Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Ernie Pyle, War Correspondent

We see a lot of war correspondents today on TV. We see them embedded with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We listen to their stories of horror and heroism, but we less often read their stories. We get our information the quickest way and almost instantly.


It didn’t use to be that way. When I was a kid growing up during World War II, I read Ernie Pyle’s stories. I occasionally caught his comments on the radio. You remember radio, don’t you? It is that listening device without pictures, all we had in those days. Ernie was the most famous of war-time journalist.

Ernie led a life that you or I might have envied had we been adults then. From 1935 to 1942, with his wife Jerry, he roamed the USA along the back roads, going where he wanted, when he wanted and writing about what he found for Scripps Howard newspapers. He was the first "on-the-road" writer, before John Steinbeck or Charles Kuralt.

Ernie and Jerry stayed in mostly small town hotels. Six days a week, he pounded out a 1,000 word story on a manual typewriter. He never missed a deadline, and the U.S. postal service never lost one of his letters. He wrote about people and places in a down-home, folksy way. Sometimes he wrote about famous people, but mostly he wrote about people that no other reporter cared about. Some days, when he didn't find someone to talk to, he would pull something out of his head. It was during this time on the road that Ernie developed the writing style that would serve him so well in World War II. Here is an example.


The Death of Captain Waskow

AT THE FRONT LINES IN ITALY, January 10, 1944 –In this war I have known a lot of officers who were loved and respected by the soldiers under them. But never have I crossed the trail of any man as beloved as Capt. Henry T. Waskow of Belton, Texas.

Capt. Waskow was a company commander in the 36th Division. He had led his company since long before it left the States. He was very young, only in his middle twenties, but he carried in him a sincerity and gentleness that made people want to be guided by him.

"After my own father, he came next," a sergeant told me.
"He always looked after us," a soldier said. "He’d go to bat for us every time."
"I’ve never knowed him to do anything unfair," another one said.

I was at the foot of the mule trail the night they brought Capt. Waskow’s body down. The moon was nearly full at the time, and you could see far up the trail, and even part way across the valley below. Soldiers made shadows in the moonlight as they walked.

Dead men had been coming down the mountain all evening, lashed onto the backs of mules. They came lying belly-down across the wooden pack-saddles, their heads hanging down on the left side of the mule, their stiffened legs sticking out awkwardly from the other side, bobbing up and down as the mule walked.

The Italian mule-skinners were afraid to walk beside dead men, so Americans had to lead the mules down that night. Even the Americans were reluctant to unlash and lift off the bodies at the bottom, so an officer had to do it himself, and ask others to help.

The first one came early in the morning. They slid him down from the mule and stood him on his feet for a moment, while they got a new grip. In the half light he might have been merely a sick man standing there, leaning on the others. Then they laid him on the ground in the shadow of the low stone wall alongside the road.

I don’t know who that first one was. You feel small in the presence of dead men, and ashamed at being alive, and you don’t ask silly questions.

We left him there beside the road, that first one, and we all went back into the cowshed and sat on water cans or lay on the straw, waiting for the next batch of mules.

Somebody said the dead soldier had been dead for four days, and then nobody said anything more about it. We talked soldier talk for an hour or more. The dead man lay all alone outside in the shadow of the low stone wall.

Then a soldier came into the cowshed and said there were some more bodies outside. We went out into the road. Four mules stood there, in the moonlight, in the road where the trail came down off the mountain. The soldiers who led them stood there waiting. "This one is Captain Waskow," one of them said quietly.

Two men unlashed his body from the mule and lifted it off and laid it in the shadow beside the low stone wall. Other men took the other bodies off. Finally there were five lying end to end in a long row, alongside the road. You don’t cover up dead men in the combat zone. They just lie there in the shadows until somebody else comes after them.

The unburdened mules moved off to their olive orchard. The men in the road seemed reluctant to leave. They stood around, and gradually one by one I could sense them moving close to Capt. Waskow’s body. Not so much to look, I think, as to say something in finality to him, and to themselves. I stood close by and I could hear.

One soldier came and looked down, and he said out loud, "God damn it." That’s all he said, and then he walked away. Another one came. He said, "God damn it to hell anyway." He looked down for a few last moments, and then he turned and left.

Another man came; I think he was an officer. It was hard to tell officers from men in the half light, for all were bearded and grimy dirty. The man looked down into the dead captain’s face, and then he spoke directly to him, as though he were alive. He said: "I’m sorry, old man."

Then a soldier came and stood beside the officer, and bent over, and he too spoke to his dead captain, not in a whisper but awfully tenderly, and he said:
"I sure am sorry, sir."

Then the first man squatted down, and he reached down and took the dead hand, and he sat there for a full five minutes, holding the dead hand in his own and looking intently into the dead face, and he never uttered a sound all the time he sat there.

And finally he put the hand down, and then reached up and gently straightened the points of the captain’s shirt collar, and then he sort of rearranged the tattered edges of his uniform around the wound. And then he got up and walked away down the road in the moonlight, all alone.

After that the rest of us went back into the cowshed, leaving the five dead men lying in a line, end to end, in the shadow of the low stone wall. We lay down on the straw in the cowshed, and pretty soon we were all asleep.



Source: Ernie's War: The Best of Ernie Pyle's World War II 
Dispatches, edited by David Nichols, pp. 195-97




Thursday, March 4, 2010

Howdy, Cousin!


There is a great deal of interest these days in genealogy. I have done my share of searching for the elusive relatives of the past. Not only is it difficult to know where to look, but knowing how to interpret what is found.

Terms used in the past for family relations are sometimes different than we use today. Most people have a good understanding of basic relationship words such as "mother," "father," "aunt," "uncle," "brother," and "sister." But what about the relationship terms that we don't use in everyday speech? Terms like "second cousin" and "first cousin, once removed"? "Cousin" seems good enough when you are introducing one person to another, so most of us aren't familiar with what these words mean.

Let’s look at some of these terms.
Cousin (a.k.a "first cousin")
Your first cousins are the people in your family who have two of the same grandparents as you. In other words, they are the children of your aunts and uncles.

Second Cousin
Your second cousins are the people in your family who have the same great-grandparents as you, but not the same grandparents.

Third, Fourth, and Fifth Cousins
Your third cousins have the same great-great-grandparents, fourth cousins have the same great-great-great-grandparents, and so on.

Removed
When the word "removed" is used to describe a relationship, it indicates that the two people are from different generations. You and your first cousins are in the same generation (two generations younger than your grandparents), so the word "removed" is not used to describe your relationship.

The words "once removed" mean that there is a difference of one generation. For example, your mother's first cousin is your first cousin, once removed. This is because your mother's first cousin is one generation younger than your grandparents and you are two generations younger than your grandparents. This one-generation difference equals "once removed."

A relative twice removed means that there is a two-generation difference. You are two generations younger than a first cousin of your grandmother, so you and your grandmother's first cousin are first cousins, twice removed.

I know, at first reading that is about as clear as mud. You will have to think about it awhile. Study the chart below.

 Instructions for Using a Relationship Chart
  1. Pick two people in your family and figure out which ancestor they have in common. For example, if you chose yourself and a cousin, you would have a grandparent in common.
  2. Look at the top row of the chart and find the first person's relationship to the common ancestor.
  3. Look at the far left column of the chart and find the second person's relationship to the common ancestor.
  4. Determine where the row and column containing those two relationships meet.
 
 Common
Ancestor
Child Grandchild G-grandchild G-g-grandchild
Child Sister or Brother Nephew or Niece Grand-nephew or niece G-grand-nephew or niece
Grandchild Nephew or Niece First cousin First cousin, once removed First cousin, twice removed
G-grandchild Grand-nephew or niece First cousin, once removed Second cousin Second cousin, once removed
G-g-grandchild G-grand-nephew or niece First cousin, twice removed Second cousin, once removed Third cousin

When you are working with older records, be aware that the meanings of the word “cousin,” along with the meanings of other relationship terms, have changed over time. As example, daughter-in-law also meant step-daughter in periods past.

Have fun figuring out your cousins.

Reference Source: Genealogy.com

Thursday, February 25, 2010

New Meaning to "Eye Tooth"



Did you know that if you go bind it is possible to see with your eye tooth. Yep. No kidding. Look what I have found in medical news.

Nine years ago, Sharron Thornton’s hair and nails fell out, while her skin developed a blistering rash.  Turns out she was suffering from a very rare condition—know as Stevens-Johnson syndrome—caused by a reaction to a medication. She eventually went blind after the cells in her eye died and left corneal scarring.

While her hair and skin grew back, her eyes remained useless. Her condition devastated her: She thought about suicide, and tried a stem cell procedure, but couldn’t be considered for a cornea transplant. Finally she went on a desperate search for any experimental treatment to cure her blindness.

The surgery, Osteo Odonto Kerato Prosthesis (OOKP), involved fitting a living canine tooth with an optical cylinder and transplanting it into the eye cavity.

For the first time in the U.S., surgeons decided to perform this rare procedure to correct corneal scaring. While the procedure has been done a total of 600 times since the 1980s, it’s still pretty complicated: First the surgeons took Thornton’s tooth and part of her jawbone, and made a hole for the prosthetic lens. Then it got weirder: The surgeons implanted the modified tooth into the woman’s chest and left it there for a few months so the two parts could grow together. And finally, the tooth was implanted into her eye.

Not all doctors in the US think this is a good idea. Dr. Ivan Schwab with the American Academy of Ophthalmology told CNN he believes the process is too difficult and the result too disfiguring. There are alternatives that are nearly as good, he added. “We’ve known about the procedure since the ’80s. It’s been going on for a while,” he said. “We’ve viewed it with some skepticism. It requires a sizable team and several operations. It seems to be reasonably successful on the small numbers that have been done,” though it does bring some disfigurement. Enlarge the image to understand how the procedure is done.

A 57 year-old Irish father-of-eight was blinded in a work-place accident, when liquid aluminum exploded in his face in November 2005. "I thought I was going to be blind for the rest of my life. I went to see a professor in Nottingham who was involved in stem cell research and he transplanted some embryonic membrane, but it did not work. He suggested Dr Liu in the Sussex Eye Hospital in Brighton and we took it from there," he said.

They were going to use his eye tooth to transplant but given his age, it was decided that a donor with younger gums would be more suitable. All eight of his children volunteered to provide a tooth, but in the end it was a son who was his namesake that gave his tooth. While the son was having his tooth and part of his gum and lower jaw extracted, his father was being prepared to receive his new eye, which was finally fitted after a total of 16 hours on the operating table. The cost was in the neighborhood of $100,000.

Given the complicated procedure that is involved, Mr. McNichol was told there was just a 65 percent chance of success but, as far as he is concerned, it has been a complete success.

"It doesn't look that great to be honest. People think I look like the Terminator but I don't care. The looks end of it are cosmetic and they don't matter. "What is incredible is that I have come out of darkness into light again. I can watch television. I can walk down the street on my own. I can play darts and pool. I can see my wife and kids. It is just unbelievable"

The surgery which was pioneered in Italy in the 1960’s, is carried out on patients for whom conventional corneal transplants will not work. It entails replacing a damaged cornea with a live tooth root and attached optical cylinder.

As you look at the picture of Mr. McNichol, would you be willing to look like that if you could see again?


Friday, February 19, 2010

A Better Way to FW: (Fwd:)


I receive a goodly number of forwarded e-mails. I bet you do also. Mostly we get them from friends and family. Who else is going to bother? It’s a great way to share things of interest. We enjoy getting these but sometimes they are quite messy with a lot of Fw:s, like this:

 Subject: Fw: Fwd: Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "xxxxxxxxxxt"
To: xxxx xxxxO.COM>; xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>

Sent: Mon, February 15, 2010 4:24:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "xxxxxxxxxxt"
To: xxxx xxxxO.COM>; xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>

Sent: Mon, February 16, 2010 4:24:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "xxxxxxxxxxt"
To: xxxx xxxxO.COM>; xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>

Sent: Mon, February 17, 2010 4:24:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 ----- Forwarded Message ----
From: "xxxxxxxxxxt"
To: xxxx xxxxO.COM>; xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>xxxx xxxxO.COM>

Sent: Mon, February 18, 2010 4:24:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Much of this information is filled in with names and e-mail addresses of people you don’t even know. These people may not know that their names and e-mail addresses are being sent out into cyberspace without their knowledge. Sometimes we have to click through several levels of pages to even get to the message intended to be seen.

If you are at the end of such a sharing chain, you'll quickly see why cleaning up e-mails before forwarding them is essential: messages that have been forwarded multiple times often contain '>' and other quotation characters in all the wrong places, lines are broken in even worse places, and email addresses of people you don't want to know are everywhere.
Cleaning up such a mess can be cumbersome, but keeping an e-mail clean that you forward initially is easy.
  • First, make sure you're sharing the e-mail, not the addresses in it by removing all addresses from the forwarded message. Here is how to do that:
    • Hit your forward button, but don’t send yet.
    • Next, highlight all the extraneous address information and hit “delete.”  Like magic, they are gone.
  • Then, clean up the message itself if it contains unnecessary '>' characters or messed up line breaks. You can do that this way:
    • You can delete all the unnecessary symbols one at a time, or you can use you systems Find and Replace feature by entering the symbol (like “>”) and replace with a blank space by hitting the space bar. This will replace them all at one time.
o       Place any comments you have after or (preferably) before the forwarded message, but try to avoid mixing forwarded text and comments.
  • Now, you are ready to send just the information you want to forward.

Respect privacy and take care not to share others' e-mail addresses without permission. If you send or forward a mass e-mail, with addresses in the To: ___ or Cc: ___ fields, you are compromising their privacy, and possibly alienating them. If you have the slightest doubt about exposing addresses, put them in the blind carbon copy, or Bcc: ___ field. (Most e-mail clients have a link to the Bcc: behind the To: ___field.) This is especially true if you are doing a mass mailing yourself. So that each recipient will not see the addresses of the others, put all but one of the addresses in the Bcc: ___field.

Another breach of email privacy is emailing people you don't know, unless you can name a person that referred you to them.

Do these things and your e-mail friends will be happy you send such clean e-mails. You may wish to pass this information to them as well.