 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
January 2007
Elsewhere on the WebVictor Davis Hanson’s Private Papers Victor Davis Hanson Archive on National Review OnlineTour Books
A War Like No Other How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War
by Victor Hanson
Amazon.com’s Best of 2001 Many theories have been offered regarding why Western culture has spread so successfully across the world, with arguments ranging from genetics to superior technology to the creation of enlightened economic, moral, and political systems. In Carnage and Culture, military historian Victor Hanson takes all of these factors into account in making a bold, and sure to be controversial, argument: Westerners are more effective killers.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan Hanson, for those who somehow have missed him until now, is a professor of Classics at California State and also is a part time farmer, both of which have contributed to his writing as a military historian. As a classicist, Hanson is well versed in the sources in their original Greek, and as a farmer he understands how agriculture affected the experience of the Greeks at war.
by Victor Davis Hanson
by Victor Davis Hanson
Hanson relates the life stories of his farmer neighbors, writing that their way of life will likely soon disappear, thanks in part to a federal system of agricultural subsidies that favors large-scale, industrial farm corporations over individual “yeomen.” This is a sobering and eye-opening book. by Victor Davis Hanson On first glance, The Soul of Battle appears to be three different books: biographies of two well-known generals—Sherman and Patton—and one who is virtually unknown today, the ancient Greek leader Epaminondas. Yet Victor Davis Hanson, a classics professor and author of The Western Way of War, makes a compelling connection between these three men. They were “eccentrics, considered unbalanced or worse by their own superiors” who led democratic armies on missions of freedom.
by Robert B. Strassler (Editor), Victor Davis Hanson (Introduction)
|
January 17, 2007 7:35 PM
Prosecutors to ActorsWhom to Fear? The Patriot Act? Wiretaps? Detention in Cuba? I doubt the average American is in much danger from some out-of-control government sleuth sending him to the Gulag, or putting her in a camp, or even reading his email. But there are things to be afraid of—out-of-control prosecutors who can trample all over jurisprudence if their cause is considered to be progressive and politically-correct. The prosecution of Scooter Libby is a travesty. If the federal prosecutor knew he had to select a jury in Omaha rather than Washington DC, he would never bring this non-case to trial. There are at least four considerations that are troubling about Mr. Fitzgerald’s case: (1) We know that Ms. Plame was not, as originally alleged, a covert, or undercover CIA agent at the time in question, and thus had no secret identity to be exposed; (2) we know the source that leaked the nature of her employment—and it was not Mr. Libby, at least initially and most prominently, but Mr. Armitage who apparently is not to be charged with anything (why not?); (3) we know that Mr. Wilson, as Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, lied about a great deal in connection with his trip to Niger and so far has escaped most accountability and probably will thereby seek to avoid testifying at the trial he once so eagerly demanded; (4) Mr. Libby is therefore being charged with obstruction of justice and perjury—not the original mandate of the prosecutor. Why not shut down the inquiry since it has not fulfilled its mission; then turn over the transcripts and testimony to local prosecutors to see if any feel there is a perjury case to be made? From my limited experience with trials (my late mother was a California Superior and Appellate Court Judge), perjury seems a rare charge, and most DAs do not peruse the testimony of witnesses to find contradictions to establish grounds for such indictments. But if both Mr. Libby and Mr. Fitzgerald knew that Ms. Plame was not a covert operative, and that someone other than Mr. Libby first mentioned her job status to Mr. Novak, what motive would Mr. Libby have had for lying—other than fear that something he might have said might be construed as some sort of culpable action by a blank-check prosecutor, who during these interrogations already knew, after Mr. Armitage’s confession, that apparently Mr. Libby was not to be the chief target of the original investigation? Lost in all this, of course, is the original concern that Ms. Plame used her influence to select her husband for a sensitive mission, at a time when he was already quite politicized. Meanwhile, Sandy Berger removes and destroys classified documents and gets a slap on the wrist without the worry of a Special Prosecutor. So Watch Out for the DA The Duke case is worse. Evidence withheld; procedures violated; confessions recanted. There is no chance the accused are guilty as charged—or of anything other than perhaps being buffoonish, sexually gross, or racially insensitive. But like the Libby case, the accused fit a preordained profile that unleashes the self-righteous mob, whether the Washington media corps or many of the Duke faculty and minority community. The one danger to civil liberties in the 1990s and 2000s has always been very clear: grandstanding DAs who can bring charges motivated by politics that will break, either financially or psychologically, their targets, especially in this age of sky-high litigation. Again, no liberal outcry arises about such unleashed prosecutors. Furor arises about comparing Iraq to elements in the Civil War. I get irate letters when suggesting parallels to the terrible summer of 1864 before Sherman took Atlanta when the betting was that Lincoln would not be renominated, much less reelected. Apparently the outrage comes from even the hint that a George Bush’s perseverance in the face of declining support is anything comparable to a deified Lincoln. But there are two other less remarked on parallels. First, the empowerment of the Iraqi Shiites, the perennially despised of the Arab world, through one-man/one vote, is as radical in the context of the contemporary Arab world as was emancipation to our own past. To receive an idea of the magnitude of the US-induced change, just image Britain, about 1855, landing in New Orleans, racing up the Mississippi and liberating slaves, and then staying on to jump start democratic suffrage in the South—all to be accomplished while Northerners, Southerners, and Westerners seethed at the foreign interloper, and turned on each other, as particular sectarians sought to ally with or oppose the British. Another Reconstruction We are in our fourth year of Reconstruction, and it is eerily similar to the Union efforts from 1865 to 1877. Militias like the Kuklux Klan proliferated. Marshal Law was declared in Tennessee. Judges were shot. Northern troops were too few and far between to protect Republican and black reformers. The public was exasperated that armies like Sherman’s that by late 1864 and 1865 had once sliced through the Confederacy in mere months could not even keep order in a conquered South, despite five military districts initially run by tough veteran Union generals. Assassinations, kidnappings, and terrorism were committed against supposed “collaborators” such as Republican politicians and black elected officials. Reconstruction administrators were often themselves thoroughly corrupt. And after the scandalous deal of 1876, over a century later books are still being written, as they are of Vietnam and will be of Iraq, about how Reconstruction would have finally worked—despite its legion of terrible mistakes—had only a weary public not given up on it. Some neocons who demanded in 1998 that Clinton take out Saddam, now castigate Bush for doing so. Recent exposés detailing too few troops, too much naiveté, too much democratic idealism, too little worry about Iran—are written by the same authors who warned in 1991 about too much realism, too little support for idealistic reformers, too much worry about Iran, too many troops, etc. In the 1980s James Baker was demonized by liberals as a high-priced, petrodollar lawyer masquerading as a realist diplomat; now he is canonized as a sober pragmatist. George Bush was attacked in 2000 for deriding nation-building—now after 9/11 he is attacked as the most daring nation-builder since Harry Truman. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd were aping John McCain through most of 2004-6 about Bush’s fatal decision to send too few peacekeepers; now they are furious that he is sending in more. And on and on, the only constant being that the New York/Washington elite scramble hourly to adjust their views to the perceived pulse of the battlefield—perceived being the operative word. No global warming here. At Huntington Lake at 7200 feet last night it was about 5 degrees and had been below zero earlier. Here in rural California, it was around 22 this week and below. So I’ve been spending most of the day fixing frozen water pipes that have cracked or trying to unclear those up in the mountains. Most of the surrounding citrus orchards look ruined. There is not all that much sugar yet in the fruit, and the ground has been really dry—just the conditions to ruin the crop when the cold hits. Otherwise grape and deciduous tree-growers like the hard cold, since it gives good dormancy by ensuring sufficient collective hours (500 or so) below 50. When driving through California each week from the Sierra to the Coast, what is most apparent is declining farm acreage. It is not just urbanization, but cumulative low prices that put growers out of business—that and high wages, insurance, workers’ compensation, and taxes. Grape, cotton, tree-fruit, wheat acreages are all down. And with current fights to restore 19th-century conditions to the Kings and San Joaquin Rivers there will only be less irrigation water, as a time when more people are moving to the interior. We forget that the Great Central Valley of California is by nature, except for a few miles near its rivers, a desert wasteland, and without irrigation would revert to that pre-20th century status rather quickly. Anyone who has seen the wonderful work of the San Joaquin River Conservancy agrees that restoring these rivers is a noble—and necessary—undertaking; but the rub is how to do so and still supply enough water to fuel agriculture, an art that for nearly two decades has produced more food with less water but is now running out of ways to economize. Raising or building more damns would store more water in Sierra lakes, and allow more runoff for both farming and rivers, but purists oppose that as well, even as millions of acre feet run out to the delta in wet years while none at all flows in dry. The message is unmistakable: we want more land for houses, more water for suburbanites, recreation, and nature— and our current standard of living maintained. At some point, someone should remember the multi-billion-dollar California agricultural industry functions in a hostile business and government climate only due to the skill and perseverance of farmers—and the near perfect soil, water, and weather conditions of California for agriculture. Much of the standard of living of central California is based on those invisible in our midst who can figure a way out to convince Japanese, Chinese, Europeans, and Asians in general to import top-quality California almonds, beef, dried and fresh fruits, cheeses, wine, fibers, and juice. The San Joaquin Valley does not have numerous top universities, sophisticated high-tech industries, a defense or film or tourist sector to speak of, timber, minerals, or sports teams; but it is blessed with the best farmland and most skilled farmers in the world. We would be idiotic to forget that. In short, I used to lament the end of small farmers who were the cultural bedrock of our communities, but now I fear for farms of any sort disappearing altogether. My friend and former collegue Bruce Thornton argued today over the perceived decline of masculine actors. True or imagined? We agreed that a Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, or Richard Gere was no Bill Holden, John Wayne, or Gary Cooper et al. The closest to the Old Breed seemed to be something like a Bruce Willis, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro or Jack Nicholson. But more interesting, where are today’s character actors, whether the Western geniuses like a Slim Pickens, Ben Johnson, Warren Oates, LQ jones, or Struther Martin, or the brilliant unpredictable types such as Richard Boone or Jack Palance? Our favorites that might qualify were Robert Duvall, Christopher Walken, John Malkovich, and Dennis Hopper, who all managed to exude a sense of fatalism, a little craziness, and a certain disdain for the sensitive male. I haven’t yet seen a modern heavy play a role quite like Boone did in Hombre or Palance in Shane. Sorry, just haven’t. Comments (26)RobM :Jeffrey Neher :
MarkP :VDH's comments about prosecutors gone wild remind me of a description of Soviet Era justice offered by one of my former teachers. Mr. Boyd always maintained that justice in the USSR was never expected to render an impartial decision. The courts were expected to deliver verdicts that supported and upheld party ideology. Sound familiar? It is for such reasons that I refer to American leftists as Bolsheviks. This is not mere rhetoric on my part; I think the label apt. Mark Monaghan :More troubling than a decline in masculine actors is the decline in manliness in general. I'm not sure which came first or why, but the dearth of a new generation of John Waynes on the screen appears to parallel the dwindling supply of thumos in the population of males under 30. Bill Bruni :I would submit to you that the problem with the acting profession is not the actors but the folks that do the script writing and the producer/directors who can take those scripts and convert them into stories that appeal to our visual and mental senses. One actor that you forgot to mention I consider in the vein of a great actor is Tom Selleck. By my lights he makes a damned good Western. President Nixon in an address to the Economic Club of NY in 1988 discussed the phenomenon of good leaders in talking about Bush 41's coming out of the Reagan Shadow. He indicated that some leaders never become great leaders because sometimes there are not great things to be accomplished. Then came the 1st Gulf War. He didn't accomplish it by himself-he made the decisions, but he had a couple of capable "squads and fire teams backing his game". Same goes for great actors. No great parts, no great actor...or actress. Semper Fi, Bill Chad Brooks :I realize that alternate histories are extremely speculative but I am sure historians "what if" on a four year Lincoln presidency. Would it have made a difference? Was reconstruction doomed or could have it been made to work? I would be interested in your take. Fred Beloit :VDH writes: "...perjury seems a rare charge...". Yes and not only that, it is not a serious charge. Ask Sen. Schumer and the entire body of Senate Democrats. Schumer specifically said so of Clinton's perjury. Remember? It is like lead, an inexpensive metal. It "...does not rise to the level..." of a serious crime, said Sen Schumer, it seems a thousand times. And every single Democrat Senator voted "Not Guilty" after Clinton's Senate trial. A court found him guilty prior to the trial and he was fined. He was also disbared. Because every Senate Democrat voted not guilty, that must mean they all agreed with Schumer. Where is Schumer now? Blogengeezer :Your excellent link is now placed near the top in my blog. Michael Jay :Mr. Hanson, The venality and absence of leadership in the current Congress is extremely discouraging to me. Were our post Civil War years just as bad? How do you think historians will judge George Bush in 30 yrs.? And do you think that our view of America & our form of government as a special unique place is changing? I don't expect you to take time to respond to this but perhaps in some of your future essays you'll consider some of these questions. Portia :Willem (sp?) Dafoe -- take your pick, Platoon or the Boondock saints. Brilliant character actor. Bill Bradley :No global warming in California, Victor? Really now, you know better than that. It's been warmer than normal until very recently, as is the case throughout most of the US, hence lower crude oil prices. And snow in Malibu -- and on the Strip in Las Vegas while I was there last week -- are exactly in line with the greenhouse effect causing unusual weather. Thomas Nguyen :Ah, thank you, Mr. Hanson for your blog. It sure does feel good to have a bit of fresh air. You pointed out here many things, of which I am only going to comment on a few. The Libby Insanity I find prosecutors increasingly employ the Watergate method of interrogation to virtually case across the board. What you knew and when you knew it are commonplace interrogation questions. By the way, don't contradict the 200-plus questions they throw at you or they'll slap you with perjury. Everyone high-profile case from Martha Stewart to the Duke case to the Jack Abramoff to Libby Scooter are being jabbed with these kinds of questions. This is not just a miscarriage of justice. To wield the law as weapon in this manner is an outrage. Grandstanding trial lawyers, who by the way virtually own large portions of our political parties, and "special prosecutors" are now political mainstays. Unless we ram through tort reform legislation, I don't see these kinds of legal travesties ending any time soon. Furthermore, about the Libby case in particular, I do find it curious that Armitage and Berger are not prosecuted for treason. Armitage, who was then Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, knew he had committed a faux pas when the scandal broke. When questioned he said he was ordered by the special prosecutor not to say anything. Now, this is an overt, shabby lie. The prosecutor ordered his silence months after the scandal broke and Libby accused. As for Sandy Berger, what he did would have landed a person in Leavenworth for 30 years, this if he's below a certain pay-grade. Getting virtually scotfree with with this crime is inexcusable. But there is not a court in the D.C. area that would convict a person of treason... No one seems to question why former Generals and various politicians are suddenly becoming millionaires after they leave office. Bill Clinton, who used to boast he never made over $50,000 a year in his life, is now a billionaire and with his wife, Hillary. Colin Powell is well on the way toward being a billionaire if he' not already there from joining the Buildaburgers. National patriots are so passe. Transnational allegiances is now the way of the rich and powerful. But perhaps this is too cynical. I am sure American patriots are still ubiquitous in government, but patriotism of the old stripe (the kind I admire) doesn't lend itself to ostentation, does it? Flip-flopping on Iraq Both Neocons and Democrats change their views of the war every time perception of the war changes. As you pointed out, "perception" is the key word. We are seeing the fruits of decades of subjectivism. The Democrats could vote to authorize the war, do everything oppose it, run on a pro-war "Blue Dog" platform, and then renege on it once they've taken Congress-- They could do all this within 4 years time and have the perfect concurrence of their conscience. Subjectivism allows them to. Likewise the Republicans, in their ebb and flow of support for the President whenever political expediency demands it of them. How we reached this sad state of sophomoric reasoning from where we were after WWII is just staggering to contemplate-- staggering because it is darn near incomprehensible. I think either we receive another fresh breath of liberty from our Creator, or we'll be minor footnote in history, that briefest of time when freedom flourished... Masculine Actors I have to agree with you there, Mr. Hanson. There really isn't anyone on the Hollywood acting scene that could pull off a, say, a Robert Mitchum or a John Wayne role. I don't think this is just a "perceived decline". This is a point of fact. Many of Hollywood's leading men are very feminine and given to gushing, febrile emotions, and as if evince some shred of masculinity, they conduct some random act of violence. Note how men are constantly portrayed as violent or ludicrous on TV and in Hollywood movies. Fathers are buffoons and manhood is in testosterone driven violence. Women, however, are praised and all virtues are attributed to them-- intelligence, compassion, calm, rational, etc... This current crop of actors actually remind of the 1920's American movies. Lots of soft lighting, inundating emotions, and long, long pregnant pauses in close-ups to convey a particular emotion. I saw part of Gary Cooper's "For Whom the Bell Tolls" done in the 1920's or 30's and couldn't finish it for all the overflowing sentiment. Today's movies are very similar. Just with more special effects and violence.
Eric Mendoza :An eighteen-year-old Neoconservative I think that Dr. Hanson makes a good case as for why we should still have hope for this Iraq War. Dangerous Nation On another note, I just listened to Dennis Prager, who had on Robert Kagan, the author of Dangerous Nation. I now see why Dr. Hanson has given so much praise to Kagan's opus: Our nation, contrary to popular paleocon myth, has not been mostly parochial throughout most of its pre-Cold War history, but has, instead, been imperialistic on many occasions (albeit, in a idealistic, democratizing manner, not an exploitive, economic manner). Webutante :Thanks for reminding us the rest of the story about the days after Sherman's march and the disarray of the South afterwards. Without the hindsight of history, we lose perspective and patience about the current war and reconstruction in Iraq. On another subject, there are indeed too few manly men in today's Hollywood scene. However, I always liked Jeff Bridges in the few movies I've seen him in. Steve Tweddell :Yeah, you hit the nail on the head, where are the real men (hero) actors that we flocked to see in 'Sands of Iwo Jima' (John Wayne), 'High Noon' (Gary Cooper), 'Bridges of Toko Ri'(Bill Holden). But then their lot was to be a hero, a guy who knew right from wrong and was on a mission even in the face of certain death as the previous movies depicted. Nowadays the antiheroes (ain't got heroes no more) are 'pussies' who not only don't have standards they don't even know what they are. For god's sake Rock Hudson (a real flamer) was almost always depicted as a real man! I once thought Clint Eastwood was the last throwback but have been having serious doubts lately that he's lost his way. Ah, well gotta go the wife insists I watch "When Harry Met Sally' with her for the third time! Scott :As much as I think VDH's historical comparisons are spot on, I think the Reconstruction of the South as the Reconstruction of Iraq is limited. They have a very similar aim, but the factors are too different for us to draw a great many lessons from. The majority of the white population of the South was relatively united in their disdain for the Yankee and the freed slaves. Their was hardly the multiple religious, ethnic, and tribal hatreds dividing the population that we see in Iraq. Freed slaves exhibited no desire or ability to threaten the white population of the South. Where the comparison does come in handy has much to do with one of VDH's most longstanding and best insights - populations have to be made sick of war for there to be a workable peace. Their spirit for it needs to be crushed. In the South it was. In Iraq it was not. Re: Today's actors. I think Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington, and Mel Gibson (not very recently though) have held the macho mantle ok - they have also done some fine acting in non-macho roles. I think Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freemen have held up well also, although they are a generation older. Of course, Hollywood doesn't make as many classic "manly" movies, and actors cannot to stay in one genre. So actors don't get to maintain any one image. And William H. Macy is one of the greatest actors of all time. But he is quite alone. Great post VDH. Ken Coates :RE: Water in the Central Valley The agricultural industry in California uses 85% of the water and has lived for decades on subsidized water. So there is enough water for environmental protection and population growth if agriculture will use it more efficiently. The best way to encourage that is to have them start paying the actual cost of the water like other industries (i.e. hi-tech). Phase it in over a number of years so they can adjust. Why should the taxpayers subsidize water for high water crops like rice and cotton (which are big in California)? I'll admit that superior cotton can be grown with irrigation (rather than rainfall), but rice doesn't care. In any case, subsidizing water for agriculture needs to go like other farm subsidies and non-competitive regulations (sugar cartel, peanut cartel, milk cartel, etc.). scott :I should have said that William H. Macy is "one of the greatest CHARACTER actors of all time." Apologies. GCA :I always enjoy your references to Huntington Lake. They provide a nice respite from the broader subjects you address and remind me of my days in Truckee in the 1970's, before bridges, stoplights, multi-million dollar homes and transformation of its downtown from railroad to kitsch tourist village. No danger of that at Huntington - a pleasant cul de sac at the end of its own road. While I have far fewer memories of Huntington, they are very pleasant. I have enjoyed there the best lake sailing California provides, perfect for small boat regattas. And after a day spent chasing elusive windshifts and trying to cover the competition, a stop at the Saloon hits the spot. Improbulus Maximus :I doubt the average American is in much danger from some out-of-control government sleuth sending him to the Gulag, or putting her in a camp, or even reading his email. Of course not, and Waco and Ruby Ridge didn't happen either. Washington was right when he said that government is nothing but force, and makes a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Once the democrats have retaken the White House, I expect to see the last of our Constitutional rights go out the window as the Gestapo begins kicking in doors. America is lost, and only by a bloody revolution can we find our way again. Jeffrey Neher :
The planet may indeed be going through a warming period. But this warming has everything to do with nature and the normal cycle of things and little to do with human behavior.......... gs :I doubt the average American is in much danger from some out-of-control government sleuth sending him to the Gulag, or putting her in a camp, or even reading his email. Not today. A technology-based infrastructure which is usable for repression has been installed and continues to be augmented. Today that machinery is mostly dormant; per VDH, it is rarely used against typical citizens. However, as the national character becomes less self-reliant and as we become increasingly accepting of regulation, the danger is increasing that a future crisis will provide a pretext for the machinery to be turned on. IcePilot :VDH, As always, I've enjoyed your thoughts. You & I are of an age, both having rural backgrounds, mine a few degrees north. As with the decline of agriculture in the breadbasket of California, so goes the family dairy farms of western Washington and Oregon (due somewhat to the 5K+ mega-dairys in CA). Won't be any left in 20 years. The idea of local kids harvesting local produce (strawberries, they were the best!) has gone the way of contracted (mostly illegal) picking crews. Sad, but inevitable. Your essay's are so elegent and concise, I hesitate to point out, but must - I believe it's "martial law". Regards, Junius :The Plame Affair: When Joseph Wilson went to Africa on a CIA mission, did that not make him a covert agent for the CIA? I doubt that he told his contacts in Niger that he was working for the CIA. And if he had been killed by terrorists there, would not he be honored as a CIA operative who gave his life for his country? So when he outed himself, did he not compromise his "contacts" in Niger? When a spy reveals his identity, does he not also compromise his associates, friends, and family? In other words, would not the effectiveness of Mrs. Wilson as a spy be destroyed by the public knowledge that she is married to a CIA operative? If all the world new that Naval Commander James Bond was married to Miss Moneypenny, and that Miss Moneypenny worked for MI-5, James Bond's "cover" would be worthless. Gabriel Pompe :Or Robert Mitchum in Cape Fear! I read the Soul of Battle and so did my father who spent 5 years in Siberia as a guest of Stalin (we are Hungarian). Great Book. I particularly enjoyed the scetion on Sherman. Keep up the great work. You are truly a voice of reason. Russ Mitchell :Your Reconstruction parallel is apt, I must say, having taught that unit about a half-dozen times at the beginning of this semester... Comments have been archived for this page. |
Pajamas MediaPJM Political 8/27/08: Michelle Malkin & Co. Survive Denver–Plus A PJTV Preview! Pajamas TV Launches Live from DNC: Hillary the Angry Populist, Part II Live from DNC: Is Opposition to Obama in Denver Due to Racism?(Day 3) Live from DNC: It’s Zombietime! (Day 3) Big Labor Safeguards Its Big Stake in Obama BBC’s Terrorists in Need Live From DNC: Hillary Releases Her Delegates, Urges Unanimous Obama Vote
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
RSS FeedsADVERTISEMENT
|
digg this
del.icio.us
Another excellent post; I'm so glad I checked in! I look forward to your Irony/Iraq Essay. I really liked what you said about the civil war there... I think there is enough there for a long essay on that too! (please) Thanks for your work. So sorry to read about the frigid temps and frozen pipes. Your entire posting actually I think was spot on.
Jan 17, 2007 09:50 PM