Weird Beard

Normally I tend to be clean-shaven, due to my own preferences and those of my female partners, none of whom have been fans of beards or mustaches.  Occasionally, I’ve lapsed into furriness just out of boredom.  In the past, for brief periods of a few months at a time, e.g. law school and summer 2000, I did have a mustache, but I’ve never been keen on beards, and really can’t stand that affectation of goatees.  Back in the late 90s those were a huge fad, but fortunately not anymore.

After letting it grow for two weeks, I clowned around before shaving it off completely.  First I shaved my chin, which resulted in James Hetfield style mutton chops.  These have an undeniable nineteenth century flavor.  Then I shaved the middle of the upper lip, and voila:  WOLVERINE.  Ok, I’m not as svelte as Hugh Jackman, so in my case it was the SABRETOOTH.  And that lasted only as long as it took to take a cell pic and then shave it off.  While the hair growth I develop on the upper lip is substantial enough to form a real mustache, on the cheeks it’s more of an annoying and unattractive accumulation of reddish facial hair than a real beard. 

As a fad, facial hair has varied considerably.  The nineteenth  century seems to be the time when men were most adventurous about it and really went to town.  Abraham Lincoln chose the Amish-style beard with no mustache.  His hapless General Burnside let the hair on his cheeks grow, thus “sideburns”.  Various handlebar mustaches, Kaiser Bill waxed mustaches, and chin beards also came out.  Baron Haussmann had this bizarre deal of letting it grow under the chin but shaving north.  I really can’t fathom that.  Was Madame Haussmann a fan?  Who knows. 

Baseball player Rollie Fingers has been the most contemporary advocate of handlebar mustaches.

WWI seems to have put paid to the beard fad which had been going on since the second half of the nineteenth century: primarily because the best gas masks wouldn’t seal firmly against the face unless the soldier was clean shaven.  By WWII, mustaches had fallen out of favor, except for Hitler’s square (oddly, I see little evidence that other Nazis copied him!) and those awful pencil thin ones.

I see Kurt Warner has finally kicked the “permanent fuzz” look he used to prefer when QB’ing the Rams back in 2000.  I haven’t seen George Michael lately; but Chris O’Donnell is waving the fuzz flag now on “NCIS: L.A.” 

Billy Gibbons and Dusty Hill have kept their long, dwarvish beards:  oddly, drummer Frank Beard (!) is the only beardless one in ZZTop; he only has a mustache.  Hill is only distinguishable from Gibbons by being shorter and missing 2 strings on his instrument.

A few years ago The Edge expropriated the Fu Manchu (mustache extending down to the chin) previously favored by Elliot Gould in the movie version of M*A*S*H but also Nick Mason of Pink Floyd, who has been clean shaven for decades now.  For most of Black Sabbath, Tony Iommi had a thick mustache and probably the coolest specimen thereof.  Nietzsche and David Crosby are the biggest "bushy mustache" examples I can imagine.

Finally, Frank Zappa was the only one I know of – aside from perhaps die hard fans – to keep a Hitler mustache on the chin below the mustache itself.  

The X-Men

I rewatched “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” after having seen the new “The Wolverine” film in IMAX 3D the previous weekend, which means I’ve seen the entire series, some more than once.  They’re all CGI-heavy action films.   They’re based on Marvel comics characters dating back to 1963.

Mutants.  The whole premise upon which the comics and series is based concerns humans with mutations which give them special powers, i.e. mutants.  It’s unclear how these mutations occur, but the mutants are generally born with them.  The powers can be magnified (Cerebro), modified (Wolverine), stolen (Rogue), or even expropriated and aggregated (Weapon XI, formerly Wade).  I’ve yet to see a mutation which is unequivocally BAD for the mutant.  This means that Superman & Thor (aliens) and Batman and Iron Man (rich guys with gadgets) are not mutants, but Spiderman (radioactive spider), The Hulk (gamma radiation), and Captain America (super serum) are, as are the entire Fantastic Four (space rays).  Remarkably, no one has been transformed into a massive, Tokyo-eating lizard – the closest being Dr. Connors (Lizardman from “Spiderman”). 

Naturally, non-mutant humans (hereinafter, NMHs) fear the mutants. I’ve to see any jealousy or envy; if anything, the mutants often envy the NMHs their normality.  So a consistent plot issue in the X-Men stories and movies is this conflict between mutants and NMHs.  This is sometimes clumsily equated with our debate about gay rights (are gays mutants?  Super powers of epicureanism and interior design? Discuss) as in “Last Stand” (see below).  And the conflict serves to divide the mutants into two camps:  pro-human (Xavier) and anti-human (Magneto). 

 

I have scant experience with the comics, but here are the movies: 

X-Men (2000).  This is the first film, but thanks to “First Class”, not the first chronologically.  Magneto plots to channel Rogue’s powers to make the entire world into mutants – using the Statue of Liberty – but Xavier’s team realizes this will just kill everyone (not a good idea, and probably not what Holocaust survivor Eric Lensherr intended), so they (surprise, surprise) shut it down.

X-2 (2003).  Now the tables are turned: instead of killing all the non-mutant humans, the plot is to kill all the mutants, using a brainwashed Xavier in his Cerebro unit to achieve this goal; the criminal mastermind is Colonel Stryker, the consistent nemesis in these stories.  As you can imagine, this plot is also foiled – at the cost of Jean Grey’s life.

X-Men Last Stand (2006).  The “war” between humans and mutants …mutates.  On Alcatraz, a serum is developed which can turn gay people into straights.  No, wait…mutants into normal humans.  The X-Men fight back and defeat this, well, bad idea.  Actually, it’s not such a bad idea IF the mutants have a choice in the matter, but since we’ve yet to see a mutation which is undeniably bad for the mutant, very few mutants would choose this option.  Beast is probably one of them.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009).  A quasi-prequel, because Wolverine is a major character of the three prior films.  The film begins in 1845 with Logan (Wolverine) and his brother Victor Creed, and quickly fast-forwards to the present day.  After a falling-out in Lagos, Nigeria, Logan is tracked down in Canada and persuaded by Stryker to undergo the adamantium treatment.  John Wraith (Will.i.am from the Black Eyed Peas) and Gambit (Taylor Kitsch) tag along.  Eventually there’s a big showdown at Three Mile Island, wherein Stryker succeeds at wiping Wolverine’s memories. 

X-Men First Class (2011).  The first prequel:  we see a young Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) initially friends but eventually grow apart.  Mystique is here played by Jennifer Lawrence.  The bad guy Klaus Schmidt/Sebastian Shaw (remarkably free of German accent, just like Magneto) (Kevin Bacon), attempts to provoke a nuclear war between the US and USSR amidst the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The idea is that only mutants will survive, and repopulate the earth with their own kind exclusively.  With only Emma Frost among the female villains (played by January Jones, aka Betty Draper from "Mad Men") it looks like Ms. Frost would be quite inconvenienced with nonstop pregnancy for some time - so why did she sign on to that plan?  Taking up some of the potential burden, Angel (Zoe Kravitz) and Mystique switch sides from Xavier’s group to Magneto’s.

The Wolverine (2013).  Unlike the prior Wolverine film which had a bevy of other mutants, this one brings him to Japan and focuses on him exclusively.  He survived the Nagasaki blast in 1945 – in a small solitary confinement cell underground, not a lead-lined refridgerator – and is invited by the Japanese officer (Yashida) whose life he saved, back to Japan, under the guise of “let me say goodbye to you, I’m dying.”  Things are, of course, not what they seem.  Wolverine briefly loses his regeneration powers, has to protect Yashida’s cute granddaughter, Mariko, and eventually bumps ugly in a final confrontation with a nasty woman (Viper) and the 15 foot Silver Samurai – who is actually pretty impressive.  Think of this as “Lost in Translation – on Steroids”. 

Characters.  There are too many to list, so I’ll focus on the most important.  Many of the movies have characters who only appear in that film. 

Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart/James McAvoy).  He’s psychic and telepathic, but also confined to a wheelchair.  He’s the Papa Smurf of the good mutants, although (in X2) twisted by Stryker’s mutant boy into attempting to kill all the mutants.

Magneto (Ian McKellan/Michael Fassbender).  His power is being able to manipulate steel/metal:  usually he stops bullets in midair and sends them back at the shooter, or flips cars and tanks around.  Since he can raise submarines, etc. there doesn’t appear to be a limit to his power, although Xavier’s telekinesis is almost as strong and not restricted to metallic objects.  If nothing else, the Nazis taught him to be cynical, but the series tries to be somewhat sympathetic to his viewpoint.

Mystique (Rebecca Romijin/Jennifer Lawrence).  Her power is shapeshifting, a Doppleganger effect.  Her natural form is a hot blue-skinned woman, too dark and sexy to be Smurfette [why not get Katy Perry for this role?].  As noted above, initially in Xavier’s camp, she soon defects to Magneto’s.   In “Last Stand” she loses her abilities, apparently permanently.

Storm (Halle Berry).  An African princess with the power to control the weather, which means she makes lots of tornados and lightning.  Nominally she’s one of the top X-Men but no one seems to want to give her a prequel film.

Cyclops (James Marsden).  His eyes shoot energy blasts, so he has to wear special glasses.  He’s kind of an uptight nerd, so mainly he acts as Jean Grey’s frustrated and jealous boyfriend.

Jean Grey/Phoenix (Famke Jannsen).  She’s a psychic, with powers pretty much identical to Xavier’s.  BO-RING. I’ve noted this before:  she’s the only character who doesn’t have a nickname, just “Jean Grey.”  Her reborn character, Phoenix, is a little too powerful:  she can kill unlimited numbers of people with just a thought.  So we go from “It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s… Ted Johnson” to “GOD”.  As I said, boring.  By the way, I didn’t find her dream-seducing Wolverine wearing a negligee (her, not Wolverine) in the new film to be bizarre, unsettling or inappropriate, but I didn’t find it particularly arousing either. 

Wolverine (Hugh Jackman).  Easily the most badass of the entire bunch.  His retractable claws and natural regeneration have been enhanced with adamantium bonded to his entire skeleton, making him practically indestructible, though the Silver Samurai comes closest to killing him.

Rogue (Anna Paquin).  Generally I can’t claim any appreciable experience reading the comic books, but here I do know something:  the comic book version was considerably older and more mature, more like Tawny Kitaen.  This Anna Paquin “frightened little girl” deal is a step backwards.  I suppose it’s just as well; Rogue’s power is that she can steal superpowers from anyone else, at the cost of draining their life energy:  sex with Rogue would be fatal. 

Beast (Kelsey Grammer + Nicholas Hoult).  A furry blue beast who was a nerdy scientist and remains nerdy even with fur.  Yeah, that’s his schtick.     

My original comic book favorite was Rogue (I even had a button of her) but in the movies it has to be Wolverine.  I’ve noticed that the movies never put him in his older blue/yellow (L.A. Rams) or newer brown/orange (Cleveland Browns) costume.  Either he’s bare-chested in jeans or in the leather X-men suit.  Mystique takes a #2 just because she’s… well…so damn hot.  I look forward to the “Day of Future Passed” installment coming next year, featuring “That 70s X-Men.”  

Breaker Morant

I recently watched this film again for the first time in ages – certainly for the first time since I passed the bar and became a practicing attorney.   Earlier I described it briefly as the best movie about the Boer War, but given that it’s practically the only film about the Boer War, that isn’t much of a distinction.

Boer War.  Actually this was the Second Boer War (1899-1902); the first one was 1880-81.   It took place in what is now known as South Africa.   The conflict was between Britain, using mostly conventional forces, and the local Boers, who were descendants of the original Dutch settlers and spoke Afrikaans, which is a variant of Dutch.  

   At that time South Africa included two countries, the South African Republic (aka Transvaal Republic) and the Orange Free State, which were independent of the Cape Colony, the main English-controlled part of South Africa.  In 1886, gold was discovered there, but there were insufficient Boers to mine it.  So a gold rush of outsiders, “uitlanders”, came in – mainly from Britain – to do this, and eventually outnumbered the Boers.  Johannesburg sprung up practically out of thin air.  The Brits insisted that these uitlanders be given equal rights and status, but the Boers refused, knowing they would lose control of the country.  After ultimatums passed back and forth, the Boers [Transvaal and Orange Free State allied together] declared war on England in October 1899.

In the beginning (1899), the Boers attacked British settlements in the Cape Colony and besieged Ladysmith, Mafeking, and Kimberley.   The British forces had been understrength and unprepared despite months of imminent hostilities and large arms purchases by the Transvaal. 

Then (January to September 1900) the British sent many more troops, broke the sieges, and invaded the Transvaal and Orange Free State, which put the Boers on the defensive. 

Once they realized they could not defeat the British by conventional means, the Boers then began a guerilla war (1900-1902).  The British, in the form of the ever-unpopular Lord Kitchener, responded by burning farms and moving the local population into camps.

If you have to put a lot of people together into another place, possibly in the middle of nowhere, you have to concentrate them into a camp:  thus, “concentration camp”, a term which later achieved even more notoriety during World War II, but here it was simply the British attempt to fight what had become a guerilla war by isolating the indigenous population and thus reduce the ability of the “fish” to swim in the “sea”.  However, even without explicit genocidal intentions, the camps were still unhygienic and unpleasant – so this policy engendered considerable antipathy for the Brits and sympathy for the Boers, particularly from the Germans, although in practice, notwithstanding this deluge of “moral support”, the Boers got almost no help from anyone.

            For all its controversy, the policy was effective at stopping the Boers from conducting their guerilla war, and eventually the Boers had to surrender, although offered the prize that the unified country would be given its independence – which it was, in 1910, as the Union of South Africa.

Movie.  Actually based on a true story.  Three Australian soldiers, Harry “Breaker” Morant (Edward Woodward), Peter Handcock (Bryan Brown), and George Witton (Lewis Fitz-Gerald) are put on trial for three separate crimes: 1) killing a Boer caught wearing their dead officer’s service jacket, 2) killing 6+ Boer prisoners, and 3) killing a German missionary.  The three soldiers are members of an anti-guerilla cavalry unit, the Bushveldt Caribineers.  They’re given a hastily assigned defense counsel, Major J.F. Thomas (Jack Thompson, later to surface as Lars Cliegg in “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones”) who has never handled a court martial – or even a criminal case – ever; his practice in Australia was wills and trusts in a small town.   Like in “My Cousin Vinny”, the attorney has to rapidly learn criminal procedure and get a firm handle on the substance of his case, which he very admirably (if predictably) does.  In fact, he quickly ascertains the manifest injustice of the whole legal farce against his clients, and his passion comes out consistently through the trial.

All three soldiers plead not guilty.  Their defense?  1) They were given orders to summarily execute any Boer wearing khaki (English uniform); 2) They were given orders by their captain to execute prisoners as they were behind the lines; 3) the German missionary was a spy, but the soldier in question (Handcock) claims an alibi – an erotic rendezvous with two Boer women (separately). 

The main soldier is Morant, with Handcock a close second, and Witton a distant third in terms of culpability.  Morant and Handcock were condemned and executed; Witton was given a life sentence but freed after three years. 

In particular, Morant invokes the “Rule of .303”, claiming that out in the field, amidst the madness and reality of combat, a different set of rules apply which cannot be understood by hidebound staff officers who never face enemy forces.  Moreover, the Australians are treated as undisciplined renegades, perfectly suited for the unpleasant and difficult task of dealing with Boer guerillas; like most agrarian-based unconventional forces, the Boers don’t wear uniforms and are indistinguishable from other civilians.

More specifically, however, the Aussies had indeed been given orders with respect to prisoners.  Unfortunately for them, the order on “khaki” was vaguely worded, and the order on prisoners was explicitly given by an officer who was killed in combat and thus unable to testify on their behalf.  In fact, it was that officer whose death they avenged against the man caught wearing his jacket. 

Nowadays, or even back in 1980 when the film was made, the defense that “I was only following orders” rings rather hollow.  It didn’t save the Nuremburg defendants, on trial for the Holocaust, from Allied gallows in 1946.  However, these orders seem to stem from common sense military necessity: enemy soldiers caught wearing our uniforms are legitimately treated as spies, and irregular forces operating behind enemy lines lack the logistics to transport prisoners, so enemies captured really have to be shot.  Recall in “Saving Private Ryan” when Upham successfully protests against shooting the lone German soldier – only to see that same soldier later shoot back at them just as Upham’s angry comrades predicted.  Thus, the “Rule of .303”.   

In the middle of the trial, the fort in which they were tried came under attack by a large Boer force, and the three were released to assist in its defense – which they did extremely well.  Then they were locked up again and the tribunal refused to give them any credit for doing so. 

Ultimately, though, the men were victims of a political decision:  the top brass wanted to make peace with the Boers, and felt that executing these Australians would show the Boers their good faith.  Like “To Kill a Mockingbird”, a spirited and conscientious defense – one which would, given a truly impartial trier of fact, have resulted in an acquittal – availed to naught against an unstoppable political reality acting against them. 

A few other topics I might as well cover while I’m here.

“On Location?”  The landscape and scenery of the movie were amazing.  Here I was thinking, “South Africa is a beautiful place.”  Not so fast.  It seems the entire film was made in Australia.  Perhaps the parts of South Africa which used to be the Transvaal were too heavily developed in 1980 to pass for 1900-era Transvaal?  Or they just didn’t have the budget to get everyone on a plane and film in South Africa.  I don’t know.  Presumably they didn’t have any Boer War veterans still alive to tell them if Australian wilderness in 1980 could pass for the Transvaal in 1900.  It’s still eye candy either way.

Kangaroo Court.  We’re familiar with the expression in today’s US:  a farcical legal proceeding with a predetermined outcome unfavorable to one side, probably the defendant.  And since the defendants here were Australian, the term seems especially apt.  But research indicates that “kangaroo” notwithstanding, the expression derives from claim jumping courts in 1849’s California Gold Rush, and has ZERO connection with Australia.  Go figure.  

The Producers

No, I’m not referring to the Gene Wilder film, or its more recent remake with Matthew Broderick in the main role (though both films were fine).   I’m talking about the studio geniuses responsible for making rock albums sound the way they do.

It initially escaped my attention that Now What ?!, the new Deep Purple album, had a famous producer behind the scenes, but I certainly noticed the album’s massive improvement in quality over the prior 4 albums with Steve Morse.  The producer?  Bob Ezrin, whose prior work included Kiss Destroyer, Pink Floyd’s The Wall, and numerous Alice Cooper albums, among many others.   I don’t recall Deep Purple ever trusting a high profile producer to handle the job: Purpendicular and Abandon, the first two albums with Steve Morse, were “self-produced”, meaning Roger Glover (the bassist) handled this.  Bananas and Rapture of the Deep were produced by Michael Bradford, whoever he is.  Neither of those two albums differed appreciably from the two prior ones.

 

Similarly, Black Sabbath originally had Rodger Bain produce its first three albums with Ozzy, then Tony Iommi took over.  As Tony explained, the rest of the band didn’t want to hire a producer but had no clue how to do it themselves, so he was forced to take the job by default.   Martin Birch – most often associated with Iron Maiden - produced Heaven & Hell and The Mob Rules, then Tony took over again.  But 13 was produced by Rick Rubin.  Birch can also take credit for Stormbringer & Come Taste the Band by Deep Purple, engineering earlier DP albums such as In Rock, Machine Head, and Made in Japan, engineering on the earliest Wishbone Ash albums, producing Cultosaurus Erectus and Fire of Unknown Origin by Blue Oyster Cult, and producing the Rainbow albums with Ronnie James Dio.   But in his case, he’s so thoroughly entwined with those bands that it’s hard to notice the difference.  He seems to bring out more of consistent, solid quality, than any immensely superlative albums; but I can’t identify any album he’s done that is less than excellent. 

For anyone who doubts how important a producer can be, consider these examples:

1.         The Beatles & George Martin.  They never would have been as innovative and influential as they were if they didn’t have a producer who understood them as well as he did. 

2.         AC/DC’s top three albums, Highway to Hell, Back In Black, and For Those About To Rock, were all produced by John Mutt Lange; while I like Let There Be Rock and Powerage, Vanda & Young also have Blow Up Your Video and Fly On the Wall to answer for.  High’N’Dry and Pyromania (Def Leppard) were also Lange’s work.  Although he’s still working, unfortunately these days – after a few years producing his (now ex-) wife Shania Twain’s material – he’s producing such heavyweights as Nickelback and Maroon 5.  If AC/DC had any remaining brain cells they’d hire him for their next album, which at this rate is likely to be their last.  Black Ice (which Brendan O’Brien produced) was mediocre at best.

Rubin is most closely identified with Slayer and Danzig, though he also produced the Cult’s Electric.  He has an odd, idiosyncratic style which doesn’t always work.  From what I understand, he simply lounges on a couch in a corner of the studio and grunts approval or disapproval of the band’s material and guides them in a very vague, non-technical, subjective fashion.  Most other producers take a much more active role.  Bob Rock even played bass on Metallica’s self-titled Black Album, the first album for that band where they brought in an outside producer.

Similarly, many bands wind up closely associated with particular producers.  Rush & Terry Brown (aka “Broon”); Van Halen and Ted Templeman; Aerosmith and Jack Douglas.

I’m not aware of any material Jimmy Page has released that he didn’t produce himself, though In Through The Out Door has more of John Paul Jones’ stamp on it.  I can see the bands’ reluctance to allow an outsider to control the process, but as Ian Paice noted, sometimes it comes in handy.  In addition to being able to mediate disputes between band members (Paice said Ezrin was able to reach decisions in minutes which would take the band days squabbling amongst themselves) he’s also able to offer a more distant, objective perspective and give marching orders to the band member who would otherwise be producing.  Band members often have less of an ego issue obeying commands or taking suggestions from an outside producer than they do from fellow band members.  As competent as Roger Glover seems to be – he even presided over all the remastering of their CDs, and remixing much of the material – Ezrin really knocked it out of the ballpark on Now What ?!.  He even got Don Airey to sound like Ray Manzarek on a few songs, pushing Airey well out of “I’m replacing Jon Lord, I’ll just copy him” into “well, I can do whatever I want.”  Ezrin was like a Gandalf, pushing the hobbitish band members out of the Shire, off to Mordor, which they would never have done left to their own devices, producing their own albums themselves. 

Manager-Producers.  Apparently there’s something to be said for both managing a band and producing its albums. Sandy Pearlman handled both duties for Blue Oyster Cult (except for the above-mentioned albums); Gerry Bron did so with Uriah Heep; and Terry Knight handled the same double-hat duty for Grand Funk Railroad.

Artist-Producers.  Although producers generally start off as lowly studio engineers and work their way up to producer, some started as musicians and learned enough in the studio to be able to handle it themselves (much like actors become directors).  Roger Glover produced Sin After Sin (Judas Priest), David Gilmour produced Astouding Sounds, Amazing Music (Hawkwind), but Todd Rundgren is probably the best known of these producers.   Alan Parsons seems to have gone the other direction:  from engineering Let It Be, Abbey Road, and then Dark Side of the Moon to developing his own Project.  Generally, though, the artist-producers are more apt to focus on producing their own bands (e.g. Glover & Page) than going off and producing others’. 

The best producers somehow manage to get the musicians to outdo themselves.  Ezrin did it with Deep Purple, Lange did it with AC/DC and Def Leppard, Martin did it with the Beatles.  I’ll have to pay more attention to the top producers’ next projects in the future.

Zimmartin

If you listened to the news, a grievous miscarriage of justice recently occurred in Florida.  As reported in the major news media, this is what happened:

On February 26, 2012, in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, Trayvon Martin was walking back from the convenience store with his Skittles.  A punk ass cracker neighborhood watch Nazi, George Zimmerman, spotted the black youth in his hoodie, assumed he was up to no good, and called for backup.  Backup was denied; he was told to ignore the youth.  Ignoring these instructions, Zimmerman got out of his car, walked up to Martin, and shot him once at point blank range, killing him instantly.  He then took the boy’s Skittles and munched them down.

After a lengthy trial, 5 Aryan Nation KKK women (and one minority) acquitted Zimmerman of the cold blooded murder of Trayvon Martin.  Naturally, everyone is upset with this outcome.

Of course, a review of the trial testimony reveals a more complex fact pattern.

On February 26, 2012, in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, Trayvon Martin was walking back from the convenience store with his Skittles.  A neighborhood watch busybody, George Zimmerman, spotted the black youth in his hoodie, assumed he was up to no good, and called for backup.  Backup was denied; he was told to ignore the youth.  Ignoring these instructions, Zimmerman got out of his car, walked up to Martin, and confronted him about his identity and purpose in being there.  Angered and offended by this obvious racial profiling by a non-black non-cop (“crazy ass cracker” were the exact words he used), Martin began beating the crap out of Zimmerman, ending up punching him on the ground.  Zimmerman, now on the losing end of the confrontation and fearing for his life, shot Martin once at point blank range from below. 

After a lengthy trial and 16 hours of deliberation, 6 women (including one minority) acquitted Zimmerman of the murder of Trayvon Martin, concluding that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.  Naturally, many people are upset with this outcome.

Do you see a difference?

Since Martin clearly did not survive the incident, there was only one story told at trial, consistent with the common saying among gun owners, “better to be tried by twelve [in this case, six] than carried by six [pallbearers].”  Zimmerman’s own testimony would have been self-serving, but since he didn’t testify, that point is moot.  As the jurors indicated, the supporting testimony of Martin’s and Zimmerman’s parents cancelled each other out.  We’re left with a few independent witnesses who could describe what happened. 

Chris Serino, the police investigator, and a prosecution witness, testified that he believed that Zimmerman was telling the truth when he described what happened.  John Good, a neighbor in the community, another prosecution witness, testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.  The forensics expert, Vincent Di Maio, testified that powder residue was on Martin’s clothing, indicating that Martin was shot from below at point blank range, consistent with Good’s testimony. 

With prosecution witnesses like these, who needs defense witnesses?  Defense counsel O’Mara was correct in his assessment: in the end, the prosecution’s case – despite surviving a motion to strike – was insufficient to even meet the standard for manslaughter (does not require proof of malice aforethought), much less second degree murder.  Zimmerman himself could (and did) decline to testify and still be acquitted.  Remember, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the defendant to prove his innocence. 

Again, if you ignore the story consistently told by the media, and focus on the facts presented at trial, Zimmerman acted in self-defense and was rightfully acquitted. 

Was race a factor? Probably, when Zimmerman made the choice to ignore the advice given him by the dispatcher and confront Martin anyway.  But as O’Mara pointed out when interviewed by Piers Morgan, race ceased to be a factor when Zimmerman was on the ground being beaten by Martin.  Martin’s response to the confrontation was out of line, and when you’re getting your ass kicked, the color of the person trying to kill you isn’t particularly relevant to your decision to defend yourself.  Never mind “stand your ground”, to find against Zimmerman would be to rule that, “if you upset or offend a black person, he’s entitled to kill you.”  We can’t fault these 6 women on the jury for refusing to make that determination.  

Much is made of Florida’s “stand your ground law”.  Generally, a would-be victim is permitted to fight back with deadly force against an attack ONLY if he/she is either (A) at home or (B) in public but for some reason cannot retreat.  The “castle” doctrine absolves the defender of the duty to retreat if the defender is in his/her own home, but if attacked in public the defender must retreat.  The “stand your ground” law removed the duty to retreat if attacked in public.  I see online that this law has caused some confusion in Florida, as possibly being applied where the surviving assailant invoking the law may have been either the aggressor or no better than equally at fault with the victim: simply the winner of mortal combat, which is probably not what the legislature intended.  However, it has also been protecting quite a few defendants who were guilty of no more than standing their ground and surviving the encounter.  Perhaps it needs to be tweaked a little.

The law is ill-equipped to handle cases where two individuals interact without a third party witness.  In personal injury cases where one driver ran a red light and the other had the green light, the latter driver, who was not at fault, will probably lose the case without an independent witness.  In rape cases, the “he said/she said” dilemma arises: a guilty rapist might escape justice if the victim is not believed, but an innocent man might go to prison if the “victim” was simply lying but the court believed her (probably to shield her infidelity from her BF or husband).  Even if we had video surveillance cameras everywhere, this wouldn’t prevent the same problem from occurring behind closed doors.  And who wants a society where cameras are literally everywhere?

Notwithstanding the larger issues surrounding the “stand your ground” law, the facts here (testimony by Good) indicate that Zimmerman was trapped on the ground by Martin and could not retreat.  If you cannot retreat, you satisfy even a state which lacks a “stand your ground law”, thus in those circumstances “stand your ground” is irrelevant.  For this reason, Zimmerman was innocent and the law did not apply anyway.

Panzers 1.0

World War I.   This was when tanks first made their appearance, as a means of breaking the stalemate of trench warfare – because poison gas wasn’t getting it done.  Hardly surprisingly, it was the winning side, the Allies, which pioneered tanks.  The Germans did too little, too late:  and made up for it big time the next time around (1939-45).

England.  Mark I, IV & V tanks.  These were the rhomboid “tracks around the parallelogram” deals with twin sponsons, armed with either cannon (“male”) or machine gun (“female”).  The Mark I was the initial model which debuted at the Battle of the Somme in September 1916.  A total of 150 of these were made.  This design had a crew of 8 men.

The Mark II and III models were training/experimental models between the Marks I and IV which never saw combat. 

Approximately 1200 of the Mark IV model were made; of these most were combat models, the balance being supply, recovery, or experimental.  The Mark I & IV tanks had a single 100 HP engine but weighed almost 30 tons.  Small wonder the top speed was 4 mph, which is essentially how fast your A/T equipped car goes if you simply take your foot off the brake without giving it any gas. 

The Mark V was a substantial improvement over the Mark IV, with a new 150 HP Ricardo engine, giving a 20% increase in speed to…5 mph.   Even more important, the Mark V had a new transmission which only required one driver instead of two, allowing the second driver to man a gun instead.  Mark V production was 400: 200 male and 200 female. 

The Mark V* (pronounced “five star”) was a “stretch-limo’d” Mark V.  “Stretch limo” actually has some meaning here, as initially they hoped to make the V* essentially the first armored personnel carrier, but the conditions inside the tank were so horrendous, no soldier could stay inside long enough, so that idea died for the moment.  The next upgrade, the Mark V**, had wider tracks and a 225 HP beast under the hood.  Neither of these variants were produced early enough, or in enough quantity, to supplant the Mark V as the main battle tank of the British Army in WWI. 

The Mark I served at the Somme (September 1916), the Mark IV at Cambrai (November 1917), and the Mark V for the second half of 1918 up to the Armistice.

The Whippet tank, weighing in at 14 tons with 4 machine guns and a crew of 3 – production 200 – acted as the British version of the Renault FT (see below): a lighter, faster model equipped only with machine guns, to complement the heavier, slower Mark IVs and Vs.  Whippets served from March 1918 to the end of the war.

Germany.  A7V (24) and Mark IV (captured) (30+).  The A7V was Germany’s own design.  It had a 57mm cannon in the prow and 4 machine guns on the sides.  Since this tank weighed 33 tons and had a 200 HP engine, surprise surprise: it galloped to a top speed of 8 mph.  In addition to the A7V, the Germans captured considerable numbers of British Mark IV’s, repaired them, trained their crews on them, painted Maltese crosses on the sides, and put them back into action against the Allies – but none too effectively.  The German general staff was never quite sold on the premise of the tank and put very little priority on developing their own fleet or cultivating the “Beutepanzers” (captured Mark IVs).  It took so long – until late 1918, two years after the tank’s debut at the Somme in September 1916 – for the Allies to produce enough tanks and develop the appropriate tactics that by the time they succeeded at getting tanks to make any substantial contribution, it was too late for the Germans to ramp up their development and production to respond in kind.  Generally the Germans were on the receiving end of tank attacks.  Without a sizable tank force of their own, their response was to bring up more of their light field guns and heavy machine guns, and also to increase the width of their trenches to make it more difficult for the Allied tanks to cross.  By ramping up production and using fascines to cross wider trenches, the Allies were able to overcome these obstacles.

France.  Schneider, St Chamond, and Renault FT.  The Schneider was mostly a big box with a cannon on one side and a machine gun on the other – an odd asymmetrical design.  It was slow and not very effective.  The St Chamond was much larger, like a big monster.  It had a 75mm in the nose and machine guns on the sides, but was not much more successful than the Schneider.  One officer called it “an elephant with the legs of a gazelle.”

The winning combo was the much smaller Renault FT, which actually had a real turret and could get out of its own way.  The FT idea was a small tank made in large quantities which could go fairly quickly and overwhelm the enemy like a swarm of angry bees.  Of all the tanks used, this one had the best layout and essentially became the template for the future development of the tank as a weapon – the Mark V, A7V, and the other French designs were dead ends.  The US made a few of these; they made up the US’ first tank force (cue Patton & Eisenhower). Although the Germans captured some Renaults, they didn’t use any of them.  This is the only tank referred to by the name of a mainstream auto manufacturer, as opposed to a unique military designation, like calling a tank a "Chevrolet" or a "Plymouth".

Naturally it was the Western Front that the first tanks were used on.  The Allies didn’t send any to the Tsar while WWI was going on; the Italian front was mountains; and in Africa the English pretty much had their way most of the time in a fairly mobile environment without trenches.  The British sent about 5 Mark IVs to the Middle East, but they came too late to make a difference.  Tanks at this point were so unreliable that the British and French had to throw a large quantity together to expect any meaningful number to make it to the German lines, and the industrial capacity, as it was, could barely crank out the aggregate number.  So they really couldn’t spare any tanks for other theaters even if they wanted to. 

After WWI the British sent 70 Mark Vs and 17 Whippets to the White Russian armies for their Civil War, which were subsequently captured by the Reds, so most of the surviving ‘V’s are in Russia.   The IV/V in “War Horse” was in fact a newly made replica, not an original.  The remainder of the Mark V’s were used as fairly effective fundraisers in England – the spectacle of the noisy, bizarre beast did wonders to open people’s wallets and contribute to the cause. 

The sole surviving A7V is in a museum in Australia – it was captured by Australian troops in WWI and brought back with them as a 33 ton souvenir.     

The Renault FT remained in service in the interwar years, up to WWII, and was even found in Afghanistan in the 1980s.  But its most substantial contribution was as a starting design for everyone else’s more modern tanks.

By way of comparison, the M1 Abrams in current format (M1A2) has a 120mm cannon in the turret, one .50 cal MG, 2 .30 cal MGs, a 1500 HP turbine engine, a four man crew, and weighs 67 tons.  By now over 9,000 of all variants have been produced.  Naturally, the M1 Abrams is full of electronics and weapons systems which the Mark I lacked – hell, which even Soviet T-72s lacked.  Like many turbine engines, the M1’s will run on practically any form of fuel: the US uses JP8 jet fuel, while the Australians use diesel.  It can go 30 mph cross country, or 42 mph on a paved road.

July 4th and Bastille Day

Apparently after all these years I’ve never done a blog about this holiday itself:  the Dead, America, etc. but not the holiday.  Go figure.

Fireworks.   Of course it’s not July 4 without fireworks, right?  And why let the professionals have all the fun?  As of now, what’s legal to buy around here (VA/DC/MD) are snakes, sparklers, and “spark fountains”.  Nothing that goes up in the air and explodes, and no firecrackers, even little ladyfingers or machine guns.  Fortunately someone in my brother’s neighborhood managed to acquire some professional grade ordnance and set it off in a cul-de-sac near his in-laws’ house.   We could watch and enjoy them while contenting ourselves with the modest but still fun range of stand-bought spark-producers.   Matt’s kids have grown old enough to enjoy it all and no longer get freaked out by the noise.

When we were kids living in Gaithersburg, Montgomery County set off fireworks over Lake Whetstone.  Our front lawn was an excellent place to view them without having to go anywhere.   Unfortunately as a VERY young child (well below 10 years old, probably closer to 3-5) the noises frightened me, so my father had to take me inside and miss the fireworks himself.  Fortunately for both of us, I outgrew that phase.

The fireworks in Washington, DC are supposed to be fantastic, but only one summer did we venture to watch them there – back in the 1990s.  While they are indeed impressive, and certainly in an impressive context of the Washington Monument, the Capitol, the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, etc., the horrendously massive crowds and logistics of leaving the place before July 5 made it a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

I saw a video on the Internet of one “fireworks fail” which was quite impressive.  Somehow the entire group went up simultaneously, resulting in a massive fireball like a supernova.  AWESOME.  Even that took several minutes to resolve itself.  Really, I wouldn’t call that a “FAIL”.

1976.  Since I wasn’t around in 1876, and probably won’t be around by 2076 (barring unforeseen longevity: I will be 107 by then if I live that long), this was my sole (US) centennial celebration.  I can’t remember the fireworks being any better than normal, but everywhere was red-white-blue (more so than usual) and “’76”. 

BBQs.  Unlike Christmas, July 4 is an American celebration.  I’ve yet to discern the British celebrating this: their fireworks holiday is Guy Fawkes Day in November.  Of course here in the US we celebrate with cookouts, barbecues and picnics.   I like hamburgers, but I can’t stand hotdogs.  Beer is nice; hard cider is better.

In Europe (Paris 1979-90) the issue became less clear.  For most of the time we lived there, the US Embassy in Paris held the festivities at the Boulogne compound, an apartment complex of 3 three-story buildings.  We’d chase each other around with cap guns, firecrackers (legal in France), and stay awake for the explosions.  Much fun.  Of all my memories of July 4 holiday celebrations, the Boulogne ones are my favorite.

Later on they transferred the “fun” to our school grounds at the American School of Paris.  Since I was used to school anyway, but only went to Boulogne for July 4 and Halloween, this really reduced the fun big time.  But no one asked me.

The other angle with July 4 in Paris is that 10 days later is July 14:  Bastille Day.  So we go from a US holiday celebrated by just us Americans in a closed environment, to a big holiday the entire country celebrates. Since 1789 is only 13 years after 1776 and has the same relative importance (American Revolution & French Revolution), the French treat it as their equivalent, as lustily and patriotically, and throw in fireworks too.  Their colors are red, white and blue as well (“tricolor”) so that too is identical.  We were in Paris in 1989, so we got to witness the French Bicentennial, which meant MUCH more pomp and circumstance and hearing the “Marseillaise” quite a bit more.  The French love parades as much as anyone else, so the morning of Bastille Day they romp down the Champs Elysees with their tanks, troops, troop carriers, Mirage flybys, etc. – like their version of May Day in Moscow. 

Also, as I mentioned, fireworks were legal in France.  Bastille Day was the day we could set off as many as we liked without having to face meddlesome gendarmes hassling us about the noise and explosions.  We took full advantage of that over at Bagatelle.

On July 4, 2000, I was in Rio de Janeiro, but not being assigned to the US Consulate (the embassy is in Brasilia) I was not invited to the celebrations, held at the EARJ (American School of RJ).  Never mind:  I just had to wait for New Year’s Eve, which is when the cariocas unleash their barrage of fireworks.   Very impressive.  However, the gap between the holidays is considerably more than 10 days, so France seems to be the best place outside the US to celebrate July 4.