And the Record Companies Think we Should all Purchase Vinyl

Via Sarah Hoyt at Instapundit, a fascinatng article on the publishing industry:

Publishers, seeking to capitalize on the shift, are pouring money into their print infrastructures and distribution. Hachette added 218,000 square feet to its Indiana warehouse late last year, and Simon & Schuster is expanding its New Jersey distribution facility by 200,000 square feet.
Penguin Random House has invested nearly $100 million in expanding and updating its warehouses and speeding up distribution of its books. It added 365,000 square feet last year to its warehouse in Crawfordsville, Ind., more than doubling the size of the warehouse.

Basically, publishers got into a big fight with Amazon, which wouldn't let them charge more than $9.99 for their books. The publishers 'won', and now charge more, $15.99 for a an old Star Trek title. The result has been that their ebook sales have dropped and their soft/hard cover sales have increased.

When one prices oneself out of the market ($15.99) sales will decrease. '

I myself have hemmed and hawed about kindle prices for a few years now. $2.99 is the magic number, Amazon gives you $70 percent. Some of my titles are $4.99, one is $5.99 and one $6.99. I charge a price as high as I think I can get that won't affect sales.

The publishers want is to buy physical books. I want to too. I own maybe half a dozen kindle history books. Year after year I accrue dozens of more history books. Right now I have a stack of hundred year old WWI memoirs. I love them, but that's another post.

Fifteen years ago, when Metallica figured out Napster was robbing them blind, the music industry tried to kill digital music.

I'm not sure exactly what the publishing industry's game is, but I'm getting the same vibe on digital in 2015 as I was in 2000.

Maybe it isn't me (Cuban Edition)

Alert readers have probably noticed that I like cigars.

The esteemed Michael Ledeen notices something about Cuban cigars:

I spend a fair amount of time in Europe, where there is no Cuban embargo, and thus you can buy all the Cuban cigars you want. I’ve had some, but for the most part I’ve given them up. The Dominicans and Nicaraguans are much better cigars nowadays. The great Cuban cigar makers brought tobacco seed with them when they fled Castro’s tyranny, and over the course of the past half-century they have gotten better and better. More important, they have good quality control, whereas the Cubans don’t.

Of course, one cannot get Cubans in America. Like all American cigar smokers, the first thing I do when out of the country was try to get my hands on some Cubans:

Got some in Bermuda once, Canada another time. I have to say, I was extremely disappointed. I felt like I was smoking a rolled up wet newspaper. The first few times I thought the problem was me. I am, after all, merely an American, with an American palate. Mine simply wasn't refined enough for a true Cuban. But Michael Ledeen is noticing the same thing.

Honestly, the cigar manufacturers have been producing cigars outside of Cuba for nearly 60 years. They've probably gotten pretty good at it by now.

Cuban cigars exist on reputation only. I'll take a nice Dominican.

Inoculation for the Crits

Great review of Israel Strikes on Amazon: 

This book reads like an Israeli " Red Storm Rising" and its opening is very much like the Soviet surprise capture of Iceland that starts Tom Clancy's famous book about WWIII in the 1980s. My only complaint is that while the book does look at some likely geopolitical repercussions of such a conflict, it does not take the time to look more deeply into each area of the military technology involved - the book could have been much longer.

For me there is no higher comparison than to 'Red Storm Rising.' Its among the first real novels I ever read and easily the most influential.

The last two points are interesting.

First, though Israel Strikes is what used to be known in the business as a 'techno-thriller', I didn't want to talk about technology. Tom Clancy did that, talking about military technology in great detail, so much so that he got visited by the U.S. Navy which demanded to know where he got his info. Clancy's was interesting at the time. When I want to know about the Israeli Popeye Turbo missile, I just have to Google it. Tom Clancy didn't have that option. While he had stacks of Jane's Fighting Ships and lord knows what else at his desk, Clancy also had people in the know feeding him information.

As for Israel Strike's being longer, well, I guess it is. There is a sequel after all. As discussed in a previous post, I try to keep my books around 60,000-70,000 words. That way its manageable to me. I never want a book to take more than a year from writing the first page to actual publication.

The Blue and the Gray (Prussian)

In the works I have a trio of short alt-hist novels [World War 1990 was supposed to be a 'short' alt-hist novel, how did that work out? -ed], the last of which centers around a rather far fetched idea.

Briefly, its 1871 and America enters the Franco-Prussian War to save the French. I have no idea how the U.S. gets involved or what the reaction of the rest of the world would be or even if such a thing was even remotely considered by anyone in the United States.

Think about it. You have President Grant sending the U.S. Army to France, undoubtedly under the command of General Sherman. Sherman fighting the Prussians, now that has some interesting possibilities, no? Sherman's March to the Rhine?

Of course the U.S. having decommissioned its million man army in 1865, will have to start from scratch. Then there is the issue of weapons, are the blue coats going over with muzzle loading rifles? How are American repeaters going to stack up against the Prussian needle gun? How about Prussian artillery against American artillery?

Just think of the possible story arc with the inclusion of a disgruntled ex-confederate or two?

Far-fetched I know. But I think the idea is totally original. Over there in 1871? Why not?

Taking a Look at W, the Good-Foreign Policy

In a previous post I noted everything I felt was wrong with George W. Bush and his administration.

Now lets see what he did right.

First off his leadership after 9/11. There is no need to post clips and remember his swagger here, we all know what W. did.

He kept us safe. Some troll will say 'W. knew'. This argument is based on the 'infamous' August 6th memo. The memo in question is easily found and is completely obvious. Bush 'knew' about 9/11 in the sense that someone reading this 'knows' ISIS is planning to attack us now.

Let us not forget that he did something which pundits thought would be impossible, who in December of 2001 were already throwing the 'quagmire' word around, he liberated Afghanistan. The method was intriguing, native troops supported by Special Forces and CIA paramilitaries and American air power. It worked well and was repeated in Northern Iraq, and in Ethiopia against the Islamic Courts Union.

Iraq was liberated. After the initial liberation the war settled down into a true mess, during which W managed to rebuild the infrastructure, and build from scratch a government which included a constitution. He built the Iraqi Army, which fought decently during the crucial phase in 2007-2008. And most importantly he implemented the Surge, which won the campaign.

On a different note, when Putin invaded Georgia, W. was steadfast in his support. He flew a Georgian infantry brigade back from Iraq, sent arms and ammo to the Georgians, dispatched a US Navy ship to dock at Georgia's main port, and was extremely critical of Vladimir Putin, so  much so that the two publicly argued at the Beijing Games.

Of course, W. was very much on Israel's side during the 2002 war with Fatah, the 2006 Hezbollah War, and the 2008 Hamas War. He and Tony Blair marginalized Yassir Arafat and replaced him with Makmud Abbas.

Now, W. did  misread Putin early on (where was Condi Rice, the Russia expert) and was far to close to the Saudis. But overall W. has a fine foreign policy record.

Update, Operation Eastern Storm

As noted before, I am George Lucas.

This weekend, while editing World War 1990: Operation Eastern Storm, I had a vision. The problem with the book was that its too long, like Attack of the Clones or Revenge of the Sith.

For example, Revenge of the Sith should have ended with young Anakin going over the lava fall. Instead that light saber duel goes on for ever. Another example, and I'll be blasphemous. Lawrence of Arabia.At 3:42 its too damn long. LoA should have ended with Lawrence getting back to Cairo and meeting with Allenby. Instead we get an extra hour and a half of desert combat sequences and a truly bizarre scene in which Larry allows himself to be captured and nearly molested by Jose Ferar.

So I lopped 30,000 words off of Operation Eastern Storm, that puts it right around 60,000, which is the length of most of my novels. Those other 30,000 words? Well, they're the first half of World War 1990: Revolt of the Slavs.

Battle Extraordinaire II

I was just looking for a clip from the wondering WWII movie, Kelly's Heroes. I didn't find the clip I was looking for, but I did find this. Behold:

I have always love this scene, the way the American Shermans blow the hell out of everything German, leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. Oddball and his tankers are very thorough, don't you think. Great scene and one I've tried to imitate at times in my writing. Here's the Israelis laying waste to Port Sudan in Israel Strikes, War of the Red Sea. Enjoy:

On the inlet's north bank, a platoon of Merkeva tanks drove along the quay.  Lacking a proper map, the platoon navigated with a Google Earth app on its iPhone. As his gunner traversed the turret left and took aim at a silo, he said, 'Forget those. They're grain silos.'            'Hey, I just saw some guys running between the silos.'            'Well if you see them again, give them the machine gun. We're looking for some fuel storage tanks. They should be....' he looked down at his phone, 'up ahead.'            The commander looked through his infrared sight and spotted the fuel tanks.            'Alright, there they are, two hundred....two-hundred and twenty yards. Gunner, HE round.'            'Up.'            'Fire.'            As a fireball engulfed fuel storage tanks, on the south bank  Captain Yossi's  Merkeva platoon systematically destroyed the up-loaders there by firing armor piercing shells into each leg. Each up loader strained and then toppled into the water. From there they advanced northwest off the quay to the port's administrative center, a complex of three buildings. The quartet of tanks formed a line, and as Sudanese soldiers ran in all directions, they fired a volley of HE rounds into the ground floors. A second volley and then a third volley followed.
            'Alright,' said Yossi as the growing fire light illuminated the ground before them, 'We head up and then left to the next set of up-loaders.'            The Merkevas advanced right past the flaming buildings until they came to another dock. Here they brought four more up-loaders under fire, collapsing them all.            'What next? What next?' one of the tank commanders enthusiastically asked.            Yossi consulted his iPhone.            'Google Earth shows another fuel storage complex about...' he did a quick measurement...'about 500 meters south of here. We retrace our steps and then head out that way...'

With them, it's Always Morning in America

Via Breitbart's John Nolte, Jeb Bush's latest ad:

Gimmie a break.

John Nolte calls this a flashback from 1997 but its more like 1984 and Reagan's morning in America ads.

Look guys, Ronald Reagan is the greatest president of my lifetime, but it ain't 1980 anymore. It reminds me of the Dems in said '80s always looking around for the next JFK. Ugh. There is no next Reagan. There is no Reagan but Reagan (PBUH).

Nolte is right in general, though. Jeb Bush is a very 1990's candidate. He wants to talk about school choice, and tax reform and a host of other wonkish issues. That's the way to lose in 2016.

Speaking of losing, Jeb has lost at the most inopportune times. He lost the race for governor in 1994 when the GOP one everywhere else. And in 2000 he couldn't deliver Florida to his own brother.

Maybe he was a conservative governor, I dunno. I do know that he is not the GOP's ideal candidate for 2016.

The De Blassio-Corbyn Axis

So Jeremy Corbyn is the new leader of the British Labour Party.

In the British Spectator, Nick Cohen castigates Corbyn and the new/old/new Left, or whatever, in general:

A few on the British left are beginning to realise what they have done. Feminists were the first to stir from their slumber. They were outraged this week when Corbyn gave all his top jobs to men. I have every sympathy. But really, what did they expect from a man who never challenged the oppression of women in Iran when he was a guest on the state propaganda channel? You cannot promote equality at home while defending subjugation abroad and it was naive to imagine that Corbyn would try. 

The women’s issue nicely illustrates the damage he can do, even if he never becomes prime minister. When Labour shows by its actions that it doesn’t believe in women’s equality, the pressure on other institutions diminishes. Secularists and liberal Muslims will feel a different kind of prejudice. They will no longer get a hearing for their campaigns against forced marriage and sharia law from a Labour party that counts the Muslim Brotherhood among his allies. 

The position of the Jews is grimmer still. To be blunt, the new leader of the opposition is ‘friends’ with men who want them dead. One Jewish Labour supporter told me, ‘I feel like a gay man in the Tory party just after they’ve passed Section 28.’ Another described his position as ‘incredibly exposed’. He had ‘come to understand in the last few weeks, quite how shallow the attachment of the left is to principles which I thought defined it.’

Blairism is dead as is Bill Clinton's Third Way. It will be remembered that Blair and Clinton came to power only after they brought their parties to the center. Till then, both had been in the grips of left wing politicians, Labour more so, but true of the Dems as well. Anyone my age remembers the string of Dem presidential catastrophes, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis...they were a regular feature of any Gen X childhood. 1992 was my first presidential election, and I loudly declared  that if the race comes down to George Bush or some schmuck liberal, I'm voting for Bush. I even wrote an English 101 essay on it. Got an A.

I voted for Bill Clinton.

What annoys one most about the left is their refusal to give up. Twenty years after Rudy Giuliani cleaned up NYC, uber-leftist Mayor Bill DeBlasio is undermining all of Rudy's 'broken window' and 'quality of life' policies. Remember, it was just 20 years ago that porn shops and peep shows were in time square. The left has been roundly trounced on the gun-control issue, yet here they are pushing gun-control as the solution to crime and school massacres.   Here they are, wanting to raise taxes on everybody.

In his association with Jew haters and terrorists, Corbyn reveals his Stalinesque nihilism. He talks of high taxes, nationalization and nuclear disarmament, as if the 1970's never happened. As bad as the 1970s were in America, they were far worse in Britain with recurring labor shutdowns, power outages and currency crisis. Why can't they learn from this?

Why its almost as if Corbyn misses the winter of discontent.

The coming War in Lebanon

Interesting article in Ynet, about Israeli thinking regarding the looming war with Hezbollah:

While Hezbollah is deeply submerged in the Syrian quagmire, and despite a substantial interest in avoiding confrontation with Israel, over the past year the organization's leadership has been preparing for the Third Lebanon War as though it will begin tomorrow. This derives mainly from a decision by Nasrallah and members of Iran's Quds Force about a year ago to change the strategy towards Israel.

The article predicts Hezbollah attempts to cross into Israeli territory, a massive Hezbollah missile barrage (they boast an arsenal of 100,000 at least) and well organized Hezbollah meeting Israeli ground forces with anti-tank missiles and RPGs. Also of note is the fact that Hezbollah has been fighting in Lebanon for several years, giving its troops valuable field experience.

This is similar to what I wrote in Israeli Strikes, though I did not have Hezbollah actually try to take Israeli territory. Hezbollah does launch a few sea born terror attacks, just like Hamas did during the Gaza War last year. I too show Hezbollah meeting the IDF with a fusillade of missiles and rockets.
Interestingly, the article claims Hezbollah is not digging tunnels into Israel, or at least the IDF hasn't uncovered any.

Honestly it doesn't take a lot of imagination to figure out Hezbollah's game plan.

Of course there are unknown unknowns.

Sometimes I wonder, or even hope, I guess, that the IDF has read Israel Strikes. Maybe its even become an essential part of their list of recommended reading? Officers all over Israel are even now pouring over Israel Strikes looking for morsels of insight into the next war. Then one night an urgent phone call, 'Mr. Stroock, I' afraid there's a crisis on the border, and high command could use some insights from an outside source. There's a car out front waiting to take you to the airport...'

Maybe I can be the next Donald Kagan?

Taking a look at W. - the bad.

The recent 9/11 anniversary has put George W. Bush on my mind, a man for whom I voted twice and against once.

W. and his admin were capable of some stunningly cynical moves such as Campaign Finance Reform, which has never really worked anyway and the steel tariff, a sop to PA labor unions which didn't yield any electoral results. Not unusual for a president. Bill Clinton (voted for him once and against him twice) vetoed welfare reform twice before signing it into law.

He made great mistakes in the Iraq campaign, but what president doesn't make mistakes in war? It took Lincoln two years to find his general. Roosevelt sent the U.S. Army into the field with under gunned and armored tanks and acquiesced to Churchill's Mediterranean adventures which distracted from the main goal - Germany. Under Truman he U.S. Army was in no way prepared for war in Korea.

In many ways his biggest mistake was political, and we may place much of the blame for that on Karl Rove. Bush came into office in the aftermath of the Clinton Wars, where Newt Gingrich and the GOP were fighting one kind of war, while Clinton the Dems were fighting another. Newt wanted to have a grand debate about the natural and role of government. Bill Clinton simply accused him of wanting to starve children and throw old people out on the street. This came to a head with the Medicare-government shutdown of 1995. The GOP lost that fight and was vulnerable to 'starving granny' lines of attacks thereafter.

Bush and Rove's strategy was essentially defensive, an attempt not to give the Dems ammo. Don't do anything too controversial, don't do anything too radical. We saw this in operation during his first term.

When Bush came into office, he proposed a 1.5 trillion dollar tax cut, a minor adjustment of the rates really. After he liberated Iraq he proposed another minor rate adjustment. Now contrast this with the Obama administration. When they took office they proposed and passed a radical healthcare reform law, despite that law being very unpopular. After getting trounced in the 2014 midterms, Obama then signed the Iran nuclear treaty, again despite the treaty being very unpopular.

Despite controlling the executive and legislative branch from 2003-2007, Bush did absolutely nothing to rein in government spending and instead ran big deficits, the worst being $500 billion as I recall, and added trillions in debt. Republicans in the '90s had great plans to lop off whole cabinet departments- Education, Labor, Commerce, Energy, Bush, despite controlling the legislative and executive branches it cannot not be said enough, couldn't even knock out the honey subsidy.

Instead of timidity, Bush should have tried to implement some more serious reforms. In 2001 he should have proposed his Social Security reform. He tried this of course in 2005 but it went no where. And in 2003, instead of a minor tax cut, he should have proposed a major tax overhaul.

Go big. Obama would have.

This political timidity showed itself in other areas, specifically the Iraq debate. The left has no problem whatsoever with accusing the right of malice and bad faith. During the 5 years in Iraq, Bush and the GOP simply refused to do this. Instead they defended the war, made reasoned arguments about why we had to stay about what would happen when we leaved, but international Islamic terror in general, all while being called liars and killers by the Dems.

The timidity even reared its ugly head in the days after 9/11.Early on Bush made a reference to fighting a 'crusade' against terror, Islamic and leftist groups in America immediately went into outrage mode over use of the word and Bush apologized. He should have said, 'I used a word that means a great and righteous endeavor. Instead of being outraged by that, those complaining shout be enraged by the pile of smoldering rubble in Manhattan.' He had these rhetorical problems throughout the war. Operation Enduring Freedom (yawn) was originally named Operation Infinite Justice a much better more telling and menacing name that was changed because someone at the State Department was worried it would offend Muslim sensibilities. The president should have been outraged at THAT. 'They're sensibilities?' he should have exclaimed.

'War on terror' is of course a terrible name, so obviously bad it needn't be discussed here.

In short, the Bush Administration was always on the rhetorical defensive. This, more than anything else, handicapped it, especially in the second term.

Getting away with it

A colleague of mine recently wrote about 'democratizing' the class room. Specifically he is now instructing students to simply refer to him by his first name. Let's call him Chuck.

Chuck fits the part. He's in his early thirties, has a scraggy beard, wears a stupid fedora, and generally dresses like an out of work barista. Understand, I am not judging Chuck's ability as a professor, because I have no idea one way or the other.  He is well liked and widely published in his field so this speaks well for.

I have never invited students to call me 'Will'. And I prefer a jacket and tie in class. I used to wear suits a lot, but after a time I felt like I was over doing it. So a professorial jacket and tie it is. On the first day I like to sweep into the classroom, unsmiling and stone-faced, like Darth Vader walking into the Rebel base on Hoth. I have it on good authority that this is quiet intimidating and inspires some students to lament,'Oh my god. What have I signed up for.'

Which is fine.

I need to set off on that foot because then I open my mouth and become the nice, friendly, stereotypical, jolly-faced American that I am.

Here's the thing, though. You can get away with a lot when you're wearing a coat and tie. People just naturally assume you know what you're talking about. Heck, I could start teaching about the ancient Gabanuii people and these kids would hang on every word I say. And they'd believe me.

I get side tracked. In the autumn we'll spend first ten minutes of the Monday class going over the NFL. I will stop what I'm doing and tell a dumb joke. I'll spend five minutes lamenting that I have three little girls. I'll complain about being a pathetic, middle-aged loser. Then we go back to the Romans.

I was wearing a jacket and tie. You can get away with a lot, like that, you know.

I Got a Case of the Crits

Who are these people that go on Amazon and point out a small error that I made? Yes, I put Faslane on the wrong side of Britain. I wrote about ranks that don't even exist in the Royal Navy. I made a reference to a Mig-27 Flanker when everyone knows a Mig-27 is a Sukhoi. I did kind of slip into British naval usage for the USN having Yanks say 'Here comes USS New Jersey) rather than, 'Here comes the USS New Jersey'.

And of course the typos. Those make me want to gouge my eyes out.

This review is just brutal. This guy took his time, thought things out, probably had his wife read it over. He really wanted to trash my book.

My editor (PBUH), who deserves a raise and should bill me for the psycho-therapy she'll require for knowing me, had to hold me and tell me how pretty I am just to make me forget how slutty the review made me feel.

Here's the thing, I really don't care about the mistakes. Flanker/Sukhoi, whatever. 95% of the names, dates, places are right. Focus on those. I try to write good stories, not perfect stories.

Of course, there's this guy. What the hell, man? I'm not in the NRA and as I noted in WW1990's intro, in 1992 I voted for Clinton. The reviewer found my swarms of armed Alaskans battling Soviet paratroopers off putting an far-fetched. What, he's never heard of Lexington-Concord? And if it weren't for armed Americans like them we'd all be speaking....well, whatever.

A reviewer on Goodreads once said of Israel Strikes that I have a world view but am not obnoxious about it. By which I think he means, yes the Israelis are obviously the good guys in Israel Strikes but I don't preach. I have a world view, it seeps into my writing. As I tell my students, my politics will become obvious after a while, but I never bash people over the head.

World War 1990 is apolitical. My politics didn't put the reader off of WW1990. His politics did.

The American Expeditionary Force: Coming Over Here

I own 127 books about the First World War, John J. Pershing and the American Expeditionary Force. These I have collected over the last five years.

I have plenty of general histories, usually I rely on the work of John Keegan or Liddell-Hart but there are others. I have also amassed a half dozen books each on the French, British, and German armies. What's left is about a hundred books all covering the AEF. the pride of the collection is original printings of Pershing's memoirs and those of his two army commanders, Robert Lee Bullard and the very underrated Hunter Liggett. I also own books on all the individual American battles, these are Cantigney, the Marne defense, Belleau Wood, the Marne Offensive, St. Mihiel, and the grand finally at Meuse-Argonne.

There are many personal memoirs from guys in the trenches to be had, and I have most of them. One can also spend a lot of time looking into Pershing's dealings with the Allies and with the U.S. government.

Interestingly, most of the divisions raised during the war formed alumni societies after the war. Each published its own official history. Original copies can be had or digital reprints. These official histories are pretty useful and usually beam with pride at their division's accomplishments. Here's the Big Red One recounting its exploits at Cantigny and there is the 'Rainbows' describing its actions on the Marne, and the 82md describing how it rescued the 'Lost Battalion'. Many volumes include after action reports and official citations.

Well, the reader might be wonder, why is Stroock telling us all this?

I have for the last several years I've been working on a history of Pershing and the AEF. Many of the early chapter drafts have been published in magazines such as Strategy & Tactics, Military Heritage and Against the Odds. So far the ToC looks like this:

-Intro

-The Old Army

-The Man Pershing

-Over There

-The Legacy of the Blue & the Gray

-The Bureaucratic Struggle

-The First Fights

-The Marne Attack

-St. Mihiel and preparation

-Meuse-Argonne: John J. Pershing

-The Ordeal of the 79th Division at Montfaucon

-Meuse-Argonne: Hunter Liggett

-The Fighting 89th

-What if?: Pershing's War, 1919

-Was John J. Pershing Right?

 Most of the chapters are written and I expect to be done by the end of this year