My history mirrors yours...maybe a couple of years later. I started with an Argus C4 and the information on the film insert sheet. But the C4 did have a split image viewfinder to provide focus assistance. Later inherited a Voightlander Vitomatic which lost the focus assist but gained a match needle light meter. So I guess even in my earliest days, I never really shot fully manual.

My personal belief about this subject is two-fold...manual shooting is completely over rated, and almost no one does it, no matter what they claim. Sure, there are situations when a particular aperture works "best." Sometimes a particular shutter speed works best. A lot of the time, a particular ISO provides best results. So set one. It's part of the game.

If you really, really want to shoot manual, get a box of the right size, paint it flat black inside, cut a hole and mount a lens, and figure out how to secure your film or sensor to the opposite side of the box. Don't spend a thousand, or two thousand, or five thousand or however many dollars for a fancy camera with all sorts of capabilities and functions and helps and then "shoot manual only." What a silly waste of money.

But if you shoot manual, then shoot manual. No Auto ISO to make sure the exposure is right. No two second delay to make sure there is no camera vibration.

If you are going to claim it, be honest about it.

I’ve been to radio garden a few times in the last year. More than anything, it’s a reminder of an earlier time roaming the dial and listening to shortwave in the 50s thru early 90s. I lived in SE Connecticut then so the majority of stations were European like the BBC, kohl Israel, deutsche welle, etc and “locally” Radio Havana. Then along came internet radio and many of the big boys shut down their OTA broadcasting. Plus, modern day AM band floor noise makes listening almost unbearable without good shielding. That said, occasionally, here in Colorado, I can still catch English Japan and China and way too many US based religious broadcasters. Those Drake radios were simple a marvel....... Thanks for sharing....

There were several documentaries about the British and their campaign in Malaysia (then Malaya). An interesting aside to the story, is the change to the SMLE rifle used by the Brits; converted to a jungle carbine.

Another book you might find interesting is "Liberal F*****m", by Jonah Goldberg. He makes a very good case for kindred spirits such as Woodrow Wilson, the Roosevelts (TR, FDR), JFK, LBJ, and others who come as Progressives, but use F*****m as a front for Socialism.

He also makes a good case for the fact that large corporations aren't really entrepreneurs, but fellow travelers with "big government".

As with any war, there was a great deal of fog on the battlefields of Korea. Truman didn't understand the tactics used, and MacArthur ignored the political consequences of war. The C*******ts in Southeast Asia were always a factor, belying to a great extent, the "freedom" desires of those people.

I read the Venona Transcripts, and I believe their content. although a lot remains undecrypted. Not only was the State Department highly infiltrated during WWII (part of FDR's naivety), the Soviets infiltrated the Manhattan Project (yes, the Rosenbergs were guilty as hell), and the Soviets had near-real time access to State and Treasury Department information courtesy of Harry D. White, Lauchlin Currie, Alger Hiss, and Maurice Halperin. McCarthy was far closer to the t***h, that anyone admitted at the time.

The fact that FDR did not want to allow Britain and France to re-institute their colonialism was written as part of Hoover's "Magnum Opus". Again, it was a sign of Truman's naivety; he turned down Ho Chi Minh in favor of the French. FDR was not much more worldly than Truman. He was naive enough to stay at the Russian embassy during the Tehran talks.

As to Viet Nam, Kennedy was an adventurist, eager to meddle in foreign affairs, a complete 180 from his pre-WWII days. Viet Nam was the venue. He was no different that FDR, and Woodrow Wilson in that respect. It was a myth that Kennedy had opted to get out of Viet Nam. In fact, he had already requested spending increases for the adventure in Viet Nam in 1964.