If you were as sloppy on your federal tax return is as the Federal government is in reporting the child poverty rate, you would be carted off to jail. How is it possible for the census bureau to exclude nearly two trillion dollars in transfer payments (such as food stamps. Children’s Health Insurance, rent subsidies, etc.) which inflates the percent of children living in poverty? Fifty years ago, the average family with children received about $10,000 in subsidies (welfare); today that number stands at over $45,000.

The problem with how the numbers are reported is not only that they are inaccurate but that they create a rationale for increasing taxes to reach an unreachable goal and whose cost falls disproportionately on the shrinking middle class. While Obama Care was created and openly talked about as a wealth transfer program, the under reporting of transfers in a program such as child poverty is more insidious. The only real achievement of this type of misreporting is the creation and maintenance of an ever-growing government bureaucracy which has no vested interest in reporting the accurate numbers.

Click on the link below for the full story.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/child-poverty-data-are-missing-something-refundable-tax-credit-tranfser-payments-census-estimates-household-income-11663689293?page=1

From the outbreak of the war in August 1914 until the end, November 1918, Major Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck led a small group of German troops and militia and 10,000 native Black Askaris in a campaign across much of central Africa. Cut off from his homeland, he and his troops lived off the land and the supplies they were able to capture from the British who were charged with capturing or destroying his force. What should have been an easy campaign against the small German force turned out to tied up 300,000 British Empire troops commanded by 130 generals which were needed in the European theater.

Always staying one step ahead of the British and often taking the fight, successfully to the British, the Germans had to not only survive the battles, but live in a climate of extreme heat, lack of water, diseases and insects which could infect a man with a disease that could cause death in a single day. Without a source of steady supply, the Germans resorted to sneak attacks on supply depots for food, shoes, medicines, and clothing. Slowly the two thousand Germans were whittled away through battle and disease, yet they survived in part because they learned to move like the natives in small, fast groups with a minimal of supplies while the British relied on slow moving columns followed and hindered by thousands of camp followers.

When the war ended, von Lettow-Vorbeck thought that the news might be a British trick, but he was finally convinced. The biggest problem came from his Askaris who could not understand why they had to surrender as they felt they were winning! In the end, the native troops almost started a rebellion but were finally convinced that they had to go home. Unfortunately, they were treated poorly by the British who exhibited a

 very racist attitude which they carried over from their treatment of the natives in India.

This is an excellent history of a campaign which has been largely overlooked by historians. It is a shame that the author did not cover the history of the German rule in Africa as it was both better and worse than that of the French and British. Better in that they created more schools and hospitals for the natives than the other Europeans but worse in that the Germans put down a revolt in 1905 that cost the lives of 300,000 natives. Despite the brutality of the German response, there was never any problem with the natives who served with the Germans during World War I.

A small book that demonstrates the human spirit and ability to survive against great odds.

What happens when an “oppressed” minority becomes the ruling majority? Do they learn from their history of “oppression” and shed the traits and habits of that time, or do they institutionalize those very traits and habits in the institutions which they control? If it is the latter, how do we determine that those institutions are improving, providing better service or a finer product?

Over the past half century, women have made major strides in the world of academia. As the linked article points out, they have gone from less than ten percent of doctoral degrees to over fifty percent, while composing over fifty percent of the faculty at postsecondary institutions. No matter where you look, women are becoming the driving force in our education system. Is that a positive or a negative? What do they bring with them and how will their hopes, fears, likes and dislikes shape those institution? According to numerous studies, the results can be serious in the long term. Why? Consider:

• Women believe colleges should protect students from “offensive” ideas at a higher rate than men
• If controversial claims are made by speakers, such as  men are better at math, all white people are racists, etc.,” women opposed allowing those speakers to speak at a rate several times higher than men
• Women by a margin of almost forty percent believe that colleges should not invite speakers if students threaten violence
• Women are more willing to support dismissal campaigns than men against colleagues whose research resulted in controversial conclusions

Studies have shown that women are more willing to suppress science for moral reasons as women are more focused on social justice and egalitarian norms. This is censorship and goes directly counter to the very concept of a liberal education. By placing themselves as the arbiters of what is acceptable and what is not, women create a system based on their narcissistic belief that they possess the only correct vision and path for the future.

The concept of safe places, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) committees and Deans as well as DEI Commitment Statements, trigger warnings, etc. brush too closely to censorship and authoritarian group think. It is time that we return to a system that is mores free, more objective and allows an ebb and flow of ideas and discourse.

Toxic masculinity ignores that males overwhelmingly were responsible for the gains in wealth, health, the rise in living standards, progress in science and so much more that has provided women with the opportunities they have today. It is doubtful that a toxic femininity can provide a path to a freer and better world.

https://quillette.com/2022/10/08/sex-and-the-academy/

“Talking about ‘healthy masculinity’ is like talking about ‘healthy cancer” and “Traditional masculinity has oppressed girls and women and limited the identity construction of all boys and men.”  But let us not forget, “we need to call masculinity out as a hazardous ideology and denounce anyone who chooses to identify with it.”  Thus begins a review of No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men by Anthony Esolen (the review is by Noah M Peterson.

Mr. Esolen has written a rebuttal to statements like those and others that attack the concept of masculinity that has evolved for thousands of years. His rebuttals include examples of how civilization was built by the very forces that are condemned so readily today; men’s drive to create and conquer (which motivated technological development), men’s willingness to fight (not only physically but mentally) and other traits that have moved humans forward from the darkest caves.

Peterson, points out that while the author is only half right in some areas, such as his assertion that “Every typical difference between the behaviors of boys and girls can be seen as the natural expression of the forms of their bodies”, he is consistent in following his views to their logical if controversial conclusions.  For example, are women incapable of “dispassionate analysis”? Was government created by men to protect women and children?

 Esolen fails in his discussion of virtue in that he does not “provide a standard of virtuous masculinity that men can strive for….”  If virtue is a means of restraint, how is a boy growing into manhood be taught when to use his strength and drive and when to temper it? This is a question that cannot be answered by a secularist for what is the higher universal standard of a secularist? Perhaps the answer regarding virtue can be more easily answered by those who believe in a higher purpose and being? This is not covered in this discussion.

The questions and conclusions Esolen cover may infuriate some, but all we need to do is recall the quotes at the start of this review and then remember that we are also told that no one is attacking masculinity.

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/boys-to-men-2/

How was it possible for the United States Army, which numbered less than 200,000 men and which was smaller than the army of Portugal, would go on to defeat Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, while only losing one battle during the Second World War? How was it able to put into the field, armies which managed to beat the hardened professional armies of its enemies? The answer can be found to a large degree in this outstanding book by Geoffrey Perret.

One leader does stand out above all the rest, and it is not the President, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt; it is the man he picked out for the job of creating the U.S. fighting force, George C. Marshall. Marshall was a man who knew how to surround himself with the best of the best, both in the administration of the army and in the field. A tireless worker, he expected the same of those around him and he did not hesitate to demote or retire high ranking officers who failed in their jobs. That type of ruthlessness saved lives and was expected of every officer no matter what his rank. He also realized that the old style of thinking in the military, that of matching the enemies’ weapons, one to one was outdated. Marshall managed to skip a generation of military thought in creating a fighting force that simply was better trained, better educated, more creative and better supplied than any other military of its day. Since the focus of this volume is on the army per se, the author does not delve into the genius of the American industry who overcame so many hurtles to deliver the tanks, ships and planes needed by the military, but he does give many examples of the excellence of what was provided.

We constantly hear cries about income inequity in our nation and how we must immediately correct this problem. Yet, as so often the case, the cries of panic from the Left do not stand up to any degree of investigation. The following paragraph from the attached article says so much but the actual article will provide you with the hard facts. Yes, there is income inequity, but the real victims are not those at the bottom of the economy but rather the middle class which works so hard but receives so little for their effort.

“The average second-quintile household earned almost five times as much as the average household in the bottom quintile, because it has 2.4s times as many working-age members working and on average each worker worked 80% more hours. The average middle-quintile household earned almost ten times as much and had 2.6 times the percentage of its working-age people, each working twice as many hours. Yet the bottom 60% of American households received essentially the same income after accounting for taxes, transfer payments a household size.”

If you are upset about your level of taxation, be sure to be sitting when you read this article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/income-equality-not-inequality-is-the-problem-labor-force-participation-income-taxes-transfer-payments-middle-bottom-rich-household-size-census-11661781351

In 1941, the BBC adopted the 5th symphony’s introduction as the theme introducing all of it’s WWII broadcasts. Why? The opening of the symphony, “bum bum bum BUM” equated to the letter V in Morse Code (dot dot dot dash) which was Winston Churchill’s silent sign to win the war. The symphony became known as the “Victory Symphony”.

I must confess that I have never put much faith in conspiracy theories. I never gave a second thought that Trump was an agent of the Russians, or that the Russians had a major impact on any U.S. election. The idea that a hacker in Bolivia or Mongolia tapped into our voting machines and robbed Hillary of the Presidency was silly from the get-go. Sorry, I never put credence in the theory that the FBI paid Jack Ruby to kill Oswald and no, the moon landing happened. Why? Well, some theories are just too silly to begin with but the one sure way to tell if the theory is plausible is by looking at who supports them. I could name numerous television talk show hosts who have managed to broadcast their ignorance with great relish, along with icons from Hollywood and of course, the world of politics.

Recently however, I have begun to think there might just be an international conspiracy afoot as I am reluctant to believe that so many national leaders can possibly be as stupid as they appear. When a nation like the U.S goes from energy independence to energy shortage due to an almost mystical belief in imperfect and immature alternative energy sources in just one year, and is supported by national leaders around the world, theat is something to support a conspiracy theory.

Think of it; Germany closes it nuclear power plants, spends tens of billions on solar energy in a country where the sun does not shine for many months of the year. When the German economy is threatened by the cut off from Russian energy, the Canadian Prime Minister turns down an opportunity to sell its energy and continues to create debt at a record pace. Meanwhile Sri Lanka has food shortages and riots in the street due in large part to a “green” agenda while at the same time in Canada and the Netherlands the governments are demanding farmers use less fertilizer which is heavily dependent on fossil fuels in production. The result will be higher food costs, less production and food shortages from countries that are major contributors of food to third world nations.

Can national leaders be so ignorant of the results of their policies? Are they that detached from the lives of those they claim to represent? Are they all part of a global coven or are they just that stupid? It is scary as the worse science fiction scenarios I read when I was young seem to be happening right before my eyes.

The attached article by Eric Nuttall lays out a solid argument for a change in Canadian energy policy which of course, shall be ignored. But, more importantly, it highlights the very real advantages to average Canadians by such a change, one that is certainly no different than the advantages in any other fossil fuel producer country. Plentiful, cheap energy is the life blood of economic growth and nations which deliberately ignore that idea do so at their own peril and to the detriment of other nations and peoples.

https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/eric-nuttall-canada-give-world-more-natural-gas

The attached article by Mr. Lomberg raises a key question: in a society based on competition and the freedom of consumers to find products that best fit their needs, why does the government mandate you accept a product they prefer? What exactly is the benefit to the consumer? Is it:

• Less costly
• More efficient
• Provide better service/value

If the mandated product does not address the points above, then what is the rational for the mandate? It should raise significant questions for when the last time was the government mandated a product which altered the consumers buying pattern. The one example that comes to mind is the Affordable Care Act which among other things, promised that it would be less expensive and that you could keep your old doctor. How did that work out?

Bjorn Lomborg has excellent environmental credentials, and he often suggests options which are not only less expensive to all parties, but less traumatic. I hope you enjoy his article.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/policies-pushing-electric-vehicles-show-why-few-people-want-one-cars-clean-energy-gasoline-emissions-co2-carbon-electricity-11662746452

The Russian army has had moments of brilliance, such as the defeat of Napoleon and the logistical miracle of following him from Moscow to Paris. There is no doubt that the army which was responsible for ninety percent of German losses in WWII (thanks in large part to the supplies provided by the U.S. and the U.K. at no charge) played a key part in the defeat of Hitler.

Today however, we see a Russian army that sadly fits the stereotype in many people’s minds; poorly trained, led and equipped. Once again, without total mobilization, the Russian army is simply too small and poorly led for the job of defending its immense country.

Is the stereotype accurate when looking at the Russian army currently in the field? This book helps to put the challenges of that army in an historical context.

With the defeat during the Crimean War, the new Czar realized that his army while large, could not compete with those of other European nations.  Thus began, over the next 50 years, attempts to update the military skills of the officer corp., the weapons, training, etc. of the entire Imperial Army.  But serious questions arose and continued to rise as rapid changes in military technology raised doubts about long held beliefs and new theories of the military art.  Those same questions would worry the military minds of other European powers.  To give a couple of examples:

• The old theory was that the troops would line up for attack at 250 paces from the enemy, but with smokeless powder (hence a longer range), that distance began to expand to 500 paces, then 1000 and eventually over a kilometer and a half from the enemy forces.  This meant that the killing ground was expanded and what steps could be taken to minimize lives?
• Along with the infantry, direct fire artillery since the time of Napoleon had played a major part in any attack or defense.  But with the longer range of infantry weapons, the artillerist was more open to withering fire so new tactics such as indirect fire had to be worked out.

Many officers had theories to answer these and other questions, but at the same time there were vested interests which refused to acknowledge these and many other problems.  Top generals, who fought during the Napoleonic wars still believed in the shock value of cavalry, and their influence ate up huge sums of the military budget.

Financial concerns were also a top priority.  Training was often poor, especially further away from St. Petersburg and due to tight budgets, for example, the artillery was limited to only two rounds of certain types of ammunitions per gun per year!  Bullets were expensive so large rattles were used to imitate the sound of machine guns firing. 

And yet, despite the stereotype of the dark plodding masses, gradually the army learned and moved on; allowances for more initiative at the lower levels was encouraged and a Staff school was set up to create a more professional officer class.  A major problem however, was that seniority still ruled and the more professional staff officers were cut off from reaching the highest levels.

The book covers not only the areas above, but a basic description of the war with Turkey (1877-78) and Japan (1904-05) to the eve of WWI.  It does not go into the financial arrangements with France which lead to much of Russia’s fail development prior to the war (all of which was aimed at moving the Russian army faster against Germany), but does give some detail on the under estimation of the Russian army as to the amount of munitions needed for modern war (despite the experience of the war with Japan), but then so did most of the other European nations.

An interesting book for the military historian, but it can be dry and academic.  I would like to see similar books on the German and French armies during the same time.op

iance, such as the defeat of Napoleon including it logistical excellence in its ability to follow him all the way to Paris. There is no doubt that it won the Second World War by inflicting ninety percent of the German casualities (helped in large part by the supplies provided at no cost by the U.S. Yet currently, we see a Russian army that fits the

With the defeat during the Crimean War, the new Czar realized that his army while large, could not compete with those of other European nations.  Thus began, over the next 50 years, attempts to update the military skills of the officer corp., the weapons, training, etc. of the entire Imperial Army.  But serious questions arose and continued to rise as rapid changes in military technology raised doubts about long held beliefs and new theories of the military art.  Those same questions would worry the military minds of other European powers.  To give a couple of examples:

• The old theory was that the troops would line up for attack at 250 paces from the enemy, but with smokeless powder (hence a longer range), that distance began to expand to 500 paces, then 1000 and eventually over a kilometer and a half from the enemy forces.  This meant that the killing ground was expanded and what steps could be taken to minimize lives?
• Along with the infantry, direct fire artillery since the time of Napoleon had played a major part in any attack or defense.  But with the longer range of infantry weapons, the artillerist was more open to withering fire so new tactics such as indirect fire had to be worked out.

Many officers had theories to answer these and other questions, but at the same time there were vested interests which refused to acknowledge these and many other problems.  Top generals, who fought during the Napoleonic wars still believed in the shock value of cavalry, and their influence ate up huge sums of the military budget.

Financial concerns were also a top priority.  Training was often poor, especially further away from St. Petersburg and due to tight budgets, for example, the artillery was limited to only two rounds of certain types of ammunitions per gun per year!  Bullets were expensive so large rattles were used to imitate the sound of machine guns firing. 

And yet, despite the stereotype of the dark plodding masses, gradually the army learned and moved on; allowances for more initiative at the lower levels was encouraged and a Staff school was set up to create a more professional officer class.  A major problem however, was that seniority still ruled and the more professional staff officers were cut off from reaching the highest levels.

The book covers not only the areas above, but a basic description of the war with Turkey (1877-78) and Japan (1904-05) to the eve of WWI.  It does not go into the financial arrangements with France which lead to much of Russia’s fail development prior to the war (all of which was aimed at moving the Russian army faster against Germany), but does give some detail on the under estimation of the Russian army as to the amount of munitions needed for modern war (despite the experience of the war with Japan), but then so did most of the other European nations.

An interesting book for the military historian, but it can be dry and academic.  I would like to see similar books on the German and French armies during the same time.