How to Post Here

Dear Readers:

Many visitors (sometimes including myself!) have noted that it’s difficult to impossible to post comments here and on other blogs. The following came from a dedicated reader who passes along some helpful information. With thanks to Yahoobuckaroo's blog:

“As the Google Help site suggests, the commenting system within Blogger.com blogs has a number of issues.

“Blogger/Blogspot on how to fix when people can't comment.

“There's a known problem with Blogger/Blogspot blogs that some people experience a lot of trouble posting comments on them. The forums are FULL of complaints, though I haven't heard of an official fix from Google.

“Personally, I don't get any more errors posting on Blogger blogs than I do on Wordpress or any other kind. I suspect part of the problem is with how people's internet browsers are set--and I found a *fix* for that one too, but can't find it at the moment.

“One of the easiest solutions is to have pop-out comments, but it's not a solution in all cases--I gather it just solves the problem most of the time. And I did find one person who complained that in their Firefox browser the popout window is super teensy small and annoying.

“I just found two other solutions, which require the owner of the blog to make a fix. I'm going to post them here for any blog owners who want to play around with them, though I won't be adding any instructions/visuals ‘cause I'm off to bed soon (my exciting new bedtime of 3 AM instead of the horrid bedtime which had crept up on me of 8AM!)

“So without further ado, the two fixes I just Googled up, that seem to work for a lot of people:

"Number 1

"I had the same problem, even though I had the option checked for people to be able to leave comments. I went to my Layout Settings (Or Design--BT), then "Edit HTML," and clicked the "Revert widget templates to default" underneath the text box. That took care of my problem...hope it works for you too!

“I finally figured it out. Changing the settings like -emnj- made it so the posts I do now people can comment on, but I couldn't figure out how to get it to change on the previous ones. So what I did was click on the Edit icon for the post that no one could comment on. Then under the box I wrote in, there is a part that says ‘Post Options.’ It's right above the orange ‘Publish Post’ box. Click ‘Post Options’ and click ‘Allow Comments.’ Presto change-o: people can comment now.

“No. 2

“Is explained on this person's blog, with proper detailed instructions:”

http://glamiva.blogspot.com/2009/10/easiest-comment-box-code.html

Barrett speaking again:

I have made the template change so we'll see how that works. Or not. In the latter case, another option is to try posting as "Anonymous."

Thanks to the dozens of you who return to my Rant Page each month—with heartfelt wishes for better luck hereon!

THE NAVAL NAME GAME

The U.S. Navy is institutionally incapable of following its own rules. In recent years Secretaries of the Navy have ignored historic conventions regarding appropriate names for different classes of ships, repeatedly catering to political factions.

The situation was recently summarized by a retired chief petty officer. He says, “The Navy has a system for naming submarines. They’re named for cities, states, politicians, and fish.”

That’s an apt description of the “system.”

Naval purists recall the long-gone era of logical ship names: battleships were states; carriers were battles or historic ships; cruisers were cities; destroyers were people; submarines were fish, etc. No more.

The essence is rule of man rather than law, as new ships are named by the Secretary of the Navy—a political appointee. A congressional summary notes, “The Navy states that while ‘it has attempted to be systematic in naming its ships, like all institutions it has been subject to evolutionary change...’”

That’s one way of putting it. But for a reality check, exchange “evolutionary change” with “politics.”

The Navy was not always so political. In the 19th century four living people saw their names on naval vessels. Ten ships were named for living people in the 20th century (six since 1980) and now there are five since 2002.

At Tailhook ‘87 Secretary John Lehman was asked about ship names. He responded that sometimes the Navy has to play the name game to get funding. A retired CPO exclaimed, “SecNav, are you saying that Congress will shell out $3 billion for a carrier named Vinson but not for a carrier named Essex?” Lehman replied, “That’s about it.”

Some names are better received than others. In announcing John Murtha (LPD-26) last year the Secretary over-ruled city names for the San Antonio class. Officially, Murtha was honored as the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress, and a Navy release cited “his unwavering support for our Sailors and Marines.” It was untrue: in 2005 Murtha drew bitter criticism for declaring Marines in Iraq guilty of murder before the investigation was over. Marines took the ship as a calculated slap at Leathernecks, especially galling from a champion pork merchant.

The most recent controversy involves naming a Lewis and Clark class supply ship for labor activist Cesar Chavez. Reportedly Chavez described his Navy service as the two worst years of his life, but rather than continuing to honor pioneers, SecNav opted for a Democrat Party figure in a totally unrelated field. (Another T-AKE was named for civil rights martyr Medgar Evers.) Other ships in the class recognize naval explorers Richard E. Byrd and Robert E. Peary plus astronauts Alan Shepard and Wally Schirra.

Then there are aircraft carriers.

For decades the most important ships afloat were named for battles or historic ships. However, two carriers have been named for presidents who died in office: Franklin D. Roosevelt (CVB-42) and John F. Kennedy (CV-67). USS Forrestal (CV-59) honored another naval veteran, the first Secretary of Defense.

After Nimtiz (CVN-68) in 1972, every subsequent carrier has been named for presidents and politicians, including Senator John Stennis and Representative Carl Vinson. Both were Navy supporters who, like Nimitz, should have been honored by naming of destroyers or frigates.

Hardcore naval aviators disapproved of USS Harry S Truman (CVN-75) and George W. Bush (CVN-77). Truman slashed naval aviation from 99 carriers to 15 (including CVEs) and tried to disband the Marine Corps, while Bush presided over the Tailhook witch hunt. But partisan politics won.

Interest in christening a new carrier Enterprise—the most storied of all flattops—brought a brief resurgence of optimism among purists. With CVN-65 due for retirement, the lead ship of the CVN-79 class could become “Big E III.” Reportedly Senator John Warner’s name was hung on a Virginia class submarine, and the onetime carrier name America on LHA-6, to free a carrier for a proper name.

However, Republicans insisted on honoring Gerald Ford, who was never elected president, and whose primary naval duty was a ship’s athletic officer. Disappointed, Enterprise (CV-6) veterans of WW II were informed that the next Ford class hull could be Enterprise, and plans were discussed for passing the original silver to “the 80 boat” and even transferring some of the 1938 ship’s portholes from “E65” to a new carrier. That would have been a tremendous acknowledgment of naval tradition.

No such luck.

The Democrats intervened, and the Obama administration favored John F. Kennedy, even though CV-67 was only decommissioned in 2007. As long as “a real carrier name” was ignored, rather than recycling Kennedy the Navy might have considered another WW II naval officer: Richard M. Nixon.

Naval purists will continue their critique. As long as SecNav makes the decision, the process will remain subject to political favoritism. The only way to change it is to enact a law requiring adherence to convention, but guess what? That decision would have to be made by politicians.

The Navy has flubbed an historic opportunity. In the centennial year of naval aviation, no greater tribute could be accorded than respecting history and tradition in naming our latest combatant for the greatest flattop of all.

The CV-6 association states, “Those of us who served in our Navy during WW II and were given the privilege to serve in USS Enterprise, will always remember those 391 shipmates who were killed in action.”

The U.S. Navy should do no less.

THE EXAMPLE OF DON ALEJO

Often it’s found in quiet places where people refuse to give in to debilitating injuries or fatal disease. Sometimes it’s found in dirty, dingy prison cells. In 1945 it was commonly found among kamikaze pilots, U-boat crews, and Soviet tank riders—all with extraordinarily poor chances of survival. On 9-11 it was found on United Flight 93 over Pennsylvania.

On November 14, 2010, it was found in Mexico in the person of Alejo Garza Tamen.

Seventy-seven years old, Garza Tamen was known as “Don Alejo,” the patron of the family ranch in Tamaulipas State. In Mexico, don is an honorific, a title denoting seniority rather than actual nobility. In Garza’s case, it carried considerable respect as well.

Tamaulipas is in northeastern Mexico, bordering Texas and the Gulf coast. Don Alejo’s hacienda was nine miles outside the state capital, Ciudad Victoria, some 175 miles south-southwest of Brownsville. That geographic fact made the estate attractive to drug cartels moving their products to del norte. It also forced many remote landowners to rely upon themselves rather than the government.

Against a background of prolonged violence and civil war, the Mexican constitution of 1917 ensured individuals the right to possess firearms, but in 1968 widespread unrest led to severe restrictions by state and federal authorities.

Government policy is to conduct ”permanent educational campaigns that induce the reduction of the possession, the carrying and the use of arms of any type.” Simply put, the constitution was invalidated by legislation and regulation, with the defense ministry maintaining a national firearms database.

Generally, the largest permissible sidearm caliber for civilians is .380, though 9mm and even .357 may be exempted, go figger. (Mexican law presumably accounts for the perennial shortage of .380 ammo in Arizona.)

Some exemptions exist for shotguns and rifles (commonly .22s) in rural areas, though licenses still are required. Reportedly compliance with the more onerous regulations is low. Furthermore, in some cases the army has disarmed police in areas sympathetic to antigovernment movements. In that context, the huge majority of Mexican citizens are defenseless in a nation where narcoviolence has escalated massively. Available figures indicate fewer than 100 cartel-related deaths in 2006, rocketing to nearly 10,000 each in the last two years. It’s so dire that mayors of some Mexican border towns spend the night across the river.

The Garza family received no support from the local authorities so Don Alejo was left on his own. Subsequently a Spanish language blog addressing the subject proposed organ transplants, as certain Mexican politicians require a set of cojones. Other comments lamented the country’s gun laws, which make self defense difficult to impossible, though community defense groups have formed in some areas to resist to the extent possible.

Meanwhile, there was no help for Don Alejo.

On Saturday, November 13, drug traffickers drove to the hacienda, announcing that the owners had 24 hours to vacate.

Garza was not intimidated. Reared in an outdoor environment—his family ran a timber and sawmill business--he knew the wild and reportedly he was a founder of the local hunting, shooting, and fishing club. Familiar with firearms and willing to use them in self defense, he set his mental trigger. The patron informed the gang members that he would meet violence in kind. After they departed he told his employees they would not be needed the next day, and suggested they leave. Thereupon, Don Alejo tended to his weapons and planned his defense. What weapons he possessed are unknown, but news accounts emphasize hunting rifles. He positioned guns and ammo at doors and windows around the house for easy access.

Around 4:00 Sunday morning, at least two vehicles approached, entering the wooden fence perimeter about 50 yards from the house and stopping near the hacienda entrance. Reportedly they called upon the patron to leave, firing threatening shots. At that point the fight was on.

It probably didn’t last long, though apparently the attackers fired hundreds of rounds and threw grenades. Don Alejo killed four assailants within a few yards of the entrance, then died in his front room. When the gunmen fled, they left two of their compadres bleeding into the dirt, unconscious but alive.

The investigation was handled by the Mexican marine corps, evidently because local police could not be trusted. Internet videos show the whitewashed house, probably of 1940s construction, with some outbuildings. Footage of the scene showed bullet gouges on the wall, explosive impacts from grenades; windows and shades riddled with 7.62 holes. The front door contained about 70 bullet holes and three or four larger ones.

According to one Mexican news source, Don Alejo perhaps represented “the first instance of a nation's push-back against the monstrous cartels that are challenging the very existence of the Mexican state.” In the U.S., the story appeared on the web site borderlandbeat.com, and immediately filled emails.

Don Alejo was 77 years old, capable, proud, and courageous, but his health is an unknown factor. As a lifelong outdoorsman, he may have remained fit enough to conduct his fight outside the house. By moving and shooting, denying the criminals anything but a fleeting, ghosting target, perhaps he could have survived—even killed more of the cartel thugs. Of course, others may have returned to complete the job another night. We’ll never know.

But what we do know is that Don Alejo made his decision, stood his ground, and fought his own fight. On the night he died, surely he was the most man in all of Mexico. He has inspired millions of his fellow citizens while shaming those Americans who would deny free men the right of self defense.

God bless him.