A Good Read / The Boys in the Boat by Daniel James Brown

I don’t often recommend books I’ve read; but I have recently finished a very good one:  The Boys in the Boat by Daniel James Brown.  This is a book that almost anyone will enjoy reading – even bring a tear or two to your eyes – at least it did to mine – very inspirational.  It will make a great movie.

This is a book about the ‘boys’ who made up the University of Washington’s ‘eight – oar crew’ that won the 1936 Olympic Gold in rowing; held in Germany (Nazi Germany).

The ‘boat’ has eight rowers and a coxswain for a crew total of nine.  The book, researched in detail, delves into all their lives, but principally chronicles the life of Joe Rantz and his hardscrabble, early life – literally abandoned and orphaned at the age of fifteen.

The gold medal in the 1936 Olympic, 2000 meter race, was won by these American college boys, who found their ‘swing’ and pulled together a come-from-behind upset victory.  Germany’s hand-selected team finished third behind the Italian Team.

“On the balcony of Haus West, Hitler turned and strode back into the building, unspeaking.  Goebbels and Goring and the rest of the Nazi officials scurried in behind him.”

The ‘boys’ winning, record time was 6 minutes 26.4 seconds.  This record was an incredibly fast time for the period.

Incidentally, and it should not detract in any way from the 1936 victory (training regimens and equipment have greatly improved over the years); but Canada now holds the record at 5 minutes 19.35 seconds, set in 2012.

True Nelson

The FBI, The US Attorney’s Office / Kitzhaber - Hayes / Game On!

I hate to say I told you so; but I told you so.  Hours after Governor John Kitzhaber announced his resignation, the FBI and their local surrogate the US Attorney’s Office (Portland) jumped into the official fray.  They were not about to be left out of this one.

Oh, I know, some had reported earlier that ‘unofficial sources’ had indicated the FBI’s interest; and, I’m sure that an Agent was busily clipping newspaper articles.  However, the FBI would not confirm their interest.

But, game on now.  The FBI and the Justice Department want their place on the stage.  'Stand aside Ellen Rosenblum, we will take it from here.'

What's next?  What will take place is a protracted, very expensive legal battle; much of which (most, if not all) will be funded by the taxpayers.

This is how the game is played.

http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2015/02/oregon-governor-john-kitzhaber-and.html

True Nelson

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber Resigns in Disgrace / and Who is at Fault?

Well, Governor Kitzhaber has resigned.  He probably did the right thing; but it’s hard to feel good about it.  His life, his career in tatters, it’s like watching a train wreck – fascinating, but you just want to turn away.

I think most now speculate that Cylvia Hayes caused Kitzhaber’s downfall.  It would be pretty easy to blame her and her ‘seductive’ ways; but that just doesn’t seem likely – no, really, it doesn’t – at least not to me.  He’s not stupid.  He’s not unsophisticated.  He is not politically ignorant.  And, he is not sixteen.  Although, at times, one could wonder about the latter.

I think there was complicity on his part, probably more than we will ever know.  He buckled too easily, too quickly.  Yes, there are things he hopes we will never know.

What about Kitzhaber’s relationship with Cylvia?  Oh boy, talk about a train wreck.

True Nelson

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber; and Where’s Waldo? (I mean the FBI)

Governor John Kitzhaber indicated he would resign on Tuesday; but changed his mind on Wednesday.  Pressure is increasing for him to get on with it and complete the former.  The public corruption matter is becoming more and more evident involving Kitzhaber and his girlfriend Cylvia Hayes, aka ‘The First Lady.’

But, moving on, do you know the answer to the following?

What is the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s current policy / directives concerning ‘Public Corruption?’  Well, here’s what they have to say about that.

“It’s our top priority among criminal investigations—and for good reason.

Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life. It impacts everything from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected…to verdicts handed down in courts…to the quality of our roads, schools, and other government services. And it takes a significant toll on our pocketbooks, wasting billions in tax dollars every year.

The FBI is singularly situated to combat this corruption, with the skills and capabilities to run complex undercover operations and surveillance.”

So why haven’t we heard anything from the FBI regarding the Kitzhaber / Hayes imbroglio?

Here are my suggested answers to the above:

1. The Portland FBI administration / supervisory staff have apparently assumed a non-aggressive position in public corruption cases; preferring, instead, to pursue less politically charged inquiries – a ‘let’s wait and see’ position whereupon they can jump in at the last – the fait accompli so to speak – and grab their share of the recognition (glory).  Any prosecution or forced resignation of a Governor would be a very important addition to their ‘stats’ and a feather in the cap of the SAC.
2. The Portland FBI does not act with total independence.  Anything they do, regarding such a high-profile inquiry, would require FBI HQ authorization.  Headquarters might have their own concerns.  This is not a typical case for the Bureau.  They may feel that ‘we risk nothing,’ by waiting.
3. And, of course, the FBI is part of the Justice Department; and must answer to Eric Holder, the President’s ‘aide-de-camp’ (sometimes referred to as the Attorney General).  Said individual, Mr. Holder, is probably not too anxious to go after a Democratic Governor and/or his girlfriend – especially in a State that is so consistently ‘Blue.’

True Nelson

You might also be interested in:

http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2015/02/governor-john-kitzhaber-and-cylvia.html

http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2014/10/oregon-governor-john-kitzhaber-co.html

Governor John Kitzhaber and Cylvia Hayes / The Plot Thickens

Governor John Kitzhaber and his girlfriend (Cylvia Hayes), aka ‘The First Lady,’ are making the news again.  I’m not going to run through the details.  If interested, I suggest people read Nick Budnick’s article in The Oregonian on 2/4/15.  And, or read David Sarasohn’s article, also in The Oregonian on 2/4/15.  I imagine one can find both online at OregonLive if you missed the newspaper.

Kitzhaber, Hayes, et al:  It sounds like double-dealing and cronyism of the worst kind – and dare I say possible criminality.  But don’t expect an official inquiry anytime soon.  Our Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum was appointed by Kitzhaber and is beholden to him for her current position.  And, as an aside, isn’t it interesting how she got her job?  Did her father pull some strings?

Well, what about the FBI?  Doesn’t appear to be anything happening there, as Gregory Bretzing (Special Agent in Charge – Portland) seems to be sitting on his hands waiting for the Oregonian to complete their investigation.

I got a kick out of the recent commentary by Steve Duin with The Oregonian.  He, too, pretty much laid-out Kitzhaber’s predicament.  However, at the end of his article, I had to disagree with his conclusion.  Mr. Duin opined that if the Governor had to choose between his job and ‘The First Lady,’ he (the Governor) would choose Cylvia.  Sounds romantic doesn’t it?  But, I doubt that’s how it would play.  I think that, if Kitzhaber resigns, Cylvia will move on to what she perceives to be greener pastures.

Once, I recall my grandfather commenting on a ‘good-looking’ woman who was appearing on television.  It surprised me.  I didn’t think that sort of thing ever crossed his mind.  My grandmother heard the comment.  She looked over at me and smiled.  I remember what she said.  “There’s no fool like an old fool.”

True Nelson

PS:  You might also be interested in:  http://trueattrue.blogspot.com/2014/10/oregon-governor-john-kitzhaber-co.html

The British Perspective on Guns / and Why / Part 3

This is Part 3.  I appreciate John’s British perspective.  I found it very informative.  He has recently answered the two questions I put forth in Part 2; which I will now share with all of you.

True’s Question #1:

John, do you think that Americans (reflective of our culture and demographics) are more violent than the British; and, if so, why?

John’s Response:  In terms of assaults against the person there have been studies which show that the UK has a higher statistical rate than the US. Both societies are much the same in terms of the culture of violent TV shows and video games, the fracturing of the traditional family unit, and the assimilation of immigrants from totally differing cultures.  But the UK also has a lower legal drinking age (18) than the US.  The mixture of alcoholic brews and testosterone is a recipe for disorderly behavior at the least, DUII's and violent assaults further up the scale. The main weapon of the UK inner city thug is the knife, as firearms are far harder to obtain.  The bladed weapon is certainly capable of causing death but it is not the efficient killer that the gun is.  One study showed that assaults in the UK involving firearms are 1 in 13, far lower than the US.

Even the most meek and out-of-shape among us is transformed into a lethal force when a gun is in the hand.  So in terms of violence in the US resulting in fatalities the rate is much higher than the UK, simply because the easier to use and more deadly the weapon the higher will be the body count.  And although the US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, it is not the highest in firearms related deaths.  That dubious distinction is shared by certain Central American and Caribbean countries.  Even so, watching the local TV evening news, I am struck by the notion that the rate of gang-related shootings rivals that of Belfast and Londonderry during the height of the Troubles; minus, of course, the mass casualty bombings.

True's Question #2:

John, do you think our Second Amendment is a good and necessary aspect of our Constitution?

John’s Response:  The Second Amendment.  Absolutely I believe it is good and necessary; although I' m sure the Founding Fathers would scratch their wigs at the dazzling array of battlefield weaponry which is available to the public.

Speaking solely with the perspective of my British background, and as a former unarmed cop, I believe such high capacity military type weapons should be restricted to gun club members and housed on those premises.  But that's me, who is still amazed that when I buy a gun I do not have to provide a reason for doing so to the authorities.  One aspect of gun ownership that I am in favor of is that there should be legal consequences for those gun owners who fail, through negligence or carelessness, to keep their weapons secure and are used by others to kill and maim the innocent. Being a lawful gun owner confers (or should) a tremendous personal responsibility to ensure they do not fall into the wrong hands.

But getting back to the issue, the civilian right to bear arms was essential to safeguard the new republic from its enemies.  The gun was also a critical tool of survival for the pioneers and adventurers who pushed ever deeper into the unknown and often hostile lands, much the same as their opposite numbers in Australia and Canada.  In today's world, the threat is no longer from the Redcoats, the Spanish or the Apaches, but the armed criminals who prey off society and from whom the law abiding citizen is fully entitled to protect themselves. The Second Amendment is perhaps even more relevant in these times.

True’s Postscript:  As a past member of the NRA, I do feel that organization has gone too far in its unwavering defense of weapons that have no hunting, sporting, or reasonable personal protection function.  Although, I do understand that ‘reasonable personal protection’ is like beauty – in the eyes of the beholder.  Nonetheless, I’m referring to strictly anti-personnel weaponry of the worst kind:  such things as ‘Street Sweeper’ shotguns and military grade weapons with high capacity magazines.  Yes, I know, some collectors like to have them – but for what purpose, I’m really not sure.  However, if a person does have such a weapon and allows it to be misused or unsecured, the punishment should be severe.

I’ve often thought that guns should be rated, under law, according to their potential anti-personnel lethalness.  For example:  revolvers, traditional shotguns with three round capacity, and single-shot or bolt action rifles would be a ‘category one.’  On the other end, a ‘Street Sweeper shotgun (depicted above) or a Kalashnikov AK47 (depicted below) should be a ‘category five.’  Law violations and subsequent penalties should consider the weapon’s assigned category.  In my opinion, using a ‘category five’ weapon in commission of a crime should warrant ‘life’ in prison.

True Nelson

The British Perspective on Guns / and Why / Part 2

This is a continuation of John’s comments regarding British law enforcement and the UK's anti-gun culture:

John:  "During my years as a UK police officer I never carried a gun.  No one I arrested, or my colleagues arrested, was in possession of a gun.  Not to say it did not occur, but it was a rarity.

Possession of a firearm or an imitation firearm could result in a lengthy incarceration.  The prevailing sentiment of the day among the police was that if we were armed then the crooks would pack guns and we would not be safer.  There was, among some, the old cry of 'we don’t want to be like America.'   They could have easily said we don’t want to be like France, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Australia, etc.  All those forces are armed.  The few other nations which are primarily unarmed are the Irish Republic, New Zealand, and Norway.

A murder investigation in the UK was a big deal with Incident Rooms established, officers drafted in from other divisions, all under the command of an officer not below the rank of a Detective Chief Inspector.

When I was growing up the most popular police show on TV was Dixon of Dock Green which ran for years.  The main character was a middle-aged police sergeant who resolved cases and restored order through mainly avuncular wisdom.  Rarely was there a laying on of hands on an offender and certainly no firearms were brandished.  And today the public is not ready for the friendly area constable, on his foot beat in the High Street, chatting up merchants, seeing school kids across the street, giving directions to tourists, with a gun strapped to his hip.  In a recent incident in Scotland, an armed response group, being the only officers available, responded to a routine disturbance call outside a McDonalds.  They turned up with their Glocks and magazines clearly visible much to the consternation of the stunned onlookers, which was followed by howls of concern by a local member of parliament to the Chief Constable.

That said the public is now conditioned to the sight of London Metropolitan Officers, armed with H & K automatic rifles and handguns, patrolling in pairs, through Heathrow airport.

Times are changing.  In my day the terrorist threat was from the IRA, but the shadowy bombers were already long gone when their devices exploded.   None of them were suicide bombers unless they had screwed up their timing mechanisms.  Recent events in France and Belgium involving Islamic terrorists show a kamikaze mentality who will confront their targets with guns blazing.  Death to them is the martyrdom of the fanatic.

In the recent Belgian incident the police foiled attacks in which they themselves were the intended target.  Automatic weapons and police uniforms were discovered.  But at least, unlike their unarmed British colleagues, the European officers have the means to defend themselves."

True’s Comment (questions for John):

1. John, do you think that Americans (reflective of our culture and demographics) are more violent than the British; and, if so, why?
2. Do you think our Second Amendment is a good and necessary aspect of our Constitution?

True Nelson