Claude Stanley Choules, the last known combat veteran of World War I, has died at the age of 110:

World War I was raging when Choules began training with the British Royal Navy, just one month after he turned 14. In 1917, he joined the battleship HMS Revenge, from which he watched the 1918 surrender of the German High Seas Fleet, the main battle fleet of the German Navy during the war.

“There was no sign of fight left in the Germans as they came out of the mist at about 10 a.m.,” Choules wrote in his autobiography. The German flag, he recalled, was hauled down at sunset.

“So ended the most momentous day in the annals of naval warfare,” he wrote. “A fleet of ships surrendered without firing a shot.

Just two months ago, Frank Buckles, the last American veteran of WWI, passed away as well.

Now, when we want to understand what fighting in the Great War was like, we’ll only have history books as our guide, because there’s no one left to ask.

That’s the claim made by Hamilton College class and their professor after analyzing the predictions of 26 pundits. Turns out, most are no better at predicting the future than is a coin flip.

After a more-than-year-long-hiatus, Podcast Appalachia is back! In this episode, I look at the life and times of James Still, widely regarded as one of the Appalachian region’s greatest writers and poets! Listen here or read a transcript here.

I generally like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie because he is one of the few politicians who appears serious about confronting spending,  as opposed to wasting time on social issues or engaging in pointless demagoguery (“Ground Zero Mosque,” anyone?). I find his tone a little off-putting at times (he is from New Jersey, after all), but think he’s generally on the right track.

Perhaps for this very reason, I am a bit surprised to see him being embraced almost wholeheartedly by conservatives. He’s hardly a red meat conservative on issues like immigration and gun control. But, as David Frum points out, personality often matters more than policy:

A left-wing friend of mine jokes that conservatives are “the party of affect”: meaning that conservatives tend to care much more how a politician speaks than what a candidate says. Christie almost perfectly exemplifies this rule. If he were a soft-spoken, conciliatory Northeastern budget-balancer, he’d be dismissed as a Bill Weld/Mike Castle RINO. But instead, he’s an-in-your-face confrontationalist. So he can favor handgun control and still be the Coulter choice for president. Just so long as he’s rude about it.

We saw a similar phenomenon a year ago, when Scott Brown was treated like a rock star by Republicans, despite being far to the left of the much-maligned (but still mostly conservative) John McCain.

This seems like a really bad idea to me, not to mention darkly ironic in light of recent events in Egypt:

The revised version includes new language saying that the federal government’s designation of vital Internet or other computer systems “shall not be subject to judicial review.” Another addition expanded the definition of critical infrastructure to include “provider of information technology,” and a third authorized the submission of “classified” reports on security vulnerabilities.

The idea of creating what some critics have called an Internet “kill switch” that the president could flip in an emergency is not exactly new.

A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August 2009 authorized the White House to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to “order the disconnection” of certain networks or Web sites. House Democrats have taken a similar approach in their own proposals.

Lieberman, who recently announced he would not seek re-election in 2012, said last year that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. “For all of its ‘user-friendly’ allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” he said.

Declaring an action by the government immune to judicial review is almost an open invitation for abuse. Do you really want to give the government what would amount to dictatorial power? Extraordinary measures should require extra situations to be justifiable; if it should become obviously necessary necessary for the Internet to be restricted (here’s doubting it ever will), let our leaders convince a federal judge of the necessity of their actions. And if they can’t convince a judge, then such actions probably wouldn’t be warranted.

This bill has support from both sides of the aisle, proving that in many cases, bipartisanship simply means getting hosed twice as fast. It’s a shame neither party really seems to care about civil liberties.

Roger Ailes considered giving Bill Clinton a show on Fox News, but it didn’t work out:

The problem with Bill is he won’t be as good on a talk show as you’d think. Because, first of all, he never shuts up. I mean he cannot hit time cues… The problem with him in a talk-show mode is not that he’s not charming, good, smart, and glib. He is. But he loves to talk about policy. He’s actually a policy wonk. So if you really want eighteen minutes on ethanol, he’ll give it to you. But it won’t get ratings.

Not that I’m a fan of Bill Clinton, but the fact that focusing on policy is considered a negative for a political talk show sums up nicely why cable news and talk radio are so vacuous these days.

Here in Tennessee, Tea Partiers are making demands on the new legislature. The one that caught my attention deals with U.S. history:

Regarding education, the material they distributed said, “Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

That would include, the documents say, that “the Constitution created a Republic, not a Democracy.”

The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.

“The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at,” said Rounds, whose website identifies him as a Vietnam War veteran of the Air Force and FedEx retiree who became a lawyer in 1995.

A few things here. First, the statement that the Constitution created a republic instead of a democracy is true, but misses the point. A true democracy in which everyone votes on every piece of legislation would be impossible to implement in the United States. A more accurate term to describe our government would be democratic republic–a republic with democratic institutions, some of which existed from the beginning, and one that has become more democratic over time. Indeed, much of American political history has been the debate on just how democratic our country should be. Any good history of the U.S. should discuss this.

As for the complaint by Rounds that the founders are unfairly criticized for slavery and treatment of Native American, well, doesn’t the fact that Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, owned slaves beg at least some questions? Even Jefferson himself saw the contradiction. And it wasn’t just Jefferson; about half of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were slaveholders. This does not discount what they accomplished, but it does seem that if we want to teach “the truth regarding the history of our nation,” as the Tea Party documents claim, we should address this.

As for bringing “liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly,” I generally agree with Rounds: the founders set up a system under which liberty could eventually be extended to everyone. But it took nearly two centuries for it to be extended to African-Americans, and many would say we’re still not completely there yet. We should also note the founders didn’t exist in a vacuum. Their ideas of liberty were very much influenced by the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and Enlightenment, and many philosophers like Locke, Smith, Montesquieu, and others. In short, we need to put them in the context of when they lived.

Now, I’m not arguing the founders should be presented as villains or their achievements downplayed. What they accomplished was nothing short of amazing, and all Americans are forever in their debt. But we should be careful not to present them as gods, but rather as men of their day: products of a flawed society who nevertheless created the greatest governing document in world history. This, I think, makes them their story all the more impressive and is, I suspect, what most of them would have wanted.

Classic:

Apparently breached by hackers, North Korea’s official Twitter account on Saturday described leader Kim Jong Il and heir apparent Kim Jong Eun as sworn enemies and called for an uprising to remove them from power.

By the time the micro-blogging mischief was over, the North Korean tweets had ranted to its 10,000-plus Twitter followers about profligate nuclear weapons spending and lavish Kim Jong Il drinking parties – hosted “while 3 million people are starving and freezing to death.” A video also had been posted on North Korea’s official YouTube channel that showed a caricature of Kim Jong Eun driving in a luxury sports car, running over women and children on the side of the road.

Unfortunately, as the article points out, Internet access is is very limited in North Korea, so very few North Koreans saw the tweets.

In case you were wondering, here are my top ten movies of 2010:

1)    The King’s Speech

2)    The Social Network

3)    Black Swan

4)    True Grit

5)    Get Low

6)    Inception

7)    Waiting for Superman

8)    Winter’s Bone

9)    Let Me In

10) North Face

Honorable Mention: The Girl Who Played With Fire, Mao’s Last Dancer, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Inside Job, Conviction, Hereafter

The woman who inspired the famous WWII-era ‘Rosie the Riveter’ poster has passed away:

Geraldine Doyle, 86, who as a 17-year-old factory worker became the inspiration for a popular World War II recruitment poster that evoked female power and independence under the slogan “We Can Do It!,” died Dec. 26 at a hospice in Lansing, Mich.

Her daughter, Stephanie Gregg, said the cause of death was complications from severe arthritis.

For millions of Americans throughout the decades since World War II, the stunning brunette in the red and white polka-dot bandanna was Rosie the Riveter.

Rosie’s rolled-up sleeves and flexed right arm came to represent the newfound strength of the 18 million women who worked during the war and later made her a figure of the feminist movement.

But the woman in the patriotic poster was never named Rosie, nor was she a riveter. All along it was Mrs. Doyle, who after graduating from high school in Ann Arbor, Mich., took a job at a metal factory, her family said.

One day, a photographer representing United Press International came to her factory and captured Mrs. Doyle leaning over a piece of machinery and wearing a red and white polka-dot bandanna over her hair.

In early 1942, the Westinghouse Corp. commissioned artist J. Howard Miller to produce several morale-boosting posters to be displayed inside its buildings. The project was funded by the government as a way to motivate workers and perhaps recruit new ones for the war effort.

Smitten with the UPI photo, Miller reportedly was said to have decided to base one of his posters on the anonymous, slender metal worker – Mrs. Doyle.

Interestingly, Mrs. Doyle didn’t learn she was the inspiration for ‘Rosie’ until 1984.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

Christmas greetings from the TSA:

Via Doug Mataconis

Bet you never saw this coming: Pat Robertson favors marijuana legalization:

Said Robertson: “I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.”

I don’t say this often, but Robertson is 100% correct!

Republicans should benefit from the 2010 census:

The new numbers are a boon for Republicans, with Texas leading the way among GOP-leaning states that will gain House seats at the Rust Belt’s expense. Following each once-a-decade census, the nation must reapportion the House’s 435 districts to make them roughly equal in population, with each state getting at least one seat.

Republicans should further benefit from redistricting thanks to their control of many key state legislatures. Legislatures, of course, draw congressional districts.

Victor Davis Hanson pens a column that should be required reading for anyone who cares about education: In Defense of the Liberal Arts

Of the Republicans who voted to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ Richard Burr of North Carolina was the most surprising. In a statement he explained his decision:

“Given the generational transition that has taken place in our nation, I feel that this policy is outdated and repeal is inevitable. However, I remain convinced that the timing of this change is wrong, and making such a shift in policy at a time when we have troops deployed in active combat areas does not take into consideration the seriousness of the situation on the ground. But, the vote this morning to invoke cloture on this bill indicated that the broader Senate was prepared to move forward with a change, and despite my concerns over timing, my conclusion is that repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is the right thing to do.”

Burr is clearly right about the “generational transition.” Public tolerance of homosexuality has grown at a rather amazing rate, and all indications are it will continue to grow. In a couple decades, Americans, when reading the history of the late 20th and early 21st century, will wonder what the big deal was all about.

It looks like Joe Lieberman’s persistence has paid off. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Clears Vital Hurdle:

In a landmark vote for gay rights, the Senate on Saturday voted to advance legislation that would overturn the military ban on openly gay troops known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The 63-33 test vote all but guarantees the legislation will pass the Senate, possibly by day’s end, and reach the president’s desk before the new year.

The House had passed an identical version of the bill, 250-174, earlier this week.

Repeal would mean that, for the first time in American history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out.

More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.

DADT isn’t officially repealed yet–that will probably happen tomorrow or early next week. It will also be a while before the policy is fully implemented. Nonetheless, this is a historic day.

Steve Gill seems to have flip flopped on the issue of healthcare mandates. Here’s what he says today:

The Left is going crazy of the federal court ruling in Virginia that a federal mandate to buy health insurance is “Unconstitutional.” One of the bogus issues they are raising is that if it is ok for states to mandate the purchase of auto insurance why can’t Obama mandate the purchase of health insurance? Good question. The Heritage Foundation has dealt with this particular issue in great detail, over a year ago. 1) There is a distinction in the powers of the STATE and FEDERAL governments, 2) Automobile insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself, 3) State auto insurance requirements are limited to those who drive on PUBLIC roads and 4) States require drivers to maintain auto insurance only to cover injuries to OTHERS, not themselves or their own property. Next question?

Strange that Steve Gill didn’t see much of a difference between health insurance mandates and car insurance mandates back in ’06, when he was pushing his TNCARES plan:

Gill’s plan, the TennCare Comprehensive Accessibility and Responsibility Enhancement System (TNCARES) would make a new and affordable health insurance pool available to about one million Tennesseans who are being terminated from TennCare or are already uninsured. The plan would also legally require maintaining health insurance coverage as a matter of personal responsibility; much like car insurance is already required by law in Tennessee.

Emphasis mine.

Gill does deal with this somewhat by citing differences in state and federal power, but his other three objections would seem to apply to state mandates just as well as federal mandates. Perhaps Gill has changed his mind over the past four years or perhaps he’s just telling his audience what they want to hear. You can decide for yourself.

Various news sources including CNN and New York Times are reporting that the individual mandate provision of Obamacare has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Virginia. This is obviously big news, although this is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court where Anthony Kennedy will decide.

The judge’s ruling is not out, so it’s unclear what his reasoning is, which should be interesting. As someone strongly opposed to Obamacare, I can’t say I’m disappointed to see this ruling, but it’s far from certain that it will withstand further appeals.

Barack Obama might be facing an opponent from Alaska in 2012. Not, not her:

Former Alaska Senator and 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel told The Daily Caller in an exclusive interview that he is mulling a primary challenge to President Barack Obama in 2012.

Gravel’s platform would be.. well.. interesting:

Gravel, who served in the Senate from 1969 to 1980, also stated that he believes that members of the U.S. government “may certainly have participated with the obviously known perpetrators” of the September 11th attacks. “Obviously an act that has triggered three wars, Afghan, Iraqi and the continuing War on Terror, should be extensively investigated”, Gravel continued, “which was not done and which the government avoids addressing.”

You can already hear the Republicans chanting, “Run, Mike, Run!”