June 11, 1963

The Stand in the Schoolhouse Door took place as Governor George Wallace (D-AL) attempted to stop the desegregation of the University of Alabama. This was in defiance of the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which stated that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.

Paging Mr. Barnum

We haven’t visited with our favorite sucker hunter in a while, but that doesn’t mean I’ve forgotten about him. When we last left P.T., the AMGA had tossed ObamaCare over the rail and San Francisco businesses received a whole bunch of waivers.

Well, now some businesses have been surveyed about their plans due to the health care law changes. The results are in, and they’re not good (free registration required).

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only about 7 percent of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) will have to switch to subsidized-exchange policies in 2014. However, our early-2011 survey of more than 1,300 employers across industries, geographies, and employer sizes, as well as other proprietary research, found that reform will provoke a much greater response.

• Overall, 30 percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering ESI in the years after 2014.
• Among employers with a high awareness of reform, this proportion increases to more than 50 percent, and upward of 60 percent will pursue some alternative to traditional ESI.
• At least 30 percent of employers would gain economically from dropping coverage even if they completely compensated employees for the change through other benefit offerings or higher salaries.

You think that’s bad? The news doesn’t get any better (emphasis mine).

As we have seen, a Congressional Budget Office report estimated that only 9 million to 10 million people, or about 7 percent of employees, currently covered by ESI would have to switch to subsidized exchange policies in 2014. Most surveys of employers likewise show relatively low interest in shifting employees from traditional ESI.

Our survey found, however, that 45 to 50 percent of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to ESI in the years after 2014. Those alternatives include dropping coverage, offering it through a defined-contribution model, or in effect offering it only to certain employees. More than 30 percent of employers overall, and 28 percent of large ones, say they will definitely or probably drop coverage after 2014.

Remember when President Barack Obama (D-USA) said this?

[N]o matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.

It wasn’t even a year ago. Well, that promise is past its expiration date, apparently. Time to throw it out before it starts to smell. As you can see from the quotes above, over 1/4 of the business surveyed expect to drop their coverage after 2014. Up to another 1/4 said that they will have to look at alternatives. Almost 1/3 gain economically by doing so. So much for Obama’s statement that “no matter what” that wouldn’t happen.

The important thing to remember about ObamaCare is this. Everything you’ve been told by the Democrats about it is a lie. The Democrats pretended from the moment they started down this path that they weren’t trying to reinvent health care in the United States. They lied. This was a power grab of unprecedented proportions. And they never cared about the results, other than to get to a socialized state of medicine with government control over everything.

Don’t believe me? What were the stated goals of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care act?

• Increasing availability of coverage
• Bending the cost curve down while not increasing the cost of government
• Increasing quality of service
• Decreasing Medicare fraud

As I’ve shown repeatedly on this blog, the law fails at its very first step. Employers are dropping coverage like flies. That’s what all the waivers have been about, and that’s shown again in this very post.

It doesn’t come close to bending the cost curve down. Surprisingly, this isn’t something I’ve blogged extensively about, but you can read a summary here.

In 2009, the report reads, national health-care spending, public and private, totaled $2.5 trillion and accounted for 17.3 percent of the economy. The report predicts that health-care spending will rise to $4.6 trillion and account for 19.6 percent of the economy in 2019. By contrast, in February — before the passage of ObamaCare — the same team of government experts, using the same economic and demographic assumptions, predicted that national health-care spending would reach $4.5 trillion, or 19.3 percent of the gross domestic product, in 2019. The report also anticipates a big increase in health-care spending in 2014, when major provisions of the new law, including a requirement for most Americans to have insurance, take effect. From 2013 to 2014, for example, overall health-care spending is expected to increase by 9.2 percent, which is significantly more than the 6.6 percent increase predicted before ObamaCare became law.

And both of those models assume that the Medicare reductions built in to the law will take place. They won’t. Bet what’s left of your retirement savings on it. If you get rid of those, the cost curve gets even steeper.

The law certainly doesn’t increase the quality of service either. First, there’s IPAB, which will decide what treatments are acceptable and who gets them. You may remember IPAB. It was formerly called a “death panel”. But, IPAB isn’t the only problem. The new law makes medical research considerably more expensive and time consuming, resulting in not only higher costs, but significantly longer time to market, and even longer before the new treatments will be accepted by IPAB (since they will certainly cost more). So, those fancy new diabetes treatments you’ve been reading about and hoping for? Forget it. You’ll be getting the foot amputation instead.

As CER becomes more entrenched, it will increase the costs of bringing new technology to market by increasing the size and cost of clinical trials, delaying the time it takes to bring a new product to market and decreasing the rate of diffusion of new technologies.

The result will be increased uncertainty and risk of investment in medical and pharmaceutical research. Reduced investment in medical innovation could lead to large reductions in health and longevity and a less productive workforce, which would harm the economy.

There’s only one item on the list where the law appears that it may be somewhat successful, and that’ sin eliminating Medicare fraud. However, let me remind you once again, of this picture.

If you really believe that there’s no increased fraud potential in that, then you are a sucker.

And don’t ever forget that the worst thing about ObamaCare might not even be listed above, and that’s what it’s doing to our economy. Businesses aren’t hiring because of the cost of the new regulations and the cost of covering their employees. Add the stifling increases to our public debt load and you have the recipe for economic stagnation. At best.

The result? More expensive healthcare that’s lower quality and loss of my insurance at work combined with a floundering economy. What’s not to like?

Now, P.T. can rest comfortably again, knowing that he’s found a few more suckers.

If you want more details on these items, I suggest you look at this entire thread, or even the very first post in it, which is now somewhat dated. I’ve tried to generally include things that have already happened or are already causing businesses to make changes. So, there’s very little of “opinion” in these posts. They’re just about as fact based as I can make them. And the simple fact is that this law is a disaster. If you think otherwise, you haven’t been paying attention. No sane person who understands the law at all could call this law a success at it’s stated goals.

June 9, 1973

The horse known as “Big Red” won the Triple Crown, winning the Belmont Stakes by an incredible 31 lengths. Secretariat ran the fastest 1 1/2 miles on dirt in history (record still stands) at 2:24 flat.

His Kentucky Derby win was just as impressive, as he did something that’s equally unheard of. He ran the 1 1/4 mile race and each successive 1/4 mile was faster than the previous. Wikipedia sums it up:

The successive quarter-mile times were 25¹⁄₅, 24, 23⁴⁄₅, 23²⁄₅, and 23. This means he was still accelerating as of the final quarter-mile of the race.

His Kentucky Derby time of 1:59:2 is still a record as well.

June 8, 1949

George Orwell’s novel, 1984 was published.

 

But on January 20, 2009, fantasy became reality. Ok, maybe that’s extreme, but has there ever been an administration so entrenched in the idea of doublethink and Newspeak?

June 7, 1999

Osama bin Laden makes FBI’s “10 Most Wanted List.”

Andrew Breitbart Hacks Anthony Weiner’s…Press Conference

I want this as my screensaver. This is the best press conference you’ll ever see. If you haven’t watched it, please do. If you have, watch it again. For those of you who don’t know, Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY-09) scheduled a press conference today to discuss the latest news regarding his lewd pictures scandal. The story was originally reported on one of Andrew Breitbart’s sites, BigGovernment.Com, and Breitbart happened to be in the area of the press conference. He stopped by, and Weiner was late, so the press asked Breitbart to step to the microphone for a few questions. He obliged.

My favorite part is when he excoriates the press for not doing their job, while they’re still not doing their job and instead are attacking him.

There are a few amazing exchanges worth watching and listening to. The first is at about 5:05 seconds when a reporter asks Breitbart:

“Mr. Breitbart, why did you put this on the web in the first place? What were you trying to achieve?”

A: “It’s clearly a news story. Why are you trying to challenge a news story?”

Breitbart is clearly amazed at the inanity of the question. He runs a journalism site. This is news. How about a better question, why didn’t anyone else want to touch this story? If you were ever in doubt about how much the MSM is in the tank for the Dems, this question itself should clear it up for you. I can’t think of a more eye opening example.

Well, except for this one at about 9:40.

“Why should we believe you?”

A: “Ok, everything that I’ve said so far has come to be true. I’d like to hear one--The media says Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies, Breitbart lies. Give me one example of a provable lie. One. One. Journalists? One. Put your reputation on the line here. One provable lie.”

Again, Breitbart gets a little fiery here, deservedly so. I could give the MSM a pass on this one, if they had ever bothered to ask Congressman Weiner the same question. Weiner’s story clearly had problems with it from the beginning, and he clearly was acting like someone trying to hide something. And the MSM was just as clearly not interested in finding out what he was trying to hide.

Now, I’m not suggesting that Weiner should be treated as guilty until proven innocent—wait, maybe I am after all. This is supposed to be an adversarial press, right? Anyway, the press should be interested in a scandal and in getting to the bottom of it. They never went after Weiner, instead they were willing accomplices in his story and laughed with him at his silly jokes. Today, not only did Congressman Weiner end up looking ridiculous, but so did the entire mainstream media. One guy monitoring Twitter from his basement and another guy with a relatively fledgling media site did the job that the MSM is unwilling to do. We used to call this job “investigative journalism”. I don’t know what the folks that used to do that call their jobs now, because there’s clearly nothing investigative or journalistic about it.

So, for 15 minutes they got to listen to Andrew Breitbart lecture them all on how they should do their jobs. I’d hope that some of it sunk in, but I’ve given up hope on such things. Maybe we’ll get lucky and it will sink in to the next generation of aspiring journalists.

The Obligatory ‘Santorum Is In’ Post

Today, former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) officially announced his candidacy for the GOP nomination for the Presidency.

Here’s the vid:

 

I had him on my list of candidates, but somehow left him off my “The GOP Candidates-The Good” post. And therefore also the Bad post. Obviously I need an editor.

In brief, I think that Santorum has pretty decent conservative credentials, but seems a bit too thin skinned for a Presidential candidate. On the other hand, the current occupant of the White House is the most thin skinned politician I can recall ever seeing, so maybe he’ll be fine.

He is solidly socially conservative. In fact, his stances here would definitely cause him problems with independents (homosexuality, intelligent design). He’s opposed to amnesty for illegals and has long been an advocate of welfare reform. He also lost his last Senate race by 27 points, making it unclear whether he’d win his own state in a Presidential race.

So, that’s good and bad all mixed together, proving once more that I need an editor. I still see him as a second or third tier candidate at this point, and unlikely to still be in the race after South Carolina, but he’s capable of a surprise.

June 6, 1944

D-Day. The storming of the beaches at Normandy. The first part of the Allied invasion of German controlled Europe in WWII. Four sentences without verbs.

You know, we Americans like to think that when it comes to the big things, that we always do the right thing. It might take us a while, but we get there, and when we do, we make up for our slowness with the kind of fierce pride and determination shown at Normandy.

But, I have to wonder, would our current President give the approval for such an invasion? I honestly don’t know that he would. Does that say more about me than him? Is it because I’ve totally lost confidence in his ability to do anything right, or because it’s actually true?

Hopefully we’ll never have to learn the answer to such a question.

UPDATE: General Eisenhower’s D-Day speech:

June 5, 2004

Eep. How could I have missed this?

On this day in 2004, the Gipper passed away. A friend of mine says often “God, I miss voting for that man.” I never got a chance to do so, being 3 days too young to vote in the 1984 Presidential election.

The GOP Candidates-The Bad

As promised, now the bad.

(No, I’m not going to do an Ugly, but if you look at this list, I’m sure you can find some ugly)

• Mitt Romney – Wow, where to begin. He’s the left most person in the field. He’s got RomneyCare hanging around his neck, supports ethanol subsidies and believes in anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
• Newt Gingrich – I think he learned too much from President Bill Clinton (D-USA). He’s too much into this whole “national conversation” thing, and seems like he’s always triangulating lately. He also believes in AGW, and to be blunt, his campaign so far has been a disaster. As I have said previously, he’s a 20th century politician. I really don’t feel that he understands the Tea Party and the angst there.
• Tim Pawlenty – Definitely has some green roots and supported cap & trade while governor. He says he’s learned from that, but there are some other things he needs to have learned from as well. He hasn’t always been a small government politician. Right now he appears to be saying the right things, but is he just saying them to get elected, or because that’s what he feels? Call me cynical, but I worry.
• Herman Cain – His outsider status is going to be a problem in the general election. He clearly has issues with foreign policy as well. Also, I fear that the MSM will use his race in a subtle fashion to attack him and the GOP. I can just imagine someone saying, “Look, the GOP is trying to show they have a black man too. But there are so few in the GOP they couldn’t find one with actual political experience to run.” If you don’t think Chris Matthews is capable of saying something like this, you haven’t been paying attention. I really hope I’m wrong on that, but I fear I’m not.
• Michelle Bachman – I don’t believe in legislators as Presidents. I never have, and our current President sure hasn’t changed my mind. Also, she’s a firebrand. I think that works for her in the House, but not sure it’s a winning feature in the White House. Let her run for Governor of MN, learn to be a Chief Executive, and then I’m solidly behind her in 2016 or 2020, depending on 2012 outcome.
• Ron Paul – Well, he’s Ron Paul. He’s an isolationist, and he’s out there on a lot of things.
• Rick Perry – As I said on the good page, I just don’t know that much about him. I do remember in those articles over the last few years that I scanned, that I wasn’t always happy. I can’t name any specifics though. I’m not the best even keeping up with local politics even in my own state, much less someone else’s. Yes, I realize that sounds odd for someone who is so much for Federalism. I’d love to pay more attention to local politics, but our top heavy federal government doesn’t allow me to do so.
• Gary Johnson – His performance in the first debate was absolutely dismal. He didn’t give a single answer that I liked. So, I’m pretty much down on him on every single issue.
• Sarah Palin – As a candidate she has a lot to overcome. Also, while I admire her desire to run an unconventional campaign, I doubt the ability of such a campaign to succeed on a national level. She has an image that has been created by the MSM, and it is the image that most people see in their minds when they think of her. And, fair or unfair, the “quitter” label is going to be stuck with her for the rest of her life. Also, I think her adamant stand on the debt ceiling issue would come back to haunt her as a President. It has all the makings of a “Read my lips” moment.
• Jon Huntsman – I missed him on the Good, so I’ll have to go back and add something. But he’s well liked by the MSM, which is all conservatives should need to know about him. He’s a big government politician and pro choice.

That’s the bad. And, sadly, there’s a lot of it. I can probably support any of these people should they win the nomination, but it will be extremely difficult for me to pull the lever for Romney, Johnson, or Huntsman. I’ve previously said I’ll never do it for Romney, but our current President is slowly making me reconsider that position. I’m pretty worried about the future of our country should President Barack Obama (D-USA) be re-elected, so despite my significant misgivings about Romney, and what he means to the future of the USA and the GOP, I’ll probably have to support him.

The GOP Candidates-The Good

My Twitter timeline is full of statements good and bad about various GOPers these days, and I keep finding myself wanting to retweet with comment. Unfortunately, most of my comments would be 1) negative, and 2) comparative to former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK). I’m really trying not to be an “all Palin, all the time” sort of person, so I’ve been mostly resistant to tweeting.

However, my fingers are still twitchy, so I’m going to write a couple blog posts about what I like and dislike about the various mainstream candidates and speculative candidates.

All comments are based upon what I know of these people right now, and are my opinion only. Remember, this post is only about the good things. The bad things are coming later.

• Mitt Romney – He’s probably more capable of winning the independent vote than any other candidate. And he understands economics better than just about anyone else in the field
• Newt Gingrich – An absolutely brilliant individual, capable of thinking outside the box, and a genuine font of knowledge when it concerns U.S. history, and the implications of the future. Also understands the need for getting the public on your side, having learned this the hard way from President Bill Clinton (D-USA)
• Tim Pawlenty – Showing some real strength so far in the campaign season, definitely trying to court the Tea Party movement.
• Herman Cain – Smart outsider who understands businesses and what makes them grow. He supports the FairTax and also is not afraid of calling out the President where he’s wrong.
• Michelle Bachmann – Definitely has staked out the Tea Party movement as her core constituency. Taking a principled stand where taxes and the size of government is concerned.
• Ron Paul – I like some of his libertarian views, particularly where he stands on marriage. I’m in total agreement with him. We need to get government out of the marriage business. Yes, I realize that’s not as easy as it sounds, but it’s the right solution. Oh, and I’m with him on the Federal Reserve. That would be the best thing about a Paul presidency, seeing him demanding the Fed turn over their books.
• Rick Perry – To be honest, I don’t know the Texas governor all that well. I remember glancing through several stories over the last few years with his name on them and being mostly pleased with what I saw, but I don’t remember any specifics. Will have to do more research if his candidacy appears more likely.
• Gary Johnson – Give me a minute. I’ll think of something. Oh yeah, I read that he supports the FairTax.
• Sarah Palin – Since her emergence in 2008, she has been on the right side of every issue, and she has an opinion on all of them and has voiced them loudly and clearly to anyone who’s bothered to listen. What I like most about Sarah Palin is that she recognizes the MSM as the enemy and treats them as such, going around them to get her message out, rather than through them. She also has been willing to attack President Barack Obama (D-USA) on his stances much more than any other political figure.
• Jon Huntsman – He has some nice foreign policy credentials as Ambassador to China, and he’s a strong proponent of real tax reform, something that’s a big issue to me personally, in case you haven’t noticed.

There are other candidates and speculated candidates listed here, but I honestly don’t believe Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI-01) or Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) are running. As for the others, I think only John Bolton has a chance of making any noise at all, and even his noisemaking potential appears minimal.

UPDATED: Added the bit about Ron Paul and the Fed.

UPDATE 2: Forgot Jon Huntsman. Added.

Is QE3 In Our Future? You Better Hope Not

As I’ve mentioned many times previously on this blog, quantitative easing is the Keynesian admission “we’ve run out of arrows in our quiver”. If you try to control the economy through a central bank (as we unfortunately do, in the United States), your best control is through the raising and lowering of interest rates. However, when rates begin to approach zero, that option is taken off the table. In a rare instance of economic policy accuracy, Wikipedia gets this one right:

Ordinarily, a central bank conducts monetary policy by raising or lowering its interest rate target for the inter-bank interest rate. The central bank achieves its interest rate target through open market operations – where the central bank buys or sells short-term government bonds in exchange for cash.^[5][7] When the central bank disburses or collects payment for these bonds, it alters the amount of money in the economy, while simultaneously affecting the price (and thereby the yield) for short-term government bonds. This in turn affects the interbank interest rates.^[33][34]

In some situations, such as with very low inflation, or in the presence of deflation, the central bank can no longer lower the target interest rate, as the interbank interest rates are either at, or close to, zero.^[8][9] In such a situation, referred to as a liquidity trap, quantitative easing may be employed to further boost the amount of money in the financial system.^[10] This is often considered a "last resort" to stimulate the economy.

Yes, it’s a last resort. It increases inflation risk, especially in an economy that isn’t growing, and the way we’re using it, it increases our credit risk as well. During this last round of quantitative easing, QE2, the Fed was the largest purchaser of U.S. debt, acquiring nearly 70% of it. QE2 ends at the end of this month, and the Fed has said repeatedly that there will not be a QE3.

However, I’ve read several articles in the last week saying that such an event is not just likely, but inevitable. At the risk of being redundant, I will point out again that former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) predicted this quite some time ago. And as she said then:

Do we have any guarantees that QE2 won’t be followed by QE3, 4, and 5, until eventually – inevitably – no one will want to buy our debt anymore? What happens if the Fed becomes not just the buyer of last resort, but the buyer of only resort?

I discussed this problem before as well, here.

Like so many problems we face today, the big part of the problem here is admitting to ourselves what the problem is. By having a QE3, we’re admitting that QE2 has failed. So, why should we think QE3 would succeed? In fact, the inflationary effects of successive QEs make their ongoing failure more likely, rather than less. Unless we admit the failure and put that arrow back in the quiver, we end up with a failed economy and a $100 cheeseburger at McDonald’s.

Some are already predicting a bear market, should a QE3 occur, and a bear market combined with a devalued dollar is indescribably bad.

“We become excessively bearish if the Fed goes to QE3,” Belski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop” with Betty Liu. “We do not want to see QE3,” the New York-based chief investment strategist said. “We think that only prolongs the inevitable when the Fed has to eventually sell these securities that they have been buying.”

But who’s going to buy these securities? Anyone? Let’s review what the Fed is holding.

But beginning in late 2008, as financial institutions careened towards insolvency, the alphabet soup of Fed lending facilities (TAF, TSLF, PDCF and the CPFF just to name a few) bought all kinds of assets that the Fed never before held. Through quantitative easing efforts alone, Ben Bernanke has added $1.8 trillion of longer term GSE debt and Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). (In fact, the Fed now holds more of these mortgage instruments than their entire balance sheet before the crash.) This has drastically changed the complexion of the assets it must now sell.

But as the size of the Fed's balance sheet ballooned, the dollar amount of capital held at the Fed has remained fairly constant. Today, the Fed has $52.5 billion of capital backing a $2.7 trillion balance sheet. While the size of the portfolio expanded three fold (and the quality of its assets diminished), the Fed's equity ratio plunged from 6% to just 2%. Prior to the bursting of the credit bubble, the public was shocked to learn that our biggest investment banks were levered 30 to 1. When asset values fell, those banks were quickly wiped out. But now the Fed is holding many of the same types of assets and is levered 51 to 1! If the value of their portfolio were to fall by just 2% the Fed itself would be wiped out.

Anybody got a spare $3 trillion lying around that they’re willing to invest in toxic assets? No? Hmm. What a surprise.

June 5, 1968

Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY) was assassinated in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, CA.

He has a very modest gravestone at Arlington National Cemetery.

June 5, 1967

The Six-Day War begins, leading to Israel taking control of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.

Yes, I know I usually provide links. I can’t find any that seem to be neutral in their point of view.  You’ll usually read that this war was started by Israel launching surprise attacks against Egypt and Syria. Yes, that’s true, but it’s a tiny fraction of the story. Israel was merely defending itself and had decided that the “best defense is a good offense”. Arab forces from various countries had been planning this war for months, and likely would have begun their attacks later that day. In fact, the Jordan commander is famously quoted as having said on June 2, “in 3 days we’ll be in Tel-Aviv”. Anyone who tell you that the Israel attack was unjustified is either ignorant of history or lying. Or both.

Anyway, there’s a decent write up in Wikipedia, but I suggest you read it with a high degree of skepticism.

The BBC might be a bit better.

The attack follows a build-up of Arab military forces along the Israeli border.

The Arab states had been preparing to go to war against Israel with Egypt, Jordan and Syria being aided by Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria.

On 27 May the President of Egypt, Abdel Nasser, declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

The BBC article further points out that this event was a direct result of Palestinian attacks on Israel starting in 1965. Israel’s assault here is not akin to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. A better comparison would be if America had recognized the impending attack sooner and launched a preemptive counterattack on the Japanese Navy on December 6, 1941.

June 4, 1942

I know it’s June 5 now. I meant to blog on this yesterday, but didn’t get around to any blogging as I was too busy with the in-laws.

June 4, 1942, a mere 6 months after Pearl Harbor, marked the turning point in the Pacific theater in WWII.

Midway.

What was supposed to be another Pearl Harbor like sneak attack by the Japanese Navy turned into a route by the United States of America. Admiral Nimitz risked pretty much everything that was left in his fleet on this battle and his gamble paid off. As Oliver North said in his recent article, this is what a courageous decision looks like.

Notably, neither President Franklin Roosevelt nor Chester Nimitz, the tall admiral from Fredericksburg, Texas, took credit for the victory. They gave it instead to those who fought the battle. And unlike what would happen today, a "leak" about how our code breakers provided the decisive "edge" in the Battle of Midway -- first carried in an article in the Chicago Tribune and later carried in Time magazine -- did not get picked up in Tokyo. Now we have WikiLeaks -- and small-minded officials who want all the credit.

There are some problems with the script, but Midway is a great watch if you’re looking for old war movies. I recommend Tora! Tora! Tora! and then Midway. You’ll learn quite a bit about the war in the Pacific from both.