Month: October 2026

Great Balls of Fire Rise from the Water

My Regular Pagan Holiday Post

Our Day of the Dead ofrenda. Photo by author

The Naga Fireball Festival

While the north celebrates the pagan harvest holiday of Samhain and the Day of the Dead, people in Southeast Asia gather for the Naga Fireball Festival along the Mekong River.

The festival centers on a mysterious phenomenon where hundreds, or even thousands, of glowing red fireballs rise from the water. These spheres vary in size and can reach heights of 100 meters before disappearing. It is an incredible occurrence that remains unexplained.

The Mekong River separates Thailand from Laos, and locals believe the river is home to the Naga, a mythical creature and higher being. The Naga protects the river and the rural communities along its shores. Every year, near the end of the Buddhist Rains Retreat, these fireballs—ranging from small sparkles to large spheres of fire—burst from the water and soar into the sky. Also known as the Mekong lights, the phenomenon is viewed by locals as the Naga’s blessing.

The fireballs typically appear on the night of Wan Ok Phansa at the end of Vassa in late October. These sightings have been reported over a 250 km (160 mi) stretch of the Mekong, centered around Phon Phisai. While primarily associated with the river, fireballs have also been seen rising from smaller lakes and ponds in the region. This light phenomenon is hundreds of years old and is the centerpiece of the Phayanak Festival. Part of me hopes a scientific explanation is never found.

We Celebrate Día de los Muertos

Poster for the museum’s Day of the Dead exhibition

Here in Sonoma County, we celebrate Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) with marigolds (cempasúchil) and ofrendas (home altars), and with public celebrations held in every city. We recently visited the Museum of Sonoma County’s 30th Annual Día de Muertos exhibition, which features altars and artwork created by hundreds of students, artists, altaristas, and community members. The exhibition runs until November 29.

Also at the museum until November 8 is an exhibition celebrating the 50th anniversary of Christo and Jeanne-Claude’s monumental Running Fence. This temporary art installation stretched 24.5 miles through Sonoma and Marin Counties and became a world-famous, iconic part of North Bay culture and history.

Photo: Museum of Sonoma County

My wife Holly grew up in Santa Rosa and remembers visiting the Running Fence with her family. While her mother was among those who thought the project was silly, Holly found it pretty cool as a high schooler. Now, it seems everyone agrees it was cool.

Post-War Letters to Flo

She Kept in Touch with Third Division Friends

My Mother and Audie Murphy Chapter 126

During and after the war Flo continued to correspond with friends in the Third Infantry Division and she saved some of their letters in her album. Some of these reference her love affair with Col. Chris Chaney. The last letter she saved from him was written in April, 1945. It seems they broke up near the end of the war. It’s likely Flo reunited with some of these men at the frequent reunions of the division.

Mailed from NY, NY

Jan 20, 1945

France

Dear Florence,

I suppose I should have written to you before but since I have to have all my letters written for me I have been reluctant to do so. I lost one eye completely and have only half vision in the other. Somewhat like the old saying “Blind in one eye and cant see out of the other one.” The docs tell me that I can see about as much as I ever will so I am doomed for retirement.

Your friend Glen

Part of a letter from a French-speaking friend

Lt. Gus Phillips

Feb 15, 1945

Dear Flo,

My left arm is paralyzed but should be ok in a week or so. They are going to take the pieces out of my left eyebrow in a few days so I will be as good as new. How has the Col (Chaney) been doing since I left? Guess I have lost out completely.

To be truthful, Flo, this is much better than when I was with the outfit. I am afraid it is spoiling me. Really it’s nice to have no worries and to eat and sleep.

Take care of yourself.

Love, Gus

Lionel C. McGarr

Colonel, Infantry

U.S. Army

August 2, 1946

Flo darling!

…. I know how you feel about getting settled. I am going through the same deal. I found one thing I liked when the war came along and now it is pretty hard to be a “peace time” soldier—don’t even like being a family man too much. Must be the “mileage” we put on over there.

I am Executive Officer at Ft. Myer now but will leave to go to the National War College Washington DC. It is the army’s top school and I guess I should feel flattered. It will be a ten month course starting in September.

The Regimental History was finished. It is a swell look and a “damn” well written history. It can never be as good as that “crazy” regiment actually was, Flo. You and I know that. Certainly is grand to write to you ‘cause I know that you understand. I look back over the 31 months of action and am “damn” proud of these kids—proud and humble. They were tops.

(About proposed deactivation of the division and citations) Why in hell (the commanders) don’t fight for us like we fought for them I don’t know. They always demanded everything and gave nothing in return. They still have their stars though. Our whole country seems to be the same.

They just want to forget the men we killed. I cannot forget them and I don’t want to forget them. In fact it is hard to sleep at night at times because of them. I feel that we all, those of us who understand, must keep up the fight to get for our country the things those kids died for. They forget soon—too soon!

(Jens) Jansen was here the other day. He is waiting for (Janet) Potts to get here and they are to be married—imagine!!

Love, Mac

September 12, 1946

Dearest Flo,

Received your swell answer to my last letter and your picture. The snap was swell. Jansen and Janet were married the 24thof last month at the Fort Myer chapel and I gave the bride away. They left shortly after for the West. I hear, later, that this is her third wedding. Golla! What a woman—if true! She looked swell and so did Floyd (Jens).

…. We had a letter from Chaney and he expected to be assigned to Atlanta Georgia. Don’t know what he is to do yet. Yes, Flo I knew—just sensed it—that you and he were crazy about each other. Maybe now you do wonder if he was worth it—and maybe now he isn’t. He was then I am sure and I am a bit disappointed in you that you did not let love have its way there. Happiness comes so seldom and in such small lots that I, being a realist as you say, think one should take advantage of it when it comes. Lord! knows you had plenty of heartbreak and no one, not that it matters, could have begrudged you that much happiness. One of our best pictures in the book is of your pals n’ you taken in Strasbourg.

I am now going to school and plenty busy. Being a school boy again is fun but hard to get used to again. Bye now—and don’t be too good—if it hurts.

Love, Mac

Postcard from Heidelberg from a soldier named Jack

P. B. Larimore

Memphis, Tenn.

Sept. 9, 1947

Dear Flo,

….I don’t know how any of we line company officers and doggies could ever forget you “Doughnut Gals.” There must be a very special and wonderful place reserved in every Marne Man’s heart for all of you.

I think I remember you all the night in Nancy when you all served doughnuts to my company. Do you remember that big white house we had for the company and the chow line out back?

Oh yes, Agolsheim, did you know that was the second big attack in which I had acted in the capacity of C.O.? Golly! But after things finally quieted down, I enjoyed that little town. That was the first time we ever had any fun on the Rhine River. About that big white goose—we did cook it, we did eat it, and it was good! Do wish Col. Chaney had let you stay long enough to have some. Do you remember that little courtyard in front of my C.P.? About 15 minutes after you left, three 120 MM mortar shells landed in the center of that courtyard. Lucky no one was hurt but those shells sure shot hell out of our rations. I shudder to think what would have happened had those shells come in while you were still there. C’est la Guerre!

Oh yes, I saw Col. Chaney in Atlanta about three or four months ago, still the same swell guy, but some of the things he told me about how and what condition I was in when they finally got me to the aid station did scare me a little.

I am retired now, much to my utter disgust, because it seems the army does not want one-legged officers now. So, since my hopes for an army career are shot, I am going to University of Virginia to take training to enter the State Department.

Sincerely, Larry

Murphy: HUAC Is Un-American

He Stands Up Against Attacks on Hollywood

My Mother and Audie Murphy chapter 125

Audie Murphy’s relationship with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) reveals a complex intersection of patriotism, celebrity, and the political paranoia of the Cold War. Murphy’s resistance to the climate of fear created by HUAC highlights a principled stand against the infringement of civil liberties and the weaponization of patriotism.

The House Un-American Activities Committee was a congressional committee formed in 1938 to investigate subversive activities within the United States. While its initial focus was on Nazi and fascist influence, its focus shifted sharply after WWII toward the perceived threat of communism. By the late 1940s and 1950s, HUAC had become a tool for political persecution, utilizing public hearings to “out” suspected communists. The committee operated on a system of coercion; witnesses were often pressured to “name names”—to identify colleagues, friends, or family members with socialist or communist leanings—in exchange for their own professional survival. Those who refused to cooperate were often cited for contempt of Congress or, more commonly in Hollywood, were placed on “blacklists,” effectively ending their careers.

From the book Show Trial: Hollywood, HUAC, and the Birth of the Blacklist by Thomas Doherty

Audie Murphy’s involvement with the anti-HUAC sentiment was less about an ideological alignment with the left and more about a visceral reaction to the committee’s tactics. Murphy, who had faced the horrors of war and seen the true meaning of sacrifice, found the committee’s methods of intimidation and betrayal abhorrent. For Murphy, the demand that citizens betray one another to prove their loyalty was fundamentally un-American. He viewed the HUAC hearings not as a defense of democracy, but as an attack on the very freedom of association and thought that he had fought to protect in Europe. 

Murphy’s stance was particularly potent because he was “untouchable” by the committee. As a national hero with a chest full of medals, including the Medal of Honor, he could not be easily painted as a “Red” or a subversive. This gave him a unique platform to criticize the committee without the immediate fear of professional ruin that haunted his peers.

Murphy was not alone in his opposition, though the risks for others were far higher. The most famous instance of resistance occurred in 1947 with the “Hollywood Ten,” a group of screenwriters and directors who refused to answer HUAC’s questions on First Amendment grounds. They were imprisoned for contempt, and their names became synonymous with the blacklist. Other stars took different paths of resistance. Paul Robeson, a world-renowned singer and actor, became a primary target of the committee due to his outspoken socialist views and his refusal to renounce them, leading to a systemic erasure of his career in the United States. 

Audie Murphy testifies

The First Amendment Committee made a radio program to defend the First Amendment and critique HUAC–Hollywood fights back. Forty-five stars, directors, screenwriters and four U.S. senators spoke.

Audie Murphy said: 

“You know during the war every guy in uniform dreamed of the day when he could stop squeezing triggers and come home. You get so fed up on fighting that you never want to do it again. There’s one kind of fighting that has to go on always. You can’t ever take a furlough from this fight to preserve human liberty. I think the methods used by the Thomas Rankin committee are a challenge to those liberties and I think we should use every fair and constitutional means to fight those methods.” (HUAC was also called the Thomas Rankin committee).

In the broader context of McCarthyism and the Red Scare, Audie Murphy’s opposition to HUAC serves as a reminder that the defense of civil liberties is not the exclusive domain of any one political party. Murphy’s resistance was rooted in a soldier’s code of honor and a citizen’s demand for privacy. By challenging the committee, he demonstrated that true patriotism consists not of blind obedience or the betrayal of others, but of the courage to protect the constitutional rights of all individuals, regardless of their political affiliations.

Murphy, in particular, embodied the principle that American heroes are defined not only by military valor but by the willingness to defend constitutional liberties. His opposition to HUAC showed that the most decorated soldier of World War II understood that the war’s true purpose—defending American freedom—required vigilance against threats to liberty even from within America’s own government.

Committee for the First Amendment Relaunched

Recently over 550 celebrities relaunched the Committee for the First Amendment. The current group is headlined by actor and activist Jane Fonda — whose father, actor Henry Fonda, was one of the early members.

Jane Fonda rallys fellow actors. Photo: msn.com

Their intent is to stand up in a defense of our constitutional rights: “The federal government is once again engaged in a coordinated campaign to silence critics in the government, the media, the judiciary, academia, and the entertainment industry.”

In a letter inviting her peers to join the re-established group, Fonda writes: “I’m 87 years old. I’ve seen war, repression, protest, and backlash. I’ve been celebrated, and I’ve been branded an enemy of the state. But I can tell you this: this is the most frightening moment of my life. When I feel scared, I look to history. I wish there were a secret playbook with all the answers — but there never has been. The only thing that has ever worked — time and time again — is solidarity: binding together, finding bravery in numbers too big to ignore, and standing up for one another.”

Chapter 126: https://mollymartin.blog/2026/10/17/post-war-letters-to-flo/

How Could You Be a Catholic?

An Awkward Reunion with an Old Comrade

My sign for a counter protest at an anti-abortion rally

It all went well and then it didn’t.

We had met at college and we had lived together briefly at a hippie refuge near Washington State University. Paul had gone to high school with a couple of our other comrades who moved out of a WSU dorm together to form the counterculture household. Once I got out of the in loco parentis contract that only applied to female students, I moved in next door in 1969. Much dope was smoked and acid dropped. We focused as much on anti-war marches as studies. I joined the nascent feminist movement. My women’s liberation group helped female students get underground abortions and we worked to change the state law to make abortion legal in 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade.

We were a collection of misfits and Paul was a misfit because he was very fat. He’s still large, but, since bypass surgery, not as obese as he was. Probably this was a defining trait in his life. Men we encountered would comment openly on his weight just as they are compelled to make rude judgments about women’s bodies. I felt protective of him.

After that, along with 12 other activists, I founded a collective house in town, but Paul did not follow us there. He had graduated and moved on to a teaching job elsewhere.

We reunited with college friends in 2011, 38 years later. Most had stayed in Washington State. I was the only one who’d moved to California. Paul lived and taught high school math in a small town in Washington. 

More recently Paul and his wife Amanda contacted me asking to meet up in Santa Rosa. They were flying in for a wedding. Could we meet for lunch? Of course I agreed, thinking covid would surely be a thing of the past by the time we got together.

But covid did not comply. The surging pandemic boosted anxiety and my wife declined the lunch, but she greeted them politely and invited them to look around the house and garden. 

We lunched at my favorite restaurant, a destination for out-of-town company. They are foodies, so that was a good choice.

We talked about old friends. I was glad to reminisce with someone who remembered them.

At a pro-abortion protest. Photos by author

After the wedding, they wanted to meet up again. I suggested Brew, the gay coffee and beer shop owned by dykes.

Paul and Amanda divulged that their heads were still in the ‘60s. I think they were talking about music, but I didn’t ask them to elaborate.

At this meeting I learned that they had met at a weight watchers meeting; both had worked and retired as teachers. When they told me they were practicing catholics and had raised their three kids as catholics, alarm bells went off in my head. Really? The catholic church is the enemy of women and gays. The catholic church wants to destroy me and everything I’ve been fighting for all my life. At WSU the women’s liberation group ran up against the catholic church while organizing for women’s reproductive rights. 

I said all this. Not very articulately. How could you be a political radical and a catholic? But maybe Paul had never been a radical. He’d just lived with a bunch of radicals. Maybe for him the sixties were all about smoking dope.

Paul and Amanda were in town for another day and I suggested they drive to the ocean. You can’t visit Sonoma County and not see the spectacular Sonoma coast. Paul complained about driving and I suggested Amanda drive. No, he said.  

Paul raised his voice to put off my expected protest. I imagined this was the voice he used on dissident tenth graders. “It’s a scientific proven fact, he said, that women have poorer directional sense than men and Amanda would get lost.” 

To this statement I didn’t even respond. It seemed so bizarre and out of the blue, not a point worth arguing.

Amanda agreed that she has a terrible sense of direction and told a story to prove it. She went along with the program and maybe didn’t want to drive, although she said she did drive when she had to get somewhere. 

“You could be the navigator,” I said. “You’ll be sitting right there riding shotgun. My wife and I share the driving and navigating.” 

To this Paul just shook his head, as if he couldn’t even imagine allowing his wife to drive.

The last text Paul sent said, “We made it. A long way to Bodega Head. Stopped for water on the way.”

That was the last I ever heard from them.

Comebacks unsaid:

I have a very good sense of direction, probably better than yours. Let’s rumble.

Does remembering the sixties include remembering the feminist movement? 

Did you tell tenth graders that women can’t drive?

Do you believe in women’s right to choose abortion?

Do you believe in women’s equality?

Do you think, as the catholic church does, that gay people are sick?

If you believe, as the catholic church does, that women are lesser beings and queers are sick, why did you want to get together with queer old feminist me?

The Legacy of the Nuremberg Trials

Contributions to International Law

My Mother and Audie Murphy Chapter 124

This is the 80th Anniversary of the Trials’ End

On October 1, 1946, the Nuremberg Trials concluded after nearly a year of unprecedented legal proceedings, marking a watershed moment in the history of international law. Eight decades later, this landmark tribunal stands as the cornerstone upon which modern international justice has been built. The trials represented humanity’s first comprehensive attempt to hold individuals accountable for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity—establishing principles and precedents that would ultimately lead to the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a fundamentally transformed approach to global accountability.

The Context and Necessity of Nuremberg

Following World War II’s devastation, the victorious Allied powers faced an unprecedented challenge: how to address the systematic atrocities perpetrated by Nazi Germany. The Holocaust had claimed six million Jewish lives, alongside millions of others. War crimes, slave labor, and crimes against humanity had been committed on a staggering scale. Traditional warfare had rendered conventional military tribunals insufficient for addressing these crimes. The Allies recognized that justice required an entirely new legal framework—one that transcended national boundaries and established that individuals, regardless of their official position or nationality, could be held accountable for mass atrocities.

Aerial view of the Palace of Justice in 1945 where the trials took place, with the prison attached behind it. Photo: Wiki commons

The four major Allied powers—the United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and France—convened in Nuremberg, Germany, to conduct trials of 24 high-ranking Nazi officials, including Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, and Joachim von Ribbentrop. The trials lasted nearly a year, from November 1945 to October 1, 1946. Of the 22 primary defendants, 12 were sentenced to death by hanging, three received life imprisonment, and four received shorter prison terms, while three were acquitted. 

Revolutionary Legal Principles

The Nuremberg Trials established several revolutionary legal principles that reshaped international law. First, they affirmed that individuals could be prosecuted for crimes against humanity even when those acts were technically “legal” under their own government’s laws. This principle directly challenged the notion of absolute state sovereignty and asserted that certain human rights transcend national jurisdiction.

Second, the trials established that “following orders” was not a valid defense for committing atrocities. The trials also introduced the concept of “crimes against peace”—the planning and waging of aggressive war—as a prosecutable offense under international law.

Third, the trials demonstrated that rigorous legal procedures, transparent evidence presentation, and the right to defense could coexist with accountability for mass atrocities. 

The Path to the International Criminal Court

The principles established at Nuremberg reverberated through subsequent decades of international legal development. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), adopted just two years after the trials concluded, embodied many Nuremberg principles in its assertion of universal human rights. The Genocide Convention (1948) similarly codified international liability for mass atrocities.

However, the Cold War froze the development of permanent international criminal institutions for nearly fifty years. It was not until the 1990s that the world revisited Nuremberg’s legacy. The atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda prompted the United Nations Security Council to establish the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)—modern successors to Nuremberg’s model.

These tribunals paved the way for the establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002, which represented the realization of Nuremberg’s foundational promise: a permanent international institution dedicated to prosecuting individuals for the gravest crimes of international concern. 

Americans Mostly Just Wanted to Move On

The gravity of the Nuremberg proceedings captured the public imagination, spawning films and documentaries that sought to dramatize the struggle between law and tyranny. One of the most notable cultural connections was Marlene Dietrich. She volunteered her time and resources to support the war effort and later used her global platform to champion the memory of the victims, ensuring the horrors documented at Nuremberg were not forgotten by the postwar generation. She performed in the 1961 film Judgment at Nuremberg.

While my mother, Florence Wick, didn’t include information about the trials in her WWII album, she paid close attention to them and the outcome. The idea of “organized justice” appealed to her, but she felt the trials did not go far enough and should have targeted more German perpetrators. She would be outraged that the U.S. refuses to participate in the ICC and that Trump proposes to sanction the court, calling it “rogue” and “evil.”

In the US, despite the historical importance of the trials, there was a powerful countervailing current of “war fatigue.” By 1946, millions of GIs were returning home, and the American economy was shifting back to peacetime production. While most Americans cared that the leaders were punished, there was a palpable eagerness to close the chapter on the war and look toward the future.

Chapter 125: https://mollymartin.blog/2026/10/06/murphy-huac-is-un-american/