This means to miss going to somewhere that you were expected, and is commonly used to mean not going to work or school. There are various ideas of where the expression originated. The Urban Dictionary thinks it is probably from the Dutch word hoekje, which is their term for a hide and seek game that had players searching for a hidden object. Schoolchildren began using “hooky” to mean skipping school in the nineteenth century. Another less likely possibility is that the term originated with the verb hook, which means “to steal.”
Military Reunion in San Antonio
Thirty one graduates from the U.S. Army Infantry Officers Candidate School (OCC) who were commissioned Second Lieutenants on March 9, 1967 gathered in San Antonio to remember those who did not survive Vietnam and those who have passed since. I was assigned to the third platoon under the command of Tactical (TAC) Lt. Paul R. Longgrear.
A small but dedicated group of the former candidates had located or learned the fate of most of our fellow graduates and organized the first reunion in Washington, D.C. That reunion included a visit to the Vietnam Memorial where the names of our fallen comrades are included among the 58,272 total (as of 2010).
I resisted participating in the reunions, because the overall OCS experience was unpleasant (proving my command for understatement). The physical requirements were intense and demanding, and I struggled to keep up with those who physically were dominantly like football halfbacks and were agile and could run fast while I was the lumbering lineman.
My wife finally convinced me we should attend a reunion at Fort Benning to take part in the dedication of a plaque with the names of those from our company who were Killed in Action (KIA). She was right; I felt better after we attended the reunion and renewed acquaintances.
We also attended a wonderful reunion in Southwest Colorado in 2011, and I wrote a posting about that gathering. To remind us that we are all approaching the end of our lives, the man who hosted the gathering died of a heart attack a couple of weeks later.
That brings me back to San Antonio and the 45th anniversary of our commissioning. We didn’t arrive until after the visit with Wounded Warriors at the Brooke Army Medical Center. Those who did make that visit were still emotional about what they had seen as they talked to us. They were especially grateful to those who provide the private funds to the Center.
The first event my wife and I were able to attend after a social gathering was one of our comrades reading the letter written by William Barrett Travis pledging that the Alamo would be defended to the last man. The names of our comrades who were killed in combat and those who have passed were then read.
The same gentleman seemed to more enjoy playing the guitar and singing a song of remembrance and a song of faith. That was followed by several of us going on a several mile drive in what I think was a giant circle, parking, and going on a two mile hike along the River Walk. Someone mentioned it reminded them of a forced march with the Rangers during our OCS training. We finally found a restaurant we later learned was about three blocks from the El Tropicana Hotel where we started. Map reading to find a destination is apparently a skill that doesn’t last. (Several of us promised to hardly ever mention the hike.)
The next rainy and chilly day we went on another hike that was advertised as “a few blocks” that turned into several. We walked past the Korean Memorial, the Vietnam Memorial, and the Confederate Memorial on the way to Alamo. The Vietnam Memorial is a very large sculpture of a radio man kneeling beside a man who was probably his mortally wounded company commander. We then toured the Alamo and read the names of the volunteers who died there to give the other Texans the time to organize and prepare to defeat Santa Anna.
We had a wonderful sit down dinner at the hotel that evening, and one of our friends arrived at the table sniffing and wiping his eyes. “What’s wrong?” “Allergies.” But he then broke down and began to sob. He had gone to thank Major Graham White for his service, and was called “Sir.” He said, “I wouldn’t even be able to lift his jacket with all those medals, and he called me Sir!”
Major White (the son of one of our comrades) was in dress blues and jump boots, and he gave the keynote speech for the evening. His resume includes multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and he has a long list of commendations including two Purple Hearts and two Bronze Stars. He talked about his Army comrades who had suffered injuries that would have devastated average people, but returned to service after lengthy and intensive rehabilitation. The theme was “Army Strong,” and “This is your Army!” George Orwell wrote something to the effect, “People sleep peacefully in their beds because there are rough men willing to do violence for them.” I would substitute “tough and brave” for “rough,” but Orwell had it mostly right.
There was instruction on how to do a “Texas line dance.” There were some willing to participate and many others of us willing to watch.
I’ll end this by briefly mentioning a speech by Paul Longgrear. He was at Lang Vei, where the North Vietnamese used tanks with devastating effects that caused extensive casualties. I will refer to a review of the book “Night of the Silver Stars” that recounts details of the battle.
Night of the Silver Stars: The Battle of Lang Vei
This book by William R. Phillips is an account of battle which began February 6, 1968 at a U.S. Special Forces Camp in Vietnam. This “review” is a departure from what is usually posted, because it is based partly on the book, partly on historical information, and partly on information presented at a recent military reunion by one of the men who was in the battle.
The battle was part of the Khe Sahn campaign by the North Vietnamese. That campaign began with an attack on a Laotian outpost called Ban Huoei Sane manned by 700 Laotian soldiers. Tanks were used in that attack, and the surprised Laotians retreated toward Lang Vei after three hours of battle. The North Vietnamese soldiers and tanks followed to attack Lang Vei where there was a small contingent of U.S. Special Forces and a large number of Laotian and South Vietnamese soldiers. Reinforcements were requested from the Marines at nearby Khe Sahn, but that base refused to believe the reports and send reinforcements. They were skeptical that the report was some sort of ploy to set up an ambush for reinforcements. They did provide artillery support and there was air support.
Three of the North Vietnamese tanks attacking Lang Vei were destroyed by the camp’s one 106mm recoilless rifle operated by Sergeant First Class James W. Holt. However, other tanks quickly penetrated the camp and destroyed several bunkers with their guns. Light anti-tank weapons (LAWs) either malfunctioned or failed to knock out the tanks. One of my favorite comments in the book was by a soldier who observed that the tanks must be “medium tanks,” because the “light anti-tank weapons” (which refers to the portability and not the strength of the weapon) were ineffective.
The command bunker was the only position that held until the morning of February 7. South Vietnamese soldiers in the bunker responded to an order to surrender and were killed when they exited via the stairway. Wikipedia lists that there were a total of 316 camp defenders killed, 75 wounded, and 253 captured.
The title of the book reflects the extraordinary number of Silver Stars awarded for valor in combat. There were twenty-four Americans at the battle, and there was one posthumous Medal of Honor awarded to Sgt. Eugene Ashley, Jr., one Distinguished Service Cross, nineteen Silver Stars, and three Bronze Stars awarded. One reference lists that all of the Americans were either killed (3), wounded (11), or listed as missing or captured (10). Wikipedia gives different numbers, but I am inclined to believe this reference.
The book is full of details about weapons, vehicles, and tactics. Phillips gives an engaging account of the battle, what went well, and what went wrong. Despite all that went wrong a few U.S. Special Forces personnel were eventually able to fight their way out and escape from the camp to be evacuated by Marine helicopters.
I will briefly summarize the personal experience of Paul Longgrear who was an American officer at the battle, although I know I won’t do his account justice. He was one of the men trapped in the command bunker. The NVA attempted unsuccessfully to collapse the bunker with the weight of their tanks and began dropping fragmentation and tear gas (CS) grenades into vents. The tear gas caused the occupants to press their faces into corners of the bunker in a desperate attempt to find some kind of fresh air. They finally decided to make a break, obviously knowing what had happened to the South Vietnamese who had attempted to surrender. Lt. Longgrear ordered that no one was to stop for anyone else if they went down. They had practically no ammunition, but charged up the stairwell and into the open while firing what few rounds they had remaining.
Lt. Longgrear fired his weapon until it jammed, and then began running. His ankle gave out, and he did a complete flip. He was left by the other escaping soldiers as he had ordered. He said he was challenged by God as he lay in a heap “What are you going to do NOW?” He ran to the top of a rise where he was seen by the other soldiers who had thought the reason he went down so dramatically was that he had been hit. He made it out of the compound and was evacuated. He was awarded a Silver Star for his actions in the battle.
Cut the Mustard
The expression means to meet an expected standard, but is often used in the negative, such as, “The performance did not cut the mustard.” There are several theories on the origin, but The Phrase Finder believes it came from “the heat and piquancy of mustard and the zest and energy of people’s behavior.” “Cutting” has long been used to mean “exhibiting” as in “cutting a fine figure.” Therefore, cutting the mustard is “…an alternative way of saying ‘exhibiting one’s high standards’.” The Iowa State Reporter used the expression ‘Cut the Mustard’ in 1897.
Killing for Coal, America’s Deadliest Labor War
This book by Thomas G. Andrews begins with a description of the United Mine Worker strike in Colorado in 1913 that lasted several months. Violence could finally no longer be contained, and on April 20, 1914 open warfare broke out between the Colorado state militia and “…hundreds of striking coal miners of more than a dozen nationalities.” The canvas tents at Ludlow where the miners and their families were living caught fire, and two women and eleven children were asphyxiated in their cellar hideout. The book does not speculate on which side fired the first shot, but both sides blamed the other. There were many killed by the time the “Ten Days War” ended when President Woodrow Wilson sent in federal troops. The author says that a key premise of current politics continues to be that fairness and justice for working people must be achieved “…through intervention of national unions, the Democratic Party, and the federal government.”
I highly recommend the book. It is well and fairly written, and has fascinating history about the history of Colorado, the land, the environment, the people, and the conflicts between coal miners and mine owners.
The origin of opening the coal mines of Colorado is traced to William Jackson Palmer who had his apprenticeship studying the coal mining industries of England, and he was appalled at some of the working conditions he observed in those mines. “Mine work seemed to turn boys into drones, women into men, and manly laborers into ‘an inferior class of beings’.” Palmer didn’t immediate building a coal mining empire. He organized a Union light cavalry unit to fight in the Civil War. He was a brevet general by the end of the war and thus was the highest ranking Quaker on either side of the conflict. The end of the war freed Palmer to begin building an empire seeking to extract coal, or “buried sunshine” and begin powering the transformation of Colorado. Industry (mostly blast furnaces and smelters), trains, and homes were fueled. Farming prospered because there was energy to pump irritation water out of the Ogallala aquifer. Of course the air smelled of smoke from the burned coal. A Denver Post cartoon celebrated the end of a strike in 1899 and “…depicted the welcome return of inky black billows to the urban skyline above a caption that said…Prosperity.” Beneath “…the glitter of gold and silver (of Colorado mining) lay the grime of coal.”
Palmer stated that he intended to pay workers enough to have some left for saving and investing. He also gave them the opportunities for stock options and profit sharing. Coal barons who followed were less interested in the welfare of the miners.
The descriptions of the broad diversity of the nationalities of the coal miners, or colliers, who were lured to Colorado from far reaches of the world by the promise of well-paying jobs, is an interesting component of the book. Agents developed credit systems for destitute people who wanted to immigrate and the transportation lines profited as the number of immigrants swelled. The harsh conditions made me wonder why someone would travel across the planet to work in the mines. One mine inspector wrote that “…it seems that death lurks…” Electrification brought exposed wires, cages carrying the workers to the depths sometimes smashed, and power drills created clouds of choking dust. These hazards were added to the risk of death from explosion, cave in, carbon monoxide and other toxins in addition to the physical problems from working deep underground in heat with poor lighting and performing back-breaking labor. George Orwell once wrote, “Watching coal-miners work you realize momentarily what different universes different people inhabit.” There were 1,708 Colorado mine deaths between 1884 and 1912.
There are some descriptions of the mines that are on the light-hearted side. The mines were often inhabited by large numbers of mice, and the men welcomed and fed and even named them. The men found the playful and harmless creatures a welcome distraction from the long hours working under dangerous conditions. The mice were also the miners “canaries,” since they were very susceptible to very small amounts of carbon monoxide and were vibrations that warned of a roof cracking overhead. The miners watched the mice closely and responded if one keeled over or scurried away. Mules were a different story. The animals were bred to be either quite large or small, to match the height of the mines. However, almost all of the mules contributed to earning the description “stubborn as a mule.”
The men were paid by the tons of coal they mined and not for “dead work” involving activities such as building supporting timbers. They would gamble with their lives by skimping on erecting support structures to maximize the time they could be mining coal. The toiling men and animals depleted oxygen by breathing heavily from their labors, and made them, among other symptoms, indifferent, because of the low oxygen content of the mine air. There were atmospheric conditions the miners called “stinkdamp” (hydrogen sulfide), “blackdamp” (carbon monoxide mixed with other noxious vapors), “afterdamp” (heavy concentrations of carbon monoxide), and “firedamp” (methane).
The latter part of the book describes how the union grew stronger as the resentment for the working conditions and pay of the miners increased. The story is told with significant human interest insights. As an example, it is told how an African American working with an Italian immigrant enjoyed pointing out that at the end of the shift they were both black. But there was little if any humor in the dealings of the companies with the union, and labor relations worsened steadily. The union made seven demands when they went on strike in 1912. The first demand was that the union be recognized. The other six demanded better pay, better working conditions, and ending the “company town” practice. Colorado Governor Ammons initially chose not to intervene. He was warned of the volatility in the Ludlow camp, and relented to send state militiamen after there had been several gun battles.
Ammons summoned three Union officials and three key company executives to his office for a marathon negotiation to settle the strike. The company officials announced they were ready to agree to all of the union demands with the exception of recognizing the union. The union men held fast to that being the most important demand. They said “…that only through a union could they educate green men, settle grievances, and uphold the miners’ self-determined laws of safety and mutualism.” The meeting therefore failed to reach an agreement, and outrageous behavior continued on both sides while the people of Colorado worried about a “coal famine.”
President Wilson responded to the escalating violence by sending in federal troops, and the strike zone was declared “silent.” The costly fifteen-month struggle was ended by a unanimous vote by the miners.
My favorite line in the book is in the Acknowledgments, where the author describes the struggles at researching the complex history and writing the book. He writes, “History isn’t Rocket Science—it’s harder.”
Health Care Law Status
The legal battle about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, which is commonly called “Obamacare,” has reached the Supreme Court. An article in the Washington Post by Robert Barnes leads with the Obama administration telling the Supreme Court, “Congress was ‘well within’ its constitutional powers when it decided that the way to resolve a crisis in health-care costs and coverage was to mandate that Americans obtain insurance or pay a fine…” Lower courts have been just about evenly “…split on whether the Constitution gives Congress the power to require individuals to buy something they may not necessarily want.” Two judges wrote, “We are unable to conceive of any product whose purchase Congress could not mandate…” if the individual mandate is ruled constitutional.
There are many who do not believe the Supreme Court will actually rule on that issue at this time of high political drama, and the Obama administration is maneuvering separately to disarm some of the arguments against the law. Robert J. Samuelson wrote in the Washington Post that Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebilius is doing what she can to make Obamacare disappear as a liability for the President. She has decided to delegate the final decision on defining “essential health benefits” for minimum health insurance coverage to the states. That decision is crucial to answering the question of how 35 million Americans who are currently uninsured will receive subsidized health insurance by 2016. Millions more who receive coverage in individual and small group insurance markets also will be affected.
Sebelius has disarmed the criticism that Obamacare imposes “one-size-fits-all” by requiring each state to define “essential health benefits.” However, the question of how broad the coverage that is required has been scattered to 51 debates. The two goals will obviously be broad and affordable coverage, and those two goals are in direct conflict. Broader coverage will increase the cost to government to pay for the subsidies. Many expect that employers could begin to freeze raises and cost of living increases to cover their costs for the new health insurance benefits that will be required.
The states apparently can base their decision on ten existing plans. “The choices include, for example, ‘the largest plan by enrollment in any of the three largest small group insurance products in the state’s small market group’.” I have no idea what that means but hopefully the 51 states have a better understanding of that and the other nine possibilities. The “good news” is that states that can’t figure out what to do can be granted waivers beginning in 2017, and perhaps that would be the best approach.
The best article I’ve read to try to understand this issue is titled “Dissecting the Health Care Case, Election-year debate makes this term a mirror of the New Deal era” by Mark Walsh. I suggest you clink on the link to this article and read the second page. My quick summary is that the Court might (or is likely to) rule that the current challenge is premature. “Under this view, the law’s individual mandate may not be challenged until individuals who refuse to buy health insurance have to pay a penalty.” One Court of Appeals threw out a challenge to the health care law on that basis. The Supreme Court did not take up that ruling, but “…it did accept the Obama administration’s suggestion to consider the Anti-Injunction Act issue.” The issue will be argued for one hour on March 26.
There are strong opinions on both sides of the issues, and I believe the key is whether Congress can mandate that individuals must buy something. However, as the article describes, there are politics involved beyond what is constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled some of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal laws unconstitutional. My personal favorite was a ruling in Schechter Poultry Corp v. United States in which the Court ruled that (simplistically) the poultry processor had not intentionally sold unhealthy chickens. However, the Court began to uphold his programs in 1937 to stave off FDR’s court packing plan to gain friendly rulings.
I believe the best thing government can do is to get out of the way, and laws that sound as if they are based on good intentions are generally destructive. Obamacare has already distracted the country from the most important issue, and that is how to create a better economy that will employ more people. I also believe the law has already been detrimental in discouraging entrepreneurs from having the courage to launch new businesses. I know I would question my sanity if I decided to begin a new business with the uncertainty of both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank standing ready to crush it with both costs and bureaucracy.
Back to the likely outcome of the Supreme Court and Obamacare, Professor Lucas A. Powe Jr., a Supreme Court historian, writes, “I cannot imagine that John Roberts intends to go down in history as the chief justice who struck down one of the most significant statues in American history.” My prediction is that the Supreme Court will avoid such a contentious ruling by accepting that the current challenges are premature. The Anti-Injunction Act requires that a challenge is not allowed until “…individuals who refuse to buy the health insurance have to pay a penalty.”
What does all of this mean? Elections matter and the American people elected a President and dominantly Liberal Congress based on anger and fear in 2008. Laws that were intended to “protect and serve” were passed and signed, and now we must deal with the consequences.