No More Defense

The Pentagon January 2008

World War I was supposed to be the “The War to End All Wars”. This article presents an interesting series of events during the Roosevelt Administration, beginning on September 11, 1941.

9-11-1941 was the day the ground was broken for the new Pentagon building.

Reader Please Note: “This was exactly 60 years before the New York ‘911’ attacks on the same date. (For those of you from St. Paul, Minnesota, someone in North Africa, former Ottoman Empire Tribe(s), “Shores of Tripoli”, as my Marine buddies would say – has been fighting a ‘WAR’ that most of us do not think it is ‘right’ thinking to fight for more than a year or two.)

The Roosevelt Administration was changing names after winning election in 1932. The Army and Navy administration offices began migrating to the new Pentagon addresses in 1943.

A similar name change process occurred in Soviet Russia, after the Bolshevik revolution. They renamed their War department to, “The Ministry of Defense”, in the 1920’s.

Hitler was tooling up Germany during this time. He used defense as an argument to produce armament as he shredded the peace of the Treaty of Versialle.

In the good old USA, the War Department was destined to become, The Defense Department, in 1943.

Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Iraq and Afghanistan were each, “Police Actions”, Congress did NOT declare, “War” for any of these President presented, “Defensive actions”.


Only Congress can declare War. Usual to such a declaration is a definition of when ‘war-like’ operations would end. However when you have a Tyrant with a Phone, Palm Device and a Pen, such trivial matters are easily over looked. Leading from ‘behind’ directs much more focus on the ‘EXIT’ rather than a lasting ‘END’ to hostilities.

Brings new meaning to Political Correctness.

Maybe an old bad habit could be dropped with a promising Trump administration?

Pentagon WebSite


Ben Franklin’s ‘Morals of Chess’

TopBar 02Your set is NOT so portable?[/caption]

Benjamin Franklin’s “Morals of Chess”, written by the famed 18th Century American statesman, diplomat, writer, publisher, scientist, inventor, philosopher, guiding force in the founding of the US, and a brilliant U.S. Founding Father. Ben was an avid chess player of no small skill. Franklin was often witty, philosophical, and full of wisdom, and his writings on our beloved game were no exception. Below, is a treatise he wrote about chess expounding on the virtues of the game, giving basic advice about how to play well, and just as importantly, how to conduct oneself when playing. His words are just as relevant today as when they were written more than two centuries ago.

“The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits ready on all occasions; for life is a kind of Chess, in which we have often points to gain, and competitors or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effect of prudence, or the want of it. By playing at Chess then, we may learn:

1st: Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action; for it is continually occurring to the player, “If I move this Piece, what will be the advantage or disadvantage of my new situation? What use can my adversary make of it to annoy me? What other moves can I make to support it, and to defend myself from his attacks?”

2nd: Circumspection, which surveys the whole Chess-board, or scene of action: – the relation of the several Pieces, and their situations; the dangers they are repeatedly exposed to; the several possibilities of their aiding each other; the probabilities that the adversary may make this or that move, and the attack this or that Piece; and what differences means can be used to avoid his stroke, or turn its consequences against him.

3rd: Caution, not to make our moves too hastily. This habit is best acquired by observing strictly the laws of the game; such as, if you touch a piece you must move it somewhere; if you set it down, you must let it stand.

Therefore, it would be the better way to observe these rules, as the game becomes thereby more the image of human life, and particularly of war; in which if you have incautiously put yourself into a bad and dangerous position, you cannot obtain your enemy’s leave to withdraw your troops, and place them more securely, but you must abide by all the consequences of your rashness.

And, lastly, we learn chess by the habit of not being discouraged by present bad appearances in the state of our affairs; the habit of hoping for a favourable chance, and that of preserving in the search of resources. The game is so full of events, there is such a variety of turns in it, the fortune of it is so subject to vicissitudes, and one so frequently, after contemplation, discovers the means of extricating one’s self from a supposed insurmountable difficulty, that one is encouraged to continue the contest to the last, in hopes of victory from our skill; or, at least, from the negligence of our adversary: and whoever considers, what in Chess he often sees instances of, that success is apt to produce presumption and its consequent inattention, by which more is afterwards lost than was gained by the preceding advantage, while misfortunes produce more care and attention, by which the loss may be recovered, will learn not to be too much discouraged by any present successes of his adversary, nor to despair of final good fortune upon every little check he receives in the pursuit of it.

That we may therefore, be induced more frequently to choose this beneficial amusement in preference of others, which are not attended with the same advantages, every circumstance that may increase the pleasure of it should be regarded; and every action or word that is unfair, disrespectful, or that in any way may give uneasiness, should be avoided, as contrary to the immediate intention of both the parties, which is, to pass the time agreeably.

1st: Therefore, if it is agreed to play according to the strict rules, then those rules are to be strictly observed by both parties; and should not be insisted upon for one side, while deviated from by the other: for this is not equitable.

2nd: if it is agreed not to observe the rules exactly, but one party demands indulgences, he should then be as willing to allow them to the other.

3rd: No false move should ever be made to extricate yourself out of a difficulty, or to gain an advantage; for there can be no pleasure in playing with a man once detected in such unfair practice.

4th: If your adversary is long in playing, you ought not to hurry him, or express any uneasiness at his delay; not even by looking at your watch, or taking up a book to read: you should not sing, nor whistle, nor make a tapping with your feet on the floor, or with your fingers on the table, nor do anything that may distract his attention: for all these things displease, and they do not prove your skill in playing, but your craftiness and your rudeness.

5th: You ought not to endeavour to amuse and deceive your adversary by pretending to have made bad moves; and saying you have now lost the game, in order to make him secure and careless, and inattentive to your schemes; for this is fraud and deceit, not skill in the game of Chess.

6th: You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expressions, nor show too much of the pleasure you feel; but endeavour to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself by every kind and civil expression that may be used with truth; such as, you understand the game better than I, but you are a little inattentive, or, you play too fast; or, you had the best of the game, but something happened to divert your thoughts, and that turned it in my favour.

7th: If you are a spectator, while others play, observe the most perfect silence: for if you give advice, you offend both the parties: him against whom you give it, because it may cause him to lose the game: him in whose favour you give it, because, though it be good, and he follow it, he loses the pleasure he might have had, if you had permitted him to think till it occurred to himself. Even after a move or moves, you must not, by replacing the Pieces, show how they might have been placed better; for that displeases, and might occasion disputes or doubts about their true situation.

All talking to the players lessens or diverts their attention; and is, therefore, unpleasing; nor should you give the least hint to either party, by any kind of noise or motion; if you do, you are unworthy to be a spectator.

If you desire to exercise or show your judgment, do it in playing your own game, when you have an opportunity, not in criticizing or meddling with, or counseling the play of others.

Lastly, if the game is not to be played rigorously, according to the rules before mentioned, then moderate your desire of victory over your adversary, and be pleased with one over yourself.

Snatch not eagerly at every advantage offered by his unskillfulness or inattention; but point out to him kindly, that by such a move he places or leaves a Piece en prise unsupported; that by another, he will put his King into a dangerous situation, &c.

By this general civility (so opposite to the unfairness before forbidden) you may happen indeed to lose the game; but you will win what is better, his esteem, his respect, and his affection; together with the silent approbation and the good will of the spectators.

In fact, his English is, RIGHT! – Joenovell

1800 and counting…

George Washington 1795
Hero of America's founding

Recently, I reached that 1800 level and this time I thought I’d clue the readers into what happens there. I had a young man with a 2034 rating camp on my table and watch me beat up a ‘Kindergartner’ (PRO or 1200+) with an off shoot of a Queen’s Gambit Accepted. It appeared he (my young opponent) had NOT pursued ‘this’ line before and White (Moi), had some great opportunities in the middle game. This 2034, had amassed his tally with 238 victories in 247 games and explained how ‘disappointed’ he was with me playing youngsters, 500 and 600 points difference in rating.

“Winning is no trick at all if you can intimidate the opponent with dire menaces before the game. An even simpler way would be to shoot him and win by default. It is clear then that there is not much scope left for psychology, if our only weapons are to be moves.” Ariel Mengarini

As most of you know, I am not into receiving critical analysis calmly. My recollection is quite clear in that I had my language filter on STRONG and saw NO punctuation characters. The rest of reply fades from my memory. I do recall the time back when I was a 1200 and getting beat on a regular basis by the Germen, Mexican, and Arab’s with their computer aided games. Or the times my browser locked up and I wasted and watched a perfectly good position ‘while away’ as my clock decremented with precise accuracy.

I have made some very good friends here on Chess.com and Yahoo Chess. But when I am accused of being a ‘Bigoted Conservative’ by some one of questionable citizenship….. I digress.

What is it that Barrack Obama and Osama Bin Laden have in common?

They BOTH have friends that bombed the PENTAGON!

I dedicate my next 100 victories to Rush Limbaugh and an army of conservatives. I pray, that my blood pressure will remain constant and I will maintain my health with smile on my face, a song in my heart and a Queen Pawn opening.

Yours in Service,
Joe Novell