"Bill Bradley is the old fashioned athlete who is not all self-glorification." David Maraniss, Hardball, CNBC, 1/3/00.

This is a summation of an image that Bradley has meticulously honed over the years, which the media has embraced. Every time I hear it, my stomach growls. A specific incident in Bill Bradley's career belies this myth, and suggests a contrary, manipulative character along with a brilliance in media exploitation that has served him well in his career.

Bradley's 1965 Princeton team made the NCAA final four, along with Wichita State, Michigan, and UCLA. Princeton was matched against Michigan in the first semi-final and was routed, 93-76. In the second semi-final, UCLA outgunned Wichita State, 108-89, with UCLA's best player, guard Gail Goodrich, playing barely half the game.

In those days the two losers played a "consolation game," a match so meaningless that it was eliminated in 1981. But the game was obviously important to Bradley, as his performance documented. Bradley wanted something out of the Tournament. Since it was now clear that Princeton would not win the Championship, the only thing left was to win the Player of the Tournament award, which had never before gone to a player not in the Championship game.

Wichita State was a badly weakened opponent having lost its star, All American Dave Stallworth, to graduation shortly before the tournament started, so the outcome was not in doubt. Despite the lack of competition, Bradley played the entire game, shooting at every opportunity, scoring 56 points almost at will while annihilating Wichita State 118-82, and setting the cheesiest NCAA Tournament scoring record ever recorded.

In the only game that mattered, the NCAA Championship game between UCLA and number-one ranked Michigan, the Bruins were without their All American Forward, Keith Erickson, who had been felled by a pulled muscle. So the pressure fell squarely on Goodrich, who rose to the occasion by scoring an NCAA final-game record 42 points in leading the Bruins to its second consecutive title, 91-80.

But Goodrich was just a basketball player and was overmatched against Bradley when it came to influencing the media, who chose the All-Tournament team. Bradley, by virtue of his obvious grandstanding performance in an insignificant game, achieved his goal. The media ignored the facts and chose Bradley as the Player of the Tournament rather than the gutty Goodrich, who was so pivotal to UCLA's upset victory over Michigan in the Championship Final.

To present Bill Bradley as a self-effacing player who eschewed personal aggrandizement is simply disingenuous. Bradley's 1965 Princeton-Wichita State game hardly supports the portrait of "an old-fashioned athlete who is not all self-glorification," an image Bradley has shamelessly accepted. If not for self-glorification, why did he continue gunning as if there were no tomorrow in a game his team won by 36 points? Rather, it shows a well-hidden selfish, Machiavellian flair and demonstrates a side of Bill Bradley not seen in the media or in the bright lights of the campaign trail.

The End


by H. Anthony Medley

Wherefore, Propositions 30 & 31?

California Propositions 30 and 31 have been the subject of unprecedented fraudulent advertising opposing them. These ads, which show people plotting to set up phony car accidents, have nothing to do with the propositions. The fact that opponents can't argue fairly against these propositions would seem to indicate that they are good. Well, proposition 30 is good, anyway.

Simply, proposition 30 states that a person injured by a third party may sue the third party's insurance company if that company engages in "unfair" claims practices like:

1. Failing to promptly explain the reason for denying a claim, or

2. Failing to act in "good faith."

Insurance companies are in business to make money.  It often seems that they have two functions:

1. To get as much of your money as they can, and

2. To keep from paying any of it out in claims.

Before 1979 you could not sue a third party's insurance company. In 1979 the California Supreme Court changed the law allowing you to sue a third party's insurance company. In 1988 the Supreme Court, which had giveth, tooketh away and said you can't sue a third party's insurance company for bad faith dealing. Proposition 30 gives the rights back that were given in 1979, at least as far as automobile accidents are concerned.

What an insurance company will do is deny, deny, deny. Without proposition 30 that's what they will continue to do, deny your claims, because there's no downside. The worst that can happen to them is many years down the road they will have to pay the claim. In the meantime they've had your money and invested it while you've had to go without compensation for your damages, and had to invest in attorneys, and costs of litigation. What proposition 30 says is that if the insurance company does this, and it's shown that they did it in bad faith just to avoid paying your legitimate claim, then they can be liable for much more than your actual damages, as a punishment for their bad faith. What's wrong with that? It provides a negative incentive to the insurance company to act on your claim in good faith. I’ve had experience with insurance companies. In one incident without the threat of a bad faith judgment against the company it would have continued to stonewall until hell froze over. It was only the fact that I could cite a case where an insurance company had to pay $1 million in punitive damages for its bad faith in a similar instance that the company capitulated, gave it to their defense attorney, who immediately advised it to pay the claim in full.

So Governor Davis and the State legislature gave that right back by passing Proposition 30. This isn't something put up by lawyers to get more in attorneys’ fees. This is something that forces insurance companies to deal fairly. What's wrong with that? Anybody who knows me knows that I think that our system of civil justice, judges and lawyers alike, is terminally corrupt. But Proposition 30 doesn't have anything to do with supporting a hypocritical legal profession. It's something that will help California citizens who are injured in automobile accidents.

Proposition 31, however, is a horse of a different color. Among other things, it allows the insurance company to avoid litigation by demanding arbitration, whether you want arbitration or not. There's nothing worse than arbitration. Believe me, because I've been there. If you think the courts are bad, and they are as bad as they can be, arbitration is ten times worse in terms of the justice you might get.

So, in a nutshell, forget all the phony ads you see opposing Proposition 30. It's a law that will benefit ordinary people in the uneven battle against insurance goliaths. It will require insurance companies to deal with you in good faith. Proposition 31, however, is not something I’d vote for.


My Top Ten Baseball Moments

 Copyright © 2002 by Tony Medley

 Folks, I know politically correct crap when I see it; I don’t need to smell it.  And baseball’s recently announced top 10 moments is at the top of the list.  Following are some of those moments that are not in the top thousand of baseball’s top moments: 

 1. Cal Ripken breaking Lou Gehrig’s record

 2. Hank Aaron breaking Babe Ruth’s lifetime home run record

 3. Ted Williams hitting .400 (how about Ty Cobb and Rogers Hornsby, each of whom did it 3 times, or Nap Lajoie or George Sisler or Bill Terry?  Why Williams?)

 4. Mark McGuire’s 62nd home run

 5. Pete Rose breaking Ty Cobb’s hit record

 These aren’t moments, except, maybe, for Williams who is mentioned, I guess, because he played that last day and got six hits.  A “moment” is a “brief interval of time”.  In this context, it’s one play, something memorable that happened in an instant.  It’s not the end of a streak like Ripken, or a lifetime record like Aaron and Rose, all of which, incidentally, when they occurred, were inevitable.

 McGuire hit his home run with a golf ball-like souped-up baseball and steroids.  Does anybody really believe that he could have hit 60 home runs using the same ball Ruth and Maris hit and without drugs?  Would a guy like Sammy Sosa (who hit 60 home runs 3 seasons in a row with this super-juiced ball) hit even 50 home runs one time using that ball?  McGuire hit it early in September with several weeks left in the season.  Maris hit his 61st in his last game of the season (as did Ruth hit his 60th).  If you want moments that were not inevitable, those were moments.

 Here are my top 10 “moments.” 

  1. Bobby Thomson’s home run (nothing is close to this as the best moment ever).

  2. Babe Ruth’s “called shot” in ’32 (was it or wasn’t it?  Whatever, it has engendered controversy ever since).

  3. Kirk Gibson’s home run in ‘88

  4.Willie Mays’ catch off Vic Wertz in the 8th inning of the first game of the ’54 Series

  5.Fred Merkle failing to run to second and getting forced after Johnny Evers wrestled a ball from Iron Man Joe McGinnity and tagging the bag in 1908

  6. Grover Cleveland Alexander striking out Tony Lazzerri with the bases full in the seventh inning of the seventh game of the ’26 Series.

  7.Billy Martin’s diving, stumbling catch of Jackie Robinson’s popup with two out in the 7th inning of the 7th game of the ’52 series with the bases loaded and the entire Yankee infield scratching their noses as Dodgers were scrambling around the bases

  8. Mickey Owen dropping Hugh Casey’s third strike on Tommy Henrich with the Dodgers leading 4-3 with two out and nobody on in the 9th inning of the 4th game of the 1941 Series at Ebbets Field; the Yankees came back to score 4 runs and win the game 7-4.

  9. Enos Slaughter scoring from first on a single to win the ’46 Series.

 10. Bill Wamsganss’ unassisted triple play against Clarence Mitchell of the Dodgers in the 5th game of the 1920 World Series (later in the same game Elmer Smith hit the first Grand Slam home run in World Series history)


If I’m not limited to ten, two more that could have been included:


  1. Bill Mazeroski’s home run winning the 1960 World Series for the Pirates (“They broke all the records, but we won the Series,” said center fielder Gino Cimoli.).  But to be truthful the biggest hit of that game was catcher Hal Smith’s 3-run home run in the bottom of the 8th that gave Pittsburgh a 9-7 lead.  Without that home run, the Yankees win.

  2. Chicago Cub center fielder Hack Wilson losing a fly ball in the sun as Philadelphia scored 10 runs in the seventh inning to overcome an 8-0 Cub lead in the ’29 Series.

 I have always felt that Carlton Fisk’s 12th inning home run in the 6th game of the ’75 Series was overrated as a great moment.  The clutch hit in that game was Bernie Carbo’s two-out pinch-hit 3 run home run in the bottom of the 8th to tie it up.  Without Carbo the Reds win in 9.  The Red Sox don’t necessarily lose if Fisk doesn’t hit his. This is considered a “great moment” because it was on TV and because of the shot from the camera in the left field scoreboard that showed Fisk as he watched the ball sail over the fence.  Incidentally, I’m sure nobody cares, but at the beginning of the top of the 8th in that game a friend called me and asked me what was going to happen.  I replied, “Bernie Carbo’s going to hit a pinch hit 3 run home run in the bottom of the 8th to tie it up.”

 Only one of these made baseball’s list.  But, then, I'm a fan who loves the game. As an aside, I wrote this in 15 minutes off the top of my head without reference to anything.  Could “baseball” have done that?

 The End


NBA Musings


While watching the Boston Celtics play the Detroit Pistons today I pondered the brilliance of Walter Brown and the men who set up the NBA in 1946.  The playoff system they devised was, well, brilliant.


It resulted in the season being irrelevant.  In the beginning, in the ‘40s and ‘50s, the entire season was played to eliminate something like four teams from the playoffs.  The season is still irrelevant even though a few more teams are eliminated, and the games meaningless, but millions of people pay big bucks to attend and the networks pay big bucks to televise these games, which are not much more than glorified exhibition games.  And it’s not just actors with more money than brains like Jack Nicholson and Dyan Cannon who attend these shows.  Out of those tens of thousands that pack Staples and the other arenas around the league during the “regular season” include at least a few people with I.Q.’s above double digits.


But the brilliance of the founders really shone brightly while watching the Pistons and Celtics go at it.  Here are two teams so terrible that they have about as much chance of winning the NBA title as I have of playing Chopin’s Polonaise in A-flat minor at the Hollywood Bowl.  They don’t even play basic basketball.  All the Celtics know how to do is rub defensive players off to create mismatches for Paul Pierce to go one on one. Anything more sophisticated must be beyond them because they never hit the open man, don’t move without the ball, and have nothing that could be called a cohesive offense. Their offense resembles what we used to play when I played pickup games at Pauley Pavilion all those many years ago with guys I’d never seen before and would probably never see again. In fact, even if you combined the two teams into one team it would be so devoid of talent and basketball knowledge that it wouldn’t have a chance of winning an NBA title.  Yet there they were, on national TV, in front of a sold out Boston arena, playing yet another meaningless game but bringing more bucks into the NBA coffers as one of these horrible teams will advance to the next round.




Anyone who thinks that sportswriters, sportscasters, or fans, for that matter, know anything about basketball got yet another jolt of reality when Tim Duncan was named MVP.  If Duncan were MVP, he’d be able to take over the game and score at will when guarded by the likes of Robert Horry.  Don’t get me wrong, Horry’s a good defensive player.  But Horry’s 6-9 and Duncan’s 7-1.  Duncan’s younger.  Duncan’s quicker.  Duncan can jump higher.  Guarded by Horry, Duncan should be able to score at will.  In a game like today’s he should dominate and be capable of scoring 40-50 points if the need arose (and it arose today!).  But Duncan can’t take charge.  He reacts instead of taking control. 


Today’s game epitomized why the choice was one of ignorance because of what Duncan did compared to Kobe Bryant.  Bryant is injured and isn’t at the top of his game.  He struggled for three quarters.  But with the game on the line he sunk two pressure-packed three-pointers to lead the Lakers from a fourth quarter 10-point deficit into a tie.  Then Duncan, who had been unable to score in the entire fourth quarter except for a few free throws, got the ball on a fast break with less than a minute left and the score tied.  Here’s the MVP, the game on the line, the ball in his hand, numbers on his side.  Here’s where Michael Jordan rose to the occasion.  (For that matter, it was where a journeyman like Don Nelson also rose the occasion in 1969, but that’s another story). What did Duncan do?  He was so clumsy he committed an offensive foul and turned the ball over!  No shot, no nothing!


Bryant got the ball back.  Proving he’s human, he dribbled the ball off his foot with 9 seconds left.  Derek Fisher retrieved it and threw up a jumpshot.  Bryant was behind the three point line when the shot went off, 30 feet from the basket.  Instead of moping about dribbling the ball off his foot, he charged around Fisher while the shot was still in the air.  When Fisher’s shot missed, San Antonio players were all positioned for the rebound.  But Bryant soared up behind and over them, pulled down a left handed rebound, and then put it right back up and in, in between three opponents (one of whom was MVP Duncan).  With the game on the line, players like Bryant take charge.  Duncan doesn’t and can’t.  If Duncan’s the MVP, look for me to win Wimbledon in July.

May 12, 2002


Celebrities and Politics

 Copyright © 2003 by Tony Medley

 I awoke this morning to see Actor Mike Farrell on NBC’s Meet the Press and it got my blood to boiling.  I have no objection to actors voicing their opinions.  That’s their Constitutional right.  What I do object to, however, is their getting more access to air their opinions to the general public than I have.

 Farrell and his leftist cohorts (and whoever might be on the right in Hollywood, for that matter) can sit in their local coffee shop and argue the pros and cons of whatever they want, and more power to them.  But what right do they have to be invited on Meet The Press to broadcast their opinions throughout the nation?  Why them and not me?  I have a Law Degree from one of the nation’s best law schools and practiced law for decades.  I’ve been a successful real estate developer. I’ve written three books, two of which have been best sellers.  I’ve written countless articles on a myriad of subjects.  My IQ is over 160.  Why Farrell and not me?

 The answer is that Farrell’s got a pretty face and is well known because he had a minor part on a TV show (MASH).  So what?  It’s not their opinions that so inflame ordinary people.  It’s their in-your-face access to the media that allows them to spout their opinions to everyone when we can’t that’s so offensive.

 I’m sorry, but being a pretty face with the ability to mouth lines written by someone else does not qualify Mike Farrell or Martin Sheen or Sean Penn or Alec Baldwin or George Clooney to have the right to appear on national TV shows spouting their opinions.  I don’t fault them.  To their credit they care enough to take the time to make their opinions known.  I fault Tim Russert and Bob Schieffer and George Stephanopolous and Bill O’Reilly, and all the rest of the TV bigwigs for inviting them on and giving them access.  They are no more qualified than I am (probably not nearly as qualified as I am or any of my friends at Joni’s Coffee Roaster here in the Marina) to give an opinion to the nation on the War in Iraq, or Partial Birth Abortion, or the taxation of dividends or any other subject of great import.

 So I call on CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and Cable to put a moratorium on actors appearing on shows to vent their spleen about political matters and to limit their guest list to people who have some sort of special qualification to know what they’re talking about.

 March 2, 2003

 The End


Freedom of Speech Hypocrites


Copyright © 2003 by Tony Medley

Remember a few months back when all those lefties were moaning and groaning over how poor old Tim Robbins was being mistreated when he tried to speak out against the war in Iraq?  Remember how they all said that the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech, no matter how unpopular and that poor old Tim was being denied his Constitutional Right?  Remember how they all put down the Bush Administration, baseball, motherhood and apple pie because no one would pay any attention to poor old Tim, and how he was being so unfairly maligned and discriminated against?  Remember all that?

Well, the Writers Guild of America remembered it.  So they got together and advertised that on May 29 they were going to have a panel discussion on the First Amendment in Times of Crisis, entitled “We’re Fighting for Freedom of Speech so please shut up!”  Cute, eh?

The problem is that this “panel” of “freedom of speech” was stacked.  Instead of having an even number of advocates on each side, the WGA invited seven people, five of whom were wild-eyed, hair askew lefties, with only two conservatives.  Worse, they invited Ramona Ripston, the head of the local branch of the ACLU, a hired gun for leftwing causes and an attorney.  Wouldn’t fairness dictate that an attorney representing the opposing viewpoint also be on the panel?  Sure it would.  That’s why the WGA didn’t invite one.  Oh, but they did find a Sandinista to be on the panel!  Say again?  Yes, you read that right.  They couldn’t find it in their hearts to look for an attorney who might counter Ms. Ripston, BUT THEY FOUND A SANDINISTA!  Well, that sure makes sense.  Turned out the Sandinista was virtually incoherent.

Another member of the panel for the left was Mike Farrell.  You remember him?  No?  Well, not many have seen him in an acting job since MASH went off the air.  I wasn’t sure what Farrell’s qualifications were for the panel, except that he apparently is able to spell UCLA without making too many mistakes.  He certainly didn’t graduate from UCLA or any other university.  But he’s all over the airwaves with his uneducated, uninformed views, even on Meet the Press (but, then, MTP is moderated by Tim Russert, who used to be an advisor for Mario Cuomo, of all people, so, what are you suspecting from MTP, fairness?).

The other lefties were Frank Pierson, a writer-director whose comments reflected that he must be living in a never-never land only seen in movies, and Robert Scheer.  Nothing much need be said about Scheer.  Loony Tunes, Merry Melodies comes floatingly to mind.

Representing the right were David Horowitz, a former leftie who had a Road to Damascus conversion and is now an articulate representative of the right, and Craig Titley, a screenwriter.

Well, five against two.  OK, let’s begin.  Starts off with Mike Farrell crying crocodile tears over the treatment of Tim Robbins.  Next it was Horowitz’ turn.  Farrell got respectful silence.  Horowitz was greeted by catcalls and booing from the vast majority of the approximately 300 in attendance.  In fact, from then on, the lefties and all their absurdities were greeted with respectful silence, murmured agreements, and applause.  Whenever Titley and Horowitz spoke they were instantly interrupted by catcalls and booing.  They could rarely finish what they were saying.

Apparently nobody, including the clueless moderator (Jill Stewart, formerly of the LA Times which should tell you which side she’s on), got the irony of the fact that the point of this panel was freedom of speech and respect for divergent opinions but the audience was not letting Horowitz and Titley speak.  Despite this glaring incongruity, none of the lefties on the panel ever uttered a word to quiet the audience so that Horowitz and Titley could speak.  And when one of the members of the audience, a self-identified liberal who “doesn’t agree with a word Mr. Horowitz says,” chastised the audience during the Q and A, and said that he was embarrassed to be a member of the WGA when Messrs. Horowitz and Titley were treated with such a lack of respect, the moderator jumped on him and staunchly defended the rudeness of the audience as being “feisty.”  So much for Freedom of Speech.

Oh, yeah.  They really never spoke about the topic of the panel, Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment.  No, they bashed Bush and talked about which was worse, rescuing Jessica Lynch or the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (I kid you not!).  When Titley suggested that they were way off point and that they should get back on topic, he was almost booed offstage, …and his suggestion totally ignored by Ms. Stewart. In the end, the lefties spoke for more than 90% of the time, Titley and Horowitz for less than 10%, and then they were fighting the rudeness of the audience.  Ms. Stewart seemed comfortable with this.

What this panel proved is that the vast majority of those in Hollywood are on the left and that they define hypocrisy.  They don’t give a damn about fairness, dialogue of mutual respect, or freedom of speech.  What they want is the ability to harangue, spout venom and bias, and speak without opposition.  And that’s what this panel was all about.  It wasn’t about freedom of speech.  It was about how there is no Freedom of Speech in Hollywood if you’re not on the left.  The B Story is that the Hollywood lefties want to spin everything to their twisted view of the world without any opposition because they're scared witless of the truth.  Plain and simple.

 May 30, 2003

 The End


Japanese and The Comfort Women

Copyright © 2002 by Tony Medley

What was it like to be a “comfort woman” nee sexual slave of the Japanese in World War II?  Following is an except from Yoshimi Yoshiake’s book Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War II, quoting from a Korean sex slave of the Japanese:


I was deceived by an agent from the Korean Peninsula.  I thought that comfort for the army meant comforting the troops by dancing and singing, and that would be all right.  And the agent told me the same thing.  When we crossed the border into China, [he] ordered me to “Take customers.”  Without understanding what “taking customers” meant, I went to a customer’s house. With no warning, they raped me.  I became desperate.  One after another, so many of them.  And then the soldiers came one after another, and I had to {have intercourse with them}.  When it is busy, I just lie down on my back, eating rice balls with my legs spread apart, and the soldiers come and mount me and leave, mount me and leave.  Finally, I am beyond pain.  From the waist down I get numb and lose all feeling.  It’s a struggle just getting up each day.  When the feeling [in my lower body] returns little by little, my legs cramp up and my abdomen gets cramped as well.  There’s a heavy, dull pain that lasts all day.  I know that if I rested for two or three days, it would get better.  But customers come one after another, so I can’t rest.  When people talk about a living hell, this is exactly what they mean.


 As their last resort, receiving no sympathy from the Japanese, a few former comfort women have filed in the United States against the Japanese.  The Los Angeles Times reports that the U. S. Government has joined the Japanese in their effort to dismiss the case filed by former comfort women against Japan, claiming that, according to the Times, “the systematic rape, torture and murder of hundreds of thousands should be recognized as just another ordinary government action,” despite the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act of 2000, which states that “sexual slavery and trafficking in women and children are…abhorrent to the principles on which the United States was founded.”  Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. is holding a hearing on the joint Japanese-U.S. request to dismiss the comfort women case on Wednesday.

 600,000 women, probably more, were enslaved and violated by the Japanese before and during World War II.  So far the Japanese have denied, denied, and denied, and then when faced with irrefutable facts, continue to refuse to accept responsibility for these poor, elderly women, whose lives were so altered and destroyed.  For the United States to rely on a cold legal principal to deny these women justice is an outrage.  Some wrongs are so abhorrent they transcend legal principals and treaties.  There is no legal principal or treaty that justifies denying some measure of justice for these few former comfort women who still remain living.

 May 12, 2002


Rape and Japanese Hypocrisy

Copyright © 2001 by Tony Medley

The outrage of the month is the hullabaloo the Japanese have made of the alleged rape of a Japanese woman by a U. S. serviceman.  First off, if an American serviceman did rape a Japanese, he should be prosecuted and punished.  But for the Japanese to raise such a ruckus of this is the height of racism and hypocrisy.  As a news story on the front page of the Los Angeles Times points out:

 But one thing is clear, say lawyers who specialize in sexual assault and harassment cases in Japan: Had it not involved a serviceman posted in Okinawa, home to nearly half the 53,000 troops in Japan…the case would probably have gotten little attention here.  The accuser might have had a hard time getting the police and courts to even consider her case, these lawyers say.


“If it had been anywhere else in Japan and committed by a Japanese man, it wouldn’t have gotten the time of day,” said Noriko Ishida, vice president of the Osaka Bar Association.


A book written six years ago provides historical perspective.


During and before World War II, it was Japanese government policy to enslave women to provide sexual services for Japanese military.  In his book, Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War II, author Yoshimi Yoshiaki “provided documentation and testimony to prove the existence of as many as 2,000 centers where as many as 200,000 Korean, Filipina, Taiwanese, Indonesian, Burmese, Dutch, Australian, and some Japanese women were restrained and forced to engage in sexual activity with Japanese military personnel.  Many were teenagers, some as young as fourteen.  To date, the Japanese government has neither admitted responsibility for creating the comfort station system nor given compensation directly to former comfort women.” 


Please see attached picture; these were normal women, living everyday lives until captured and enslaved by the Japanese. 

 After the rape of Nanking (“hideous acts”) the Japanese realized that the raping of the local populace by Japanese soldiers would prove an obstacle to maintaining order in occupied China.  Yoshimi quotes from observations made by the general staff headquarters in the Kwantung Army in 1932:


The Chinese value honor very highly, and for appearances’ sake, treat their wives with respect.  Among all immoral and violent acts, the Chinese regard rape to be the worst and consider it an extremely serious social problem.  [Bandits and thieves] lie, deceive, loot, and steal with no compunctions; but they very rarely commit rape.


Since the “mass rapes committed by Japanese troops were considered a serious obstacle to maintaining order in China,” Yoshimi reports:


(I)n the midst of its offensive toward Nanking, the Central China Area Army ordered the establishment of military comfort stations.  Iinuma Mamoru, Chief of Staff of the Shanghai Expeditionary Force that participated in the invasion of Nanking, wrote in his diary that day, “On the matter of the establishment of military comfort stations, documents from the [Central China] Area Army arrived and {I will} oversee the execution {of those orders}.”


There’s no doubt that hundreds of thousands of innocent Asian women were condemned to continuous sexual slavery, without hope, as an official part of Japanese policy.    Despite personal testimony and documentation, Yoshimi reports “the Japanese government still denies any legal responsibility vis-à-vis former comfort women and refuses to compensate them directly.”

 Japanese courts follow the Japanese official line of disclaiming all responsibility on this issue.  Yoshimi reports “The Tokyo District Court, on October 9, 1998 in a suit filed by 45 Filipina former comfort women, ruled that the plaintiffs had no right to claim compensation for damages and rejected their suit without acknowledging the damages they had suffered.”

 The failure of the Japanese government to accept responsibility for the sexual slavery they forced upon these innocent women and to compensate them for the misery they suffered is inexcusable.  Just think how horrible it would be to be captured by a conquering Japanese army and sentenced to continuous sexual slavery, forced to perform sex acts on and with men, many of whom were full of venereal disease, 12-18 hours a day, maybe several an hour, seven days a the de facto government, with no end in sight!  It’s reported that in one comfort station in Burma comfort women were forced to have intercourse with sixty men in a single day.  It apparently was not unusual in comfort stations for enlisted men for women to have to have intercourse twenty to thirty times a day.  And this was the fate of hundreds of thousands of innocent women, many of whom were virginal teenagers when captured and enslaved. 

July 22, 2001

The End


Congressional largesse to relatives of 9/11 Victims

I find the money paid to the relatives of the 9/11 victims by the Congress, taxpayers’ money, offensive in the extreme. While it was a terrible tragedy and while I sympathize with the relatives, the government of the United States had no obligation to pay them anything, and certainly not out of taxpayers’ funds. There has been at least one person in the House of Representatives who agrees with me.

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when someone else arose:

"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

"He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and of course, was lost.

While this could statement could have, and should have, been made in 2001 when Congress appropriated the largesse it bestowed on the survivors of the 9/11 victims, the year was not 2001. No, nobody in our Congress had the courage or integrity to make this speech. This speech was made in the 1830s and the speaker was Davy Crockett.

"Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be one for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and--'

" 'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.

" 'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any thing and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitu- tion, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it's power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you..'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him: Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I did not have sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.

"He laughingly replied: 'Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around this district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied that it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert a little influence in that way.'

"If I don't [said I] I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.

" 'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute to a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week.. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

"Well, I will be here. but one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.

" 'My name is Bunce.'

"Not Horatio Bunce?

" 'Yes.'

"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him --- no, that is not the word --- I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted --- at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens --- I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.

"He came upon the stand and said: " 'Fellow-citizens --- It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I wish to call to your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men --- men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased --- a debt which could not be paid by money --- and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificance a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."


Katie Couric and Bob Costas Cover Gettysburg

by Tony Medley

The irritating jabber of NBC’s Katie Couric and Bob Costas constantly interrupting Bjork’s spellbinding rendition of her song, Oceania, at the opening Olympics ceremonies got me to thinking how they might have covered Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg:


 LINCOLN: Four score and seven years…

 BOB: Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin in 1809, Katie.

 LINCOLN: …a new nation…

 KATIE: Yes, Bob, he is basically self-educated as there were no schools for him to attend.

 LINCOLN: …all men are created…

 BOB: He’s received a lot of criticism from the press, especially the New York Times, who referred to him as a gorilla.

 LINCOLN: …those who here gave their lives…

 KATIE: He earned more income between 1850 and 1860 than any other lawyer in Illinois.

 LINCOLN: …have consecrated it…

 BOB: The word around Washington is that General McClelland might run against him next year.

 LINCOLN: …little note nor…

 KATIE: His prospects for reelection aren’t particularly good

 LINCOLN: …can never forget what they…

 BOB:  There’s even some speculation that Secretary of State Seward might run against him.

 LINCOLN: It is rather for us…

 KATIE: Lots or people think that his election caused this war and there are so many young men being killed and maimed.

 LINCOLN: …last full measure of devotion…

 BOB: Mrs. Lincoln didn’t accompany the President here to Gettysburg.

 LINCOLN: …this nation, Under God,…

KATIE: Yes, she stayed in Washington to be with her son, Tad. Robert, the Lincolns’ other surviving son, is studying at Harvard.

 LINCOLN: …of the people…

 BOB: I understand he’s returning to Washington immediately after the speech.

 LINCOLN: …shall not perish from the earth.

 (smattering applause)

 KATIE: My heavens, it’s over already! That’s it from here in Gettysburg, back to you Matt.

August 14, 2004

The End