a US Public Broadcasting Corporation documentary described Shackleton’s expedition:
“Shackleton earned the admiration of generations of explorers by making the agonising decision to turn back within 97 miles of the pole rather than risk the lives of his men. Writing to his wife Emily, he quipped, ‘I thought you'd rather have a live donkey than a dead lion.’ A second party, including Sir Douglas Mawson, was the first to reach the South Magnetic Pole with an epic 1,260-mile march and to scale the volcanic Mount Erebus. The expedition also supported significant scientific research.”
Robert Falcon Scott
When Scott learned that his former expedition mate’s latest effort had also failed, Scott decided to go for a second try. Given his own status as a certified national hero, Scott ended up making his preparations under the glare of full-on media attention, unaware that yet another rival was secretly planning to claim the prize instead.
Norwegian Captain Roald Amundsen was also a highly regarded explorer, having navigated the North West Passage above Canada and Alaska, as well as having been one of the first men to winter south of the Antarctic Circle. Amundsen’s dream since childhood had been to be the first person to reach the North Pole, but once that goal was snapped from his grasp, he turned his attention southward instead. In contrast to Scott’s efforts, Amundsen carried out his preparations close-hold to prevent anyone from trying to stop him.
Meanwhile Scott continued with his highly public prep, even deciding to take along some paying guests, such as army captain Lawrence Oates who volunteered to take charge of the draft ponies. Scott’s expedition left Cardiff in June 1910. En route to the Antarctic, Scott stopped in Australia where he received an enigmatic telegram from the Atlantic island of Madeira that read: “Beg leave to inform you Fram [Amundsen’s ship] proceeding Antarctic. Amundsen”.
Amundsen, still playing a very close hand, did not tell his crew where they were headed until reaching Madeira, where he offered them the opportunity to disembark if they wished – although none did. Amundsen’s team all had significant experience in the Arctic and he was convinced that using cross-country skis and sled dogs would be the best way to carry out a race across the Antarctic.
In January, Scott’s party set up camp on Ross Island in McMurdo Sound, just off the continent. Scott had planned to use the route Shackleton had pioneered, up the Beardmore Glacier and then on to the Polar Plateau to the actual goal. Prior to the actual run, his supply teams set up food and equipment caches along the planned route. However, these advance trips led to breakdowns of Scott’s motorised transports and also inflicted real suffering on his draft ponies. As a result, the main “One Ton” supply depot ended up being placed less far south than Scott had planned – setting in motion some of the fatal problems that doomed Scott’s return from the Pole.
By contrast, Amundsen had correctly guessed there was a viable alternative to the Shackleton route. The Norwegian expedition arrived at the Bay of Whales in January, about 640km from the British camp, and they took a risk in placing their base camp on the ice sheet. Using dog teams to preposition supplies, these were placed further south than Scott's supplies. Amundsen set off for the Pole early in the season but severe temperatures of -40°C drove the Norwegians back to their base, leading to a mutiny among the team. Amundsen then regrouped and dropped the size of the Polar party from eight down to five and this smaller group left for their race to the Pole on 20 October, using some fifty dogs in teams.
Roald Amundsen
Ten days later, Scott left his own base camp with support parties, motorised sleds, dogs and ponies for his own run at the Pole. Amundsen was aware of Scott's motorised transports (certainly an innovation back in 1911) but he did not know that mechanical failures had led to their abandonment, setting Scott’s run in trouble from the beginning. Along the way, it became clear that his ponies were unsuited for the extreme conditions and they were successively killed to provide meat for the explorer team. Eventually the men began to pull their supply sleds themselves after the dog teams were sent back as well – something that exhausted the men as well. As a BBC documentary described Scott’s motivation in making the men haul their supplies explained, it “was exhausting work but Scott believed it was less cruel than using animals and more noble.”
By contrast, Amundsen’s group was making fast progress via the Axel Heiberg Glacier and across the Polar Plateau. And at 3pm on 15 December 1911 (or 14 December, depending on that date line question), the Norwegians reached the Pole where expedition team member Olav Bjaaland took the historic photos and Amundsen wrote in his diary, “So we arrived and were able to plant our flag at the geographical South Pole. God be thanked!” Amundsen's tasks now were to make a safe return and be first with the news of his achievement.
By then, Scott had chosen his final team for the last push, adding a fifth man to the group, Scotsman Lt. Henry “Birdie” Bowers, because his character appealed to Scott. Bowers was strong, versatile and determined. However, while making it a five-man group supplemented manpower, it created new difficulties with rations and fuel.
Scott and his final team reached the Pole on 17 January 1912; but it was more than a month after Amundsen had left. Bowers saw the Norwegian camp and cached supplies, as well as their marker flag and a note for Scott to deliver to the Norwegian king in the event Amundsen did not make it home. But by that time the temperature had dropped even lower than it had been for Amundsen. As a result, Scott’s diary entry was significantly gloomier than his rival’s: “The POLE. Yes, but under very different circumstances from those expected. Great God! This is an awful place and terrible enough for us to have laboured to it without the reward of priority.”
Then Scott’s men began to die. Petty Officer Evans died on 17 February. A month later, Captain Oates, now crippled with frostbite, walked out of the party's tent on his 32nd birthday. Scott wrote Oates had said as he left “I am just going outside and may be some time.” Scott added “We knew that Oates was walking to his death... it was the act of a brave man and an English gentleman.” Only a few days later, the three remaining team members were waiting for death in a swirling blizzard, even as their supply depot was just 17kms away. Scott’s last diary entry read “We shall stick it out to the end, but we are getting weaker, of course, and the end cannot be far. It seems a pity but I do not think I can write more – R Scott.”
Thirty-five years later, English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams wrote the musical score for the heroic UK film, “Scott of the Antarctic”. He eventually reshaped the themes into his evocative “Symphony Antarctica”. Besides the usual orchestra and an augmented percussion section, Vaughan Williams added the organ, a women’s chorus, a solo soprano, a narrator and a wind machine.
The composer selected texts to come at the beginning of each movement, drawing from works by Shelley; Psalm 104; Coleridge and Scott’s own diary entry that read: “I do not regret this journey; we took risks, we knew we took them, things have come out against us, therefore we have no cause for complaint.”
Well-loved recordings of this work feature Sir John Gielgud and Sir Ralph Richardson for the voiceovers. The work makes it easy to contemplate Scott’s doomed expedition – and, with it, the passing of the last vestiges of splendid amateurism in exploration. DM
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Japan's Terrible Miscalculation
Japan's Terrible Miscalculation - http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285095/pearl-harbor-day-infamy-jim-lacey
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
On Pearl Harbor
William Halsey could not hide his dismay and anger. When asked later about how America would recover, Halsey replied, “When this war is over the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell.” America had found the first of its fighting admirals.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Barkley not invited to Heisman ceremony
Reminds of all that is wrong with college football and why he current system must be brought down. One of the nominees who was invited isn't even the best (best his numbers) at his position in the nation. How does that work and who do we burn at the stake for putting us through this?
Also, a possible winner could be someone suspended for doing wrong? Wasn't that the whole point behind handing USC their ass and screwing Barkley and others out of bowls and possible national titles & trophies.
It's fucking criminal and even coaches are now standing up and voicing this concern, which may (if espnsec allows) bring change to the system of college football as a while, but do not hold your breath due to the tv money involved.
Oh and how the eff does a two loss team get seated higher than every one loss team for a bowl they had no chance (in a normal world) of getting without some serious rigging?
Forget it. USC is not playing until next year, so until spring ball football is over for me.
Also, a possible winner could be someone suspended for doing wrong? Wasn't that the whole point behind handing USC their ass and screwing Barkley and others out of bowls and possible national titles & trophies.
It's fucking criminal and even coaches are now standing up and voicing this concern, which may (if espnsec allows) bring change to the system of college football as a while, but do not hold your breath due to the tv money involved.
Oh and how the eff does a two loss team get seated higher than every one loss team for a bowl they had no chance (in a normal world) of getting without some serious rigging?
Forget it. USC is not playing until next year, so until spring ball football is over for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)