The Battle of Blenheim

Here's a little poem I stumbled across that I thought others might like. Take a gander and see what you think.

*****

The Battle of Blenheim
Robert Southey (1774-1843)

It was a summer evening,
Old Kaspar's work was done,
And he before his cottage door
Was sitting in the sun,
And by him sported on the green
His little grandchild Wilhelmine.

She saw her brother Peterkin
Roll something large and round,
Which he beside the rivulet
In playing there had found;
He came to ask what he had found,
That was so large, and smooth, and round.

Old Kaspar took it from the boy,
Who stood expectant by;
And then the old man shook his head,
And, with a natural sigh,
"'Tis some poor fellow's skull," said he,
"Who fell in the great victory.

"I find them in the garden,
For there's many here about;
And often when I go to plough,
The ploughshare turns them out!
For many thousand men," said he,
"Were slain in that great victory."

"Now tell us what 'twas all about,"
Young Peterkin, he cries;
And little Wilhelmine looks up
With wonder-waiting eyes;
"Now tell us all about the war,
And what they fought each other for."

"It was the English," Kaspar cried,
"Who put the French to rout;
But what they fought each other for,
I could not well make out;
But everybody said," quoth he,
"That 'twas a famous victory.

"My father lived at Blenheim then,
Yon little stream hard by;
They burnt his dwelling to the ground,
And he was forced to fly;
So with his wife and child he fled,
Nor had he where to rest his head.

"With fire and sword the country round
Was wasted far and wide,
And many a childing mother then,
And new-born baby died;
But things like that, you know, must be
At every famous victory.

"They say it was a shocking sight
After the field was won;
For many thousand bodies here
Lay rotting in the sun;
But things like that, you know, must be
After a famous victory.

"Great praise the Duke of Marlbro' won,
And our good Prince Eugene."
"Why, 'twas a very wicked thing!"
Said little Wilhelmine.
"Nay... nay... my little girl," quoth he,
"It was a famous victory.

"And everybody praised the Duke
Who this great fight did win."
"But what good came of it at last?"
Quoth little Peterkin.
"Why that I cannot tell," said he,
"But 'twas a famous victory."

Note: Prince Eugene: François Eugene de Savoie-Carignan, a brilliant general who aided Marlborough in defeating the Bavarians and French at Blenheim, Bavaria, August 13, 1704.

*****

Ah, the folly of war. Too bad this bit of wisdom isn't learned by every child in grade school in America. Nah, that couldn't happen, it might give the little darlings nightmares, although many seem to watch movies with vicious characters and graphic, violent action at far too young an age with scant parental supervision.

Take care.
DAL357

The unintellectual approach to crime control

The link below is to a piece by ABC's 20/20 reporter John Stossel about the futility of trying to control crime by controlling access to guns by law-abiding folks.

It boggles my mind that there are still otherwise intelligent people out there who insist that no one but the police should have guns. Look, I wish we could all hold hands and sing Kumbaya and progress as a species towards a better tomorrow, but that ain't the real world. Times occur in life, thankfully realtively rare, when a person minding their own beeswax has their space intruded upon by one or more bad guys intent upon doing evil. If a cop happens to be within shouting distance, great, hail them over and let them take care of the situation. Just in case one isn't immediately available, however, the impending victim had better have a way of defending/extracating him/herself from the scenario. A firearm in capable, i.e. trained, hands is THE best way of protecting oneself when criminals come calling. It's a force multiplier that puts a lone or weaker individual on a more equal footing with what's likely to be one, or more, younger, stronger thugs.

One part of the video I'd like you to pay particular attention to is when it's stated that many of the horrific incidents of mass murder we've witnessed have been in so-called "gun-free zones." I guess the murderers that operated at will in those zones for many crucial minutes before help arrived--help being good people with, get this, guns(!)--must have missed the admonishment to enter sans firearms. Or maybe they chose that particular place because they knew they'd have many defenseless victims and no armed opposition. Somehow, I believe the latter scenario is the more likely.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA

Here's a somewhat humorous sketch illustrating why criminals love gun control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3kUD6W8QaQ

Finally, the following link depicts, via outright absurdity, the pipe dream of controlling crime through gun control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8

Take care.
DAL357

Empty oaths, etc.

An oath that every military man and woman takes is one that swears to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution (not the actual physical document, but the ideals embodied within). If I recall correctly, this is true of law enforcement officers as well. But I just gotta ask this: How can anyone take an oath to uphold and defend something they know nothing about?

During my short enlistment in the U.S. Army, I took that oath in perfunctory fashion along with everyone else, but it wasn't until years later, I'm ashamed to say, that I actually read the wonderful, government-fettering document itself. Making people swear allegiance to a document of ideals they haven't actually been required to read themselves causes the entire process to become about as useful as a Marine's ceremonial sword on a modern battlefield, and a whole lot less meaningful.

Where will these people, who risk life and limb, get exposure to the U.S. Constitution? They certainly won't get it in public schools, which are government run and apparently loath to teach that the true power in this country resides with the people, not the politicians. About the only way they will learn about what the U.S. Constitution is, why it was written, and why it is as vital today to America as the day it was penned, is through self-motivated learning. This is about as likely to happen as elementary school children clamoring for less free time and more homework. Yes, there will be those few motivated individuals with enough intellectual curiosity to pursue the mystery, but if most are ever to learn of it at all, they'll need exposure at the K-12 level. I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

*****

Now to veer off on a tangent that is not wholly unrelated, why, in God's name, do we need a professional, standing military at all? A professional military is just too tempting a thing for politicians and bureaucrats, not the most balanced people on earth, to play with. Many, of course, will say that the world is a dangerous place today and that we need a standing military for protection. Granted, the world is a dangerous place filled with liars, cheats, cutthroats, poseurs, and megalomaniacal dictators/politicians. But those who know their history realize it's always been that way, and it always will be.

If the U.S. would come out with a policy, freely stated to the rest of the world, that America spiritually--NOT monetarily/militarily--supports true liberty for all people in the world who are intelligent and motivated enough to secure it for themselves, it would once again set the standard for the rest of the thinking world to want to emulate. A small, professional cadre of--at most--100,000 soldiers/sailors/airmen, backed by many millions of citizens who could volunteer* and become soldiers within 90 days, would let the world know we really love peace-- as opposed to just mouthing that we do--but that we'll fight to defend ourselves if pushed.

America, for all its might and good intentions, simply cannot change the world for the better through force. By taking this avenue, what will change, and has changed, is America itself. To support this huge imposition of American hegemony throughout the world, a gargantuan governmental infrastructure has had to develop. This behemoth has gained its own momentum and routinely tramples on and ignores liberties that just a generation or two ago would have been unthinkable, and I'm talking about here, at home, not in some far-flung backwater. The U.S. Constitution, that blueprint for liberty, may as well not even exist for as much as it's been obsereved over the past 100 years.

*****

How do we get back to a government that resides within the limits of the ostensible supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution? People obviously have to be taught about the document and read it for themselves in the historical context in which it was written. Until a majority of the population implicitly understands what the U.S. Constitution is and why it alone can guarantee lasting liberty, America will continue its ever-quickening slide into totalitarianism.

As I mentioned before, I am not too optimistic about this happening. Asking government-run schools to include this subject in its basic curriculum is essentially asking government to commit suicide. Demanding that this be done may help, but I am dubious about even this. Long ago, when America was another country (and, no, I don't think everything was great in the "good ol' days"), a subject called civics, which taught how the American government worked and its constraints, was a basic requirement in many American schools. It was considered vital to the perpetuation of American ideals and liberty to pass this information on to the next generation. Somewhere along the line this fell out of fashion, and we've become a poorer nation for it ever since.


*This is an essential idea. A draft would be, and is, antithetical, to the notion of liberty. When a citizen volunteers to go into combat to defend his interests, it means he believes his rational self interests and, by extension, his country wherein his rational self interests are exercised, are endangered by the threat. Woe betide an enemy who threatens any man's rational self interests; those who fight with righteous conviction are greater than the sum of their parts. No government needs to coerce a man to defend his rational self interests. The only time a government need resort to coercion of a rational man is when the aims of the government and that man are in direct opposition. In other words, when the man sees no danger to his rational self interests in what the government is calling a threat.

Take care.
DAL357

A minor milestone

Yesterday, 5-24-07, my son finished kindergarten, his first year of formal education. He goes to a charter school and, thus far, my wife and I are pleased with the results. Not only is my boy reading at a second-grade level, he is also writing in cursive, a skill, along with reading and math, stressed at his school. Speaking strictly from personal experience (but other adults I have talked to have had similar experiences), my own kindergarten education, some forty-odd years ago, seemed to stress playing.

Of course, my wife and I put a lot of time in with our son to make sure he does his reading, writing, and math homework assignments completely and accurately. We also read to the boy regularly, both in English and in Russian. Few children, my wife and I believe, especially in the early years, have the discipline and resolve to make the extra effort it takes to excel at schoolwork, and our son is no exception, hence our active participation in his education. It's not only our obligation as parents to do this, but also our sincere pleasure.

Take care.
DAL357