Perhaps I've been spoiled by Salon's superlative reporting over the years, and perhaps I expected great things from this piece given the wonderful imagery on the link. What then could be more frustrating than to read something written by a person in harm's way that contains numerous factual inaccuracies??

The Command Sergeant Major in question was not an officer, nor was he technically in command of anything. Command Sergeant Major is an enlisted rank, not a position. (And if he ever reads your article he will probably knock your block off!!)

Helicopters do not have propellors, they have rotors. In any case, the rotors operate within a narrow performance band. In other words they never really speed up or slow down - they increase pitch and power instead. A forgivable error, but #2 in any case.

An AH-64 Apache Helicopter can carry at maximum 1200 rounds of 30MM ammunition. How one helicopter could dispense "several thousand rounds" of ammunition at one go is a mystery to me. Further, the rate of fire of the M230 cannon is 625 rounds per minute. Even assuming that 2000 rounds constitutes "several" it would still take three minutes of uninterrupted firing to discharge the amount stated.

Great wartime reportage must by definition be accurate and raw. It must not embellish, trivialize, or simplify. It must connect with our nerve endings directly, the more so because we know it is as bare as it is accurate. If your correspondent (or his editor) couldn't get the above items correct, how can we trust him on the remainder of his observations??

We can't.

C'mon Joan, you can do better than this - get off my Teevee and edit your magazine!!

(I look forward to your corrections!!)

Patrick my friend,

You do many things well, and keeping the wild eyed innocents from the mercies of the press at large is the least of your contributions. As one of those kids that not only watched Cubs and Champs circle the field I also ended up spending over 800 hours of my life in the front seat of an original Cub giving instruction. Alas I digress...

Stick and Rudder is not a "well-known book about flying" rather it is the bible. If you want to fly, and fly well, then you will know this book as you would your own heart. You can become a pilot without reading and understanding this book, but if you do so you cannot fly the wing instead of the engine. This is sad, for true airmanship is dying each and every day at the altar of technical innovation. Your fascination with technology is wonderful, as is your ability to parse it for the common reader. Nonetheless each and every technological behemoth which you so avidly and enthusiastically describe follows the same simple rules as set forth by Wolfgang, and anyone seeking to pilot same would be well advised to read his book. The simple fact that technology cannot mute his wisdom is itself cause for celebration.

Keep up the good work- the world would be much worse off in your absence!! (Even if you don't recognize a certain greatness when presented with same!!)

Cheers,

dce

News Flash: Childbirth is a natural process. It happened majillions of times prior to the advent of the modern US approach to a medically mismanaged childbirth. It will always remain a natural and safe process, no matter how badly we gum up the works with narcotics, sharp knives, and ill-informed people.

Next news flash: Statistics show that home birth is safer by far than a hospital birth as measured by infant mortality. Further the US is not even in the top 20 in the world in expected life span as applied to infants. (Meaning of course that for all our supposed technology we are falling behind third world nations in infant mortality.) I think it follows that if Costa Rica can manage to get more babies through childbirth with non-invasive techniques then perhaps we should at least listen to the alternatives??

Individual people infuse the idea of natural childbirth with the same fervor and intimidation that other individuals use to promote the fear of terrorists. Natural childbirth is not dangerous, in fact statistics show that it is by far the best, safest, and most NATURAL way for a person to enter into the world. Yet if you advocate for this approach in America you are promptly labeled as a risk taking loon.

Evaluating and criticising the implementation of a natural process like childbirth is like invading a sovereign nation for no reason other than that existent in your own head. (They tell me he is bad, thus he must be bad, thus I must accept whatever they are telling me because they say he is bad..)

We may well be the dumbest and most willfully ignorant society yet placed upon this planet, (American Idol for Pete's sake??) and our childbirth methodology is reflective of this fact in so many sad ways. Lest you stone me for being a tree-hugging midwife please know that I am male, conservative, and an otherwise observant person.

Cheers!

dce

Don't let your laziness deter you!! Show me the myriad ways that a hospital birth is safer than a non-hospital birth as it relates to infant mortality!!

Ohh, you can't beacuse ummm.... you can't!!

As you are apparently lazy let me elucidate: Chilbirth in hospital more likely to kill baby than childbirth not in hospital.

Can't get any simpler than that!! (Laziness be damned)

Cheers!!

dce