Condolences C-Elobby

Mourning:

Grim's Hall extends its condolences to D. J. McGuire of China e-Lobby, due to the death of his mother. You might wish to drop by and leave a comment.

Tomahawks

Tomahawks:

Doc Russia wrote to ask an opinion on Dwight C. McLemore's Fighting Tomahawk, which is a followup to his Bowie and Big Knife Fighting System. I've talked about McLemore's first book here occasionally -- I liked the thing -- but I haven't read his other two books. Here's the exchange between myself and Doc, with Doc first:

I was chatting with Moriarty, and he alerted me to the existence of a particular book. This came about while discussing what close quarters weapons might suit my little sister in Iraq, and the idea of the tomahawk came up. I had not known of this particular book before, and I had considered the tomahawk an interesting, but perhaps less than ideal weapon. Anyway, as the discussion flowed, it occured to me that not only may I be wrong, but that it might be worthwhile to look into learning how to use the bowie/long knife and tomahawk weapon set. Neither Moriarty nor myself are very well versed in edged weapons fighting (if you twist my arm, I will admit to learning some stuff related to brazilian saca tripa, but that is another matter). With that in mind, and considering that I had not corresponded with you in quite some time, I thought it an excellent opportunity to pick your brain, and find out what your thoughts on the matter are. It might also make for some good blog fodder, should you see fit. Anyway, please share with me your insight, and I would appreciate it very much. There is no rush on this, and take your leisure in answering.

I do hope this finds you and yours in good health, especially after the horse fall. I used to think that horseback riding was nothing but fun. Then one day, I had a patient whose horse fell back on top of him and the pommel basically impaled him. His pancreas was sheared, and he lost a fair section of bowels, ribs, and spleen before he was back together again.

Best regards to you and to yours.

It's fun having a doctor as a friend, because you get letters telling you in clinical detail all the bad things that almost happened to you. :) Anyway:

I'll ask Jimbo and Froggy about the claim that current US Special Operations Forces are using the tomahawk (as opposed to, say, a camp hatchet). I'm not familiar with the claim.

McLemore is a good writer with a strong background in historical European fighting styles, so the book is probably worth a look. I used to teach the Scottish and Viking battle-axes, which is similar but larger and heavier. Most people are familiar with axes primarily as a wood-chopping tool, but it is also possible to use it as a short polearm -- you can grapple, slash, and stab with the points, as well as bash with the haft or the reverse of the blade.

It was the favored weapon of Robert the Bruce, who could kill an armored knight with one blow using his. It looks like McLemore is considering a big-knife and tomahawk pairing, which would require some training -- but having some experience in two weapon fighting, I can see how it would be an excellent choice for traditional European combat, in which your opponent will also be armed. The tomahawk is a good weapon for capturing or controlling an enemy weapon, which makes it a good off-hand choice. That would leave you with the long knife to take advantage of openings in the enemy's guard that you could create with the tomahawk.

That is to say, the tomahawk would be serving as a sort-of main gauche to the long-knife's rapier, except that with short edged weapons you get less thrusting and more circular slashing and driving. It would be used primarily against the enemy weapon, to create opportunities for employing the knife as the killing device. However, if an opening came for the tomahawk, well -- it's quite capable, even if it isn't a Scottish or Viking battle axe.

The confrontation with Robert the Bruce I was remembering happened this way:

Bruce, whilst surveying the English army, wore his crown and this sparked an idea in the mind of one young English knight. With Bruce so easy for him to identify, the young Sir Henry de Bohun realised that if he killed him the Scots would suffer a most crushing blow, and that he himself would gain unrivalled admiration from his English king. The next thing Bruce knew, de Bohun was charging towards him with his 12 foot long lance ready for action. Bruce was on his Highland pony, and saw the attack coming. He waited until the last possible moment, then violently wrenched his pony to one side. The keen de Bohen went speeding past, and Bruce swung his battle-axe, crushing the armour worn by de Bohun and splitting open his skull. The eager de Bohun fell dead on the spot with the one mighty blow, which broke the shaft of the axe wielded by Bruce. His army saw their king and his act of courage, and their hearts were filled with admiration and inspiration. If any of his men had doubted his courage, surely their fears were now at rest. Bruce had shown that he was indeed a warrior king. When his commanders reflected on the risk that Bruce took, the king of the Scots pointed out that he was more dismayed that he had broken the shaft of his axe!

That's pretty good, given the height difference for sitting on a Highland pony versus a proper destrier. However, some of the virtue of that has to do with Robert the Bruce himself -- as medieval armor improved, axes were often permitted to be used in tournaments without restriction, as the broad cutting surface made it unlikely to penetrate heavy armor (unlike a dagger, lance, or thrusting sword).

One thing to be considered if thinking about this for a situation like Iraq is the unlikelihood of running into old-style combat of the sort McLemore is examining. In modern combat, you don't expect to be wielding your weapons against an opponent who is similarly armed. Your knife and/or tomahawk has to be fielded against a gun, or a guy who has a knife but who has probably not studied deeply how to use it, or a baseball bat, or perhaps multiple attackers.

McLemore says he deals with that latter circumstance. However, I think that the modern edged-weaponeer needs to worry less about how to assume a defensive posture and defend his space, and more about how to close with, control, and destroy his enemy. Standing off a man until you can open his guard is fine for people who are fighting you symmetrically, but as we know that isn't how things are done these days. You need to learn to adapt the system away from being focused on defense of space, and toward focusing on seizure of the initiative, so that you can close with and eliminate opponents.*

As always with close combat, remember the three steps:

1) Evade
2) Control
3) Retaliate

A successful modern edged-weapon fighter has to advance into the initial attack, while evading it, so that he can control the foe. This part, at least, is similar to the old part: you want to use your free hand, or your weapon, or your body placement, or the terrain, to open a space in which you are free to attack and your enemy is not. Control need not be perfect or long lasting, it just needs to exist long enough to let you focus on the attack for a moment without having to continue evasion.

An example of control would be to grab the foe's wrist and yank it, thus pulling him off balance for a moment. For that moment, you're in charge of where he goes instead of him being in charge of it. You thus have an instant's control in which you can deliver an attack.

Step three is self-explanatory. Modern defensive close combat, because it is asymmetrical, needs to be fatal.** When you create your opening, use it to eliminate the foe. Especially in cases when he may be better armed, or in company with multiple attackers, you need to take advantage of each moment of control to eliminate the foe you have controlled.

* This assumes you are intending to defeat your foes instead of merely creating an opportunity to flee from them. A civilian may, in some circumstances, be justified in doing the latter. A soldier is usually not permitted to flee without orders, but is expected to hold his position or advance, depending on his mission.

Even civilians may not always have the opportunity to flee; or it may be that they are defending a third party, perhaps family or some innocent, in which flight will not achieve the purpose. For example, former Marine Thomas Autry was cornered in a parking lot by a gang of foes. On occasions like this, a response like his is the one that makes success and survival likely. He advanced into the attack while evading it, controlled by kicking away the shotgun, and then stabbed.

This "preference" for fatal fighting is not a moral preference, but a practical one-- it is created by the reality of combat. It does not imply bloody-mindedness, as demonstrated again by Autry, who apologized for having killed his attacker. He was genuinely sorry to have had to do what he did -- but he really did have to do it.

** Police readers face different challenges, and this advice is not meant for them. It is meant for readers like Doc's sister, or civilians who are primarily charged with defending themselves, their families, the common peace and lawful order. Soldiers who come into close combat do so in the context of warfighting, against foes who mean not only to kill them but to eliminate their unit, and to harm the civilization they defend. If civilians are set upon at all, it will be asymmetrically by foes who will have advantages over them, and have chosen to attack for that reason. Both soldiers and civilians have to fight with all seriousness of purpose.

Policemen, who may use close combat as a less-lethal alternative to their service pistols, sometimes are called upon to use force against people who are not actually trying to do serious harm to them or anyone else. I recommend this discussion by Armed Liberal on the subject of police use of force.

Two on Iran

Two on Iran:

Read "Velvet Revolution" in Logos Journal, which posits that democratic and non-violent movements in Iran may threaten the survival of the Islamist regime. Meanwhile, in the Washington Post, Iranian journalist Maziar Bahari claims Iran helped the US take Afghanistan and Iraq:

The Iranian government pretends to be revolutionary and Islamic while in essence it is very conservative and nationalistic in its policies regionally and internationally. They helped Americans to get rid of the Taliban but didn't reveal their logistical and intelligence support because they were worried about their image as recalcitrant nation in chief. As a result President Bush, intoxicated by fast victory over the Taliban, found it in himself to include Iran as part of axis of evil (along with Iraq and North Korea). A couple of years later Iranians helped the Americans to get rid of a fellow evil regime in Iraq. I was in south east Iran in March 2003 and could see American planes flying over our heads despite our government's denial that it allowed the American to use its territory.

Thoughts from the readership on these pieces are appreciated. For now, I am still considering the matter.

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving:

For the record, I am thankful for family, friends, the land and the strength to defend it. I will be taking the rest of the evening off to assist in preparing the feast and laying in the beer; and tomorrow for consuming it.

Wæs Hail! Drinc Hail!

Happy Thanksgiving to all. We will resume honorable and friendly disputation on Friday. For now, to the regular commenters and readers, allow me to express my gratitude for your company this past little while.

If only he'd issue a fatwa

Today's Top Headline:

According to Memeorandum, it's this:

"Muslim scholar calls for airline boycott."

That's US Airways he's talking about. Holiday travelers take note.

I don't mean to laugh at injustice, if that's what this was -- but I do think that this fellow's tin ear is funny. Shall we open the pool on just what effect this boycott will have on US Airway's business? I mean, if he's right that Americans are unfairly suspicious of traveling Muslims, what exactly does he think is going to happen?

Christmas @Walter Reed

Christmas at Walter Reed:

Anyone who reads Cassidy's site as well as this one knows Carrie. You may not know about her work with a project called Operation Santa. Read about it here.

Yeah I know, it's not the day after Thanksgiving yet. Still and all.

Xmas Darfur

Christmas in Darfur:

I guess I didn't realize that Bravo Romeo Delta (BRD) of Anticipatory Retaliation was now blogging at Protein Wisdom. I rarely read PW, and while AR was a daily stop for me a few years ago, for some reason I can't adequately explain it fell off my regular reading list. I'm sorry for that, as BRD is a sharp guy.

In any event, he's looking at Darfur this holiday season:

As you already know, two friends and I are going to spend our holiday in Africa to film footage for a documentary (Christmas in Darfur), capture the feel of conditions on the ground, and interview the extraordinary people who have given and risked so much to lend a hand in a portion of the world that needs all the help it can get. I would like to thank you for your help and generosity in getting us started towards our goals.

Drop by and see what they've got in mind. Follow the AR link, above, for even more information.

Good luck, lads.

BackinSaddle

Back in the Saddle:

Managed to get up and ride again today -- I actually rode the same day as the wreck, but that was just because the endorphins hadn't worn off yet. I took the same beast out. It was a good ride -- I ran him as much of the way as we had good terrain for running, and scared up a great blue heron from one of the creeks along the way, where he'd been resting down in a cut the creek had made. This was to the great dismay of my mount, who was utterly astonished to see that mighty big bird suddenly flare up out of the earth.

The horse was glad to have me around at that moment, but it was the one time on the ride he was happy to have me there. He kept trying to pull the reins out of my hands, rub me off on trees whenever we'd stop to walk, and so forth, but he didn't buck me. I operate from the perspective that a horse that has energy to fight you probably needs to run some more, so by the end of the ride he was both tired and gentle.

Anyway, the point is that things are better this week. Not perfect, but life isn't perfect. Better is good enough. I hope I'll feel more like writing; in the meantime, readers who haven't looked through the comments on "Shame," below, will find some good argumentation between myself and Sovay. I've always felt the girl brings out the best in me, though every reader will have to judge for himself if he agrees in this case. Still, it's good to have her commenting again.

Cyber rights

OK, I'm Convinced:

If you ever listen to podcasts, listen to this one. It treats how the internet's legal nature means that the First and Fourth Amendments do not apply to an increasing amount of our lives. Two paraphrases:

'Because the Internet is entirely made of private property, things like the First and Fourth Amendments do not necessarily apply.'

'Since we are now keeping so much of our data -- calendars, emails, etc. -- on third-party servers, we are essentially erasing the Fourth Amendment.'

The trick here, I think, is that American courts used to recognize that new technologies deserved the same protections as the old technologies. When we started having telephones, the ability to wire-tap those phones became covered under the Fourth Amendment. The courts of the day simply held that the principle was the same.

Now, as the fellow points out, the courts have decided to side with power instead of protection. That same interpretation was available to them, but the courts have instead chosen to rule that the applicable rules were the a different set of rulings concerning third-party custody of your records.

That is not to say the court's reasoning is wrong. What it is to say is that we need to amend the Constitution to make clear that new technologies must be incorporated into the Fourth going forward. "Your person and papers" should mean your ideas and records, whether they're stored on your hard drive or in your desk, or on a server across town. They're still yours, and the government should be required to prove a lawful interest in them -- as for example by obtaining a warrant -- before helping itself.

Shame:

Cassidy has a long post about the elections, in which she says she may be ashamed to be American. This is a sentiment I've often heard expressed recently, usually right after elections, and while her reasons are better than most, I think the approach is wrong.

It's not that she's wrong to be disappointed. A nation ought to finish what it starts, as a man ought to do so. There are ethical duties that, once undertaken, must be completed in spite of the misery they bring upon you. This is true even though you may have had an unreasonably rosy view of what the undertaking would involve: it doesn't matter. You are sworn.

Neither does it matter if you yourself were opposed to the whole idea at the time the decision was made. If we are part of a polity, we are bound to each other. We are partners, and as Ben Rumson said of partnership: "If I owe a man a hundred dollars, I expect you to stand good for me."

Last winter I wanted some firewood, so I went to the wife of the man from whom I bought it and asked her to have him bring by a load. I paid her, but apparently she forgot to mention that she'd been paid in advance during their phone conversation. He showed up with the wood, wanting to be paid -- but I wasn't home, having other things to do, and thinking the matter resolved.

My neighbor, a hardworking man with four kids to support whom I'd known only a few months at the time, he paid the woodsman in full. I never asked him to stand good for me if someone wanted money. He just knew I needed the wood, and he knew this fellow was 'a workman worthy of his wage,' so he paid him. He never thought to worry about whether he'd be paid back.

That's the kind of trust we called frith in the Old English. Frith is a word that is linguistically linked to "freedom" and "friend," but what it literally means is "peace." If we are willing to be bound to each other, to defend each other, we can create a space in which we can then be free. In that space, which we each defend in common, we can order our society as we please and choose. If we aren't friends, we aren't free.

And yet it is a fact about America that it isn't dependable. In the Civil War, Lincoln had to deal with a 'peace' movement that sought to undercut public support for the war throughout. He almost lost the election of 1864 to an opposition that made plain they would surrender to the Confederacy's demands. He would have lost it, except for the Battle of Atlanta.

Before WWI, America's long term friends found America disinterested in their support, in spite of the fact that the resolution of 'the Great War' would have major consequences for American interests. Nevertheless, Woodrow Wilson had to run on the slogan "He kept us out of war," while a popular hit was a song called "I didn't raise my son to be a soldier." Yet, less than a year after he was wrong in for another term, Wilson led a willing nation to war, and a new popular song was written: "I didn't raise my son to be a slacker."

In WWII, FDR had to support key allies for years through underhanded techniques like "Lend-Lease." The nation was simply not capable of becoming unified on the point of supporting the British and other allies against the Nazis and the expansionist Japanese Empire. The threat was clear enough, but isolationism was a powerful force.

The Cold War saw American will swaying this way and that throughout. Before the Korean war, we declared that Korea was outside our zone of influence. Then, when the war began, we decided to join it. We entered Vietnam on the basis of sending 'a few advisors,' and expanded to tens of thousands of men. We fought the war to victory in 1972, and then decided, largely for domestic reasons, to abandon the state we had won at such a cost. The result was that the North Vietnamese invasion of 1974, smaller and far less formidable than the '72 invasion, was able to defeat a South Vietnam cut off from even air support by a self-interested Congress.

In the Carter years, we had an executive so opposed to action that Afghanistan was almost lost to the Soviets. Carter's chosen Director of Central Intelligence, Admiral Turner, so undercut the CIA's covert operations that the DIA had to take over when action was necessary. Even at that, it took the support of the rebel Democratic Congressman Charlie Wilson to focus support.

A democratic republic of this sort cannot form stable decisions. China can. We can't. It's a strength of theirs and a weakness of ours, and it's structural. If you're an American, you have to live with that fact.

Nevertheless, we have other strengths and they have other weaknesses. That's not the point I wish to make here.

The point I wish to make here is the one Chesterton makes:

Let us suppose we are confronted with a desperate thing -- say Pimlico. If we think what is really best for Pimlico we shall find the thread of thought leads to the throne or the mystic and the arbitrary. It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. For decoration is not given to hide horrible things: but to decorate things already adorable. A mother does not give her child a blue bow because he is so ugly without it. A lover does not give a girl a necklace to hide her neck. If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is theirs, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great. Go back to the darkest roots of civilization and you will find them knotted round some sacred stone or encircling some sacred well. People first paid honour to a spot and afterwards gained glory for it. Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her....

Let me explain by using once more the parallel of patriotism. The man who is most likely to ruin the place he loves is exactly the man who loves it with a reason. The man who will improve the place is the man who loves it without a reason. If a man loves some feature of Pimlico (which seems unlikely), he may find himself defending that feature against Pimlico itself. But if he simply loves Pimlico itself, he may lay it waste and turn it into the New Jerusalem.

It is wrong to love America because it is conservative, or liberal; because it is the staunch defender of the free, or because it is always willing to hear new advice and rethink old decisions.

It is right to love America because she is home; because she is ours; and that is enough. Feel free to lay waste and to rebuild, to destroy that within her which has gone bad and raise up anew what strength you can. Rethink the franchise. Amend the Constitution. Dare to think and say and fight for whatever will make her stronger than she is.

Never be ashamed of her. If you would love America, love her that way. Have faith even when there is no reason to hope. Love even when there is no cause. She is home. She is ours. That is enough.

Where do cowboys go

Reincarnation:

Since I've had little else to say of late, here is the concluding section to a poem called "Where do Cowboys go when they Die?" by Michael Martin Murphey. It strikes me that the readership will appreciate it. We begin shortly after a cowboy named Slim is buried, and his body begins to decompose in the ground:

Well, in a while some rain is gonna' come
and fall upon the ground,
'til one day on your lonely little grave
a little flower will be found.

And, say a hoss should wander by
and graze upon this flower,
that once was you, but now has become
a vegetated bower.

Well that little flower that the hoss
done ate up with all his other feed,
becomes bone and fat and muscle,
essential to the steed.

Course some is consumed that he can't use,
and so it passes through.
Finally it lays there on the ground,
this thing that once was you.

And then say that I should wander by
and gaze upon the ground,
and wonder and ponder
on this object that I've found.

Well it sure makes me think of reincarnation,
of life and death and such,
and I ride away concludin',
'Slim, you ain't changed all that much.'

There's some good cowboy poetry out there. If you folks liked that, and aren't wholly familiar with it already, I could probably dig up a few more things you'd like.

Slow blogging

Light Blogging:

I had a little trouble with a horse earlier this week (by which I mean the beast reared up and fell backwards on top of me). I'm neither dead nor seriously injured, but I am blogging quite lightly at the moment. If any of you co-bloggers has been feeling a rant coming on for a while, by all means feel free to take the floor here for a bit.

Plastic v. Wood

Plastic v. Wood:

Kim du Toit has a heartfelt debate on the topic, oddly enough between British citizens. I left the following comment:

Count me a “wood” man. For that matter, in holsters, I prefer leather over plastics.

In both cases, the modern composites are very durable and require little work. On the other hand, the discipline of keeping your weapons and leather in order is half of the point. Half the point is accomplishing the task for which you own the weapon and gear: killing varmints, say, or defending yourself, or upholding the common peace and lawful order.

The other half of the point is developing yourself as the right kind of man. Discipline, care, respect for history and tradition—all these things are basic to that task.

So yes, it’s more work. But it’s good work to have.

Your own thoughts?

Camel Spiders

"How to make Marines Scream like Little Girls"

Doc in the Box is having fun. As usual, it's at someone else's expense.

Leave Dark

Leaving the Darkness:

Per Karrde and Cassidy, I'm reminded I promised to undo the all-black scheme after the election. Cassidy requested a return to the previous pattern, and given her performance as leader of the Marine Team for Project VALOUR-IT, I'm glad to oblige her request. As of this hour, her leadership has produced $50,618 for use in purchasing voice-activated laptops for wounded veterans, distant from their families and often without the use of their limbs in the early days of treatment.

The other teams did well too, with everyone but the Air Force surpassing the $45,000 goal. This may have had to do with their leader's approach to fundraising...

Thanks to everyone.

Nat. Ammo Week / Genius!

National Ammo Week, Plus -- Genius!

National Ammo Day is Nov. 19th, but it has been expanded to a week for the ease of everyone involved. I hope everyone will participate.

I shall be laying in .45 Long Colt this year, as Doc and I agreed on its usefulness. Over time, I think I'll change out so that I use .45 Colt in my carry piece, concealment piece, and field carbine. For now, it's only the deep concealment piece I use it in, but I have come to like it better than any other cartridge.

If you're looking for something different, however, I've got a great one for you. It's not out on the market yet, but for next year, we might consider this brilliant invention: "Season Shot."

Season Shot is made of tightly packed seasoning bound by a fully biodegradable food product. The seasoning is actually injected into the bird on impact seasoning the meat from the inside out. When the bird is cooked the seasoning pellets melt into the meat spreading the flavor to the entire bird. Forget worrying about shot breaking your teeth and start wondering about which flavor shot to use!

For bird hunting, I see no reason why that shouldn't work just fine. To add, ah, spice to their offer, Season Shot notes that it's the first truly environmentally safe ammunition -- since it's just herbs and whatnot, instead of lead or steel or white metals.

Hat tip: The Ministry of Minor Perfidy.

VALOUR-IT

Veteran's Day: VALOUR-IT Final Push

Now that both teams from the Department of the Navy have reached their goals, our leader Cassandra has decreed that we should help out the Army. I'm sure Matty & Jimbo will appreciate your kindness. So will John of Aaaarrrrgh!, who earlier expressed his awe of the Marine staff. (See the comments. If anyone wants to round out the top ten...)

It's a fitting service for Veteran's Day. My thanks to all who have helped, and all who have given. That goes for the Project, and for the military as a whole.

Happy Veteran's Day.

Jack Palance

Jack Palance, RIP:

This Veteran's Day, we remember many great men, and honor those still living who have served. It happens that we might, this particular Veteran's Day, take a moment to remember Jack Palance, who has just died.

I suspect he's best remembered here as the gunfighter Jack Wilson in Shane. He did "cold-eyed killer" better than almost anyone: even Lee Van Cleef seemed to be reprising Jack Wilson in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

There was more to the man than that, however: he was a heavyweight fighter, under the name Jack Brazzo, with twelve knockouts and fifteen wins in his career. And, yes, he was a veteran:

With the outbreak of World War II, Palance's boxing career ended and his military career began. Palance's rugged face, which took many beatings in the boxing ring, was disfigured when he bailed out of his burning B-24 Liberator while on a training flight over southern Arizona, where he was a student pilot. Plastic surgeons repaired as much of the damage that they could, but he was left with a distinctive, somewhat gaunt, look. After much reconstructive surgery, he was discharged in 1944.

It's easy to forget how dangerous training is in the military, but the risks are very real. The Department of Defense celebrated in 1998 when accidental deaths in the military declined notably over a monitored nine-year period: only 6,790 service members died in that time. It had, in the previous perioud, been 11,216. In Iraq, in three years we've lost about three thousand people. In nine years from 1988-1996, 6,790 died accidentally.

Palance didn't die, and went on to turn his reconstructed face into one well known to every American. He won an Oscar for his role in the film City Slickers, and at the awards show made some appropriate remarks about Billy Crystal before demonstrating one-handed pushups. He was 73 at the time.

We'll miss you, Jack.

I guess this is appropriate this day too:

Marine receives Medal of Honor

Words don't really do the deed justice.

Happy Birthday, USMC.