Month: September 2018

Capture

No Comments

Hey, if you’re willing to shell out thirty to fifty bucks for a peripheral…

(I am, in fact, THAT MUCH of a sucker for both Mew and overpriced pieces of Nintendo-themed plastic, but I still have trouble justifying it to myself.)

(Don’t have one in Go, though. Still grinding out that Gyarados. But I went to a Toys R Us event back in 2007 or so* to get one in distribution when you still needed to trade them and the Mythical distribution back in 2016 was super-helpful.)

* Which entailed, because we were traveling out of state that weekend and had scheduled appointments, dragging my mom to a Toys R Us in a different state early in the morning after weeks of obsessing because MEW. Worth it though.

Dumbing of Age

Elon Musk reaches deal over tweets about taking Tesla private

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionWho is Elon Musk?

Elon Musk must step down as Tesla chair and pay a fine after reaching a deal with US regulators over tweets he posted about taking the firm private.

It follows Thursday’s decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to sue Mr Musk for alleged securities fraud.

Under the deal, Mr Musk will remain as Tesla CEO but will step down as chairman for three years.

Both he and Tesla will also have to pay a $20m (£15m) fine.

What did he say in the tweets?

The fraud allegation relates to his August tweet in which Mr Musk said he was considering taking electronic car maker Tesla off the stock market and into private ownership.

He wrote he had “funding secured” for the proposal, which would value Tesla at $420 per share. Shares in the company briefly rose after his announcement, but later fell again.

The SEC said those claims were “false and misleading”.

“In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source,” the regulator said.

Mr Musk initially responded to the charges by saying the action was “unjustified” and he acted in the “best interests of truth, transparency and investors”.

What is in the deal?

In addition to the fines, Mr Musk will also have to comply with company communications procedures when tweeting about the firm.

He now has 45 days to leave his role as chairman of Tesla.

The SEC had initially sought to ban Mr Musk from working on the board of any publicly traded company, but under the deal he will now be able to stay on as Tesla’s chief executive officer.

A new “independent chairman” for the company will be appointed, who will preside over the company’s board.

Forcing Tesla to separate the roles of CEO and chairman should limit Mr Musk’s power within the company.

Despite this, many analysts say the outcome is a good one for Mr Musk, given he remains in charge of day-to-day operations as CEO.

Who is Elon Musk?

Born in South Africa, Mr Musk made millions from online payments firm PayPal before moving on to Tesla and rocket company SpaceX.

He is the 25th richest person in the world, according to Forbes, which estimates his net worth to be $19.7bn (£15.1bn).

But it has been a volatile summer for the entrepreneur.

Mr Musk is being sued for defamation after making allegations against a British diver involved in the Thai cave rescue.

Earlier this month, he found himself in another controversy after appearing on a podcast while smoking marijuana. Although the drug is legal in California, where the podcast was recorded, shares in Tesla fell more than nine per cent after his appearance.

source

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags:

Nut

No Comments

I think when someone close to her comes out (either Jocelyne or Carla disclosing,) she’s going to be more primed to handle it well this time.

There’ll be a lot of questions, but I think Joyce has had a lot of growth and that will help – her religion is already straining to a near-breaking point, she’s definitely siding with ‘I love you and will support you even if I don’t Get It yet,’ and the knowledge that it’s her one sibling who’s supported her and Becky so thoroughly/the cool girl who helps her just because she can is going to mean Joyce picks a side very quickly.

(That said, it’ll go way better if it’s private, particularly in Jocelyne’s case. A really basic explanation and then Joyce asking questions is going to help in the moment, and that is definitely not gonna happen if Carol’s there.)

(I tend to think it’ll be Jocelyne first, but Joyce knowing about Carla will speed things up dramatically and if it does come down to Joyce finding out with the parents then that’ll help. I tend to think that story’s going to be someday when we get to the holidays? Joyce is definitely not inclined to visit home again any time soon, so Jocelyne won’t show up unless she visits IU.)

Dumbing of Age

Brett Kavanaugh: Trump’s Supreme Court pick faces FBI inquiry

Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford both gave evidence on Thursday

President Donald Trump has ordered an FBI investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against his nominee for the US Supreme Court.

A Senate committee earlier voted to approve Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the top US court.

But a Republican member only backed the move on the understanding that such an inquiry would occur.

As a result, a full Senate vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been delayed for up to a week.

Judge Kavanaugh, an appeal court judge, denies allegations from at least three women.

On Thursday, the committee heard testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, a professor of psychology in California, who says Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers in the 1980s.

Judge Kavanaugh also testified, angrily rejecting the allegation he had ever assaulted her or anyone else. He accused Democrats of politicising the process and harming his family and good name.

What will the investigation do?

Announcing the move, President Trump said: “I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file. As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

The inquiry will involve the FBI reopening its previously completed background check on Judge Kavanaugh. This might mean going back to old witnesses – or speaking to new ones.

Friday saw Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee throw out Democrat attempts to subpoena Mark Judge, a friend of Judge Kavanaugh who Dr Ford said had witnessed the assault on her 36 years ago.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionTrump: ‘Ford’s testimony was very compelling’

Mr Judge had told the committee in a written statement that he did not recall any such incident.

Mr Judge’s lawyer Barbara Van Gelder said: “If the FBI or any law enforcement agency requests Mr Judge’s co-operation, he will answer any and all questions posed to him.”

Responding to President Trump’s statement, Judge Kavanaugh said “I’ve done everything they have requested and will continue to co-operate”.

Dr Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, said her client welcomed the step but questioned the time limit of a week.

“A thorough FBI investigation is critical to developing all the relevant facts… No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation.”

What led to this?

Friday saw the Senate Judiciary Committee split along party lines in a vote on passing the nomination to the full Senate.

Democrats accused the 11 Republicans of attempting to rush the process, while Republicans countered that the 10 Democrats were using the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh in an attempt to delay – and ultimately block – the conservative judge from joining the Supreme Court.

Arizona Republican Jeff Flake told the committee that he would back the motion to send Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for a full vote on the Senate floor – but would not support his confirmation in the Senate without the additional FBI inquiry.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionRepublican Senator Jeff Flake is challenged by a sexual assault survivor

The vote then went ahead, with all 11 Republicans including Mr Flake in favour and all 10 Democrats voting against.

After the vote, the committee said it was requesting that Mr Trump order an additional background investigation “limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today”.

Mr Flake began the session by saying he would back Judge Kavanaugh but on his way to the committee room he was berated by two women who said they were victims of sexual violence and urged him to change his mind.

Why is this vote so important?

The Supreme Court plays a vital role in US political life. Appointed for life, its nine members have the final say on US law.

This includes highly contentious social issues, such as abortion, and challenges to government policy.

Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment could tilt the balance in favour of conservatives for years to come.

Republicans control the Senate by a narrow 51-49 majority. Without the support of Mr Flake and one other Republican senator – and assuming all Democrats vote against – the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh cannot occur.

What are the other allegations against Kavanaugh?

Image copyright Michael Avenatti
Image caption Julie Swetnick in an image provided by her lawyer Michael Avenatti

Aside from Dr Ford, they are:

  • Deborah Ramirez. The former Yale University student has said that Brett Kavanaugh once exposed himself to her at a dormitory party in the 1980s. She alleges the incident occurred during a drinking game and remembers Brett Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing
  • Julie Swetnick. A Washington DC resident. In a sworn affidavit, she alleges Brett Kavanaugh was involved in the drugging and sexual assault of girls at house parties in the 1980s. She says she was the victim of a gang rape in 1982 at a party attended by the now-Supreme Court nominee
  • Anonymous. A woman sent a letter to a Colorado senator alleging her daughter had witnessed Judge Kavanaugh pushing a woman he was dating “very aggressively and sexually” against a wall in 1998

Judge Kavanaugh denies these allegations, and on Thursday called Ms Swetnick’s allegation “a joke” and “a farce”.

source

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags:

Pre-Law Workshop Online With Louisville Defense Attorney

No Comments

will be available for a workshop via Skype. PreLaw students are encouraged to meet online or through the campus law library beginning September 12, 2018 at 1pm EST.  Judah practices law with Lynch, Cox, Gilman & Goodman delivering legal expertise.He has conducted jury trials in both state and federal courts. Three sessions will be covering:

– All types of civil lawsuits, including contract disputes, property damage, and more

– All criminal law, including felonies, misdemeanors, DUI, expungements, state and federal cases

– Divorce proceedings, spousal support, division of assets, and post-divorce services

Armand Judah, Louisville Defense Attorney

To attend please complete the following form

Uninvolved

No Comments

I lost an entire lengthy comment, but: Normally I would say yes, seeing each other as equals is a fantastic and necessary part of a relationship.

The problem is that Walky and Amber both have massive self-esteem issues and see themselves as equally GARBAGE, and their relationship currently has them reinforcing to each other that yep, we are both terrible people instead of ‘There is at least one person who doesn’t think you’re terrible and maybe we can try and feel less terrible together’.

(This dynamic is also present in Ruth/Billie, though lessening on Ruth’s part. It is EXTREMELY WORRYING there, too. I actively worry about Billie because she is definitely Not Okay and not seeking help.)

I really think in another time, Amber and Walky could be great together. But not with this massive web of secrets of Amber’s hanging over them, and not unless they start feeling like maybe they could be Less Garbage.

Dumbing of Age

Brett Kavanaugh denies Christine Blasey Ford sex assault claim

Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford both gave evidence on Thursday

The man nominated for a vacant post on the US Supreme Court by Donald Trump emphatically denied allegations of sexual assault on Thursday.

Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee his confirmation process had become a “disgrace”.

He accused Democratic senators of destroying his family and his good name for political reasons.

Earlier, Christine Blasey Ford said an assault by Mr Kavanaugh 36 years ago had “drastically” affected her life.

Dr Ford told the committee that the alleged event had left her “afraid and ashamed”.

President Donald Trump has now said the Senate “must vote” on Mr Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

The nine-member Supreme Court plays a vital role in US political life, as it has the final say on US law.

This includes highly contentious social issues, such as abortion, and challenges to government policy.

What did Brett Kavanaugh say?

Taking a combative approach but occasionally becoming emotional, Mr Kavanaugh, 53 – a federal judge – went on the offensive following Dr Ford’s testimony.

“This confirmation process has become a national disgrace,” he told the committee.

“The constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.

“Since my nomination in July there has been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation.”

He insisted he would not be “intimidated” into withdrawing from the process.

“You may defeat me in the final vote but you’ll never get me to quit. Never.”

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionBrett Kavanagh: ‘I am innocent of this charge’

Mr Kavanaugh said he did not doubt that Dr Ford had been assaulted, but insisted: “I’ve never sexually assaulted Dr Ford – or anyone.”

He admitted he had drunk beer while at high school and under-age, but said he had never got so drunk as to forget events.

He added that his calendars for 1982 – which he had kept – showed he had not attended a party at the location Dr Ford had described.

Under hostile questioning from Democratic senators, he repeatedly insisted he was innocent and said an FBI investigation -suggested by Dr Ford to establish the truth – would be useless as it would not reach conclusions.

What did Christine Blasey Ford say?

Prior to Thursday, no-one had heard from 51-year-old Dr Ford publicly since the allegations arose.

After addresses by the leading Republican and Democrat senators, Dr Ford delivered her statement, at times close to tears.

“I am here today not because I want to be,” she said. “I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.”

She alleged Mr Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge had locked her in a bedroom during a small gathering at a house in a Washington DC suburb in the summer of 1982, when she was 15 and Mr Kavanaugh was 17.

She said Mr Kavanaugh had tried to remove her clothing, pinned her to a bed and groped her. Both men were “drunkenly laughing”, she said.

She added: “Brett’s assault on me drastically altered my life. For a very long time, I was too afraid and ashamed to tell anyone the details.”

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionChristine Blasey Ford said she was “100%” sure Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her

Under questioning by a Democratic senator, she said her most vivid memory was “the laughter between the two and their having fun at my expense… they were laughing with each other – two friends having a really good time with one another”.

In an answer to another Democratic senator’s question about claims of mistaken identity, Dr Ford said she was “100%” certain it was Mr Kavanaugh who had assaulted her.

The 21 senators on the committee were given five minutes each to ask her questions.

The 10 Democrats posed questions themselves, many paying tribute to Dr Ford’s bravery in coming forward – and supporting her call for an FBI investigation into her allegations.

The 11 Republicans, all men, deferred most of their questions to a female lawyer, Phoenix prosecutor Rachel Mitchell.

Are there other allegations against Mr Kavanaugh?

Image copyright Michael Avenatti
Image caption Julie Swetnick in an image provided by her lawyer Michael Avenatti

Yes, and new ones appeared as the hearing loomed. At present they are:

  • Deborah Ramirez. The former Yale University classmate has said that Mr Kavanaugh once exposed himself to her at a dormitory party in the 1980s. She alleges the incident occurred during a drinking game and remembers Mr Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his trousers
  • Julie Swetnick. A Washington DC resident. In a sworn affidavit she alleges Mr Kavanaugh was involved in the drugging and sexual assault of girls at house parties in the 1980s. She says she was the victim of a gang rape in 1982 at a party attended by the judge
  • Anonymous. A woman sent a letter to a Colorado senator alleging her daughter had witnessed Mr Kavanaugh pushing a woman he was dating “very aggressively and sexually” against a wall in 1998

Mr Kavanaugh denies these allegations.

In his written testimony he says: “Over the past few days, other false and uncorroborated accusations have been aired. There has been a frenzy to come up with something – anything, no matter how far-fetched or odious – that will block a vote on my nomination.

“These are last-minute smears, pure and simple.”

What is Donald Trump’s stance?

Moments after the day-long hearing ended, Mr Trump said he found Mr Kavanaugh’s testimony “powerful, honest and riveting”.

He has portrayed the events in political terms, accusing the Democrats of trying to block the nomination.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionMight Donald Trump consider withdrawing Kavanaugh?

Mr Trump has repeatedly defended the judge’s character, saying he is “one of the highest quality people” he has ever met.

But the president on Wednesday did say he could withdraw the nomination if accusations against the judge were proven.

He said: “I can always be convinced. If I thought he was guilty of something like this, yes, sure. It’s possible I’ll hear that, and I’ll say, ‘hey, I’m changing my mind’. I want to watch.”

Why does this all matter and what happens next?

The Senate Judiciary Committee must vote on Mr Kavanaugh’s confirmation before it goes to the full Senate for a vote there.

The committee is scheduled to vote on Friday but its chairman, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, has left open the possibility of a further delay.

All 10 Democratic senators on the committee have called on President Trump to “immediately withdraw” Mr Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Republicans want their nominee in place before mid-term elections next month, when they could lose their 51-49 control of the Senate.

Any confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh could also affect female voters in November. The confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, despite allegations of sexual harassment, fuelled the rise of a new generation of female politicians in elections the following year.


Culture wars flashpoint

By BBC North America editor Jon Sopel

It is hard to overstate the passions, the conspiracy theories, the mistrust and division this Supreme Court appointment has stirred.

To make sense of this you have to understand two things about the Supreme Court – justices are appointed for life, and the Supreme Court, not politicians, will ultimately decide on the most contentious issues of the day – from desegregating schools in the 1950s to abortion law, to gun control and to same-sex marriage.

It was the Supreme Court that decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election in favour of George W Bush. You name it, they rule on it.

In the 2016 election, many Republicans voted for Donald Trump while holding their nose – but they did so because they thought he’d deliver on their long cherished dream of delivering a Supreme Court with a clear conservative majority for a generation. Now they fear it is slipping away.

And the fact that Brett Kavanaugh’s accusers have come forward at the last minute is seen by many Republicans – mostly male – as a Democrat-inspired plot, not as a legitimate complaint.

The culture wars that have simmered in America for 50 years are finding an extraordinary flashpoint today – cultural conservatives versus Me Too. And in this battle, Judge Kavanaugh and the female complainants are just collateral damage. The reverberations of this hearing will echo for a long time to come.

source

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags:

Propriety

No Comments

Even Lucy’s light hearted iteration has more stink to it then you think, cause it means Amber would be a rebound. FOR DORTHY.

But I think Billie has a point. Just, she thinks she has MORE of one then she actually does. He came to her because, well, she’s right. Other folks would tell him to wait. Which might be a pretty smart Idea. But I DON’T think that instantly translates into no connection to Amber, and she’s some revenge plot. Device.

Walky isn’t a knight in shining armor, or perfect, but that doesn’t mean he’s as spite filled as Billie is.

I feel, Billie, that if we REALLY want to be real here… your relationship started to get better when the spite was toned DOWN. So, stop this highschool gossip game and worry about your OWN relationship

Dumbing of Age

Pearl Harbor Fees and Reservations

No Comments

Admission to the USS Arizona Memorial is free. There is no entrance or activity fee, nor is there a fee for the visitor’s center or the museum. Complimentary tickets for the timed programs to the memorial are given on a first-come, first-served basis at the front desk of the visitor center. These tickets are non-reservable, so visitors are advised to try for tickets early in the day. Queues are often fully formed by 8 am, and during the busy summer months, tickets oftentimes run out by noon.  Visit a tour operator such as Pearl Harbor Tours to arrange reserved tickets through them for the memorial.

Once visitors receive their tickets, they will be assigned a program time. The Navy shuttle boat that take visitors out to the Arizona Memorial accommodate around 100 people, so guests should expect some delays.

In addition to the free tickets for the USS Arizona Memorial, visitors may also wish to purchase passes to visit the America-the-Beautiful–National Parks and Recreational Lands. These passes are available at the Honolulu Regional Office, as well as at most National Park sites and allow visitors access to all federal land management areas. For more information on the land passes, visitors can visit:  http://www.nps.gov/fees_passes.htm

University Students Voter Registration

No Comments

University Students Who Live On Campus

If your primary residence is the university on campus student housing you may register to vote in the precinct where your student housing is located.

University Students Who Travel To Campus

You should register to vote at your primary residence. Commuting to school does not change your primary residence.

Registering To Vote

Students registering to vote may do so online through the State Secretary’s website which is available from the linked Voter Guide.

State Board of Elections and County Clerk’s will be reporting unofficial numbers on election night. These numbers may differ from voting polls or each other.  We’ll report both sets of results through the Election Results page.

Louisville Voter Guide – The Complete Voters Guide

No Comments

The Complete Voters Guide Is a Louisville voter guide provided by Judge Sean Delahanty’s re-election site which includes congressional candidates, mayoral, metro council, Jefferson County offices as well as judicial races.

Within the guide voters can find answers at the FAQ, watch videos from Sean, read news concerning the election and find their polling place.

Pearl Harbor Stories of Survival

Not all heroes wear capes. On the day of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, so many brave crewmen showed immense courage in the face of grave danger and made their countrymen proud. From rescuing others to returning Japanese fire, these crewmen went above and beyond the call of duty that day and saved many lives.

Find out more about these Pearl Harbor heroes and discover their touching stories of bravery and selflessness.

By: Birte Petersen


In 1941, one of the greatest tragedies in American history happened at Pearl Harbor, in the Territory of Hawaii, when Japanese airplanes launched a surprise attack on the Navy base… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


More than 76 years have passed since the attack on Pearl Harbor and we are still finding new and inventive ways to recognize and honor the brave men who survived… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


Prior to the outbreak of war in the Pacific, Haleiwa Fighter Strip on Oahu’s North Shore seemed like more of an afterthought than an actual military installation. It served as… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


The attack on Pearl Harbor produced heroes of all kinds, and not all of them were fighting men. In a ceremony coinciding with the 76th anniversary of the attack, naval… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


Many heroes came out of the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor, men who risked their  lives for the sake of their fellow serviceman. Many jumped into the flaming, oil-slicked waters… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


What do you get a man who survived one of the most devastating events in United States history, a 97-year-old survivor who’s seen the world change time and time again,… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


For more than seven decades, the families of many of the 429 men who perished when the USS Oklahoma (BB-37) sank were unable to give their loved ones a proper… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


Not long after the United States was dragged into World War II, the role of America’s women changed drastically. Once limited to being schoolteachers, housewives, and secretaries, many women found… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


Over 2400 Americans lost their lives when the Japanese launched their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. But amid the tragedy, there were also tales of heroism, of men who swooped… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


The USS Arizona (BB-39) suffered a fate on December 7th, 1941 that would make her one of the most iconic battleships of all time. During the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor,… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


Many heroes rose to the occasion during the attack on Pearl Harbor, but some were recognized for their heroic efforts to protect their fellow servicemen. For their service, many received… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


On December 7th, 1941, the Japanese assaulted Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,400 American sailors, Marines, and civilians. On March 19th, 2017, Howard Linn, a former sailor aboard the USS Nevada… Read More

By: Mark Loproto


Before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Navy men like John S. Harper were simply doing their jobs. They woke up, got dressed, and engaged in their daily activities just… Read More

By: Steve Fagaly


The First U.S. Hero of World War II When the first Japanese bomber entered Hawaiian territory on December 7th, 1941, very few people probably stopped and thought about how they… Read More

Louisville Election Guide Highlights

No Comments

2018 Louisville Election Guides

2018 Complete Voter Guide

– provided from Judge Sean Delahanty’s site

Election Results

Election results posted to Judge Delahanty’s blog.

Voter Registration

Voter Registration Link

Louisville Metro Mayor

Metro Mayor Race 2018

Louisville Metro Council

Metro Council Candidates

Alternative National Guides

Christian Voter Guide

Financial Channel Created

No Comments

Our distribution and syndication of site news is increasing to now include a financial feed. This feed at https://www.matt2.info/category/financial/feed will be a collective of news articles provided by a custom Google feed at https://www.google.com/alerts/feeds/08199508906193694917/13173428272531262996

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags:

Ranking Louisville Candidate Site With Organic SEO

No Comments

Its likely no secret we’re working hard to rank up Judge Sean Delahanty‘s site.  He had judgeseandelahanty.com but I’ve always believed that the primary site for any campaign needs to be someone’s name unless its hard to spell without any office referenced.

Thats why we developed his new election site seandelahanty.com.  Wanting to bring a small level of gamification and interactivity I added polls and debated a chat section but due to speed concerns on the domain I moved that idea to fordelahanty.com. Its a site to allow supporters to collaborate and make a difference.

In the image below you can see the vast majority of his tracked pages are on page one of Google.
In order to draw new traffic from higher search volumned topics I added the FAQ and Voter Guide content.  The voter guide is not the most innovative site but it is likely the one campaign site that provides maps and names on races beyond their own.  Its a gamble that the voter will find and appreciate Sean Delahanty’s site

The site recently received a make over notice the reported as of today.

ranking seo

Judging The District Court Judges – Insider Louisville

No Comments

(Editor’s note: Several Insider Louisville contributors collected information for this post including Terry Boyd, who did the majority of the writing.)

This is a story with a back story.

We’ve been trying for weeks to get documents related to chronic absenteeism by a small minority of Jefferson District Court judges.

Insiders told Insider Louisville Chief Judge Angela McCormick Bisig is one of a group of female judges frequently absent from the court, a group that includes fellow judges Katie King and Michele Stengel.

Neither King nor Stengel replied to written requests for interviews left with court officials.

Bisig’s and others’ absences caused log jams, confusion and unreasonable workloads for the judges who do show up, say those sources, whose identities we agreed to keep confidential, because they have to appear before these judges, or work beside them as colleagues.

These particular judges are the judges who sort through the jammed criminal dockets in a court system that attorneys say is broken.

How broken?

For two weeks, we tried to find out, and we know now this is a story that will have to be teased out over time.

Judge Angela McCormick Bisig

Multiple sources told Insider Louisville that Bisig, among others, had extensive absences from her courtroom during 2012.

In an interview Thursday, Bisig told Insider Louisville that she hadn’t “taken a single day of vacation this year.”

However, the judge posted photos on her Facebook page of an April trip to New York City.

Bisig then confirmed she took “a long weekend” to go with her sons, adding that “any allegations of excessive absences are not true.”

What’s the truth?

We don’t know.

It’s nearly impossible to document the workings of the court, especially which of the 14 district court judges actually earn their paychecks, about $113,000 annually. (By comparison, Gov. Steve Beshear is paid $127,885 annually.)

Insider Louisville was denied documents, or told documents didn’t exist, only to find out they were public domain.

Beyond the stonewalling, documenting those absences and the additional strains they place on colleagues is difficult, because judges have virtually no obligation beyond personal scruples to show up.

We also came away with the feeling that at least one judge wants to tell the whole story, but can’t quite bring himself to do it.

District Judge Sean Delahanty doesn’t deny some Jefferson County District courtrooms aren’t in disarray.

But Delahanty won’t discuss the situation beyond vague assertions of lack of work ethic by other judges.

This very problem – backed up courts – was the driving force for a reorganization of Jefferson District Court last August.

Before that reorganization, judges were too frequently combining dockets, Delahanty said. That is, one judge doesn’t show up, so another judge has to fold that additional case load into his or her docket.

That’s still going on now, he said.

“The only reasons judges are supposed to combine dockets is vacations or emergencies, and dockets are getting combined way too often for other things,” Delahanty said.

He declined to go into detail.

In a story posted Wednesday on a survey of attorneys concerning the reorganization, Courier-Journal reporter Jason Riley quotes Delahanty as saying, “Some of these judges need to decide if this job interferes with their lifestyle, and I’m not going to say anymore than that.”

Which could be interpreted as a shot at Bisig, who appears frequently at social events featured in the Voice-Tribune newspaper, the Bible of Louisville’s social scene.

Pressed to address the major problems in the courts, Delahanty said, “There are things that will come out in time.”

“What he’s talking about is the lack of accountability the judges have in the way they spend their time,” said attorney Thomas Clay, a partner at Clay Frederick Adams, PLC.

Clay and other attorneys say there are two ways judges hand off their dockets  – by calling a colleague and asking that judge to take their cases, or to call into clerks of the court, who would assign the absent judge’s docket to another judge.

Which is what causes delays and confusion, with judges not in their assigned courtrooms when defendants, witnesses and judges show up for trials and hearings, say our sources.

The system leads to a core of judges picking up the slack including Delahanty, our sources said.

“I defy you to find one attorney anywhere out there who will say my courtroom is broken,” Delahanty said. “You can come to my courtroom anytime you want. Courtroom 204. You come any day, and you can see how a court should be run.”

Asked to talk about the workings of the court or attorneys who don’t run their courtrooms as they should be run, he demurred.

Most elected officials have some mechanism that can be used for accountability whether it be records of votes, legislation or roads paved.

But not judges.

Delahanty told Insider Louisville that he doesn’t believe there are any documents that have data documenting the time judges are in the courtroom or the volume of cases they hear: “We don’t keep a record of attendance.”

“It’s an issue that needs to be addressed. And this is not an issue that just cropped up recently. There have been questions about this topic for years,” Clay said.

Jacob Conway, whose Website Mentors consults with local judicial campaigns and frequent Insider Louisville contributor, said he finds ridiculous allegations that Bisig is a chronic no-show.

Bisig, a former prosecutor, “had a stellar record” in that job, Conway said. “She was one of the people who was always there, later than her job required, longer than any other judges … a workhorse. It’s why no one ever ran against her before.”

Conway says he believes allegations that Bisig and other female judges are devoting less than their all to their positions connect back to possible resentment about more women winning judicial elections.

“A majority of women on the court are women who beat incumbent men,” he said. “These men pointing fingers may be upset about the number of women judges (winning) just in the last few years.

“This is the last ‘old boys club’ left in (Kentucky) politics.”

––––––––––

Two weeks ago, legal insiders told us about a survey of attorneys coming out Tuesday, August 21 that would expose the Jefferson District Court system as a system in chaos.

We went to Bisig to request a copy. Bisig was non-committal, telling us she didn’t know anything about any survey, and wasn’t sure if it would be public record if there was such a document.

We persisted. We asked who paid for the survey, aguing if it was paid with taxpayers’ dollars, it’s a public document. Bisig said she didn’t know.

We asked state officials, including Leigh Anne Hiatt, public information officer for the Administrative Office of the Courts in Frankfort, for the document. Hiatt never followed up on our request.

We asked local employees at the Administrators of the Court, and they claimed the survey didn’t exist, or referred us to state officials.

Wednesday night, Riley posted a story on the survey, a story that stated 53 percent of 164 lawyers responding disagreed or strongly disagreed the reorganization had enhanced administration of justice, with 10 percent agreeing. (Thirty-seven percent had no opinion.)

 From Riley’s story:

Among the biggest problems cited in the survey are that the changes have led to too many combined dockets – those in which a judge took on their own cases as well as the cases of another judge who was either not in court that day or unavailable, backing up the process.

We tried to quantify attendance rates and workloads through the court dockets, which our sources told us judges must sign off on daily.

However, in an email response, Hiatt stated that’s not true (emphasis ours):

You … requested information about when individual judges are on the bench. The court system does not have any one document to provide that information. In addition, docket information does not provide a complete picture of when judges are working. When outside of the courtroom, judges may be preparing paperwork, reviewing probate files, ruling on default judgment motions and taking 24-hour calls regarding bond reviews, search warrants, emergency protective orders and mental inquest warrants. Judges can also have dockets on evenings and weekends. It is also important to note that judges determine their own schedules to meet the needs in their jurisdictions.

More as we solicit these documents.

History Perspectives: America Attacked

No Comments

Facts, information and articles about the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Date: December 7, 1941

Location: Oahu, Hawaii

Generals/Commanders
United States: Husband Kimmel and Walter Short
Japanese: Chuichi Nagumo and Isoroku Yamamoto

Outcome: Japanese Victory

Casualties:  United States: 3,700  Japanese: 50  civilians: 48-68

Importance:  The surprise attack on America led to the nation entering World War II

» See all Articles

Pearl Harbor summary:
On December 7, 1941 the Japanese launched a surprise attack on the US Naval Base Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, using bombers, torpedo bombers and midget submarines. On December 8, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his “Infamy Speech” to American citizens, informing them that this occurred despite the fact that the US was in the midst of talks to keep peace with Japan. That same day, with congressional approval, America entered into World War II.

On the southern end of Oahu, Pearl Harbor held a 22,000 acre naval base. Admiral Husband E. Kimmel of the Navy and Lt. General Walter C. Short of the Army were in command of the fleet and troops on the ground, respectively. The majority of the Pacific area’s military commands were headquartered there because of growing apprehensions regarding an aggressive Japanese presence.

Since Emperor Hirohito’s Japan wanted to expand in territory and power like some European countries, it needed natural resources, like oil and aluminum found in the Netherlands East Indies. Standing in opposition to Japanese conquest of what Japan’s leaders termed “the Southern Resource Area” was the United States. In 1940 the US, Great Britain, and the Netherlands had initiated a total embargo of oil and scrap metal to Japan in response to Japan invading French Indochina. Unless a new source of oil was opened, the Imperial Japanese Navy would be in dry dock within a year and Japanese industries would grind to a halt in 12–18 months.

A plan was developed to cripple the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor to allow time for Japan to seize the resource areas it needed and fortify them to the point that retaking them would cost more lives than the Imperial High Command thought Americans would be willing to pay. The Pearl Harbor attack plan was conceived by Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, commander in chief of the IJN. Yamamoto had studied in the United States. He knew his nation lacked the ability to defeat the much larger, resource-and industry-rich country and did not share the opinion of many Japanese officers that the Americans were too weak-willed to fight. However, Yamamoto’s vociferous arguments against going to war with America were overruled by the High Command. The attack on Pearl Harbor, which was influenced by the successful British attack that used carrier aircraft against the Italian fleet at Taranto, Italy the previous year, was essentially a last best-hope for Japanese success in the Pacific.

Early in the morning on December 7, more than 350 Japanese planes attacked about 33 American ships on orders of Vice-Admiral Chuichi Nagumo. America sustained a loss of nearly 170 aircraft destroyed and 160 damaged that morning, as well as three ships destroyed and 16 damaged. Three thousand seven hundred Americans lost their lives, including 68 civilians. The cost to the Japanese was 29 aircraft, five midget submarines, and 130 service personnel, all but one of whom was killed in action.

The Pearl Harbor Memorial

The Pearl Harbor memorial, otherwise known as the USS Arizona Memorial, is a National Monument located at the site of the sunken battleship USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor. Commemorating the 1,177 crewman who lost their lives in the attack on Pearl Harbor, it s a tribute to World War II valor in the Pacific. Learn more about the Pearl Harbor Memorial.

The Pearl Harbor Myth

In a Photograph taken aboard a Japanese carrier before the attack, A Nakajima B5N "Kate" torpedo bomber is cheered on by the carrier's crew. (National Archives)
In a Photograph taken aboard a Japanese carrier before the attack, A Nakajima B5N “Kate” torpedo bomber is cheered on by the carrier’s crew. (National Archives)

As a wave of shock surged from Pearl Harbor’s burning waters, the nation stood in awe of the destruction wrought by the Imperial Japanese Navy on the U.S. Pacific Fleet. “The incredulousness of it all still gives each new announcement of the Pearl Harbor attack the unreality of a fairy tale,” a young naval aviator stationed in Virginia wrote just hours after the attack. “How could they have been so mad?… If the reports I’ve heard today are true, the Japanese have performed the impossible, have carried out one of the most daring and successful raids in all history.… The whole thing was brilliant.”

In just 90 minutes, the Japanese had inflicted a devastating blow: five battleships were sunk, three battleships, three cruisers, and three destroyers were damaged, and nearly 200 aircraft were destroyed. The most devastating loss was the 2,403 Americans killed and 1,178 wounded. Michael Slackman, a consulting historian to the U.S. Navy, described the attack as “almost textbook perfect” in his book Target: Pearl Harbor (1990). Gordon Prange, the battle’s leading historian, judged it “brilliantly conceived and meticulously planned.” Another prominent historian, Robert L. O’Connell, author of Sacred Vessels: The Cult of the Battleship and the Rise of the U.S. Navy (1995), likened it to the perfection of a “flashing samurai sword.” Even the recorded narration on a Pearl Harbor tour boat says the attack was “brilliantly conceived and executed.”

Yet a detailed examination of the preparation and execution of the attack on the Pacific Fleet reveals a much different story. Even after 10 months of arduous planning, rehearsal, and intelligence gathering, the attack was plagued by inflexibility, a lack of coordination, and misallocated resources. A plan for a likely contingency was cobbled together by three midgrade officers while en route to Hawaii. The attack itself suffered significant command blunders. Though armed with enough firepower to destroy up to 14 battleships and aircraft carriers, the Japanese landed killing hits on only three battleships; luck, combined with American damage control mistakes, added two more battleships to their tally. Not only was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor far from brilliant, it also narrowly avoided disaster.

High Command and Aviators Disagree on Primary Targets
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, commander in chief of Japan’s Combined Fleet, thought he saw a way to win an impossible war, beginning with a surprise attack against American battleships. He believed battleships possessed “intangible political effects internationally as a symbol of naval power.” Sinking them, in tandem with capturing the Philippines, would so shock and demoralize the American people that their will to continue the war would sink along with the shattered battlewagons. The Japanese Naval General Staff wanted to sink battleships, too, but for a different reason: they calculated (from some faulty initial assumptions) that crippling four of the eight battleships in port would prevent the Pacific Fleet from sailing to relieve the Philippines for six months, allowing the Japanese to secure the flank of their southern advance.

The aviators involved had other target priorities. The operation’s main planner, Commander Minoru Genda, was a brilliant and iconoclastic fighter pilot known as “Madman Genda” for his belief that battleships were anachronisms. While a student at the Naval Staff College, he had called for the Imperial Navy to scrap all battleships and build only carriers. When assigned in early 1941 to plan an attack to sink battleships at Pearl Harbor, he instead plotted to aim the bulk of the attack at any carriers that might be in port. His fixation would come close to disrupting the entire attack.

FAQs – Questions about Pearl Harbor

The plan finally presented to the admirals called for a first wave of 40 Nakajima B5N carrier attack bombers (later code-named “Kates” by the Allies), each carrying a Type 91 aerial torpedo, to open the assault on Pearl Harbor. According to the Japanese Official History, they were to first attack four designated battleships, then shift their attention to carriers. After crippling or sinking these ships, the attack would shift to the remaining battleships, then shift again to cruisers.

It was an overly complex, impossible scheme, likely constructed merely to brief the admirals, who were largely ignorant of aviation tactics and would not know that such an orderly progression through the targets was unworkable. Genda and the planners were well aware that the torpedo bombers had to fly low and slow as they approached their targets, making them extremely vulnerable to antiaircraft fire.

The plan they intended to use split 90 Kates between two roles: torpedo and level bombing. Genda then divided the 40 acting as torpedo bombers into four formations. They were to travel together to a point north of Pearl Harbor, where 16 torpedo bombers in two formations would separate to approach from the west and attack the carrier moorings, while 24 torpedo bombers in two formations would attack Battleship Row from the east. Immediately after, 50 more Kates acting as level bombers would attack from high altitude, dropping massive 1,760-pound armor-piercing bombs on the battleships sheltered from torpedo fire by other ships or dry docks.

The plan emphasized surprise; all 40 torpedo bombers could deliver their attacks in less than 90 seconds, before the enemy defenses could respond. It would be impossible for the torpedo bomber aircrews to methodically ratchet through a complicated target prioritization scheme because they would not be in a position to observe or evaluate the attacks of the aircraft that went before them. Each aircrew could only do their best to identify a good target, launch a torpedo, and get out as quickly as possible. They were instructed to concentrate their attacks to ensure that ships would be sunk rather than just damaged, but at the same time avoid “overkill” on ships already sinking, as any such hits would be a waste and better applied to other targets.

A second wave of the attack was to be launched about an hour after the first: 81 Aichi D3A dive-bombers (“Val”) armed with 550-pound general-purpose bombs—which were unable to penetrate battleship deck armor—had the carriers as their primary targets. They were to stay on those targets, even if the carriers had been sunk or capsized by the torpedo bombers.

Genda, true to his philosophy, assigned twice as many torpedo bombers per carrier than per battleship, despite the fact that fewer hits would sink a carrier. In other words, he allocated more than enough firepower to sink the carriers, but sent only enough firepower to cripple the battleships. He wanted to guarantee the carriers would never be salvaged.

Inadequate Rehearsal Sets the Stage for Gaffes
The Imperial Japanese Navy had begun preparing for the Pacific War in earnest in 1938. They grounded their hopes that their smaller navy would prevail through better tactics, better weapons, and better training. Realism, not safety precautions, drove their intensive preparations. Destroyers practiced torpedo attacks at night and in poor weather at high speed, resulting in some catastrophic collisions. Night bombing attacks were practiced while searchlights dazzled the pilots, resulting in midair collisions. The cost in airplanes and lives was deemed acceptable.

Yet the attack on Pearl Harbor went forward without a realistic dress rehearsal. Each mission type—dive-bomber, level bomber, torpedo bomber, and fighter—trained independently. The Japanese simply did not practice combined arms doctrine, which utilizes different types of units in complementary ways to achieve an objective. There was no combined training until the very end, when the Japanese staged two practice attacks against target battleships at anchor in Japan’s Inland Sea, and against a nearby airfield. But the ships were not arrayed as in Pearl Harbor, the sun angle and geography were different, and the approaches were nothing like Oahu’s narrow lochs. The torpedo bombers apparently did not even employ the attack formation they would later use. On top of all that, they repeatedly concentrated on the easiest targets; no corrective action was taken.

Poor Planning Neglects a Likely Contingency
On the eve of their departure, the planners realized that everything they had devised and practiced was based on achieving surprise. What if the Americans were alert?

Genda met with Lieutenant Commander Mitsuo Fuchida, the strike commander, and Lieutenant Shigeharu Murata, the torpedo bomber commander, in the flagship’s wardroom after departing from Japan. They devised a modification to the master plan: Fuchida, leading the first wave, would fire one flare for “surprise achieved” or two flares for “surprise lost.” If the Americans were on the alert, the first-wave dive-bombers—which, in the original plan, were to orbit north of the harbor until the torpedo bombers finished their attack—would surge ahead and bomb Ford Island and Hickam Field to draw antiaircraft fire from the torpedo bombers.

This last-minute change held the spark of chaos. It was formulated without any flag officer or senior staff captain present; Genda and Fuchida were probably embarrassed that they had neglected such an obvious contingency. Murata objected to the plan, unwilling to risk his vulnerable torpedo bombers against an awakened defense, but was overruled. Reflecting the lack of a combined arms approach, the new plan was cemented without input from the fighter or dive-bomber leaders.

Another key contingency emerged at the last minute—and was ignored. The day before the strike, Japanese intelligence reported that there were no carriers in Pearl Harbor. Genda could have redirected the attack to focus on battleships and cruisers. However, a staff officer expressed hope that the carriers might return in the few hours remaining before the attack. Genda brightened: “If that happened, I don’t care if all eight battleships are away.” The plan remained unchanged.

Communications Blunder Distorts Attack Plan
As the first wave neared Oahu’s northern shore just after 7:30 a.m. on December 7, clouds blocked the route down the center of Oahu. Fuchida veered, leading the way down the island’s west side. After the massed formation cleared the clouds, he made no attempt to regain the planned track.

Spotting no sign that their presence had been detected, Fuchida fired a single flare to activate the “surprise” attack plan. When the fighters did not take up their assigned positions, however, he assumed they had missed the signal and fired another—without considering that the observers might take this as the two-flare signal. He groaned as the dive-bomber leader, believing that surprise had been lost, raced ahead of the torpedo bombers to make his diversionary attack.

Fuchida later told Gordon Prange, the author of At Dawn We Slept (1981), that he “ground his teeth in rage [but later] realized that the error made no practical difference.” He also diverted blame onto the dive-bomber leader—“that fool Takahashi, he was a bit soft in the head.”

Fuchida’s blunder did in fact make a monumental practical difference: with half the aviators trying to execute a different plan, order disintegrated as the dive-bombers and torpedo bombers raced each other to the harbor like horses released from the starting gate at the Kentucky Derby. The dive-bombers arrived first, without climbing to standard bombing altitude, which reduced the accuracy of their attacks. Their bombs, exploding on Ford Island and Hickam Field, awoke American defenders aboard ships in the harbor.

Because the attack groups split up west rather than north of the harbor, the torpedo bombers assigned to strike the carrier moorings commenced their attack about five minutes before their counterparts assigned to Battleship Row. This granted still more reaction time for the defenders; on average, around 25 percent of each vessel’s antiaircraft guns were manned and stocked with ammunition as the attack began. As a result, the first torpedo bomber to attack a battleship was met with heavy fire. Most of the torpedo planes were hit, and five of the last seven to arrive were shot down, all due to Fuchida’s mistake.

Torpedo Bomber Formation Errors Result in Chaos
The planners had selected a long single-file attack formation for the torpedo bombers, with 500-meter (7-second) intervals between aircraft, which they believed suited Pearl Harbor’s long, narrow lochs. It proved a poor choice.

In the confusion following Fuchida’s blunder with the flares, and the pilots’ apparent lack of practice in changing from cruise to attack formation, up to 1,800 meters (30 seconds) stretched between aircraft, and miles opened between the two formations that were to attack Battleship Row. Pilots lost sight of their leaders, or even the aircraft ahead, and had to gain altitude and circle to get their bearings. Some broke away from their formation leader and attacked independently. There were mistakes, aborted runs, misidentified targets, and at least one near collision that forced a bomber to jettison its torpedo.

Instead of a tightly timed attack lasting 90 seconds, the torpedo attack stretched out over 11 minutes, with torpedo bombers spaced far apart, allowing the defenders’ antiaircraft fire to concentrate on each in turn.

At this point, Japanese fighters had detached to strafe nearby airfields. Had American fighters been aloft over the harbor, instead of grounded by communication issues, the scattered torpedo bombers could easily have been slaughtered.

With no carriers in port, nearly half the torpedo bombers fell into disarray over which ships to target.

Lieutenant Hirata Matsumara, leading 16 torpedo bombers, struggled to identify targets against the early morning sun’s glare—a challenge the rehearsals had not prepared him for. Impatient aviators surged ahead and Matsumara’s formations disintegrated. Six torpedo bombers misidentified the demilitarized battleship Utah as a frontline battleship and attacked, scoring only two hits. One torpedo missed Utah so badly it hit the light cruiser Raleigh in an adjacent berth. Considering that this first wave was unopposed by enemy fighters and flew the easiest approach—similar to rehearsals, when 83 percent of the torpedo bombers hit their targets—it was a miserable performance.

The remaining 10 bombers in the carrier attack group swung south of Ford Island looking for battleships; none of the aviators wanted to come home from the most important battle in Japanese history to say they had attacked a secondary target. Five misidentified the backlit silhouette of the old minelayer Oglala, moored outboard of the light cruiser Helena, as a battleship; only one torpedo hit. In all, 11 of the 16 torpedoes from the group assigned to attack carriers—more than a quarter of the 40 torpedoes in the entire attack—were launched at misidentified targets.

The Battleship Row attackers made their runs under heavy fire, further hampered by the remaining bombers from Matsumara’s group that were trying to squeeze in their attacks at the same time. All were desperate to drop their torpedoes before the defending antiaircraft fire became more intense and, just as in rehearsals, aimed mostly at the easiest targets—the battleships Oklahoma and West Virginia. Of the 19 total torpedo hits, these two battleships absorbed 12—nearly two-thirds of the hits. Four of these were overkill, wasted torpedoes that would have been more effective against the battleships California, which received only two hits, and Nevada, which received just one.

Only 11 torpedo hits were against properly identified targets that were part of the objective; the score rises to 13 if the accidental hits on the cruisers Raleigh and Helena are included. Thus, at best 33 percent of the torpedoes brought to the battle were effective—far short of the 67 percent Genda had expected.

Just before the 81 second-wave dive-bombers launched, the pilots were informed that the American carriers were not in port. Rather than turning their focus to the secondary targets—cruisers—word was circulated that they were to finish off ships damaged in the first attack. Many of the pilots took this vague declaration as an order to strike battleships, despite the known ineffectiveness of their general-purpose bombs in this role.

While the second wave approached the harbor, Fuchida—after dropping his armor-piercing bomb (a miss)—spent 30 minutes circling the harbor. He could have identified targets for the dive-bombers and directed their attacks. Instead, he did nothing. The most senior aviator over Pearl Harbor was a passive observer.

The dive-bomber pilots, left to select targets, wasted most of their ordnance. Forty percent of the dive-bombers went after battleships. Another 7 dropped their payload on destroyers misidentified as cruisers, 16 attacked auxiliary vessels misidentified as cruisers or battleships, 8 bombed a destroyer in dry dock, 2 attacked an oiler in the channel, and 1 attacked an ammunition ship. One may even have attacked the Dutch liner Jagersfontein in Honolulu Harbor, 10 miles away. Only 14 of the 78 bombers that arrived at Pearl Harbor attacked appropriate targets—cruisers.

The Japanese expected their dive-bombers to land 49 hits, a 60 percent success rate; even with a charitable definition of what constitutes a hit, they achieved only 15 hits, or 19 percent. Three bombs that had been aimed at battleships missed so badly they hit destroyers, so only 15 percent of the bombs actually hit their intended targets—another miserable performance.

Five hits were scored on the battleship Nevada, a ship already sufficiently damaged by a torpedo strike in the first wave. These hits triggered a damage control blunder by the Americans, which ultimately sank the ship. Single hits on California and Pennsylvania caused little damage.

The remaining second-wave dive-bombers contributed nothing to Japan’s objective of immobilizing the Pacific Fleet for six months. There was only one direct hit on a cruiser, Raleigh, but like the Nevada it had already been torpedoed and would be out of the war for six months. A near miss caused some flooding aboard the cruiser Honolulu, quickly repaired. Three hits landed on a destroyer in a floating dry dock. Another hit on an aircraft tender was later mended in a single day at the San Diego shipyard.

Overall, the Japanese attack fell far short of its potential. There were eight battleships and eight cruisers in port; four of each were accessible to torpedo attack. The Japanese had more than enough armor-piercing bombs to sink the ships inaccessible to torpedoes, along with two of the four battleships that were either double-berthed or in dry dock, and enough general-purpose bombs to sink all of the cruisers. But instead of destroying 14 of the 16 priority targets, they dropped killing ordnance on only three: Oklahoma, West Virginia, and Arizona. Two other battleships —California and Nevada—later sank because of flooding, damage control errors, and poor construction. This raised the score to 5 of the 16 priority targets, or only 31 percent—a poorly planned and executed attack, no matter how it is dissected.

Tpday visitors to Hawaii can take a personal Pearl Harbor Tour through the many areas of interest.

Lessons of a Flawed Victory
Its flaws aside, however, the attack’s results are all too familiar. Japan succeeded in taking the United States by surprise. Five battleships sank; the loss of American lives shook the nation to its core. December 7, 1941, will never cease to live in infamy.

But examining the attack’s planning and execution blunders offers a key perspective on the Pacific War. Defeat forces change; victory entrenches the current system, with all its faults.

By celebrating its success at Pearl Harbor, Japan sheltered myriad problems. Victory obscured poor planning, to be seen again at Midway; poor staff procedures were evident later at Guadalcanal. Poor target selection, attack tactics, and accuracy appeared again in the carrier battles; poor aerial command and control manifested throughout the war. Victory perpetuated a samurai approach to aerial combat that led to horrendous losses.

Most significantly, Pearl Harbor cemented the Japanese belief that they could achieve stunning victory against all odds—that with sufficient will and the favor of the gods they could achieve the impossible. This sustained Japan when defeat was inevitable; it prolonged the war; it nurtured the Bushido warrior spirit—and its dark side, the kamikaze. Paradoxically, the Japanese victory at Pearl Harbor firmly entrenched the seeds of the destruction of their navy, and near destruction of their nation.

Skip to toolbar