Leaning Straight Up

Moving!

2006-03-06T07:52:00.000-08:00

I have decided to leave this site up for archival reasons, but for all new posts my blog is moving to Http://leaningstraightup.com

See you there!!

The UW Senate Steering Committee minutes, 2-17-2006

2006-03-02T16:35:00.000-08:00

The UW Senate Steering committee met 2-17-2006 and their meeting minutes are now posted.

I think these are interesting because they again show how they characterize the whole debate in an interesting manner. But in all fairness, it is necessary to understand this from their perspective too.

I will list the full text below, but here are the highlights as they pertain to the Pappy Boyington Flap. Many things I have blogged on previously are mentioned:

A discussion of the press coverage
Mention of a large amount of dehumanizing emails regarding the memorial vote.
The (Jill) Edwards Apology Resolution is introduced (R-12-24)
The introduction of Nathan Bedle, not a Senator, as a cosponsor of R-12-24. He is also a Sgt in the Marine Corps Reserve.
He noted that there is no military representative in the Senate.
Discussion of offense versus free speech.
The open expectation that R-12-24 will be tabled indefinitely
The introduction of A Resolution Calling For a Memorial for UW Alumni awarded the Medal of Honor (R-12-26)
A suggestion is made to immediately table R-12-26 indefinitely as being a duplicate of the original memorial resolution.
R-12-24 was referred to the General Affairs Committee.
While approving the Senate Agenda, it is noted that an ROTC Representative will speak before the next Senate Session.
In the General Discussion, the idea of recording the meetings was discussed.
It was noted there was concern that recording the sessions might alter the debate.
A motion was made to reconsider the 2-7-2006 Minutes.
Ashley Miller began a defense/clarification of her comments.
A number of students defended Ashley's comments
The amount of scrutiny these minutes have received was noted.
How the change was to be documented on the minutes website was discussed.
It was noted that any changes to the minutes would be closely noted by the media.
The intent was to have the changes be on the original minutes.
The committee was cautioned about the implications of any changes, and how that would affect the criticism and perception. It was also noted that changes could jeopardize the reputation and integrity of the Senate.
The motion was amended to have a new set of minutes posted separately reflecting the changes.

The minutes in full, and unedited:

ASUW Student Senate Steering Committee
02-17-2006
Minutes

Respectfully Submitted by Senate Secretary Travis McCoy

I. Call to Order and Roll Call

Alex Kim called the meeting to order at 3:44PM
Alex Kim
Erin Shields – not present
Travis McCoy
Travis Grandy
Lee Dunbar – proxy Jon Lee
Hala Dillsi
Jon Lee
Derek Hazen – not present
Sam Al-Khoury
Cailin Magruder – proxy Brianne King
Shawn Fisher
Jerome McCuin – not present
Alvin Chen – not present
Rene Singleton

II. Approval of the Agenda

Travis McCoy moved to approve the agenda. Seconded. Passed without objection.

III. Chair’s Report

Alex Kim noted that ASUW has had a busy week dealing with the press coverage of the recent resolution considered. He said ASUW has prepared an official press statement regarding the issue.

He said that there has been a large influx of dehumanizing emails regarding the decision on R-12-18. He said every Senate officer and ASUW officer is working to maintain the right of senators to speak their minds.

He noted that his letter to the Daily was published today, and that he had submitted the letter to other publications as well.

He said disagreement was expected and encouraged on the issue, but that there should be outrage over the way some have handled the issue.

Ashley Miller said that she didn’t think the minutes accurately reflected what she thought she said.

Alex Kim encouraged her to address that issue during general discussion.

Hala Dillsi thanked Alex Kim and Lee Dunbar for their efforts and words at the previous Senate meeting. She said she thought Senators appreciated being updated on the issue.

IV. Officers’ Reports

Travis McCoy said he had no new news to report.

Travis Grandy said those senators who were in bad standing were cut as of the last meeting.

He said the fundraiser was a huge success and raised $273 for charity. He thanked those who auctioned themselves off.

Andrew Everett noted that R-12-25 had been rescinded by its sponsor.

V. Legislative Referral

R-12-24 Edwards Apology

Alex Kim read the resolution out loud.

Alex Kim entertained a motion to refer the legislation to Steering Committee.

Shawn Fisher moved to refer the legislation to Steering committee. Seconded.

Objection.

Travis Grandy asked if that was allowed by the by-laws.

It was noted that the bylaws do not specifically forbid legislation from being referred to Steering
Committee.

Andrew Everett asked if there was a censure policy in place for senators.

Rene Singleton said there was not.

Travis Grandy objected because he felt the resolution did not pertain to the rules and bylaws of Senate.

Alex Kim noted that it was not specifically forbidden.

Sam Al-Khoury read the specific bylaws pertaining to the issue.

The motion failed.

Nathan Bedle presented the legislation as a sponsor.

He said he is a Sergeant in the Marine Corps Reserve.

He said he apologized on behalf of those who had made offensive comments

He said he didn’t feel the comments made were inappropriate, and that while he didn’t intend to punish a senator, he felt it needed to be expressed that such comments were unacceptable as they were discriminatory in nature.

He said he had no intention of the resolution passing, but merely wanted to bring the issue to Senate.

He said that he was surprised when he realized that the military has no representative on Senate.

He said the issue was particularly important to him and other members of the military, and that he hoped some sort of censure procedure could be developed for future conflicts.

Alex Kim said he appreciated Nathan Bedle coming to committee to represent himself.

He said he understood that ROTC and other military organizations would be coming to Senate to represent themselves.

Andrew Everett said Jill Edwards emailed him an apology and said he would make it available to Alex if he asked. He said because the apology wasn’t public, he thought it had created some backlash.

Rene Singleton noted that while everyone was having a debate, there was no evidence of offense. She said she thought that the way the comments were documented may have created the controversy. She said she didn’t see any immediate reaction from Senate once the controversial comments were made.

She said she thought a new method for taking minutes might be in order.

Alex Kim said that one of the misconceptions in the public eye is the scope of Senate’s power. He said that a decision by Student Senate didn’t equate to immediate results.

Shawn Fisher said that Senate needs to maintain a situation in which people can freely express themselves regardless of how offensive the comments are.

He said by asking people to apologize would set a horrible precedent and cause some people to not express themselves freely. He said that it was contradictory for those in the military to ask for people to be censured for exercising the freedom of speech the military tries to protect.

Nathan Bedle said he wasn’t tryin to restrict anyone’s rights. He said Senate should have a way to deal with comments that are needlessly discriminatory. He said there is a responsibility to be polite in a public forum and that rude comments needed to be recognized.

Alex Kim explained how legislation flowed through Senate and what process it would go through. He said he expected the legislation would be tabled, as Nathan Bedle had expected, as that was the general procedure taken by Senate. He said he wanted to make sure that the debate itself was open and thus opinions could be debated and corrected during the discussion.

Jon Lee moved to refer the legislation to Membership Committee. Seconded.

Passed without objection.

R-12-25 An Act Supporting Those Who Work for a Free and Democratic Society

Shawn Fisher moved to refer to Steering Committee. Seconded. Objection.

Andrew Everett noted that the sponsor has requested the resolution not be considered.

Andrew Everett moved to table the resolution indefinitely. Seconded. Passed without objection.

R-12-26 A Resolution Calling a Memorial for UW Alumni awarded the Medal of Honor

Andrew Everett read the ‘that’ clauses in his resolution.

Shawn Fisher said in his opinion the Senate saw the same resolution two weeks ago. He said Steering should table the resolution indefinitely.

Sam Al-Khoury said he disagreed because the resolution was not wide enough in its scope, and that the new resolution met more individuals’ needs.

Jon Lee moved to refer the resolution to General Affairs. Seconded. Objection.

The motion passed.

VI. Approval of Committee Appointments

Jon Lee moved to approve the committee appointments. Seconded. Passed without objection.

VII. Approval of the Senate Agenda

Alex Kim noted that Dr. Barceló needed to leave at 5:30. He suggested the Public Forum begin at the start of the meeting.

Sam Al-Khoury moved to place the public forum as the first item of the agenda.

Seconded. Passed without objection.

Sam Al-Khoury asked if there was a specific topic to be discussed.

Alex Kim said it would mostly be question and answer.

He said he would be allowing an ROTC representative to speak during his Chair’s Report.

Travis Grandy moved to approve the agenda. Seconded. Passed without objection.

VIII. General Discussion

Andrew Everett said he’s in the process of writing an Organic Act to propose an audio recording be made of each meeting.

Travis McCoy said he thought the idea had merit, but that he was concerned with the feasibility of the project and its impact on the debate in Senate.

Alex Kim said there has been a recurring theme of whether or not to record Senate meetings. He said there is a question of whether having recording devices present might alter the nature of debate.

Travis Grandy moved to reconsider the minutes from February 7th, 2006.

Seconded. Objection.

The motion passed.

Ashley Miller said that what is lacking in the minutes and that she has been under attack for is that she was understood as saying there are already enough monuments, and that was not what she meant to convey with her comments.

Sam Al-Khoury moved to strike the word “already” from Ashley Miller’s statement. Seconded.
Objection.

Andrew Everett said he has spoken to multiple media outlets about her comments.

Shawn Fisher said that he favored the amendment, but that he thought her intent was to note that there were already enough monuments honoring certain people.

Ashley Miller said she couldn’t be responsible for the way it was interpreted, but that there was no intent on her part to convey that impression.

Travis McCoy said that while he wanted to ensure the minutes were as accurate as possible, he thought the intent was accurately conveyed despite not being a verbatim quote, and that he was concerned with how the change would be perceived by the outside world.

Hala Dillsi said that she sat next to Ashley in the room during the meeting, and that she specifically remembered Ashley saying “This was not in reference to Colonel Boyington and this resolution, but…” She said she thought Steering Committee’s job was to produce amendments that most accurately represent what was said. She said she didn’t think the amendment was inappropriate, and in fact was Steering’s responsibility.

Alex Kim amended the amendment to insert a steering committee note indicating how the minutes were passed originally. Seconded. Passed without objection

Alex Kim said that there has been a lot of scrutiny on this set of minutes, and that the concern is that Steering will be seen as covering up its tracks.

Travis Grandy saw he thought Steering’s ultimate goal was to have the most accurate minutes possible.

Rene Singleton asked how the change would be represented on the website.

Alex Kim clarified his intent was to have all changes reflected on one set of minutes.

Andrew Everett said that reporters have told him that any change in the minutes will be very closely noted.

Travis McCoy said he wanted Steering to be aware of the implications of changing the minutes. He said the change would not lessen the criticism of Senate, and that it would be perceived as wavering under public pressure. He said that so far, while outsiders could disagree with Senate’s ideas, they could not question its integrity or adherence to procedure. He said that if any further changes were made to the minutes, that reputation would be seriously jeopardized.

Rene Singleton suggested that the new minutes be posted separately online.

The amendment passed unanimously with one abstention.

Sam Al-Khoury moved to approve the minutes. Seconded. Passed without objection.

IX. Approval of the Minutes

The motion was made to approve the Steering minutes of February 13, 2006.

Seconded. Passed without objection.

Shawn Fisher moved to approve the Senate minutes of February 14, 2006.

Seconded. Passed without objection.

X. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:01PM

UW Senate Minutes 2-21-2006

2006-03-02T11:52:00.000-08:00

Bearing in mind the disclaimer provided by the UW Senate that unless quotations are used, the minutes are to be considered a summary and paraphrase of the session, not a verbatim account of the proceedings, here is a brief highlight of last weeks minutes.

The Letter from The Military Community of the University of Washington is a MUST read.

My comments are noted in italics:

Minutes
February 21, 2006
5:00PM HUB 310
Respectfully submitted by Senate Secretary Travis McCoy

(skip to session III for one military related issue)

III. Public Forum Dr. Nancy Rusty Barcelo, Vice President for Minority Affairs

Dr. Barcelo said she has been working on all three campuses with issues
regarding diversity.
....
Andrew Everett said the number of officers in training programs have been dropping for several years. He asked what was being done to address that issue.

Dr. Barcelo said she grew up in the US Air Force and that she had just finished a meeting with ROTC, so she was personally concerned with that issue. She said she would look into the issue more fully.

Encouraging

V. Committee Reports

Faculty And Administrative Affairs - The committee had no legislation to consider
Academic Affairs - The committee discussed ASUW coverage in the news
Publicity and Outreach - The committee discussed ASUW press coverage

I wonder if they mentioned me?

Membership - The committee discussed R-12-24 tabled it indefinitely

Note: This is the Jill Edwards apology resolution.

Campus Affairs - The committee discussed R-12-23 and passed favorably
Off Campus Affairs - The committee brainstormed places to advertise the
commuter forum
General Affairs - The committee considered R-12-22 and it passed with a
unanimous favorable recommendation

This is the committee that has the Resolution for the MOH Awardees, but I don't know if it had been referred to them last week or not.

Alex Kim said he was excited to see so many people interested in Senate.

He welcomed Dan Byron, a Cadet and member of the ROTC committee.

Dan Byron said the UW has been receiving a lot of criticism it didn't deserve.

He presented a letter from the military community on campus.

Student Senate,

Of the many student organizations on campus, the military community often holds a negative image. The various Reserve Officer Training Corp programs are frequently criticized by some as producing trained killers. Yet these programs are designed with considerable effort to produce leaders of integrity, courage and dedication.

The individuals thats come out of ROTC are some of the brightest leaders our nation is capable of producing. They are exactly the sort of people the UW should strive to
produce.

The military community does not desire parades, monuments or banners. We do our jobs not for thanks nor praise. We do our duty because we believe we serve a purpose greater than ourselves. However, we resent the fact that some members of the student government would liken us to criminals or murderers. It is true that the profession of arms is a violent one. But as a professional military, our services put an unbelievable amount of effort to accomplish the mission with as little damage and loss of life as possible. The world is still a violent place and the only thing that keeps violence off of our doorstep, is that other men and women stand ready to absorb that violence.

Soldiers are not responsible for making policy. We are assigned missions by the duly appointed civilian leadership, one not unlike the concept of the student senate. Like the American public we each have our own political opinions and beliefs. The ideas and politics of each person in uniform is as diverse as can be found anywhere on campus. Yet we all share one commonly parroted ideal; that freedom of thought and liberty are divine rights to be enjoyed by all humankind.

To this day there are millions of people who live under the weight of oppression. Few people around the world enjoy the same security, luxury and freedoms that are so openly taken for granted in our nation. Gregory Boyington and men like him literally bled to protect liberty from a growing oppressive empire. Many before him, many of his peers, and many future graduates from his Alma Mater have, and will continue to pay the price of liberty with their own blood.

So easy is it to condemn and criticize others. And so easy is it to give way to ignorance and preconceived notions. We are all guilty of it, all of us. While it is not uncommon, it is also not fair that some confuse the necessity of violence with murder or fascism. No American warrior fights solely for his appointed Commander in Chief. No American warrior fights for oil. Americans take up arms not to force their choices on others, but to give and protect the liberty of choice.

Despite all the criticism and the apparent negative feelings of all involved parties, we are PROUD to be members of the University community. The UW may not always support the military community, but we strongly support the University of Washington.

The UW is and will continue to be a main center of academic achievement, as well as a diverse community of politics and ideas. We firmly support the University of Washington because great minds do not think alike. Great minds think for themselves.

With Genuine Respect,
The Military Community of the University of Washington

Nice. I guess Roadkill's "War Party" don't all use Jackboots.

Alex Kim said much of the discussion across the country is more argument than discussion.

He said he thought much of the country suffers from a wound by which human beings cannot talk to each other.

He said the sort of dialogue that takes place within Senate is critical for healing and consensus in today's crossfire democracy.

He said the last two weeks have taught him how important such dialogue is.

I believe I mentioned that in my free speech post...Skipping ahead.

X. Orders of the Day
B. Old Business

I am including this because it shows that the UW Senate does practice some very interesting debate, even if it is a bit heavy on the PC rhetoric.

R-12-20 A Resolution in Opposition to the Denial of Federal Financial Aid Based on Drug Convictions

Karl Smith, sponsor of the legislation, reviewed the resolution.

He said the act was discriminatory as drug laws in general target minorities, and withheld the ability of those without means to get an education.

Zach Tobin moved to amend the resolution to add a citation to the "whereas" clause regarding the discriminatory nature of drug policy.

Seconded. Passed without objection.

Gary Stute said he thought Karl brought up good points and that the bill prevented people from getting ahead in life.

He encouraged senators to pass the resolution.

Alex Gwozda moved to amend the first whereas clause to add the word "recent" before "drug conviction" and add "or repeated offenses" to the end of the clause. His motion also added a second "whereas" clause stating "WHEREAS, specifically, possession of a controlled substance disqualifies a student from receiving financial aid for one year after the 1st offense, for two years after the 2nd offense, and indefinitely after the 3rd, and additionally, delivery of a controlled substance disqualifies a student from receiving financial aid for two years after the 1st offense and indefinitely after the 2nd, and"

Seconded. Passed without objection.

Andrew Everett asked if there were any statistics from government entities regarding drug use among minorities.

Alex Kim said the National Crime Statistic Survey was one of the few sources of data on the issue.

Ashley Miller said a professor at UW, Katherine Beckett, had done research indicating drug useage and trafficking was higher among whites,but that arrests were higher among minorities.

Erin Shields asked what the purpose of the legislation was.

Karl Smith responded it was supposedly aimed at reducing drug useage among college students.

Steve Valm said he thought the act would prevent people from bettering themselves by restricting their access to higher education.

Bryce McKibben moved to remove the word "federal" from the title and add "financial" before the word "aid" in both "that" clauses.

Seconded. Objection.

Bryce McKibben said it singled out the federal level, and that students should oppose such practices at all levels.

Shawn Fisher said he agreed with the first part of the change, but that the committee added the word "federal" in the title as students were still eligible for state based aid.

Travis Grandy moved to close debate. Seconded. Objection.

The motion passed. Debate was closed on the amendment.

Travis Grandy moved to divide the question. Seconded. Passed without objection.

The first part of the amendment failed. The second part of the amendment passed.

Shawn Fisher said he hoped the resolution was passed unanimously as UW students needed to stand up for their fellow peers.

Jerome McCuin said he had noticed that every four years, the convictions on drug convictions increase. He said that drug convictions are not all the same, as some are prosecuted differently than others. He said the new law undoes what the original financial aid act did by balancing access to education in society.

Nathan Bedle asked how many students would be affected.

Jerome McCuin responded that in 2001, 9,000 applicants lost their aid, and that 836,000 left that specific question blank on the application.

Nathan Bedle said he thought the "whereas" clause regarding the use of possessing small amounts of narcotics.

Brent Hoffsteder moved to remove the "whereas" clause regarding
discrimination.

Seconded. Objection.

He said he thought it was an issue about people's personal choices, and not an issue of race. He said he didn't think it appropriate to include racial issues as grounds on which to oppose the policy.

Karl Smith said he thought it was an appropriate thing to mention in the resolution.

Jerome McCuin moved to close debate. Seconded. Objection.

The motion passed. The amendment failed.

Karl Smith highlighted the second "that" clause on the resolution and said the ACLU is looking for a student who has been denied aid.

Sam Al-Khoury moved to close debate. Seconded. Objection.

The motion passed.
The resolution passed

End of quoted minutes

So, as I noted in my free speech blog, they debate, they dissent, they discuss and debate more until one side prevails.

What happened in the blogsphere and radio shows is merely an extension of that concept.

UW Memorial Status- Limbo

2006-03-02T01:01:00.000-08:00

There are still no minutes posted for the Senate Session on the 21st, nor the Steering Committee on the 20th.

Also a new disclaimer is on the minutes site, advising one and all that "ALL MINUTES ARE PARAPHRASED UNLESS QUOTATION MARKS (" ") ARE INCLUDED!

Can't say they don't learn. I am sure the minutes are undergoing a severe vetting process this time. I can't say I blame them, but honestly, once again I remind them that all they have to do is post the session in a Podcast and then no one would worry about accurate quotes.

The Resolution for an apology from Jill Edwards as well as the Resolution in Support of the Right of Military Recruiters to be Present on Campus have both been tabled indefinitely, which means they are effectively dead.

We all waited anxiously because of the Seattle Times Article suggesting a vote on the memorial for all MOH awardees was possibly going to happen.

It did not, the matter has not even been heard in committee. A rumor suggests the resolution is being suppressed until the media blitz wears down, but others dispute that, and insist that it is just having to wait its turn in committee.

Finally I read that the Senate Sessions are open to the public Tuesdays at 5pm in HUB 310, so I encourage any interested parties to attend and see for themselves, rather then rely on paraphrased minutes. I am considering it myself.

I doubt there is a means for public commentary, but that question should be addressed to the Senate Chair.

I also strongly encourage anyone who decides to attend to do so as passive observers, and be respectful and not disruptive. I would extend that to any mail or communication to any parties. There is enough bad feeling going around. Let's try communication instead.

Free Speech at the UW and Beyond

2006-03-01T23:27:00.000-08:00

I am a fairly tolerant guy, I really am. Sure I get surly about some things, but I have learned that getting pissed about minor stuff is pointless

But this raging debate about free speech concerning the Boyington Memorial is really starting to irritate me. The matter itself is simple enough to understand. They debated a proposed memorial, and in the process a couple of people spoke their minds. The details of those comments were heard by a larger audience, who expressed disapproval and outrage. The memorial was defeated and that drew more outrage.

Suddenly, it was not about respect, or race, (re: the comments by the students) it was all about free speech, and suddenly the bloggers and talk radio were under attack as trying to tamper with the opinions of the students, and we are being disrespectful.

Can you say "blame shifting"?

Lee Dunbar is quoted as saying:

...He has been witness to blatant disregard and disrespect toward students and their right to express themselves freely.

...

He said he would do everything in his power to prevent such blatant disrespect for student's opinions.

Roadkill Blog, in a post that minimalized the students as just silly, but criminalized the critics as "not quite Nazis" and chickenhawks, shows his dissatisfaction of the wider debate thusly:

(speaking of the bloggers and radio shows)...But not to the war party. They just couldn't wait to put a jackboot on somebody's neck because they cannot tolerate any more dissent, especially now, that their Iraq escapade is in tatters. It's not quite a NAZI attitude, but it's on the path to it. Since the wars this fallen Nation chooses to embroil itself in no longer have any real honor, the war fanatics fight at every turn to stoke the inherently tarnished, diminished honor of the volunteers who have chosen to follow our misleaders.

and in my comments:

There is something fundamentally tainted about raising a ruckus to force - coerce, actually - someone to support an honor they would freely choose not to support.

When this thing is built - I will assume it will be - people will walk by and remember this was the one the military mob forced down the Senate's throat. The conflict will be recalled before the medal winners, which is a shame. The assault on free speech will be remembered and the assaults on the Solomons forgotten... Again.

You know, what the UW really needs is a monument to the futility of force...

Now would Possum, the noble MINO* please answer me a question? How is the act of protest and debate an act of forcing, and as any true moderate should know, is that any different then the attempts to drain the memorial of its substance by watering the language? Did they not just force that issue, then kill it when they couldn't contain it?

Rather hypocritical, really. If you say it, it is free speech, and protected and sacred, and magic and special, but if *I* disagree, then *my* speech is disrespectful and coercive.

Sweet...

Um, this is a debate gang, of course it's coercive! The whole point of debate is to oppose the other sides arguments and convince the undecided to support *you*. Is that not what happened? Hello? Bueller?

What pisses everyone off is that the debate continued after the resolution was killed. Rather then simply slink away, tail between legs, cowed for having the audacity to propose a memorial, the sponsor refused to give up, and now the students face a consequence that they seem to feel they are above: A few are being held accountable for their words.

Nicole Brodeur stated it well in her Seattle Times column:

(Speaking of Senator Jill Edwards)

Bloggers jumped all over her, one writer suggesting a Pappy Boyington Memorial Scholarship at UW for U.S. Marines or their children.

...

Edwards had a few things of her own to post on a UW page: "I talked more than I ever have before and realized exactly why I never talk. I am thouroughly (sic) regretting opeining (sic) my mouth."

And therein lies the irony. Guys like Pappy Boyington won her the freedom to do that.

What you do with that freedom can carry consequences. The trick is to learn from those mistakes Â? and from the people who made such lessons possible.

Bingo. In case you missed it, here is the short version:

Free speech isn't really free.

First of all, people like Pappy died to win you that freedom, and second, free speech is not an absolute. There are some restrictions on it, regardless of what you or the ACLU may say. Oh, not just the tired old "shouting Fire in a crowded theater" example. Remember hate speech? Threatening the president? What about preaching sedition? Are those free speech? Nope, all illegal.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the examples are limited for a good reason. Free speech must exist in as much freedom as it can, or we are not free.

So, what is free speech really?

It is certainly easy to open your mouth and spew out anything you want, that's true. But that really isn't free speech. Free speech doesn't happen until you are wildly disagreed with, but your right to say what you did is respected. Free speech is not saying what everyone around you agrees with, it is saying what they intensely disagree with, and them allowing you to disagree.

Missed it again? Free speech is not about words, it is about ideas. It is about conveying an idea, and the Courts protect it when it isn't even in words. It is about communication.

So a few students protested their opinion of unworthiness of the honoree. Totally acceptable free speech. So some bloggers and radio shows expressed that they thought the students were ignorant and disrespectful. Also protected free speech.

So a debate began to continue the project anyway, a perfect example of effective communication and, as anyone who passed Civics might know, a perfect example of the continuing evolving legislative process.

The students understand coercion, they passed this resolution endorsing Lobby Day, and they passed this one opposing Denial of Federal Financial Aid due to drug convictions, in which they encourage people affected to contact the ACLU and don't forget the Resolutoin currently in consideration to Admonish Military Recruiters.

The even have a Lobbying Blog: http://asuwogr.blogspot.com/

Isn't that the sweetest little bit of irony? They are complaining that bloggers are trying to coerce them, operate a blog detailing their attempts to coerce (lobby) the State Legislature. I love it.

They obviously get it. They use it. They work to influence the world around them through debate and resolution, through communication of ideas. They just don't like it when the world tries to influence them back; then they call it unfair and disrespectful.

Ya know what? Grow up. I repeat: Grow up. You don't like being called petulant, then don't whine.

Free speech is all the rage when the people agree with you, isn't it? But is sure sucks when it comes knocking on your door with it's own opinion, and you sure don't like when it disagrees with you.

Yes, this post is very cynical, I admit it. But the whining is growing tiresome.

To Jill and Ashley: You said it, now own it and deal with it.

And I again categorically condemn any hate mail you, or anyone else received.

To the UW Senate: Keep it up. Debate hard, and loud, and with passion. Influence the world around you, but remember you do so in what Lee Dunbar called "A center of the community." You would be well advised to remember that the community extends beyond the campus to the world around you. You know this, because you lobby to change that world. If so, then you have to accept that the world is also watching and will try to influence you.

Don't get snarky about.

Communicate.

*MINO= Moderate In Name Only...Fair is fair, he calls me a Moderate in Training. If he is an example of a trained moderate, God Help us.

WA State Senate to UW Senate- Now how hard was that?

2006-03-01T07:40:00.000-08:00

In a quick vote last night, the Washington State Senate passed a resolution to honor Col Gergory 'Pappy' Boyington just weeks after the UW Student Seante declined a memorial to honor the UW grad.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/

Unlike UW, state Senate passes resolution honoring World War II hero

By MIKE BAKER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- The state Senate has passed a resolution to honor World War II hero Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, just weeks after the University of Washington student Senate shot down a measure to honor the UW alumnus.

Sen. Luke Esser, also a UW graduate, proposed the measure after what he deemed an "unfortunate" incident at his old school.

"He was one of the most heroic fighter pilots in American history," said Esser, R-Bellevue. "Being a guy from UW, I'm proud of Huskies that go on to achieve great things."

The student Senate triggered a firestorm three weeks ago after rejecting by one vote a resolution to create a campus memorial for Boyington. Radio talk shows and Internet blogs quickly chastised the students for the decision.

Debating the issue, UW senior Ashley Miller said the university already had enough monuments to rich white men, according to meeting minutes. Jill Edwards, a UW sophomore, questioned whether a member of the Marine Corps was the type of person the school wanted to produce.

Miller said later her comments were made as part of a general discussion of memorials on campus, not about Boyington specifically. Edwards said she did not mean to offend anyone but was trying to start a discussion.

"Some of the statements that came out of that incident were unfortunate," Esser said. "People make mistakes. I said some things in my youth that I'd like to have back, too."

Most famous for his actions as a Marine ace, shooting down more than 20 enemy planes, Boyington also spent nearly two years as a Japanese prisoner of war. He earned a Medal of Honor.

Boyington's military career, along with his ragtag "Black Sheep" squadron of the South Pacific, became the foundation for the popular 1970s TV series "Baa Baa Black Sheep," starring Robert Conrad as Boyington.

The resolution passed late Monday during a session attended only by the floor leaders of both parties.

"We wanted to give Pappy Boyington the honor he deserves," said Democratic floor leader Tracey Eide, D-Federal Way. "His show was one of my all-time favorites. He was one of our all-time heroes."

After catching so much flak, the UW student Senate was expected to consider a new way to honor Boyington - by recognizing all five former students who received the Medal of Honor. They include Deming Bronson, Robert Galer, Robert Leisy and William Nakamura.

The student Senate could vote on that proposal next week.

"Most students wanted something more inclusive," said Lee Dunbar, student body president. "With this one we have pretty wide support."

---

The Boyington resolution is SR 8728

Let them eat cake.

2006-02-28T22:30:00.000-08:00

In my last blog I listed a few of what I considered to be the less important matters the Student Senators had debated and resolved this session, including this one:

A Resolution In Support Of Cake

A Resolution in Support of Cake

WHEREAS anthropologists have concluded that agriculture is the single most important human technology ever developed, and;

WHEREAS agriculture allowed the production of refined flours which are vital ingredients for delicious cake, and;

WHEREAS cake is by all means considered a tasty dessert and treat, and;

WHEREAS Marie Antoinette is frequently referenced to have said, “Let them eat cake!” and;

WHEREAS all must acquiesce to the irresistible power of cake, therefore;

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:

THAT the ASUW wholly supports and consumes cake in all its forms and formally requests the presence of a scrumptious cake at the final meeting of the Student Senate’s twelfth session to be provided by the beloved SAO advisor.

All in fun, and quite yummy sounding.

But did you know that cake will cost the taxpayers money? To be exact, $13,745.00

That's because the four officers of the UW Student Senate draw a stipend each year.

SENATE CHAIR $4,403.

SENATE VICE-CHAIR $3,273.

SENATE SECRETARY $2,890.

MEMBERSHIP COORDINATOR $3,179.

Now I assume that they have classes so they must only do this what, 10 hours a week or so? If so, since the stipend is not for the summer session, that averages about 8 or 9 bucks an hour or so. Not too bad really.

Just thought you might wanna know who pays for them to tell us they love cake....

(Note- By the way....Yes, I know the "Cake" resolution is used for training purposes....

From the Minutes....
Alex Kim noted that R-12-1 A resolution in Support of Cake was entirely scripted and intended as instructional for new senators.

The resolution was presented using a pre-written script that was provided to members of senate. Please reference the script for detailed information regarding the resolution.
But honestly, it was there so I had to use it.)

Jill Edwards: In her own words

2006-02-28T16:28:00.000-08:00

This is not meant to disrespect Miss Edwards. If anything it is an opportunity for her side of the story to be shown.

In surfing around other Boyington stories, I came upon a link to her after session notes that she posts as a part of her representation of the Honors Croquet League...No I am not making that up...I could never have made that up. Oh come on, it isn't that bad. Moving on.....

As I was saying, in honest fairness, I think it is important to see how she felt about the fray. I am going to post, unedited, her notes from 2-7-2006 (the day of the initial debate and her notes from 2-21-2006. In fairness, suspend judgment till you read them all. I have only one comment, which I will save until the end.

February 7, 2006

Senate this week was interesting. I talked more than I ever have before and realized exactly why I never talk. I apparently upset a lot of people when I opposed a memorial for a Colonel from WWII who had recieved a Medal of Honor and who was a UW graduate. This was the main discussion and rather than go into it, I think I would rather post some of the charming and sweet letters I have recieved since then.

". . . most of you aren't informed at all about that which you discuss. That's a sad commentary about a university education that is supported by my tax dollars. No doubt you all have been corrected for your erroneous and sometimes outrageous remarks (Jill Edwards, Ashley Williams). It is one thing to stand up for your political beliefs. It's entirely another to totally misrepresent the truth for political reasons."

"Against overwhelming odds, [Boyington] helped the overall cause of stopping what had been started on Dec. 7th, 1941 when the United States was attacked by the Empire of Japan. Or had you forgotten? Or did you ever even know? You should be honored that such a person is an alumnus of your school. Most schools can't claim such an honorable person. I'm just sorry that your school has to claim you."

"If it were not for a lot of people like Greg Boyington, you'd probably be attending classes in German or Japanese........... Kinda sad---but such is life in the Socialist Soviet of Seattle, 'ay? "

So there you have it. Thanks, I am thouroughly regretting opeining my mouth. No quote of the week this week, I think the above suffice.

Now, the most recent, dated 2-21-2006, where she does show some respect and regret:

February 21, 2006

A significant amount of time has passed since my last Senate report, and I'm sure all the members of the League are wondering what HAS been happening in Senate since my last update.

As you may recall, at the last meeting some things were said, then summarized, mis-summarized, quoted, misquoted, publicized, and blown out of proportion, intentions were misinterpreted and some people were offended. As my hopefully final statement on the manner: I am sincerely sorry that this happened, especially that people were offended. On an upside, lots of people have been reading these reports; on the downside, I apparently can't spell (no wonder crosswords are so hard for me).

Just so everyone is clear, as I feel I owe you at least, the people I'm representing in Senate an explanation, I am pretty sure I didn't discuss the worth of the Marine Corps as a whole. The Secretary summarized my comments, paraphrasing them in a way that added an extra layer of meaning I didn't intend and by the time it became an issue, people didn't think the difference in meaning was significant. To clarify, I was merely questioning the idea that Boyington deserved a memorial above ALL other UW alumni and if he was indeed the BEST example of a person the UW wanted to produce (people may disagree with me on this point, fine, but I hope they realize it was not intended to be offensive). I never intended to imply that Marines are not good enough for our institution. Also, when I questioned honoring Boyington for killing people, I meant to question if that the one thing of all of his achievements we wanted to choose to honor, instead of his sacrifices, bravery etc, not that we should not honor him on the basis that he killed people. I am NOT anti-military at all. I support the people in the military so much, I would like to see them not killed as much as possible. I realize that in the past war has been unavoidable and I have the utmost appreciation for people who have served and are serving.

Of course, some of you may have heard about the bill to force me to apologize. All I can say about this is the idea of forcing someone to retract their statements because other people disagreed does not hold with what the ASUW stands for.

Now that that is over with: At this meeting, a bill opposing the denial of federal financial aide to anyone with a prior drug conviction passed almost unanimously as I recall. If anyone in the League has been denied federal financial aide due to a previous drug conviction, please contact the ACLU. There is more information on the Senate website; they are trying to create a case to challenge this law.

As usual, a lot of other important things were discussed. Check the Senate web-site or come to the meetings, Tuesday nights at 7.

Quote of the week: From the Simpsons Episode "Bart-Mangled Banner" in which Bart accidently moons the American flag: [Interior of Springfield Shopper newsroom] Editor: (holds up photo of Bart mooning flag) "Alright, who can take a story and blow it waaaaay out of proportion?" Reporter: "I'm your man, boss!" Editor: "I want you to overhype this story so much it makes the New York Post look like the New York Times. Or the New York Times look like the New York Post. I forget which one the good one is."

My only real comment concerns this statement:

the idea of forcing someone to retract their statements because other people disagreed does not hold with what the ASUW stands for

Jill, you miss the point.

Asking you to apologize does not necessitate your retraction of your words, it merely asks you to be responsible and address the offense they caused, and if possible clarify them. This you have done, though I would find it more to your credit had you done so publicly, not in the notes of your Croquet League. Regardless, to take this as an attempt at censorship misses the point. No one wants to censor your words. We just want you to be responsible for them.

Free speech requires responsibility. If your words are hasty and offend, that is a logical consequence, and in the end, as an adult, it's up to you whether you want to address the consequences of that or not. I tell my kids the same thing. You said it, you own it...Now deal with it.

You, according to your notes, rarely participate, and I suppose it is to your credit you got involved at all this time. That should be applauded. You spoke your mind, and exercised your opinion.

But your words, as quoted, seriously offended some people, and if nothing else I hope this makes you a more effective Senator (and person I suppose) by making you a bit more considerate of the effect of your words on others. You are speaking to the record when you speak in the Senate, and the record is ruthless about recording the words you say, something your Washington DC peers often forget as well...

Finally, just in passing, I would say that reading her other notes, one wonders why she is there at all. She expresses a lot of disdain for the institution itself:

For a while during the meeting, and this disturbed me somewhat, I got very caught up in the debate. I started acting like it would make a difference whether we passed this resolution or not. It shook the very foundation of my beliefs as an ASUW senator: that the ASUW Senate has no actual bearing on reality. I had to remind myself that passing this bill would not change the bookstore's policy, that few people out of the senate would care or even know that this bill had been passed or not. So my faith in the pointlessness of senate was restored. But I have a greater understanding of my fellow senators, who actually *care* about what happens. Power is a drug; even when it isn't real it is still psychologically addicting. No wonder they expend so much energy thinking they have great influence when really they don't.

I know little about the Senate itself, but the more I read the more intrigued I get.

Here is a short list of some of its notable resolutions in this session:

A Resolution In Support Of Cake (passed) (note-this is a scripted test resolution for training, though they may still eat the cake for all I know)
A Resolution in Support of an On-Campus Late-Night Coffee Shop (passed)
Resolution in Support of Affordable Textbooks (passed)
A Resolution in Support of a Fair Trade Coffee Campus (passed)

Hmm, maybe she is on to something...I dunno, maybe those are key issues to the Croquet League.....

The New Bush Defenders: the LA Times?

2006-02-27T21:42:00.000-08:00

I mean just the thought of it is incredible enough. The LA Times has earned it's reputation as one of the more liberally slanting newspapers, but in a recent series of editorials, it has nicely skewered the left's criticism of the Dubai Ports World issue, including a few very choice comments for California's own US Sen Barbara Boxer(d).

The issue should have died out, as the truth of the proposal became clear. Indeed, as noted by Sister Toldjah, many conservatives have begun changing what was a nervous and skeptical mindset into growing support as the facts begin to be made clear. No, the Arabs have not taken over the mightiest ports in America. Swarthy men are not unloading our ships and planting suitcase bombs in our imported toasters. The Teamsters and Longshoremen still control the loading, the Company only over sees logistics. Customs and the Coast Guard still maintain security.

The Democrats however, seeing this as a pollsters cash cow have tightened their gripe on the misinformation machine and have jumped on their band wagon with all gun's firing. And people are buying their fear tactics. Barbara is one of the many fear slongers seeing this as a Golden Ticket.

The facts are simple, this is a non story. Even the UAE has respectfully asked for a delay and review just to appease nervous xenophobes.

(See here for a good collection of informative links on the disinformation:

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/02/27/disinformation-campaign-on-the-uae-port-deal)

Now, on to the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ports22feb22,0,4937386.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

Port hysteria

WHEN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TAKE homeland security seriously, it's a welcome development. Unfortunately, Tuesday's bipartisan hissy fit over the Bush administration's approval of a Dubai company's $6.8-billion deal to manage six important U.S. ports is neither serious nor welcome.

At first glance, Dubai Ports World's acquisition of the British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. looks troubling: Do we really want a company from the United Arab Emirates, one of the only countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, acting as the maritime gatekeeper for New York, Miami, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore and Newark, N.J.?

After all, ports could be appealing and vulnerable targets for terrorists, handling about 2 billion tons of freight each year, only 5% of which receives close inspection. The remaining containers are vetted through an informal process that emphasizes faith in "trusted shippers."

The problem is that blocking the Dubai deal wouldn't do a thing to change any of that. It only provides members of Congress an opportunity to talk tough and pander to the terrorism-rattled xenophobe in us all.

Dubai Ports World, like the foreign companies that already run the majority of key U.S. ports; including 80% of the terminals in Los Angeles; does not own the points of entry. It is a contractor that coordinates logistics. And most important, it's not in charge of security. (emphasis mine) Port operators work with U.S. security officials (port police, the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security) in charge of preventing terrorism.

This week's hubbub diverts attention from a pressing and genuine debate over what those agencies really need to do to keep our commercial harbors safe. Compared to airport security, port security is woefully underfunded and undeveloped.

A paper written by former Coast Guard Cmdr. Stephen E. Flynn in the current issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review calls the system a "house of cards." Flynn argues that any terrorist worth his salt could simply seek out a well-known "trusted" shipper's containers to stash his deadly contraband. He calls for a slate of inspection-oriented reforms, including the adoption of better screening technologies.

Who owns the companies that operate the ports isn't the point; it's how those companies work together with federal and local authorities to keep ports safe. And the Department of Homeland Security has a long way to go before it figures out how best to get that done.

To be fair, congressional calls for transparency in the bidding process make sense. And any attention paid to port security is better than none at all. But by focusing on the nationality of a respected ports operator, instead of scrutinizing questionable policies or providing tangible suggestions for making the nation safer, members of Congress have once again shown their unerring knack for irrelevance when it comes to matters of homeland security.

Just on that basis I was standing up cheering (embarassing really, I was at work...), but this next one is better yet:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ports26feb26,0,6772402.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

Boxer's rebellion

EVEN AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION promotes free trade and economic growth as a counter to extremism in the Middle East and elsewhere, some members of Congress appear determined to send a different message: America is happy to use your nation as a staging ground or refueling station for its military adventures, but we don't trust you enough to trade with you. And among the members of Congress conveying this impression most loudly is the junior senator from California, Barbara Boxer.

Dubai Ports World, which is based in the United Arab Emirates, agreed last week to delay the acquisition of the U.S. terminals included in its purchase of a British cargo operations company while the administration gives Congress time to study the deal. Too much delay, or outright rejection, would tarnish this country's international reputation, but that's nothing compared to the damage that could be wrought by the ongoing hysteria in Congress.

No one can dispute that the UAE is a key ally, that the deal has been vetted by the Department of Homeland Security and that it would have no effect on government security operations at the six ports where Ports World would run terminals. The objections to the deal are more rooted in a general mistrust and lack of confidence in the Bush administration.

As well-founded as these concerns may be, they're not the kind of thing that is addressed through legislation such as that proposed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Their bill would block companies owned by foreign governments from buying U.S. port operators. If that's what they're really worried about, then they're too late. Some of the world's biggest shipping companies, including China Ocean Shipping (better known as Cosco) and Singapore's APL, both of which have a major presence at California ports, are government-owned. Many of the rest have complex relationships with their home governments, making it very difficult to determine which are state-owned.

This brouhaha is reminiscent of 1998, when Cosco proposed moving from its berth at the Port of Long Beach to a shuttered naval station on the other side of the port that was being converted to a container terminal. Congress, fearing the company was a front for Chinese spies, scotched the deal.

It remains mystifying why anyone would consider a closed naval station, its buildings demolished and equipment long gone, to be a more effective platform for spying than Cosco's present terminal. But opponents of the Cosco deal, mostly Republicans, won a political victory over the Clinton administration.

Now there is a Republican in the White House, and of all the grandstanding surrounding the Dubai Ports World deal, none tops Boxer's performance. She said last week that she would support legislation preventing any foreign firm, state-owned or not, from buying port operators. Memo to Boxer: 13 of the 14 container terminals at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the biggest port complex in the U.S., are run by foreign-owned companies. (emphasis mine) She later told The Times that she meant such deals should get greater scrutiny, not be banned. Still, this is the sort of proposal one would expect from a senator from a land-locked state like Vermont, not one where international trade plays a vital role in the economy. The Clinton-Menendez bill, which Boxer is backing, would do little more than disrupt port operations and attract international protest.

Boxer had a more enlightened view in 1998, when she supported the Cosco move. She now borrows a line from George W. Bush and says the world has changed since 9/11, but that still doesn't explain why she supported terminal operations run by a foreign government-owned company eight years ago but now distrusts any foreign operator whether it comes from a country involved in terrorism or not.

One possible explanation is that the Cosco deal was heavily backed by a Democratic administration, while the Dubai Ports World deal is heavily backed by a Republican administration. But that would mean Boxer is working against the interests of her state in order to score cheap political points. She would never do such a thing. Would she?

Next thing you know they will accuse her of being a partisan hack...what? Oh yea, they did, didn't they?

With the immense disinformation campaign, the blatant hypocrisy of the politicians, and liberal pundits practically wetting themselves at the thought of the fall of the Bush Dynasty, it's good to see that even the LA Times looked the situation over, found the simple truth, and said "Enough!"

UPDATE:

Sister Toldjah posted on this this morning also, noting how politics indeed makes strange bedfelloews. She noted that The Washington Post's Richard Cohen now supports it, and the NY Times has an OP ED piece from Nick Kristoff also in favor of it (paid reg req).

Strange times indeed...

UW Senate Steering Committee discuss and edit Jill and Ashley's remarks

2006-02-24T11:18:00.000-08:00

The Boyington Memorial flap was largely based on the minutes of the Senate session dates 2-7-2006. Those meetings were displayed on the UW Senate site at:

http://senate.asuw.org/secretary/senminutes.shtml

At some point however the file for the meeting in question was renamed to 02-07-2006-draft, and an apparently approved copy was added.

The changes were fairly subtle, but I always wondered why there was a draft copy at all, since that was the only draft edition of a set of minutes, dating back to 2002.

So I looked around and found the answer. There is a second minutes site, the minutes for the Senate Steering Committee, and they are kept here:

http://senate.asuw.org/secretary/strminutes.shtml

In the 2-13-2006 Steering Committee there was much discussion about those minutes, particularly the comments made by Ashley Miller (rich white men) and Jill Miller (UW does not want to produce Marines).

Here is an excerpt from those minutes that concerns those comments.

Question to the reader: Was the committee concerned with saving face or clarifying the comments?

IX. Approval of the Minutes

Alex Kim noted that he requested a draftversion of the minutes be posted online before the Steering Committee considered them.

Shawn Fisher noted Steering Committee would meet this Friday at 3:30.

Erin Shields said she was concerned over the quote that Jill Edwards is quoted to say.

Alex Kim noted Jill Edwards contacted him asking him to add a quote regarding her respect for veterans.

Erin Shields said she was concerned with the phraseology of the quote.

Sam Al-Khoury said he thought the general thought was somewhat conveyed by the minutes.

He moved to remove the reference to the Marine Corps and instead say "a person who kills others."
Seconded. Objection.

Jerome McCuin said changing the minutes will give the appearance of trying to rewrite the meeting.

Alex Kim noted that Jill Edwards never said the minutes misrepresented her quote.

Travis Grandy asked if Sam Al-Khoury made the motion to protect Jill Edwards or because it was what he thought Jill Edwards said.

Sam Al-Khoury said he thought the quote reflected the spirit of what was said.

Jon Lee said he was concerned Senate was trying to fill in gaps in its memory, and that it was inappropriate to change them at this point in time.

Travis McCoy noted that the minutes are listed as a draft copy until approved by Steering.

Hala Dillsi amended the amendment stating "Jill Edwards questioned whether it was appropriate to honor a person who killed other people" And leaving the statement regarding the Marine Corps. Seconded. Objection.

Karl Smith noted that he specifically remembered her making a statement, not asking a question.

Sam Al-Khoury asked if the minutes could be conditionally approved.

Alex Kim said that would not be possible.

Rene Singleton said Jill Edwards had already given the committee her opinion and that Steering had several options available that it could exercise.

Cailin Magruder said she remembered the quote clearly and wasn't happy with the amendments currently on the table as they misrepresented what was said.

Hala Dillsi encouraged Steering committee to vote down the current amendment so that we could consider a second amendment.

The amendment to the amendment failed.

Hala Dillsi amended the amendment to add "Jill Edwards said she did not believe it was appropriate to pass a resolution to honor a person who killed other people" and keep the present statement about the Marine Corps.

Jon Lee said he objected because Senate is trying to fill in bits and pieces of what happened during Senate.

Alex Kim said there was no way to eliminate the gap between when the meeting takes place and the approval of the minutes.

Cailin Magruder said she didn't want to amend the statement given that it skews the quote from her personal recollection of the statement.

Jerome McCuin said he didn't want to amend the minutes because the information was already available.

Travis McCoy said that as secretary, he was responsible for ensuring the minutes were an accurate representation of what occurred in the meeting. He said with that responsibility in mind, that he approved of the current amendment as he felt it accurately clarified the statement in question.

Jon Lee noted that Steering Committee had gotten input from Jill Edwards and that she didn't request any further changes be made.

Erin Shields said she thought Jill Edward's quote misrepresented her as being entirely against the Marine Corps. She said the comment comes across incorrectly.

Travis Grandy moved to close debate on the amendment to the amendment.

Seconded.

Passed without objection.

The vote on the amendment to the amendment was tied.

Alex Kim voted yay. The amendment to the amendment passed.

Rene Singleton said the lesson should be learned to not publish information before it has been approved.

Travis Grandy move to close debate.

Seconded. Passed without objection.

The amendment tied. Alex Kim voted aye. The motion passed.

Travis Grandy moved to amend the minutes to clarify that Ashley Miller was not speaking specifically to the resolution when she made her comment. There was no second.

The motion was made to approve the minutes as amended.

Seconded.

Objection.

Jerome McCuin said he thought ASUW was making a mistake by changing the minutes after they had been published.

Alex Kim noted that it used to be a standard practice to release draft minutes every week. He said the job of Steering is to ensure the validity of the minutes.

He said it is still the job of Steering to preserve the accuracy of the minutes.

The motion passed. The minutes were approved.

Rene Singleton said it would be possible to release both copies of the minutes.

Sam Al-Khoury asked if the changes could simply be noted on the draft issue.

Erin Shields said she wanted senators to be able to justify their comments and that perhaps minutes should be released in draft form as well.

X. Adjournment

Jon Lee moved to adjourn. Seconded. Passed without objection.

The meeting adjourned at 5:25PM.

UAE Port deal: problem or waste of bandwidth?

2006-02-23T17:58:00.000-08:00

I expressed my concerns previously about the UAE Dubai Ports World issue in this blog:

http://guitarplayr.blogspot.com/2006/02/now-i-know-its-bad-idea.html

At that point, the best reason to dislike the deal was the fact former President Jimmy Carter supported it, a point I still find compelling.

But after reviewing the facts, hearing the talking points, and reading an insane number of blogs, I am beginning to believe this is not only a serious waste of time, but it may not be such a bad idea after all.

See Sister Toldjah for a lot more detailed information and a ton of great links. She has done some of her best work here..

My basic reasons to support it, or at least to feel there is little reason to oppose it, are these:

There will be no changes in the present security procedures. This company takes over port management only, not security or loading operations.
The UAE has been a consistent ally in the war on terror.
Dubai Ports World already operates ports around the world including Australia, China, Korea, Malaysia, India, Germany and Venezuela. They are experienced and have a very respected reputation. If there are issues, let some of those countries step forward and let the record be known.
They currently operate military ports for the US and have had a consistent record of secure operations.
We have many ports in the US already under foreign management; in fact the six ports involved are presently under British management, so the whole concept of *foreigners* running our ports is already a well known scenario. The fact that the Government of the UAE itself has ownership of this company is not necessarily a deal breaker to me, if they can be shown to be a trustworthy government, and even then it's still essentially moot because they will not have any actual control over port security. That, as I mentioned before, is still maintained by the Coast Guard and the US Customs Service.

What this is all about, at it's core, is racism; specifically Islamophobia, which I first suspected was the case.

Any other government would be ok, but these are Middle Easterners. The rants on the radio are incredible, about "not trusting them Arabs".

And that is the irony, at least as far as some of the liberal critics are concerned.

It is apparently ok to profile a country based on their race and religion (despite their reputation and their actual relationship with our country), but it is a bad thing to profile any middle eastern people based on their race and religion when they board an airplane. This is absurd.

So also are the headlines claiming Bush is *giving* the UAE control of US 6 ports. It is a business deal where Dubai Ports World is buying a British Company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

I can only find one valid possible point of contention. Several legislatures are claiming there is a requirement that this deal be given a mandatory 45 day investigation under a law governing the review of foreign investments. The Whitehouse claims that is not mandatory, it is dependent on security concerns.

So, that's it. Settle that issue, and make sure we abide by the law as necessary and I am satisfied.

Aside from that whole Jimmy Carter thing I mean...

The UW MOH Memorial: Let's make sure they get it right

2006-02-22T23:01:00.000-08:00

I admit my last blog about this was fairly angry. I was very upset about the events that had transpired, and I decided to show it. I was, and I still am fairly disgusted with the editors of the Seattle PI for trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear.

But it occurred to me today that this, like so many things is life, has all the ingredients of an opportunity to make it right.

I decided to look up the details of the 5 men who earned the Medal Of Honor (MOH), and I discovered they all had unique stories worthy of telling. I remarked to Kirby Wilbur via email that I doubted any of the students had even bothered to do the 5 minutes of google searching it took me to find all five citations. While that may be true of some of them, it is not true of all, because I found that the new resolution introduced to the Senate contains the details of all five men. The resolution, R-12-26 - A Resolution Calling a Memorial for UW Alumni awarded the Medal of Honor can be read here:

http://senate.asuw.org/legislation/12/R/R-12-26.html

I will post it below in a moment.

I am blogging this tonight to say that while I think the original resolution had merit, this one can be just as good, if a few things are done to ensure it doesn't fall prey to correctness. The new resolution was written by the same person as the original, so I am fairly confident he has the intention of making this a sober, respectful and comprehensive memorial. I am also, however, cynical enough that I do not trust that his peers will not try to "PC" it, and dumb it down to make it more generic, as they did his original resolution.

This must not be allowed to happen.

If these men are to be honored they should be honored in the full context of their achievement and valor, which to me requires nothing less then the full citation that accompanied their award, and a brief historical bio and context for each one, in separate steles.

In the case of one soldier, this to me is particularly important: PFC William K Nakamura, the only non graduate, and the only enlisted person as well, as fate would have it. The PI noted that he had his studies interrupted by the interment camps in 1942. What they glossed over was that he enlisted in the army and became a member of what would become one of the most highly decorated regiments in U.S. history, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, 34th "Red Bull" Division, U.S. 5th Army. He was the first Army volunteer from Minidoka Relocation Center to be killed in action.

And he was the only one of the 5 whose medal was not awarded until June 21, 2000 because his original recommendation for the MOH had been downgraded to the Distinguished Cross, arguably due to his being Japanese.

Additionally, on September 19, 2000, the King County Council passed a resolution urging Congress to name a planned new Federal Courthouse in Seattle after Nakamura. The Seattle City Council passed a similar resolution. Congress responded in November 2000 by renaming the existing courthouse (at Madison Street and 5th Avenue) in his honor.

(source: http://www.historylink.org/output.cfm?file_id=2767)

Is his tale not one that should be told, and be told in it's full context? And can less truly be said about any of the others?

If the Senate makes this a simple 5 names on a plaque with a pretty ribbon, lacking any details and context, who will tell the full story of these men, why they are honored and what their sacrifice represents?

Please join me in encouraging all parties to put aside agendas and ideologies and do the right thing.

It's ironic that the PI was right, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, the debate can lead to a greater more meaningful monument, but only if the students, with our encouragement and support do the right thing.

Here is the link to their contact information:

http://senate.asuw.org/membership/membershipdb.cgi

Write them and ask for their support in making this a memorial all can be proud of.

It's time to get this right.

A Resolution Calling a Memorial for UW Alumni awarded the Medal of Honor

WHEREAS the Medal of Honor is the highest award an American can receive, which is awarded for "for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life, above and beyond the call of duty, in actual combat against an armed enemy force.", and,

WHEREAS the University of Washington has produced five men who have been awarded the Medal of Honor, two of those awards being at cost of their lives, these men are:

- Col. (then Maj.) Gregory Boyington, USMC (Class of 1934) who during the period 12 September 1943 to 3 January 1944 as commander of Marine Fighting Squadron-214 in the Central Solomons area, the highest scoring Marine fighter ace of World War II, did consistently outnumbered throughout successive hazardous flights over heavily defended hostile territory, Maj. Boyington struck at the enemy with daring and courageous persistence, leading his squadron into combat with devastating results to Japanese shipping, shore installations, and aerial forces and, by his forceful leadership, developed the combat readiness in his command which was a distinctive factor in the Allied aerial achievements in this vitally strategic area.

- 1LT Deming Bronson, USA (Class of 1914) - who during the period 26-27 September 1918 near Eclisfontaine, France, while repeatedly wounded, refused treatment and evacuation multiple times, and while so doing affected the capture of many enemy prisoners in capturing an entrenched position, engaged in the capture of Eclisfontaine, France, and After the capture he remained with Company E and participated with it in the capture of an enemy machinegun, he himself killing the enemy gunner. Shortly after this encounter the company was compelled to retire due to the heavy enemy artillery barrage. During this retirement 1st Lt. Bronson, who was the last man to leave the advanced position, was again wounded in both arms by an enemy high-explosive shell. He was then assisted to cover by another officer who applied first aid. Although bleeding profusely and faint from the loss of blood, 1st Lt. Bronson remained with the survivors of the company throughout the night of the second day, refusing to go to the rear for treatment. His conspicuous gallantry and spirit of self-sacrifice were a source of great inspiration to the members of the entire command.

- Brig. Gen (then Maj.) Robert Galer, USMC (Class of 1935) who from May 1942 to March 1943 as commander of Marine Fighting Squadron-224 in the Central Solomons area, did demonstrate conspicuous heroism and courage above and beyond the call of duty as leader of a marine fighter squadron in aerial combat with enemy Japanese forces in the Solomon Islands area. Leading his squadron repeatedly in daring and aggressive raids against Japanese aerial forces, vastly superior in numbers, Maj. Galer availed himself of every favorable attack opportunity. His superb airmanship, his outstanding skill and personal valor reflect great credit upon Maj. Galer's gallant fighting spirit and upon the U.S. Naval Service.

- 2LT Robert R. Leisy, USA (Class of 1968) who on 2 December 1969 in the Phuoc Long province, Republic of Vietnam, did demonstrate For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. 2d Lt. Leisy, Infantry, Company B, distinguished himself while serving as platoon leader during a reconnaissance mission. One of his patrols became heavily engaged by fire from a numerically superior enemy force located in a well-entrenched bunker complex. As 2d Lt. Leisy deployed the remainder of his platoon to rescue the beleaguered patrol, the platoon also came under intense enemy fire from the front and both flanks. In complete disregard for his safety, 2d Lt. Leisy moved from position to position deploying his men to effectively engage the enemy. Accompanied by his radio operator he moved to the front and spotted an enemy sniper in a tree in the act of firing a rocket-propelled grenade at them. Realizing there was neither time to escape the grenade nor shout a warning, 2d Lt. Leisy unhesitatingly, and with full knowledge of the consequences, shielded the radio operator with his body and absorbed the full impact of the explosion. This valorous act saved the life of the radio operator and protected other men of his platoon who were nearby from serious injury. Despite his mortal wounds, 2d Lt. Leisy calmly and confidently continued to direct the platoon's fire. When medical aid arrived, 2d Lt. Leisy valiantly refused attention until the other seriously wounded were treated. His display of extraordinary courage and exemplary devotion to duty provided the inspiration and leadership that enabled his platoon to successfully withdraw without further casualties. 2d Lt. Leisy's gallantry at the cost of his life are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the U.S. Army.

- PFC William K. Nakamura, USA (non-graduate, left the UW in 1942) who on 4 July 1944 near Castellina, Italy, During a fierce firefight, Private First Class Nakamura's platoon became pinned down by enemy machine gun fire from a concealed position. On his own initiative, Private First Class Nakamura crawled 20 yards toward the hostile nest with fire from the enemy machine gun barely missing him. Reaching a point 15 yards from the position, he quickly raised himself to a kneeling position and threw four hand grenades, killing or wounding at least three of the enemy soldiers. The enemy weapon silenced, Private First Class Nakamura crawled back to his platoon, which was able to continue its advance as a result of his courageous action. Later, his company was ordered to withdraw from the crest of a hill so that a mortar barrage could be placed on the ridge. On his own initiative, Private First Class Nakamura remained in position to cover his comrade's withdrawal. While moving toward the safety of a wooded draw, his platoon became pinned down by deadly machine gun fire. Crawling to a point from which he could fire on the enemy position, Private First Class Nakamura quickly and accurately fired his weapon to pin down the enemy machine gunners. His platoon was then able to withdraw to safety without further casualties. Private First Class Nakamura was killed during this heroic stand. Private First Class Nakamura's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:

THAT we consider these men to be a prime example of the excellence that this university represents and strives to impart upon its students, and,

THAT we desire for a memorial, consisting of stele, for these men be commenced by the University of Washington as quickly as funding can be secured, and the design, arrangement & placement of stele have been agreed upon, which will be publicly displayed, so that all who come here in future years will know that the University of Washington produced five of this country's bravest men, and that we as a community hold this fact in the highest esteem, and

THAT for all future instances of a UW alumnus being awarded the Medal of Honor, that the addition of a stele for that person should be commenced without delay and added to the memorial.

Scarborough Country: The Boyington debate

2006-02-22T08:47:00.000-08:00

Last night in my response to the PI's hatchet editorial of bloggers and talk radio concerning the UW memorial, I mentioned the latest bit of stupidity that was being under reported, that being when UW student Nicholas Baptiste appeared on MSNBC's Scarboough Country, and said:

How about we put up instead of yet another statue of a World War II hero, how about we put up a statue of a slab of flesh, no arms, no legs, no face, like the main character in Dalton Trumbo's "Johnny Got His Gun"?

In fairness to him, here is the shows transcript directly from the Website, so his comments and those of the Boyington memorial defenders UW Sen Brent Ludeman and local talk show host Kirby Wilbur can be read in context.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11476914/

SCARBOROUGH: That was from Ba Ba Black Sheep, the TV show based on the life of World War II flying ace Pappy Boyington. The Marine plane shot down 28 enemy planes, survived 20 months in a POW camp, and won the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism in the victory over the country that started World War II by bombing Pearl Harbor. I speak, of course, of Japan.

But student leaders at his alma mater refused to honor him because he was, quote, "a Marine" and he had blood on his hands. To talk about the controversy, let's bring in University of Washington student senator Brent Ludeman, who supports the memorial, and University of Washington student Nicholas Baptiste who opposes it.

Nicholas, let me begin with you. Why do you oppose the memorial to this World War II hero?

NICHOLAS BAPTISTE, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STUDENT: Well, I see this memorial as the right-wing, the pro-war crowd is on the defensive right now. The majority of American people have turned against the war in Iraq. I see this as a really cynical way of trying to fire up people and trying to build up nationalism again, like they did when they were building up to the Iraq war, and just trying to, like I said, go on the defensive and trying to sort of make these parallels that don't exist between World War II and the Iraq war.

SCARBOROUGH: But this guy was a World War II hero. He won the Congressional Medal of Honor. He's a University of Washington alumni. This guy's a national hero. What's wrong with putting a memorial on your campus? Forget about Iraq. I mean, that war's going to be over soon enough.

BAPTISTE: Let's talk about heroes. A lot of people obviously, a lot of young people nowadays don't see war as a heroic sport. It's not an adventure. It's a brutal, really inhumane thing. And...

SCARBOROUGH: Well, you think the Marines...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: ... over in Iraq right now? You think that they think it's a sport when they're getting their legs blown off? Do you think they're over there to have a thrill?

BAPTISTE: No, I'm not saying that the soldiers are- I'm not saying that the soldiers think that. I'm saying people who whip up nationalism, and try to whip up support for the war, and try to convince people to sign up and go fight in wars like the Iraq war, they think- a lot of times these people think it is some sort of a sport, some sort of a rite of passage for people in our society, like I have to go fight a war because my father and my grandfather fought a war.

SCARBOROUGH: You do agree with me, though...

BAPTISTE: But my main point is this...

SCARBOROUGH: ... that World War II was an honorable venture, right, an honorable war?

BAPTISTE: It's not that black and white. There is a lot of atrocities committed on both sides. You can't say that one- that it was a completely justified war. You can't say that America was always in the right or that Britain was always in the right. I mean, America...

SCARBOROUGH: OK.

BAPTISTE: Go ahead.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, let me show you. I want to show you a clip from World War II. This is what killing what Boyington and other people killing enemies brought an end to when World War II, obviously, the Holocaust. Here's shots from Auschwitz. I mean, 6 million Jews killed. I mean, we had to kill 50,000 civilians in Dresden alone to put an end to this to stop 12, 13 million Jews from being murdered over there. Sometimes...

(CROSSTALK)

BAPTISTE: I think that's quite a lie, to say that we had to kill 50,000 civilians in Dresden to stop the war. There's no evidence to support that. There's no evidence to support the fact that we had to drop the bomb in Nagasaki...

SCARBOROUGH: There's no evidence that we had to actually...

BAPTISTE: ... and Hiroshima.

SCARBOROUGH: It's war.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: How about this, people die in war.

(CROSSTALK)

BAPTISTE: Could I say something?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, you were saying something.

BAPTISTE: May I say this?

SCARBOROUGH: Nicholas, people that- will you admit to me, Nicholas, that sometimes when we go to war, we have to drop bombs to end that war, and sometimes people like Pappy Boyington do kill people, do kill civilians, but it's done for a bigger reason, for a bigger cause?

BAPTISTE: What cause is that? What cause are we fighting for in Iraq? Oil and empire.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: No. No. Wait a second. Why areÂ?no, hold on a second, Nicholas.

BAPTISTE: I just want to make one point before you go on.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: You're mixing up- we're talking about World War II.

You're talking about Iraq. I'm talking about what he did in World War II.

BAPTISTE: Yes, you think wars just exist in a vacuum? Wars lead to more wars and to more wars. I mean, you can say he fought in World War II to stop killing...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: So we should have just let...

(CROSSTALK)

BAPTISTE: There's still killing going on now, isn't there, in Iraq?

SCARBOROUGH: So, Nicholas, you are saying that we should have just let Hitler and Imperial Japan roam free? Is that your argument here tonight?

BAPTISTE: No, I'm saying, in the first place, U.S. industrialists and the industrialists of Europe shouldn't have supported Hitler in the first place which they did against communists in Germany, who were the majority of the government at the time.

SCARBOROUGH: OK. There we go.

BAPTISTE: They were afraid of their industries being collectively organized and taken over by the population of Germany.

SCARBOROUGH: OK.

BAPTISTE: And I don't care if you think that's ridiculous or not, but look at your history textbooks.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, I do actually. You're now blaming...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: ... the United States for launching Adolf Hitler's career.

BAPTISTE: Yes, because, oh, the United States...

(CROSSTALK)

BAPTISTE: And you can blame the United States in part for Saddam Hussein's career, as well.

SCARBOROUGH: All right. Let me bring in Brent right now.

BAPTISTE: No, I just want to say one thing.

SCARBOROUGH: I'm sorry. You've been wanting to say one thing for 30 minutes. Go ahead.

BAPTISTE: Let me say it right here. How about we put up instead of yet another statue of a World War II hero, how about we put up a statue of a slab of flesh, no arms, no legs, no face, like the main character in Dalton Trumbo's "Johnny Got His Gun"? That would be an honest war memorial. That would go a much longer way towards establishing a more peaceful and democratic society than yet again glorifying war, and warfare, and bloodshed.

SCARBOROUGH: All right. You've said what you wanted to say.

BAPTISTE: I have.

SCARBOROUGH: Brent, let me bring you in now. Tell me about the vote.

BRENT LUDEMAN, UW STUDENT SENATOR: Well, we- Joe, we've brought the resolution up. And two of the senators said that, one, we didn't want to honor another rich white male and that this wasn't the type of person that the University of Washington wanted to produce.

Mind you, this is one of the greatest aviators in our history. He's a war hero. He's somebody that won the Medal of Honor and deserves to be recognized by the university.

The vote was tied, and then the Senate chair voted it down, 46-45. And I think it just really shows how completely out of touch a lot of, you know, my generation seems to be, how we seem to not understand the historical significance of World War II and war in general. I mean, unfortunately...

SCARBOROUGH: Kirby, let's bring you in, Kirby Wilbur.

KIRBY WILBUR, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes, Joe?

SCARBOROUGH: Now, Kirby, you actually got this information out to the rest of us. It is so disturbing to me. This isn't- we're not talking about a couple of students waving signs. We're talking about 46 student senators voting down a memorial because, like Mr. Baptiste, they think that Boyington was not to be looked up to because he participated in a war.

WILBUR: Well, Joe, I think this is...

SCARBOROUGH: What kind of reaction have you had?

WILBUR: Well, we've been over- I've been flooded with e-mails from alumni of the University of Washington, from Marines, other people who served in uniform, from widows and mothers of the people serving now, who are shocked at the historical ignorance and the leftist pabulum that passes for serious thinking on college campuses.

But I've got to tell you, Joe. I'm actually optimistic, because I think 20 years ago the vote could have been 80 percent no. At least it was 50 percent yes and the tie had to be broken. That actually gives me room for optimism.

But you look at the people who said, "You can't honor them because he's a rich, white male,Â" when in fact Pappy was a quarter Sioux Indian, and that we shouldn't emulate Marines. I'll tell you, sometimes Marines are the only thing between some of those students and wearing burqas. And they should understand that.

SCARBOROUGH: No doubt about it. And, Kirby, what do you think we do to help turn the tide in this?

WILBUR: Well, Joe, the University of Washington foundation has set up a scholarship fund in the name of Pappy Boyington to give scholarships to either Marines returning to school or sons and daughters of Marines. That's at UWFoundation.org. And also, you can contact the Associated Students of the University of Washington at their Web site and urge them to approve the memorial.

Right now, the proposal will be a memorial to all five Huskies who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II, and that's going to be the proposal, as I understand it. These men deserve to be emulated and remembered. They're heroes.

SCARBOROUGH: Kirby, I have this information. They saved our world.

They saved our world from totalitarianism.

WILBUR: Yes, they did.

SCARBOROUGH: I have this line here. I cannot believe. Do you have information regarding a monument on the University of Washington campus to communist soldiers?

WILBUR: To the Lincoln Brigade...

BAPTISTE: Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

WILBUR: ... Spanish Civil War, a group of University of Washington students who volunteered to go to Spain to fight with the communists and socialists against Franco, and the Nazis, and the Italians. And there is such a memorial on campus, yes, sir. And I'm an alumni of this school, by the way.

BAPTISTE: Why wasn't the United States supporting the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, you know, earlier in the war, when you could have stopped Hitler early enough so he wouldn't have perpetuated the Holocaust?

WILBUR: The Abraham Lincoln Brigade could not have stopped Hitler any more than you could have.

BAPTISTE: No, it could have, if it had the backing of the U.S. government.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: All right. We'll let you all carry on in the hall.

BAPTISTE: But the government decided not to battle against Franco or Nazis...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: I want to show you- let's show that monument one more time. Put this monument up. This is on the University of Washington campus.

So if you're scoring at home, the University of Washington campus allows a monument to communist soldiers but they're offended for Marines that fought in World War II and helped defeat the Axis powers.

I'll tell you what, I'm enraged because I'm an American citizen that pays taxes that in any way supports the University of Washington. But I'll tell you what. If I were a Washington alumni member or if I were a taxpayer in that state, I'd be absolutely outraged. And I'd be on my phone tomorrow morning to Washington legislators.

This is a disgrace. And for those students that said Marines were not the type of people to look up to, you are so ignorant. You have no idea why you have the freedoms that you have.

We appreciate our guests being with us. We'll be back with more SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY in a minute.

Letter to the Seattle P-I PU - Advanced Civics: Disgust at work

2006-02-22T00:09:00.002-08:00

The Seattle PU I mean PI has once again shown the lack of intelligence in Intelligencer.

The editorial board has taken the bloggers and talk radio to task for denouncing the Student Senates trashing of a world war 2 hero.

See my previous blogs:

http://guitarplayr.blogspot.com/2006/02/baa-baa-humbug.html
http://guitarplayr.blogspot.com/2006/02/hey-jill-you-mean-these-marines.html
http://guitarplayr.blogspot.com/2006/02/pappy-boyington-memorial-idea-still.html
http://guitarplayr.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-thoughts-on-pappy-boyington.html

The students denied him a memorial for reasons ranging from race and class, anti war sentiments and anti military sentiments. The reaction has been understandably heated as many people are actually proud of the military and our nation's war heroes. The latest travesty is under reported however, when a student named Nicholas Baptiste appeared on television's Scarborough Country and reportedly told the host:

How about we put up instead of yet another statue of a World War II hero, let's put up a slab of flesh, no arms, legs, face like the main character in Johnny Got His Gun.

I could not download the video to verify it, but why should I be surprised? (FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW)

So the PI weighed in on this in the same fashion that prompted me to cancel my subscription months ago:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/260303_uwed.html

(my comments inline)

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Advanced Civics: Discourse at work

SEATTLE P-I EDITORIAL BOARD

In the dialogue that is supposed to be at the heart of education, asking a question is always fair. Questions lead to understanding.

In the casting of aspersions over a recent tie vote to honor a single World War II hero from the University of Washington, talk radio and the blog world managed to overlook the central role of questions. We are so surprised.

Of course...Because bloggers and talk radio hosts are just wacko nut cases. No stones cast there. The PI's lack of objectivity is why I no longer subscribe.

Thanks to the questions and the tie vote, Student Sen. Andrew Everett's proposal to honor Col. Gregory "Pappy" Boyington has been improved. The motion now has the Student Senate asking the UW for a memorial to honor Boyington and the school's other four winners of the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military award.

That's a bit revisionist, as the only after the vote and denial, and the subsequent outrage, did the compromise plan emerge. You conveniently forgot to mention that he isolated Pappy because of his overall popularity, but intended to have separate memorials for each, feeling they all deserved recognition. They also failed to mention the resolutions introduced afterwards supporting the USMC and demanding that Sen Jill Edwards apologize for her disparagment. A bit one sided, no?

The other four winners are 1st Lt. Deming Bronson (class of 1914), Brig. Gen. Robert Galer (1935), 2nd Lt. Robert R. Leisy (1968) and Pfc. William Nakamura. Nakamura, in fact, left school before graduation because of the nation's shameful removal of Japanese Americans from their West Coast homes during World War II. As the Student Senate prepared to meet Tuesday evening, the motion was expected to go to a committee and be passed later.

Much of the uproar centered on a question about whether the UW needed any more memorials to rich white men. Great question (especially when Americans of all backgrounds are fighting abroad for their country).

Nice save, but it's weak especially when the guy in question was not rich and was not white, he was Native American...

Student body President Lee Dunbar, a co-sponsor of the resolution, said that in any such discussion "you do have to consider who you are going to include." The motion now also asks for the addition of any future medal winners.

So, a debate by smart students made a good idea even better. No big surprise there, either.

Had the motion passed on it's obvious merits, it would culminated in the same results. Or said changes could have been made at the time.

But what makes me the most outraged is the fact that the PI mentions the use of race and class and dismisses it without comment, or even validation. Is this acceptable now? Remove rich and white and insert poor and asian, or black...would the words have been allowed without condemnation?

The minutes are very clear and the statements made indisputable. The students attempts in the media to mitigate this are disengenuous. Wither retract them or live with the consequences of them.

And in supporting such statements, the PI has advocated Racism and Classism over respect and dignity. Hoorah.

These foolish kids forget that their grandparents fought along side Boyington. What if one of their grandparents had been in the Pacific Theater, on a ship or on the ground, like my father in law was? The enemy planes that Pappy shot down, an achievment which they find so distressing, may have saved one of their grandparents lives by stopping an enemy attack.

They might in reality owe him their existence, for all they know, but they, at least a few of them, cannot see past their anti-war agenda and bigotry.

But that doesn't matter to the PI, it's just a good Civics lesson, right?

UPDATE

Last night in my response to the PI's hatchet editorial of bloggers and talk radio concerning the UW memorial, I mentioned the latest bit of stupidity that was being under reported, that being when UW student Nicholas Baptiste appeared on MSNBC's Scarboough Country, and said:

How about we put up instead of yet another statue of a World War II hero, how about we put up a statue of a slab of flesh, no arms, no legs, no face, like the main character in Dalton Trumbo's "Johnny Got His Gun"?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11476914/

SCARBOROUGH: That was from Ba Ba Black Sheep, the TV show based on the life of World War II flying ace Pappy Boyington. The Marine plane shot down 28 enemy planes, survived 20 months in a POW camp, and won the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism in the victory over the country that started World War II by bombing Pearl Harbor. I speak, of course, of Japan.

But student leaders at his alma mater refused to honor him because he was, quote, "a Marine" and he had blood on his hands. To talk about the controversy, let's bring in University of Washington student senator Brent Ludeman, who supports the memorial, and University of Washington student Nicholas Baptiste who opposes it.

Nicholas, let me begin with you. Why do you oppose the memorial to this World War II hero?

NICHOLAS BAPTISTE, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STUDENT: Well, I see this memorial as the right-wing, the pro-war crowd is on the defensive right now. The majority of American people have turned against the war in Iraq. I see this as a really cynical way of trying to fire up people and trying to build up nationalism again, like they did when they were building up to the Iraq war, and just trying to, like I said, go on the defensive and trying to sort of make these parallels that don't exist between World War II and the Iraq war.

SCARBOROUGH: But this guy was a World War II hero. He won the Congressional Medal of Honor. He's a University of Washington alumni. This guy's a national hero. What's wrong with putting a memorial on your campus? Forget about Iraq. I mean, that war's going to be over soon enough.

BAPTISTE: Let's talk about heroes. A lot of people obviously, a lot of young people nowadays don't see war as a heroic sport. It's not an adventure. It's a brutal, really inhumane thing. And...

SCARBOROUGH: Well, you think the Marines...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: ... over in Iraq right now? You think that they think it's a sport when they're getting their legs blown off? Do you think they're over there to have a thrill?

BAPTISTE: No, I'm not saying that the soldiers are- I'm not saying that the soldiers think that. I'm saying people who whip up nationalism, and try to whip up support for the war, and try to convince people to sign up and go fight in wars like the Iraq war, they think- a lot of times these people think it is some sort of a sport, some sort of a rite of passage for people in our society, like I have to go fight a war because my father and my grandfather fought a war.

SCARBOROUGH: You do agree with me, though...

BAPTISTE: But my main point is this...

SCARBOROUGH: ... that World War II was an honorable venture, right, an honorable war?

BAPTISTE: It's not that black and white. There is a lot of atrocities committed on both sides. You can't say that one- that it was a completely justified war. You can't say that America was always in the right or that Britain was always in the right. I mean, America...

SCARBOROUGH: OK.

BAPTISTE: Go ahead.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, let me show you. I want to show you a clip from World War II. This is what killing what Boyington and other people killing enemies brought an end to when World War II, obviously, the Holocaust. Here's shots from Auschwitz. I mean, 6 million Jews killed. I mean, we had to kill 50,000 civilians in Dresden alone to put an end to this to stop 12, 13 million Jews from being murdered over there. Sometimes...

(CROSSTALK)

BAPTISTE: I think that's quite a lie, to say that we had to kill 50,000 civilians in Dresden to stop the war. There's no evidence to support that. There's no evidence to support the fact that we had to drop the bomb in Nagasaki...

SCARBOROUGH: There's no evidence that we had to actually...

BAPTISTE: ... and Hiroshima.

SCARBOROUGH: It's war.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: How about this, people die in war.

(CROSSTALK)

BAPTISTE: Could I say something?

SCARBOROUGH: Well, you were saying something.

BAPTISTE: May I say this?

SCARBOROUGH: Nicholas, people that- will you admit to me, Nicholas, that sometimes when we go to war, we have to drop bombs to end that war, and sometimes people like Pappy Boyington do kill people, do kill civilians, but it's done for a bigger reason, for a bigger cause?

BAPTISTE: What cause is that? What cause are we fighting for in Iraq? Oil and empire.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: No. No. Wait a second. Why areÂ?no, hold on a second, Nicholas.

BAPTISTE: I just want to make one point before you go on.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: You're mixing up- we're talking about World War II.

You're talking about Iraq. I'm talking about what he did in World War II.

BAPTISTE: Yes, you think wars just exist in a vacuum? Wars lead to more wars and to more wars. I mean, you can say he fought in World War II to stop killing...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: So we should have just let...

(CROSSTALK)

BAPTISTE: There's still killing going on now, isn't there, in Iraq?

SCARBOROUGH: So, Nicholas, you are saying that we should have just let Hitler and Imperial Japan roam free? Is that your argument here tonight?

BAPTISTE: No, I'm saying, in the first place, U.S. industrialists and the industrialists of Europe shouldn't have supported Hitler in the first place which they did against communists in Germany, who were the majority of the government at the time.

SCARBOROUGH: OK. There we go.

BAPTISTE: They were afraid of their industries being collectively organized and taken over by the population of Germany.

SCARBOROUGH: OK.

BAPTISTE: And I don't care if you think that's ridiculous or not, but look at your history textbooks.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, I do actually. You're now blaming...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: ... the United States for launching Adolf Hitler's career.

BAPTISTE: Yes, because, oh, the United States...

(CROSSTALK)

BAPTISTE: And you can blame the United States in part for Saddam Hussein's career, as well.

SCARBOROUGH: All right. Let me bring in Brent right now.

BAPTISTE: No, I just want to say one thing.

SCARBOROUGH: I'm sorry. You've been wanting to say one thing for 30 minutes. Go ahead.

BAPTISTE: Let me say it right here. How about we put up instead of yet another statue of a World War II hero, how about we put up a statue of a slab of flesh, no arms, no legs, no face, like the main character in Dalton Trumbo's "Johnny Got His Gun"? That would be an honest war memorial. That would go a much longer way towards establishing a more peaceful and democratic society than yet again glorifying war, and warfare, and bloodshed.

SCARBOROUGH: All right. You've said what you wanted to say.

BAPTISTE: I have.

SCARBOROUGH: Brent, let me bring you in now. Tell me about the vote.

BRENT LUDEMAN, UW STUDENT SENATOR: Well, we- Joe, we've brought the resolution up. And two of the senators said that, one, we didn't want to honor another rich white male and that this wasn't the type of person that the University of Washington wanted to produce.

Mind you, this is one of the greatest aviators in our history. He's a war hero. He's somebody that won the Medal of Honor and deserves to be recognized by the university.

The vote was tied, and then the Senate chair voted it down, 46-45. And I think it just really shows how completely out of touch a lot of, you know, my generation seems to be, how we seem to not understand the historical significance of World War II and war in general. I mean, unfortunately...

SCARBOROUGH: Kirby, let's bring you in, Kirby Wilbur.

KIRBY WILBUR, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes, Joe?

SCARBOROUGH: Now, Kirby, you actually got this information out to the rest of us. It is so disturbing to me. This isn't- we're not talking about a couple of students waving signs. We're talking about 46 student senators voting down a memorial because, like Mr. Baptiste, they think that Boyington was not to be looked up to because he participated in a war.

WILBUR: Well, Joe, I think this is...

SCARBOROUGH: What kind of reaction have you had?

WILBUR: Well, we've been over- I've been flooded with e-mails from alumni of the University of Washington, from Marines, other people who served in uniform, from widows and mothers of the people serving now, who are shocked at the historical ignorance and the leftist pabulum that passes for serious thinking on college campuses.

But I've got to tell you, Joe. I'm actually optimistic, because I think 20 years ago the vote could have been 80 percent no. At least it was 50 percent yes and the tie had to be broken. That actually gives me room for optimism.

But you look at the people who said, "You can't honor them because he's a rich, white male,Â" when in fact Pappy was a quarter Sioux Indian, and that we shouldn't emulate Marines. I'll tell you, sometimes Marines are the only thing between some of those students and wearing burqas. And they should understand that.

SCARBOROUGH: No doubt about it. And, Kirby, what do you think we do to help turn the tide in this?

WILBUR: Well, Joe, the University of Washington foundation has set up a scholarship fund in the name of Pappy Boyington to give scholarships to either Marines returning to school or sons and daughters of Marines. That's at UWFoundation.org. And also, you can contact the Associated Students of the University of Washington at their Web site and urge them to approve the memorial.

Right now, the proposal will be a memorial to all five Huskies who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II, and that's going to be the proposal, as I understand it. These men deserve to be emulated and remembered. They're heroes.

SCARBOROUGH: Kirby, I have this information. They saved our world.

They saved our world from totalitarianism.

WILBUR: Yes, they did.

SCARBOROUGH: I have this line here. I cannot believe. Do you have information regarding a monument on the University of Washington campus to communist soldiers?

WILBUR: To the Lincoln Brigade...

BAPTISTE: Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

WILBUR: ... Spanish Civil War, a group of University of Washington students who volunteered to go to Spain to fight with the communists and socialists against Franco, and the Nazis, and the Italians. And there is such a memorial on campus, yes, sir. And I'm an alumni of this school, by the way.

BAPTISTE: Why wasn't the United States supporting the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, you know, earlier in the war, when you could have stopped Hitler early enough so he wouldn't have perpetuated the Holocaust?

WILBUR: The Abraham Lincoln Brigade could not have stopped Hitler any more than you could have.

BAPTISTE: No, it could have, if it had the backing of the U.S. government.

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: All right. We'll let you all carry on in the hall.

BAPTISTE: But the government decided not to battle against Franco or Nazis...

(CROSSTALK)

SCARBOROUGH: I want to show you- let's show that monument one more time. Put this monument up. This is on the University of Washington campus.

So if you're scoring at home, the University of Washington campus allows a monument to communist soldiers but they're offended for Marines that fought in World War II and helped defeat the Axis powers.

I'll tell you what, I'm enraged because I'm an American citizen that pays taxes that in any way supports the University of Washington. But I'll tell you what. If I were a Washington alumni member or if I were a taxpayer in that state, I'd be absolutely outraged. And I'd be on my phone tomorrow morning to Washington legislators.

This is a disgrace. And for those students that said Marines were not the type of people to look up to, you are so ignorant. You have no idea why you have the freedoms that you have.

We appreciate our guests being with us. We'll be back with more SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY in a minute.

Now I know it's a bad idea....

2006-02-21T15:27:00.000-08:00

I have refrained till now on posting about the Bush plan to support the UAE purchase of a seaport company, effectively giving it control of 6 Eastern US seaports.

As I commented at Sister Toldjah:

for the moment I am undecided but leaning against it.

It is not like we donÂ?t already have a heavy foreign presence, but the amount of this one is kind of concerning.

What also concerns me though is that this could be knee jerk xenophobia. So I want to know more, and like I really want to see someone say *why* it is a good thing.

It better be something more persuasive then cost.

I think that is a fair assessment of the issue considering the overall lack of information.

With the Bush Admin now swinging hard about this, and threatening a veto (also courtesy of Sister Toldjah) I am still skeptical about its merits due to the overall bipartisan opposition to it, and a bit puzzled by Bush's adamant support of it.

As I also commented:

If Bush wants this to pass, and there are no real negatives to it as he suggests, then instead of fighting words, he ought to be addressing the concerns with disclosure and information.

on the Tony Snow show they dismissed it as reactionary, and while I think that may be overly simplistic, I also thing the reaction is hysterical on the face.

So open up people, and lets discuss what is really going on here.

If, as I heard today, the ports remain the property of the states, and the security remains with the Coast Guard and the TSA, then all we are talking about is administrative control and operations.

I do imagine the unions are concerned about maintaining their positions there as well.

So what would the good and bad here be? I have too many questions remaining to form an opinion yet.

Well finally, I read something that has convinced me it's a bad idea. From Drudge:

Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal

WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.

But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.

"The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists," Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. "I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat."

The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

Well that tears it, if Carter likes it, it is unlikely a good idea. Ok I am mostly kidding here, but I have to admit the fact that I question Carter's judgment based on many of his recent comments and attacks on the administration.

The article continues below:

Both Democrats and Republicans have called on the president to scrap the deal. On Monday Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland questioned the decision. And congressional outrage persisted even as the White House signaled it's unlikely to block it.

Political analysts suggested that challenging the president gives Republican lawmakers a chance to deflect Democratic criticism.

"This is a homeland security, national security issue and I think Republicans think they own this issue and they don't want to give Democrats an opening," said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a Washington newsletter.

REPUBLICANS WORRIED

Republicans said they're simply worried no one was paying enough attention to security concerns.

"After Sept. 11 we can't blindly follow the president in a way that seems to create a homeland security concern," said Rep. Mark Foley, a Palm Beach County Republican. Foley said he's working on legislation to give Congress the authority to approve or reject all applications made through the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, the top-secret group that OK'd the transaction.

Port security officials have dismissed the congressional concerns, but Republicans suggest an administration that is usually politically attuned has sorely misread public reaction.

"I don't know if they were tone deaf, but they certainly didn't have a pulse on what people were thinking in terms of security," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican. She and Foley plan news conferences today in Miami. "We haven't forgotten Sept. 11. I know the president hasn't either, but that has to extend to more than just speeches."

Traveling with the president, White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Monday repeated the administration's contention that the sale was thoroughly vetted by a "rigorous review process." His comments came after he was asked if Bush was "comfortable" with the deal after Sunday morning talk shows featured Republicans criticizing it.

The Port of Miami-Dade is taking a neutral position, stressing that DP World would only be the majority owner in one of three terminals. But Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said Monday the matter "raises issues."

At Miami's port, P&O Ports owns 50 percent of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co., which handles about half the cargo containers at the port.

Senate hearings are already planned and Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, vowed Monday to push legislation to block the sale if President Bush doesn't act by March 2 -- the day the sale is set to close, affecting ports in Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, New Orleans and New Jersey, as well as Miami.

Visiting Dubai, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes sought to rebuff suggestions that Congress' criticism is based on anti-Arab sentiment, according to the Associated Press.

"The lawmakers are questioning about security concerns in light of the fact that a couple of the Sept. 11 hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates," Hughes said, adding that the Middle Eastern nation has been "a strong partner in the war against terror."

PREJUDICE ALLEGED

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington group that seeks to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims, said some of the reaction smacks of prejudice.
"No one seems to be criticizing the company itself, but they're most concerned with the religion and ethnicity of its owners," said spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. "It's what we have to deal with in the post-9/11 era."

But lawmakers like Ros-Lehtinen, who is aiming to become the next chair of the House International Relations Committee, were unapologetic about their stance.

"They've been a strong ally, but what about tomorrow?" Ros-Lehtinen said of the United Arab Emirates.

I think my initial fear that this was partially knee jerk xenophobic (over)reaction is justified.

But the article leaves as many questions unanswered as it answers, so my continued position is that I am seeking more information. I hope the Bush Admin is forthcoming in more disclosure of how this was vetted.

Now is not the time to demand partisan loyalty, now is the time to explain what and why.

More thoughts on Pappy Boyington

2006-02-20T23:46:00.000-08:00

There has been plenty said already about the Pappy Boyington memorial, but a couple more items popped up that are worthy of note.

The first two are courtesy of andrews-dad:

First was a resolution introduced in the Senate to support Military recruitment:
http://andrews-dad.blogspot.com/2006/02/uw-student-senate-supports-right-of.html

A Resolution in Support of the Right of Military Recruiters to be Present on Campus

WHEREAS the military provides meaningful career opportunities for many students; and,

WHEREAS the military is also the defender of our freedoms and way of life; and,

WHEREAS at the Seattle Central Community College campus military recruiters were attacked by protesters last year; and,

WHEREAS we want to make sure this kind of intolerance does not happen on our campus, therefore

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:

THAT we support military recruiters' right to be on our campus, and

THAT we support ROTC's continued right to be present on campus, and

THAT we further support and respect the fine men and women who serve our country.

The cynic would argue this is guilt, the skeptic would say it is just appeasement. Maybe it is someone trying to do the right thing, but both agree that the resolution is unlikely to go anywhere.

The second is a resolution to force Senator Jill Andrews to apologize for her disparagement of the military in general, and specifically the USMC.

http://andrews-dad.blogspot.com/2006/02/jill-edwards-apologizes-from-uw.html

Edwards Apology

WHEREAS Student Senator Jill Edwards offended all members of the United States Marine Corps, past or present, dead or alive; especially those who were, are, or will be students at the University of Washington with her comment that she "didn't believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce." This commented brought shame and dishonor to not only the UW Student Senate, but also the University as a whole, all its members who have served in the Marine Corps and all Marines past and present.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:

THAT

Student Senator Jill Edwards will submit, in writing, a signed apology letter seeking forgiveness to all students, staff, and alumni who are now or ever have served in the United States Marine Corps. In said letter it will contain a formal apology and a recognition that her very rights and freedoms are guaranteed by such members of the armed services, to include the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard, past or present, living or dead. Additionally, said letter will be printed in all its form and substance in that day's edition of the UW Daily newspaper as well as being recited on the UW Radio station. To realize her mistake, she must acquaint herself with the history of the person she is so keen to dismiss, by reading Col. Boyington's book, Baa, Baa, Black Sheep. All of these requirements are mandatory, under pain of losing her seat on the Student Senate.

Again the cynic and skeptic immediately conclude this is another empty resolution, but it is refreshing to see the senate in arms of this.

Debate is healthy and who knows, they may actually learn something.

The final link is from Paradosis, who relates his real life encounter with the real Pappy Boyington, and how he feels about the controversy.

http://paradosis.blogspot.com/2006/02/we-dont-need-to-honor-any-more-rich.html

We don't need to honor any more rich white males

So says one member of the University of Washington Student Senate. And here is a picture of the rich white male this person was speaking of:

Gregory Pappy Boyington...graduate of the Univeristy of Washington (went to High School in Tacoma), winner of the medal of honor, shot down 28 enemy aircraft, was a prisoner of war for 20 months, and apparently does not - according to the student senate - deserve a memorial on campus. Apparently we are told that he "is not the type of person we want to honor" and some even went so far as to liken his duty in WW2 to murder. One of the biggest antagonists of the proposal was apparently the leader of the student Democratic Party. How sad.

This issue is particularly interesting to me because I personally knew Pappy Boyington, not so much as a friend, but as a regular visitor to the Chino Air Museum and Air Show. I met him on numerous occassions and thoroughly enjoyed his willingness to tell me stories about his experiences - and I must say it was HEAVEN to this young man who'd rather feel his way around a restored Corsair than hang out at the mall with his contemporaries.

Pappy was famous for once saying: "Just name a hero and I'll prove he's a bum." And he knew this from personal experience. Pappy's childhood wasn't easy and he and his mother had to work VERY hard to get him through school - he was no rich boy and neither did he live off government grants...personally I wonder if those students who "shot this memorial down" could remotely say the same? And he was a real human being who did not hide his faults, particularly with alcohol and marital problems. Like all heros, no one is a "super" hero. While Pappy could work hard, he could "play" hard too and landed himself in trouble from time to time. Here is a more detailed story...from the University of Washington oddly enough.

Also, clearly, the student who made the racist statement never met him because I will tell you that you could not mistake the Sioux in him. And while he did write a best-selling book (best selling authors are a dime a dozen), he was never really a rich man...rather he spent most of his last days wandering through Air Shows reliving the glory days, never in any grand luxury that I saw. He seemed a very nice man, who despite his personal problems did some extraordinary things to help defend freedom and defeat tyranny and injustice.

But, have our Washington youth revised history so much as this? To compare Boyington (or for that matter any of our WW2 vets) to murderers? What are these kids being taught today? They don't deserve those 20 months Pappy spent being tortured and beaten in a Japanese prison camp...they don't deserve any of what our grandfathers and grandmothers sacrificed to free Europe and the Pacific. Is it perhaps because those precious people are soon to be gone that we feel free to engage in leftist amnesia? I'm angry about this...how dare these snot nose, hemp-wearing, pot smoking, drum beating, dreadlock wearing, "gee when is the financial aid check going to arrive", brat kids diss Pappy Boyington?

Maybe REAL rich white guys ought to be offended (like Bill Gates and Paul Allen) and stop donating money to the UW and then the Student Senators will find they don't have the time to be in the student senate because they need to get themselves real jobs.

If any WW2 vets read this blog, please accept my apology on behalf of the University of Washington - and particularly thier ignorant student senate. We remember what you all have done. My kids will remember too.

Pappy Boyington memorial idea still alive

2006-02-19T22:11:00.000-08:00

(reposted as blogger ate the original one...)

It is reported today that the Student Government at the UofW are considering a memorial to all 5 former students who are medal of honor winners.

Boyington was certainly worthy of a seperate memorial, but I would rather see a memorial to all over a memorial to none.

The students have a chance to undo a mistake, I hope they get it right.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/41916.htm

UW Student Senate To Vote Again On Memorial

February 16, 2006

By Bryan Johnson

Student Senate To Vote Again On Memorial

SEATTLE - The University of Washington Student Senate is expected to vote again on a memorial to honor five former students awarded Congressional Medals of Honor.

Earlier this month the Senate deadlocked 45-45 on a proposal to honor Gregory "Pappy" Boyington. The student president then cast the deciding vote "No".

Now the student who proposed the campus memorial is suggesting honoring all five former students and some members of the Senate tell KOMO 4 News that is more likely to pass.

Gregory "Pappy" Boyington shot down 28 Japanese planes in World War II. He headed the Black Sheep Squadron, and got the nickname "Pappy" because he was so much older that those he led.

Kevin Cuba, the military curator at the Museum of Flight, says everything Boyington did was controversial: "He was haunted by his shortcomings most of his life. And I would say his entire career was fraught with controversy."

Boyington had a reputation of being a womanizer and a heavy drinker, but he was "a hell of a pilot."

He was one of four UW graduates to be awarded the Medal of Honor, a fifth student who did not graduate also received the award.

Student Andrew Everett wanted to honor all of them. He started with Boyington: "Pappy Boyington was the most famous. He wrote a book. There was a TV show about him. He was a legend a media celebrity of his day."

His Black Sheep squadron is featured in the Personal Courage Wing of the Museum of Flight. But fame is fleeting.

Students who spoke with KOMO 4 News today had little to no knowledge of Boyington. One ROTC student knew he was a flier, but could add no details. Another had never heard of Boyington.

The students are also too young to remember the TV series "Baa, Baa Black Sheep". Robert Conrad played Boyington.

By one vote, The UW student government said no to a memorial. Perhaps it was Robert Conrad, not Pappy Boyington, that led one student to say there are enough statues to rich white men.

The flight museum curator says it's sad students know so little about Boyington's fight to save their lifestyle: "He didn't just volunteer to go into combat. He begged to go into combat. He wanted to serve his country and he did."

Some who oppose a memorial to Pappy Boyington say that would honor war.

They may not realize that stately trees lining the main entrance to the campus honor 58 UW members who died in World War I.

Hey Jill, you mean these Marines?

2006-02-19T19:23:00.000-08:00

This is primarily directed to the UofW student government senator, Jill Edwards.

Jill, as you may recall, is one of the people who actively opposed the proposed memorial to Col Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, and the one who uttered what I noted as being the silliest comment during the debate:

She said that she:

"...Didn't believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce."

I would like to take this moment to point out to Miss Edwards this article from KIRO TV.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/7140942/detail.html

Seems there was a very large mudslide in the Philippines. The ground is so unstable that they have to search by hand, digging through as much as 90 feet of rubble in some places.

Among the tireless workers there? The US military, among which there are 1000 members of the United States Marine Corps.

You see Jill, the USMC - my father's service in Korea by the way - is not just a band of bloodthirsty killers, not just a bunch of dumb jarheads, they are hard working dedicated men and women, who respond when they are called. The US military, including the Marine Corps, responds to all manner of domestic and international disasters and emergencies.

Did you notice them responding to the 2004 Tsumani in Indonesia, bringing food and water to people rendered homeless, and helping them dig out?

Did you see them doing construction in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina?

You may have seen them on the news in Baghdad, but did you see them gathering toys for their annual Toys for Tots program in downtown Seattle?

Or did you even bother to look? Did you see any of the other humanitarian operations they were a part of?

The military as a whole has done far more in humanitarian work in the last couple of decades then they have fought in wars. But it is so easy to just see them as war mongers and killers and dismiss them as being unworthy of acclaim or respect.

What you may not have learned in school is that the members of the Marines, Navy, Army, Air Force and Coast Guard exist to serve their country: In times of war and yes, in times of peace.

In Pappy Boyington's time of service, World War II, almost 25 thousand Marines died to protect your freedom, the freedom you now use to diss one of their greatest heroes.

So lets take your statement, and make it a question.

Should a member of the Marine Corps be an example of the sort of person the UofW wants to produce?

Hell yes. You should be damn proud of every service member the UofW produced.

And that includes the Marines.

Baa Baa Humbug....

2006-02-16T21:21:00.000-08:00

As seen at Michelle Malkin, WND and Sister Toldjah

Let me say up front that as a veteran, I take affronts to the military fairly serious. I can accept the anti war stuff as being more about the concept of war itself, and that's fine, but when a person is defamed personally, it bothers me, perhaps more then it does others. People like Cindy Sheehan particularly irritate me.

I was just a lowly Air Force Mechanic, so I claim no heroism or particular acts of bravery. My job wasn't glorious, it was rather mundane. I have a couple small medals to my credit, all that I earned for continued service rather then particular acts of bravery.

The military is a large machine with huge levels and infrastructures and the logistics they overcome on a daily basis are amazing, so any one any capacity who serves, serves the ones who are in the front lines, in the fights, and the ones who brave the most danger.

So when I look at a genuine war hero, someone who has served with above ordinary distinction, someone who wears the nations highest honors, I feel humbled and proud that I served along side then in spirit, even if it was not side by side with them under fire.

And when they are snubbed, I take it as a personal affront. Maybe I shouldn't. But our history has had wars, and in those wars certain individuals have risen to the top as persons of distinction, as heroes. We should honor our heroes whenever we can.

At issue was a resolution introduced at the University of Washington, to honor UofW alumnus Col Gregory "Pappy" Boyington with a plaque to honor his distinction.

Pappy Boyington is a cultural icon in many ways since his legendary exploits in the Pacific during WW2 spawned a television show call Baa Baa Black Sheep.

The real Pappy Boyington had 26 kills in WW2, was a POW for 20 months, and was awarded the nations highest military honor, The Medal of Honor.

What should have been a no brainer took back seat to the anti war sentiments of a few people in the student government. And even here I would normally not be surprised, for most modern universities have a strong anode war undercurrent. What pissed me off about this one case is a couple of the reasons why the resolution was opposed.

One standout speaker against the resolution was Ashley Miller, who noted that "many monuments at UW already commemorate rich white men." Boynington who was hardly rich and 1/4 native American would have been rather surprised by that classification.

Another person who actively opposed it was Jill Edwards, who tried to table the motion and failed, then questioned "whether it was appropriate to honor a person
who killed other people". Its war, that's what people do in wars...

Karl Smith proposed an amendment to strike any mention of how many aircraft he had shot down. Again, that's part of what made him such a digitizing person.

But Jill came up with the silliest comment I can think of:

She said she didn't "believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce."

To me that epitomizes the worst of the anti war movement. Without marines like Boyington who sacrificed their lives for freedom, she wouldn't be able to have the freedom to make her trite little insults.

Have these spolied little children been tot he Arizona Memorial in Hawaii? Have they stood on the memorial to see the battleship lying under the surface, knowing it is the tomb of men who died in their service of the country?

Maybe I am too hoo-rah about the military, but you know what? I don't care. That's part of my freedom too.

All in all, I am disgusted and dismayed.

Maybe we should be asking the schools "What are you teaching our kids?"

New bumper sticker

2006-02-16T00:09:00.000-08:00

Complements of Michelle Malkin and Common Sense Political Thought

OK, sure its blame shifting, but it's still funny.....

Cheney: 'I'm the Guy Who Pulled the Trigger'

2006-02-15T13:43:00.000-08:00

Cheney speaks out.
Via Sister Toldjah

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184957,00.html

NEW YORK — Vice President Dick Cheney told FOX News on Wednesday that he alone is responsible for a weekend hunting accidennt in which he shot Austin attorney Harry Whittington.

"Ultimately I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry," Cheney said in his first interview since the incident. "I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend, and that's something I'll never forget."

Cheney's first public response following the shooting comes more than 72 hours after the accident. His silence has been met with bewilderment and anger by some in Washington, D.C. But on Wednesday, the vice president seemed to express deep remorse.

"The image of him falling is something I will never be able to get out my mind," Cheney said, somberly. "It was one of the worst days of my life."

Whittington, whom Cheney described as an acquaintance even though he's known him for more than 30 years, was hit with more than 200 birdshot pellets from an estimated 30 yards away. Thee accident took place at Armstrong Ranch, a 50,000-acre property in south Texas that is known as one of the best quail-hunting sites in the state. Not aware that his hunting partner had returned from retrieving a bird he had shot, Cheney turned right to shoot a covey of quail and instead sprayed Whittington with pellets from the 28-gauge shotgun.

Earlier this week, the White House and Katharine Armstrong, the owner of the ranch and an eye witness to the accident, implied that Whittington did not follow hunting protocol because he didn't announce to Cheney and the other hunter that he had returned from retrieving his kill. On Wednesday, the vice president made clear that Harry wasn't responsible for being hit.

"It was not Harry's fault," he said. "You cannot blame anybody else."

Dick Cheney's pattern of secrecy

2006-02-14T23:24:00.000-08:00

As expected, the politicians are now joining the press in accusations about "Godfather" Dick Cheney, and his "patterns of secrecy".

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/14/060215001118.sazqm8ud.html

Democrats in Congress accused Vice President Dick Cheney of a pattern of secrecy, and demanded that he "level" with the public, after keeping mum about accidentally shooting an associate over the weekend.

Cheney has been criticized for waiting a day before disclosing a hunting mishap Saturday in which he shot his 78-year-old hunting companion, Harry Whittington, in the neck, chest, and face.

Asked at a press conference for her reaction about how the White House has handled the incident, US Senator Hillary Clinton called the Bush administration's failure to be more forthcoming "troubling."

"A tendency of this administration -- from the top all the way to the bottom -- is to withhold information ... To refuse to be forthcoming about information that is of significance and relevance to the jobs that all of you do, and the interests of the American people," Clinton said.

"Putting it all together, going back years now, there's a pattern and it's a pattern that should be troubling," she said at a press conference calling for a more robust federal response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

The former first lady continued: "The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy ... Is supposed to work."

There is more, but you get the idea. This is just one more straw in a back breaking pattern of lies and deceit by Cheney, and not just him, but the entire administration.

All it really tells me is that the administration's enemies will use anything they can to vilify Cheney above and beyond the actual merits of the situation. It's almost pathetic, but not unexpected. Some conservatives operated in much the same desperate seeming fashion during Monicagate. Indeed, if anything this has just proven that both sides will jump on any fragment of scandal and try to leverage it.

I expect a congressional committee to be formed to investigate Quail-Gate to determine who knew what and when they knew it, and to make sure there wasn't a second shooter on the grassy knoll.

After that I am sure they will launch an investigation into whether Dick tore the tags off his mattresses.....

The top ten and Godfather Dick

2006-02-14T15:01:00.000-08:00

I dont know whether to laugh or not.....

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48825

A North Carolina coluumnist claimed today Dick Cheney's shooting of friend Harry Whittington was not an accident, but was meant to be a message to his former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, not to testify against the vice president in the Valerie Plame leak investigation.

"Accident my eye. Or rather, Harry Whittington's eye," writes Barry Saunders in the Raleigh, N.C., News & Observer.

"If you believe it was just an accident that Vice President Dick Cheney shot his hunting companion last weekend, you obviously have never seen 'The Godfather' movies."

Continued Saunders in his column: "Just as surely as a fish wrapped in a bulletproof vest means 'Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes,' that shotgun blast to Whittington's face was meant to convey that I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby had better bite his tongue and forget about testifying against Cheney, his former boss, in the Valerie Plame spy case."

Libby has been indicted on federal charges he lied to investigators probing the leak of Plame's identity to the media. Last week, prosecutors reported he told a grand jury that superiors authorized him to disclose classified information to reporters because they were angered about Plame's husband's opposition to the Iraq war.

"A vice president who'll shoot an ally to get across his message of omerta – that's mobspeak for 'hush up' – may be considered a national disgrace by some," writes Saunders. "Not by me. I embrace the prospect of a lead-slingin' veep. Think of the impact Cheney's shot heard 'round the world will have on America's diplomatic efforts. Whhen obstinate countries declare their unwillingness to negotiate with Secretary of State Condi Rice, all we have to do is roll out Deadeye Dick."

Whittington, Cheney's hunting buddy who was shot, had a mild heart attack today in the hospital where he is recovering from pellet wounds.

"Some of the bird shot appears to have moved and lodged into part of his heart in what we would say is a minor heart attack," Peter Banko, the administrator at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial in Texas. told a news conference outside the hospital today.

I told ya....this is gonna go on for days. To round this up, here is Letterman's top ten Cheney excuses...

10. "Heart palpitation caused trigger finger to spasm"

9. "Wanted to get the Iraq mess off the front page"

8. "Not enough Jim Beam"

7. "Trying to stop the spread of bird flu"

6. "I love to shoot people"

5. "Guy was making cracks about my lesbian daughter"

4. "I thought the guy was trying to go 'gay cowboy' on me"

3. "Excuse? I hit him, didn't I?"

2. "Until Democrats approve medicare reform, we have to make some
tough choices for the elderly"

1. "Made a bet with Gretzky's wife"

The first scandal of 2006: Quail-gate

2006-02-13T22:56:00.000-08:00

I didn't originate the title of the latest whitehouse scandal, I heard it on the Laura Ingraham show tonight. But regardless of who made it up, it does accurately portray the media frenzy in making this a scandal, far out of proportion of its merits.

The media, apparently, righteously appalled that the Whitehouse waited 24 hours to disclose the shooting. The accident happened on the 11th of February, but the story broke on the 12th.

It must be a cover up of course, a deep dark shadowy conspiracy.

So the media is demanding answers about why they delayed, even though I can't figure out where it is written they had to disclose it in the first place.

After all, Cheney was not he one shot, so national security was not an issue was it? And the injuries by all reports are thankfully minor, so that's not an issue either. It seems to boil down to the media just wanting to be able to report it because it happened and they want to.

The police have cleared Cheney of wrong doing, except in not having the right game tag. So this isn't going to approach high crimes and misdemeanors either.

Of course Cheney is presently on the hot seat over accusations that he authorized the Plame information so any news about him is a nice tag line to that accusation.

When the WHitehouse began to field the questions about this, it was not pretty.

(Source: the Washington Post)

McClellan began his midday news conference with a few words about how strong the U.S. economy is. Then he took questions, none of which was about the economy. The majority of the 41-minute briefing was given over to Cheney's hunting accident.

"Scott, do you think that the shooting accident involving the vice president on Saturday should have been disclosed to the public on Saturday?" a reporter asked.

McClellan replied -- as he did to many questions -- that the first priority was to ensure that Whittington was receiving appropriate medical care.

"The vice president spoke with Mrs. Katharine Armstrong," McClellan said, referring to the owner of the ranch where Cheney and Whittington were hunting. "And they agreed that she should make that information public. She was an eyewitness. She saw what occurred. And she called her local paper to provide those facts to the local paper."

Later McClellan was asked, "As press secretary, are you satisfied with the way this was handled?"

"Well," he replied, "I think you can always look back at these issues and look at how to do a better job."

After an indecipherable blur of shouted questions, Gregory's voice rose over those of his competitors.

"Let's just be clear here," Gregory said. "The vice president of the United States accidentally shoots a man, and he feels that it's appropriate for a ranch owner who witnessed this to tell the local Corpus Christi newspaper and not the White House press corps at large or notify the public in a national way?"

"Well, I think we all know that once it is made public, then it's going to be news and all of you are going to be seeking that information," McClellan replied.

Several questions followed, including three variations on "When did the president learn that the vice president had shot someone?"

In the course of the session, reporters made seven references to Cheney having "shot" someone, with four to a "shooting."

And it is interesting to note that with all the serious issues, the shooting took most of the 40 minute briefing. I have to wonder if the press corps has their priorities straight.

The News Media seems to love a good scandal, is all I can figure, so here is Quail-Gate, ready to order. I hope they are happy.

But really, the comedians are the real winners in Quail-Gate. They will have a field day on this for sometime.

Friendly Fire

2006-02-12T22:53:00.000-08:00

A few opening notes. I took a political survey and apparently I align as a Centrist, socially moderate, and fiscally conservative.

I mention this because recently I have been asked why so many of my blogs seem to take a more conservative tone.

Aside from the fact that I *do* lean slightly off center to the right- and interestingly, off center may be the most accurate description of me I can think of, but I digress- aside from that, I think the reason I do tend to focus on the remarks of those more liberal is this: It seems to me that the more prominent conservatives spend a little less time thrashing the liberals because they are the party in power. Sure we have the Limbaughs and Coulters, but I am not just addressing pundits, I am talking about politicians here, and as they control the whole thing, they don't need to constantly be on the attack. The liberal politicians are a bit more inclined to go up against the conservative incumbents, so there is more fodder there, something the media enjoys sharing.

In my blogs, I honestly try to focus myself on the truth, regardless of partisan alignments. I don't always succeed, because, as I said, I admittedly do tend to lean slightly right.

So all I can say us that I will continue to post the honest thoughts as I come by them regardless, and I guess I will continue to uniquely me.

I just wanted to clear that up.

Having said that, Dick Cheney is an idiot.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNRALG0.html

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend uail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets.

Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, was "alert and doing fine" in a Corpus Christi hospital Sunday after he was shot by Cheney on a ranch in south Texas, said Katharine Armstrong, the property's owner.

(I will not make a lawyer joke, I will not make a lawyer joke...)

OK, joking aside, I proclaim the idiocy of the vice president because as an experience hunter, he should know better. Sure, accidents happen and all that, but honestly, hunting accidents like this are typically caused by carelessness. They are very fortunate this was only a minor injury, such is not always the case.

But, and here is where the above disclaimer becomes relevant, it was an accident, and nothing more. That is the plain truth. But depite that, the press and pundits will undoubtedly have a field day...In fact they already are.

First we had Howard Dean likening him to Aaron Burr. Here is the transcript where Dean accuses him of authorizing the CIA leaks, and calls for his resignation, or kind of...He actually called for the president to resign. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_021206.pdf The irony here is obvious, because the historians will note that while Aaron Burr was eventually tried for treason (he was acquitted), he was also notable for shooting and killing Alexander Hamilton in a dual. Interestingly I think he made these comments before the accident, another point of irony.

Goldy at Horsesass.org was quick to pounce on the shooting similarity. While his post was brief, he did make this interesting comment:

Why the AP assumes the shooting was accidental, I don't know.

Well, maybe, just maybe, it was an accident?

I mean honestly, yes it was an ignorant accident, but it was still just an accident. Trying to draw a correlation between Burr and Cheney for treason as well as for being gun toting thugs may be pushing it. Likewise, insinuations that it was deliberate are similarly useless.

But I don't expect common sense to intrude too far in this. Time will tell...More on this later, I am sure.

Disgusting displays of disrespect

2006-02-07T16:24:00.000-08:00

A funeral is a complex time, a time to remember and reflect a lost one...To celebrate a person's life even as we mourn their passing. No matter what faith, and no matter what traditions, it is never truly happy, even a wake is a slightly bittersweet celebration.

So its no surprise that I found the standing ovation and cheering for the partisan comments at Coretta Scott King's service to be completely out of place.

From the drudgereport:

KING FUNERAL TURNS POLITICAL: BUSH BASHED BY FORMER PRESIDENT, REVEREND

Tue Feb 07 2006 15:49:48 ET

Today's memorial service for civil rights activist Coretta Scott King -- billed as a "celebration" of her life -- turned suddenly political as one former president took a swipe at the current president, who was also lashed by an outspoken black pastor!

The outspoken Rev. Joseph Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, ripped into President Bush during his short speech, ostensibly about the wife of Martin Luther King Jr.

"She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," Lowery said.

The mostly black crowd applauded, then rose to its feet and cheered in a two-minute-long standing ovation.

A closed-circuit television in the mega-church outside Atlanta showed the president smiling uncomfortably.

"But Coretta knew, and we know," Lowery continued, "That there are weapons of misdirection right down here," he said, nodding his head toward the row of presidents past and present. "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!"

The crowd again cheered wildly. Former President Jimmy Carter later swung at Bush as well, not once but twice. As he talked about the Kings, he said: "It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps." The crowd cheered as Bush, under fire for a secret wiretapping program he ordered after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, again smiled weakly.

Later, Carter said Hurricane Katrina showed that all are not yet equal in America. Some black leaders have blamed Bush for the poor federal response, and rapper Kayne West said
that Bush "hates" black people.

Why is it that some politicians cannot find it within themselves to let a solemn occasion just be that: A solemn occasion. This was a funeral service, not a stump speech. I might expect this from a known activist like Al Sharpton, but I find it hard to forgive a former President and Minister, both of whom must know how to conduct themselves in public...and it's funny I should mention it, but according to NewsMax the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both took a few shots as well.

No instead we are treated to grandstanding and showboats. Is the fact that the president and first lady are and are unlikely to respond that tempting of a target?

Apparently.

compare their comments to Bush's:

To the King Family, distinguished guests and fellow citizens. We gather in God's house, in God's presence, to honor God's servant, Coretta Scott King. Her journey was long, and only briefly with a hand to hold. But now she leans on everlasting arms. I've come today to offer the sympathy of our entire nation at the passing of a woman who worked to make our nation whole.

Americans knew her husband only as a young man. We knew Mrs. King in all the seasons of her life -- and there was grace and beauty in every season. As a great movement of history took shape, her dignity was a daily rebuke to the pettiness and cruelty of segregation. When she wore a veil at 40 years old, her dignity revealed the deepest trust in God and His purposes. In decades of prominence, her dignity drew others to the unfinished work of justice. In all her years, Coretta Scott King showed that a person of conviction and strength could also be a beautiful soul. This kind and gentle woman became one of the most admired Americans of our time. She is rightly mourned, and she is deeply missed.

Some here today knew her as a girl, and saw something very special long before a young preacher proposed. She once said, "Before I was a King, I was a Scott." And the Scotts were strong, and righteous, and brave in the face of wrong. Coretta eventually took on the duties of a pastor's wife, and a calling that reached far beyond the doors of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church.

In that calling, Dr. King's family was subjected to vicious words, threatening calls in the night, and a bombing at their house. Coretta had every right to count the cost, and step back from the struggle. But she decided that her children needed more than a safe home -- they needed an America that upheld their equality, and wrote their rights into law. And because this young mother and father were not intimidated, millions of children they would never meet are now living in a better, more welcoming country.

In the critical hours of the civil rights movement, there were always men and women of conscience at the heart of the drama. They knew that old hatreds ran deep. They knew that nonviolence might be answered with violence. They knew that much established authority was against them. Yet they also knew that sheriffs and mayors and governors were not ultimately in control of events; that a greater authority was interested, and very much in charge. (Applause.)

The God of Moses was not neutral about their captivity. The God of Isaiah and the prophets was still impatient with injustice. And they knew that the Son of God would never leave them or forsake them.

But some had to leave before their time -- and Dr. King left behind a grieving widow and little children. Rarely has so much been asked of a pastor's wife, and rarely has so much been taken away. Years later, Mrs. King recalled, "I would wake up in the morning, have my cry, then go in to them. The children saw me going forward." Martin Luther King, Jr. had preached that unmerited suffering could have redemptive power.

Little did he know that this great truth would be proven in the life of the person he loved the most. Others could cause her sorrow, but no one could make her bitter. By going forward with a strong and forgiving heart, Coretta Scott King not only secured her husband's legacy, she built her own. (Applause.) Having loved a leader, she became a leader. And when she spoke, America listened closely, because her voice carried the wisdom and goodness of a life well lived.

In that life, Coretta Scott King knew danger. She knew injustice. She knew sudden and terrible grief. She also knew that her Redeemer lives. She trusted in the name above every name. And today we trust that our sister Coretta is on the other shore -- at peace, at rest, at home. (Applause.) May God bless you, and may God bless our country.

Say what you will about Bush, at least he knows how to be reverent. I don't care if you think he was insincere, at least he was appropriate.

It's surprising that Carter, a Sunday school teacher and Lowery, co-founder of Southern Christian Leadership Conference, seem to have forgotten the bible in their desire to take a few cheap shots:

To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal ...
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance ...
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Why mommy is a democrat

2006-02-02T11:04:00.000-08:00

I thought I had seen it all, till I saw this one.

From http://littledemocrats.net/

Why mommy is a Democrat.... yes, that's right, a kids book to explain why the values of "fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well being of others" are democratic values.

So have we really sunk so low as to needing a kids book to indoctrinate our children as to political values? I mean honestly this is simply silly and I fully expected this to be a parody.

But I was surprised to discover it isn't. It's a real children's book, and the author is totally serious and . It isn't a parody. In fact the author notes:

Why Mommy is a Democrat may look like a traditional children's book, but it definitely isn't just for children. With numerous subtle and (not so subtle) satirical swipes at the Bush administration and the Republican Party, Why Mommy will appeal to Democrats of all ages!"

Three sample pages note that:

"Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does." -- ah yes, we must make sure we practice socialistic income redistribution....

"Democrats make sure we are all safe, just like Mommy does." -- I am not sure how the defense cuts and weak stance on terror makes us safer, but ok....

"Democrats make sure children can go to school, just like Mommy does." -- Socialized education, which I am sure is joined by socialized medicine, of course in a section likely saying "Democrats make sure I go to the doctor when I am sick just like mommy".

What is obvious is that the book instantly assumes the premise that these are of course values solely owned by the democrats, and by making these mommy's values, they phrase it in a safe, motherly nurturing way making more appealing and digestible. I note they don't really care why (or whether) Daddy is a Democrat.

I find it typical partisan hubris that there is such a smug polarity about the values here.

Frankly this is less insulting to republicans as it is to honest democrats. This is just another reason why the democrats seem to be blasting their way down a path of self destruction.

In instant irony of the book is the fact that one of the core democratic values, choice, is one that guarantees there will less democrat children to read it. Their own values reduce their target audience.

So indoctrinate those kids, as many as you have anyway.

UPDATE:

Lest I be considered a hypocrite or a republican plant, as Roadkill has determined the book's author is, I want to point out a couple things.

First, the republicans are already guilty of similar pieces of tripe with this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0976726904/sr=1-1/qid=1138920405/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6265226-7309511?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!

Second, the book I did my blog on is endorsed by several real democrats...are those plants also?

Of note are Thom Hartman from Air America, Columbus Ohio Mayor Michael B. Coleman, and Sen Patrice Arent, Utah.

Please also note the authors bio on this page where he openly claims to be a democrat activist:

http://littledemocrats.net/aboutus.html

He also notes that a portion (at least 5%) of the proceeds are being sent to "Democratic candidates and Democratic party organizations" so apparently there may be a party connection through his intent anyway.

UPDATE 2::

For the Roadkill doubters, here is a serious write up on the book, including who the author is and why he wrote it.

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/moe/

Commander in Chief updated

2006-01-30T23:09:00.000-08:00

Update:
*********

Flagging ratings have shelved the show till summer, but an interesting tidbit turned up.

Turns out there is a Clinton connection to the show after all...3 of them in fact.

The show’s lead writer, Steve Cohen, served as the then-first lady’s deputy communications director in the 1990s.

And two advisors have ties to the Clintons, former national security adviser Sandy Berger and Capricia Marshall, the former social secretary for the Clinton White.

I wouldn't call this a smoking gun by any means, and it isnt truly a direct connection so it does not fully justify my suspicians that this was a pre run for Hillary 2008. But it does explain the liberal tilt I noted below.

I also found it interesting that a group trying to get Rice to run was using the show also, with targeted advertising.

I think both parties want to test the water of a woman candidate.

***********************

I have approached this show from a fairly cautious standpoint for a couple reasons.

First, Hollywood has shown a marked tendency to trash conservatives, and applaud liberals, so in trying to discern whether to take it seriously or not, I have to bear in mind that bias.

Second the premise of a woman is not distant reality in my opinion, particularly with Ms Clinton staging herself so carefully for what many see as in inevitable 2008 run.

In fact it would not surprise me to think they are paving the way with a safe Hollywood drama to grease the idea into the American consciousness. How many other concepts has the TV brought to day to day mind that later turned true?

In fact, as my memory serves me, it seems there was already a Democratic President who was aided greatly by television, both during his campaign as advisors and before hand with a little sitcom name dropping. In the sitcom Designing Women, one of the characters casually drops Clinton's name as Governor of Arkansas in several episodes. Now granted this was not as high rated as other shows, but still can we ignore this considering the Producer, Linda Bloodworth-Thomasan and her husband are long times friend of the then presidential hopeful?

And their influence was certainly felt as Clinton used a very savvy handling of the media to advance his campaign. Some of it was likely his own charisma, but he also had great advisors.

So now we have the president, played by Geena Davis. Is she the stand in for a new agenda? According to some articles I found, yes. Geena herself has been quoted as saying:

'We're making this as entertainment. But God willing, if this show stays on and people see a woman in that office for a while, I think it will help people become more used to it. It's certainly about time that we had a few female presidents.'

Now this seems more of a feminist agenda then a democratic, but the two camps share a lot of the picnic blanket, so I cant count it out.

And looking at the plot I am slightly more convinced this has an anti conservative agenda.

First, the Republican President picks her, a registered Independent as his running mate, reportedly as a way to score points with women voters. Of course, the republicans are tapped to be some what self serving here.

Of course the staff all has ideological issues with her. Of course the evil Republican Speaker of the house wants her to resign so he can ascend. Naturally the republicans resent her and want her gone. It's a a bit too simple of a stereotype.

They could have played her and the president as democrats and showed her to be a remarkable woman deserving of the office, truly the best choice. Maybe that would feel too obvious. I don't know.

But my early impression is not very positive.

One thing they show well is the struggle to decide what to do with the first husband.

All I know is that women are making more and more serious contributions to American politics, and Hillary Clinton is not the only woman seen as a contender. The powder puff presidential battle of Hillary vs Condi Rice is being whispered in many places.

The concept of Mrs President is certainly overdue, and should be taken seriously. If the show seeks to forward that, I applaud it, as I think a woman could bring some needed changes to the country, and I just don't see gender as being an elminating factor.

I just hope that C in C treats it as a serious issue, and doesnt degenerate it into a DNC tool.

To fight for a woman president is fine, if she has to be a democrat then I think you are again forcing limits where none need exist.

The Blame Bush Game

2006-01-11T14:45:00.000-08:00

This is my new favorite spectator sport: Blaming Bush.

It seems that a day cannot go by without something new being laid at his mighty feet and the blame settled squarely on his head.

Here are a few of my personal favorites:

Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, with honorable mention to Global Warming- It seems that the severe hurricane season is Bush's fault because of his environmental policies which cause global warming to swoop down on us in just a few years. Never Mind that the New York Times reported that experts have admitted that hurricane seasons come in waves of severity, and that recent years have been historically mild. Just Blame Bush, it's fun for the whole family.

The Sago Mine Tragedy- This one is Bush's fault because he reputedly eased mining safety measures. Ignore the fact that Mining is a hazardous occupation and that people have been dying for years in mines. Through the use of the games patented time twister, we can blame all those deaths on him too. They are working on an expansion pack to unclude WWII, the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and MTV.

North Korea's Nuclear weapons- Apparently this one is because Bush would not continue Clinton's "sunshine policy" when he came to office.

Iraq War- I would be remiss without mentioning this one. According to critics like Cindy Sheehan, Bush is to blame for every death there, as if he had pulled the trigger, because of his lies, and his policies to support Israel. Don't worry about proof, the Blame Bush Game has a reverse burden of proof threshold.

But the newest blame, and this is my personal favorite, comes to us from actor Sean Penn. Sean, speaking at a Sacramento anti war rally recently, is reported to have said that the stress of living under the current administration was making it tough for him to quit smoking.

Now, there you have it. Not only does Bush want to destroy the world with global warming, nuclear weapons and war, he also is trying to keep people smoking.

What a bastard. (rolling eyes)

Don't get me wrong, I am all for holding people accountable for their actions, and holding administrators accountable for the results of their policies, but it seems to me that this has gotten out of hand.

And in 2008 when he is gone, who will they blame then? Hillary? McCain? Kerry? Who will be the lucky office holder that gets to sit in the center square?

Maybe they will get really lucky and Jeb Bush will not only run, but win as well, and they can keep it in the family.

Maybe they will have to own up to some sense of responsibility and accountability, and let truth rule the day.

Maybe they will look at individual actions and consequences and make the logical connection.

Maybe they will look at a lot of it and see random accidents and decide it was just bad luck.

We can always use the Pat Robertson's old version of the Blame Game, and blame God. That one is a classic after all.

Christmas: 1 Scrooge: 0

2005-12-26T10:04:00.000-08:00

In a resounding victory, Christmas threw off all opposition and was able to make an appearance for the entire day, December 25th 2005.

In a prepared statement, Christmas said:

"Well, it was a tough battle, the enemy was ready and prepared, but in the end, we were just unstoppable."

Christmas went on to say it was ready for the expected battle next year, which it anticipated would be just as bad.

Christmas's opponent, Code Named Scrooge, was disappointed but optimistic, saying:

"We made considerable headway against all that Peace on Earth crap, and everyone should realize right now that Christmas is in for a fight. Wait till next year. Bah Humbug!"

Observers admit the battle was fierce, but still acknowledge that victory was assured. One observer noted that:

"People can say what they will about Christmas, but in reality they just love a time of happiness, a time of peace. The roots to Christmas are inside us, the belief that people when given the chance would do good things. The whole season resonates with the desire to give a little more, and be a little happier".

One critic dissented, saying:

"Happier my butt, have you seen the mall?"

But supporters quickly reminded the critics how one previous opponent had been converted to an ardent supporter:

And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow, stood puzzling and puzzling, how could it be so? It came without ribbons. It came without tags. It came without packages, boxes or bags. And he puzzled and puzzled 'till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before. What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store. What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more. ~Dr. Seuss

Supporters were also quick to point out how Christmas seems to bring a transformation to people and their environment:

Instead of being a time of unusual behavior, Christmas is perhaps the only time in the year when people can obey their natural impulses and express their true sentiments without feeling self-conscious and, perhaps, foolish. Christmas, in short, is about the only chance a man has to be himself. ~Francis C. Farley

Our hearts grow tender with childhood memories and love of kindred, and we are better throughout the year for having, in spirit, become a child again at Christmas-time. ~Laura Ingalls Wilder

I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round, as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. ~Charles Dickens

Idealisitic? Maybe we all see it for our own reasons. Maybe it's just another day and we fool ourselves. Maybe people are this good everyday, and we just don't see it. But it still seems like the world is a little merrier and brighter this time of year.

I wish no disrespect to those who do not observe it, they should be respected for their beliefs. But even in that diversity there is a chance for all to enjoy the season. Perhaps Dave Berry has the clearest vision of the multicultural event, the holiday that has so many meanings, and the battle over correctness:

"In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it 'Christmas' and went to church; the Jews called it 'Hanukkah' and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say 'Merry Christmas!' or 'Happy Hanukkah!' or (to the atheists) 'Look out for the wall!' "

Maybe so.

Whatever this season means to you, please accept my wishes for a Merry Christmas, and Happy Holiday Season.

The Assault on Christmas

2005-12-18T23:56:00.000-08:00

Lately I have read a practically constant stream of articles about the assault on Christmas in America. Radio talk shows, tv commentaries and even blog comments all dive into this daily.

What concerns me is the misunderstandings and mischaracterizations being popularized by the various people. To explain my views on this, let me introduce a few popular perceptions as labeled by the various proponents or opponents.

The first groups is commonly the conservatives, and they are made out to be religious zealots, who want Christmas an everyday word and nativity scenes in every yard. They claim that the secular world is stamping out Christmas as a further attempt to stamp out religion.

The liberals are commonly seen as the aggressors and the defenders against the accusations. They are commonly accused of persecuting Christians by making their faith and celebrations essentially illegal, and hidden from sight. For their part they claim that they are trying to improve diversity, by preventing one faith from dominating the season.

Neither side is quite what they appear, and I will come back to that.

The real interesting fact concerns the conservatives. They claim to be in a battle, but the sad truth is that this battle was lost long ago. It was lost when Christmas was more closely associated with Santa Claus then with Baby Jesus. It has lost none of its importance to Christians, it has just grown beyond it to become a day that is locked into place in American culture as a day for all.

In North America, particularly here in the US, Christmas became a secular holiday long ago. This does not take away from the "reasons for the season" as some claim, it merely shows that regardless of faith, people cling to the idea of a season of good will where friends and family take precedence, and giving is encouraged. Sure, some people care more for presents then Christmas Mass, and more for lights and snow men then for nativity scenes but that doesn't necessarily mean it diminishes religion, and these people were likely materialistic before Christmas too.

Many of these people just see a time of joy. Schools are out, the joy is evident for the kids. As a child I always looked forward to Christmas. We made ornaments in gradeschool for our trees at home. Construction paper garlands, remember those? Popcorn strings? I even once made a mini Christmas tree from a readers Digest with its pages folded. Anyone else?

My family never went to church as a family, though eventually we children found our own way there. But well before then, my Christmas memories are strong. The tree, the tree topper, the presents, the sleepless nights to wait up and see Santa, the leaving him a Glass of milk and a cookie.

Heck the baking... mom making fudge and divinity, and my helping her make sugar cookies with the cookie cutters....Even one in the shape of angels. The family get togethers, then the next day, trying out the new bike, or the new skateboard. Showing off the new presents.

Christmas was about family. It was about love. It had joy and fun and cheer.

And this is hardly a new concept. It seems obvious that modern Christmas owes as much to Dicken's A Christmas Carol as it does to the manger story in the bible.

The morality play concerning Scrooge goes straight to the heart of how many people see Christmas. Sure, shopping malls and stores are all about Christmas sales, but so many people also see Christmas giving, sharing and love. Part of what moved Scrooge was the family Cratchit, the obvious love even in poverty. Why? It was Christmas

In the movie Scrooged, a modern adaptation of The Dickens tale, Bill Murray, the 'scrooge' has a monologue at the end, and one paragraph sums it up:

"It's the one night when we all act a little nicer. We...we smile a little easier. We...we...Share a little more. For a couple of hours we are the people we always hoped we would be. It's really a miracle because it happens every Christmas Eve."

And that is the other side of the secularization of Christmas in America: The goodness of humanity shines. Rather then diminishing religion, it enhances goodness in humanity overall. So in considering it that way, the war the conservatives are pointing at has already happened, and frankly in some respects, I can't find myself too sad.

What has happened lately is war of political correctness launched by the liberals and progressives. This one we know all about. Governments here have forbidden Christmas display, some decades old. Schools take winter breaks. One local government practically forbid the use of the word, stores will just wish you a Happy Holiday and any mention of it in the public sector seems to raise the specter of law suit.

Schools locally use only secular Christmas Carols, and either call Christmas trees "Holiday Trees, or ban them outright. It's silly. The tree implies nothing. The angel or star on top imply nothing. They are traditional symbols of an American cultural event.

The thing is, the progressives claim they are only preventing people from people offended, and just keeping separation of church and state intact, but the fact is that our government was formed with religious elements, from the ten commandments to the rights our Constitution states are "endowed by their creator". There is no state sanctioned faith or denomination, and there is a long history of religious inclusion. Indeed, Christmas itself is a recognized Federal Holiday. It is not just for Catholics at Christmas Mass, or evangelical with their Christmas pageants. It is also the agnostic family who aren't going to any church, but enjoy the beauty of a Christmas tree, and share the joy of the season. What they are doing is sterilizing American life, by creating offenses where none exist, and working to eliminate any diversity in the name of promoting it.

The war of correctness is against anyone who loves Christmas, not just Christians. The progressives actually are attacking the holiday enjoyment of people who have no religious affiliation, but might still hum along with Away in the Manger when they hear it. Why? Because they love Christmas. They will watch the 24 hour marathon on The Christmas Story, watching Ralphie's desperate attempts to get the perfect present. They will sing along to White Christmas, and think about a time when they dreamed of home over Christmas. They will smile through the trial and vindication of Kris Kringle on Miracle on34th St. They will cry through It's a Wonderful Life. Why? Because it's Christmas.

All of these movies are now traditional Christmas movies, yet aside from the Guardian Angel Clarence, there is not one religious element, And none related to the Christian roots of Christmas.

That's what Christmas means. Maybe not everywhere, but it sure does here.

To me it boils down to this.

The Conservatives who claim they are being singled out are ignoring the others who are likewise being singled out. They are not the only ones being persecuted, and they would do well to remember that. The people who love Christmas need to be recognized also.

The progressives and liberals may use religion as their excuse, but in reality they are attacking as many non religious people by attacking the symbols that are an American tradition. Truly they start out assured in their self righteousness, but in the end, they end up looking like a Scrooge.

Bah Humbug.

The numbers racket

2005-12-14T23:55:00.000-08:00

Something has been bothering me for some time now, and that's the game the politicians are playing with numbers, in several different ways.

The first concerns the death toll in Iraq. On one hand you have democrats making it a magic number. As soon as it hit 2000 US troops killed, the bells started tolling. Is there something significant about 2000? Who decided that 2000 was a serious benchmark?

And the Republicans answer by showing how this war is actually cheap, compared to other wars. And looking at the stats, they are right. Compared to the horrorific death toll of WW2 and the Civil War, Iraq even at double the current death rate would have go centuries to achieve parity. But at the same time they also trivialize the deaths of people, by making it sound like no big deal. I don't think this is necessarily an intentional act, but the result is that a couple thousand lives is ok compared to freeing millions. Maybe that is indeed true, but even one life lost is still a loss.

A liberal debate board I post to saw the following comment recently:

"...Before you start waving the bloody flag about the 367 casualty video-game war you are a veteran of... "

The context was actually just a shot across the bow from a liberal poster to a conservative who was a Gulf War vet, but the implication is clear: not enough people died in Desert Shield/Storm to qualify it as a real war, and make it worthy of claiming. Now I don't know if the person this was directed at had ever used his service to make a point, but the fact is that people still died there, and they and those who fought deserve a little respect. Should the 14 people killed on the USS Cole be forgotten because their deaths were smaller in overall tragedy then 9/11?

To me, in evaluating the war in Iraq, the measure of the value of the human lives spent there is based not on some sensationalistic raw numbers, but on comparison to the value achieved. Here the democrats contradict themselves because the seem to deny any value given to anyone for the lives lost. The lives were wasted, they claim, even as the soldiers and Iraqis seem to have a different opinion. Shouldn't those being asked to put their lives on the line, and the ones they are fighting for have a say in this?

The recent polls or soldiers on the ground in Iraq show consistent support for the war, but a stronger number is the amount of troops both enlisting and reenlisting recently. Troop strength is not suffering as is being reported. Those are the survey results of the soldiers: Their continued voluntary service.

There is also an ABC News poll showing that the Iraqi's indeed have strong feelings about the US occupation.

Both sides take the same poll and cherry pick their numbers that they claim represent the facts on the ground in Iraq.

Republicans cite:

"Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead."

while Democrats crow:

"Fewer than half, 46 percent, say the country is better off now than it was before the war. And half of Iraqis now say it was wrong for U.S.-led forces to invade in spring 2003, up from 39 percent in 2004. "

Republicans counter:

"There are positive political signs as well. Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike want Iraq to remain a unified country."

Democrats respond with:

"Two-thirds now oppose the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, 14 points higher than in February 2004. Nearly six in 10 disapprove of how the United States has operated in Iraq since the war, and most of them disapprove strongly. And nearly half of Iraqis would like to see U.S. forces leave soon. "

The Republicans retort:

"Specifically, 26 percent of Iraqis say U.S. and other coalition forces should "leave now" and another 19 percent say they should go after the government chosen in this week's election takes office; that adds to 45 percent. Roughly the other half says coalition forces should remain until security is restored (31 percent), until Iraqi security forces can operate independently (16 percent), or longer (5 percent)."

After a while my head hurts.

What I can say definitively is this: This poll, when the raw data is examined could pretty support anyone's position, and both sides display the same measured focus on what they like about it to project their political agenda.

Politics...

Meanwhile they are voting in Iraq today. Their 3rd democratic election in less then 12 months.

That to me is a slightly more impressive set of numbers, and one that is hard to confuse, spin or ignore.

Sick....Kid's card to wounded soldier: DIE

2005-12-08T12:15:00.000-08:00

This has me SO pissed. I posted links for people with txt readers.

Imagine you were wounded in Iraq, and sitting in a hospital. Imagine you recieved a nice card from a kid.

The front looks like this: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/cardfront.JPG

but the back looks like this: http://tinyurl.com/crx6x

Yes, it really says:
Dear, Soldier,
have a great time in the war
and have a great time dieing in the war
From migual Gallier

ps DIE.

aww, doesn't that make you feel all better?

No one knows if a kid really sent it, but the fact is that regardless it was a sick and bitter piece of crap to do.

The poor guy's name is

Joshua Sparlingc/o Walter Reed Army Medical Center6900 Georgia Avenue N.W.Washington, D.C. 20307-5001

A group of Brownies have already sent him some friendlier messages:

http://tinyurl.com/dlhh9

I think discussions on the war are legit, as are criticisms. But I draw the line at slamming some poor kid in a hospital with your hate filled spewing.

That was uncalled for and wrong.

Thanks to the brownie troop for taking up the slack.

Sorry...had to rant.

Intolerance...No one is safe.

2005-12-06T23:51:00.000-08:00

I have just about had it with religious intolerance in the name of political correctness. It seems like you cannot turn around without seeing something in the paper about it, and frankly it's approaching the point of ridiculousness.

Here are a couple examples.

First we go to Medina, WA:

http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/224577

Medina Elementary School officials took down a Christmas-themed "giving tree" Monday after a parent complained about its religious connotations.

Chris Metzger, office manager at Medina, said the spiral, lighted Christmas tree with a star on top was up for about a week before it was removed.

The tree had mittens on it with a different gift idea attached to each. The idea was for students to take a mitten, get the gift listed, wrap it up and return it to school along with the mitten.

After the tree was taken down, the mittens were taped to a counter in the main office so the gift-giving could continue.

"Now we just have a giving counter," joked Metzger, who knew that putting up the tree was "kind of iffy" because of a district policy that provides direction on the place of religion in the curriculum.

It was a friggin tree, not a nativity scene, not an alter....A tree. Oh My GOD, it had a star on top!

Last time I looked you didn't have to be a member of a Christian church to have one, and this was for a good purpose: Giving. Well hopefully the table stays, unless maybe someone objects to it being a Professional wrestling prop and complains its too violent.

Next we go to Glendale, WI:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47749

Religious-liberty attorneys have contacted a Wisconsin school district that consistently forbids Christian Christmas carols from being sung in music programs but finds nothing wrong with Hanukkah songs.

A statement from Liberty Counsel tells the story of Barbara Wheeler, whose 9-year-old daughter attends school in the district. In 2003, when the district's music programs excluded religious Christmas songs, Wheeler complained about their absence. School officials said they would get back to her, but they reportedly never did.

Last year, Wheeler voiced complaints to the district in mid-November, but school officials said the songs already were set.

This year, when the school's music program contained Hanukkah and secular Christmas songs but no religious Christmas songs, Wheeler again objected.

That's when the mother was referred to the district's written policy:
"Music programs given at times close to religious holidays should not use the religious aspect of these holidays as the underlying motive or theme. No songs should be sung which contain dogmatic religious statements."

According to Liberty Counsel, Frances Smith, the district administrator, says the Hanukkah songs are more cultural than spiritual and thus are OK to sing.

Tell that to a practicing Jew, that his or her faith is just cultural. Even as their songs are permitted, they are subtly insulted.

Last, we go to the UK:

http://tinyurl.com/9qyhw

School bans girl from wearing cross.

A mother accused her daughter's school of discriminating against Christians yesterday after the teenager was suspended for refusing to take off a crucifix necklace.

Sam Morris, 16, was sent home from Sinfin Community School in Derby for breaking a school policy that bans jewelry.

Last night her mother, Debra, said that Sikh children were allowed to wear a steel bracelet, known as a kara, for religious reasons and said her daughter had every right to express her faith.

Education officials were unrepentant, however, and said that Sikhs are required by religion to wear items of jewelry, whereas Christians are not.

Mrs Morris, 37, said: "Sam has worn this necklace for more than three years. No one has told her to take it off before, and she doesn't want to remove it.

But just to show that intolerance is an equal opportunity employer, here is an odd bit of intolerance from the other side of the faith aisle.

From Palm Coast FL;

http://tinyurl.com/8emre

Witch says fellow pagan out to get her

It was close to midnight on Sunday and Jill Pagan -- who practices paganism and calls herself a witch -- was getting settled into bed when she heard a crash. It sounded like something might have fallen.

Upon investigation, Pagan discovered that her home's white aluminum door had a large gash in it. And just to the right, a large chunk of concrete was sitting in a flowerpot with a note attached to it by rubber bands. She immediately recognized a handwritten note in an ancient language called Theban, which she said is used almost exclusively by witches.

Pagan called a Flagler County sheriff's deputy to her family's home, but no report has been filed on the incident, sheriff's office spokeswoman Debra Johnson said Monday.

Pagan later translated the message as, " 'You've been warned. Stop what you're doing,' " she said Monday. And it was a way to scare her, her husband and daughter.

Pagan thinks the suspect is someone known to the local pagan community ---- perhaps another pagan familiar with Theban script.

Interesting twist.

All I can say is that bigotry is on the rise in the world. In the name of tolerance it has become vogue to be intolerant. The last example may not totally fit that definition, but in practically all arenas there is this stubborn streak of bigotry and hatred towards those who disagree with you, and I refuse to marginalize it by claiming its the liberals, or the conservatives, or the atheists or the Christians or whatever identifiable affiliation you want. The trouble is that rather then trying to live together in harmony and respect, it is turning into a titanic shoving match, where every new move sets Newton's 3rd law into operation: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, which is similar to my last blog, on action and consequence. These all may seem like trivial and harmless examples, but as they build up we get to a point where the reactions become retribution and revenge, otherwise known as overreaction, and take on a life of their own increasing in scope and magnitude. That draws amplified counteractions and on we go. Lather, Rinse and Repeat.

And all of this is ironically happening while they take down signs that say "Peace on earth and good will to mankind"...that's too religious of a message.

Letter from Iraq Part 2

2005-12-03T00:28:00.000-08:00

Letters and Blogs from the people actually there paint such a different picture of the war in Iraq, that I plan to post as many as I can find to as many places as I can.

Prefacing this letter, I give you a few interesting articles (links only)

First, this report from the Army on why a pullout timetable is a bad idea:
http://tinyurl.com/1hs

Of course Senator Murtha would surely dismiss it as faulty, as he has stated publicly that the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth"...
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/01/D8E7H2EG0.html

The next link is from Sen Joe Liberman, (D Conn) where he makes the case for staying to finish the job, proving that not all Democrats are willing to recant their votes for the war.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

The Liberal Blogsphere is ready to hamstring him and turn him to the Lions, all because he won't toe the party line. A second link concerning Joe reports his comments about WMDS:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/2/132602.shtml

Now on to the letter from Iraq. This is from a blogger named Capt B, apparently a Marine Corps officer in Iraq. As I noted before, I cannot verify the authenticity of this person. I just felt his account deserved to be heard, albeit with that caveat for accuracies sake.

He is cynical, frank and graphic. Be warned.

Here is his post, unedited.
http://shepherdaway.blogspot.com/2005/12/news-stooper-so-there-we-are-watching.html

THE NEWS STOOPER

So there we are watching good ol reliable CNN....well it was worth a shot to fool you but you are all too smart for that and know its not reliable. A continuous replaying report came on how multiple government facilities and bases were attacked in downtown Ramadi, Iraq on Thursday. They continued to show video of masked men shooting down a street (which should be criminal, if a US reporter cooperates with and films the enemy at their location and aides them in any way, he should be tried for treason and executed in public if found guilty). But wait a second, the report and video don't match, but who back in the states would notice so lets role this footage and fool the sheep who follow our every word. They are too stupid and they won't know. Its video of anywhere but Ramadi. How do we know?? oh because we were downtown Ramadi when all the "attacks" were suppose to have happened. The markets were active and small children were out and about even yes, around the US bases. No bases were attacked and nothing was out of the ordinary as the BIG time news station was reporting. But, they weren't alone. Yahoo reports like this one http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq with little to no meat to the story was also released but now has been altered to read different as they know they were taken to the cleaners. "Insurgents attack government facilities" what a wad of monkey crap!!

America if you didn't believe us in the past, this should do nothing but reinforce how we are saying that the enemy is trying to get to you all at home to go south and demand us to come home before the job is done and that the media is soooo off mark. This just proves we are making huge gains here. Why? Because the real blind sheep...the big time news agencies bought the trick, line and sinker from the terrorists. They fell for the oldest trick in the book, taking news tips from the enemy and paying them big cash to allow camera men to tag along with them. Yea great idea because a camera might look like an RPG to a Marine far enough away. It's a clever technique that the US invented. Counter pysops is one way to buy out "reliable" sources to submit story's to the press. This is now proof of how desperate the big time news agencies are for bad gauge on the US campaign in Iraq. They have no news so they pay for whatever may come down the line. Lowering their contacts and standards they knowingly purchase news reports and film events from the enemy. Their fat ass reporters that never leave Baghdad buildings sit in a nice protected building and never come where the fighting is. But when its time for their 45 seconds of fame interview on Clown Network News they walk outside and record a breaking news update. Ever notice how clean those reporters are? You don't stay clean running around while bullets are being fired at you. When they do come out for more than a day they hide themselves in hummers and under their ill fitting helmets that slope down and cover their eyes, that is if they don't have it on backwards, that's a sight to see (I got to get a picture of one of them for ya). I swear they must eat big bowls of dumbass before they depart so that they can ask the most retarded questions to troops. They sound like Jane Freaking Fonda herself when they open their mouths. There are a couple reporters that "live" with the troops to get stories, not many but Im quickly loosing confidence in their ability as well since MSNNBC ran the above story as "Breaking News" and then had some cluster screwball that was an "embedded reporter" (traitor) living with the troops, talking about how Iraqi forces arnt even materializing. Holy BAT shit Robin, Im in the wrong work. I should start a news agency called "No shit news" and when I don't have anything to report I would print "I no shit don't have a damn thing to say" at least it would be honest news unlike these walking frauds.

But nope these brainiacks are vomiting so much crap faster than they can validate it. Seems to be a reoccurring event huh? I can just hear two bonehead reporters talking now... "hey bob I hear there were attacks in Ramdi today, really I didn't get up until noon so Im not sure and you know we haven't had a story in awhile so let me call a guy I met last week carrying an AK47. He gave me this Iraqi cell phone and he will give us the word on the street. You know we need to send some material back to the clown network so our ass's can continue to grow while we are out here playing Nintendo." Hand me that box of Twinkies would ya? Great I'll bring my camera and get some footage of them shooting at American troops! Great idea you're a swell guy bob". Music from the "Leave it to Beaver" TV show begins to play in the background.

Its now so very obvious that the president has just landed a size twelve Monkey Stomp on the insurgents and wayward sheep's chest. With his release of the Iraq Plan the media is dumbfounded and the ones that can read are now scratching their fat asses and saying hummmm sounds like a good plan. Well no kidding Dick Tracy, wake up get on a weight loss plan and smell the freaking roses. If you haven't read the plan do so by clicking here.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html I'm going to print off hard copies and mail them to all of the news agencies in huge romper room style print just so they cant say they don't know what we are talking about. They can have nap time after they read it.

Apparently, now every time you see a news story, your going to have to ask yourself. "I wonder what really happened" because as you already know, they have lost their most valuable characteristic, credibility and this proves your continuously getting news from the enemy!

We got small arms fire just off the base, gotta go help Marines that are making real news....if you see any reporters tell them to drop the Twinkies, follow the cigar smoke and head this way!

Semper-

Capt B out....

Choice and Consequence

2005-11-30T00:40:00.000-08:00

My son (15) and I have had a series of discussions lately about what should be some fairly simple topics: choice and consequence.

The idea is fairly simple really. We are presented with choices daily. To speed or not to speed. To cheat or lie. Even something as simple as deciding whether to indulge in that 3rd Krispy Kreme. We make a choice and choose a course of action, and then have to deal with the consequences of that choice.

What could be easier right? Well, not really. You see we got on this subject because my son did something at school, and is now suffering the consequences of that action.

He thought it would be amusing to mention that in response to people teasing him, he would bring a gun to school and shoot the place up. Now since the days of Columbine, or of Kip Kinkle in Springfield OR, school violence is easily one of the hottest issues in schools today, and most often one with the "zero tolerance" label applied. He, I believe sincerely meant it as a joke, and actually may have overheard someone make that statement about him previously, but he still knew it was wrong, he chose to say it, and the consequence was still the same: expulsion.

Consequences are not always subject to mitigating circumstances, though in reality he was actually given such consideration. His expulsion was reduced to a suspension and he was given a special teaching placement until January when he can return to school. What made the situation somewhat surreal is the denial he, and according to him his peers, all live in surrounding consequences. The prevailing attitude in schools, and often in society at large seems to be one that reduces the acceptance of consequences and emphasizes excuses and shifting or responsibility.

A couple of recent examples come to mind. First, last week Dominick Sergio Maldonado, 20, went into the Tacoma Mall armed with an assault rifle and opened fire, hitting 6 people. The most seriously wounded was Brendan McKown, who has a concealed weapon permit and was armed. He did not however choose to open fire, he tried reason and was shot 5 or 6 times. His is a case of a person looking at the choices (shoot or not shoot), evaluating the consequences (hitting innocent victims) and deciding on a course of action, not to fire. His attacker had a different set of priorities. How this is relevant, is when talk radio host Bryan Suits (KVI 570 am) was discussing on the air that maybe more people armed might actually prevent these things from happening, a caller had a different solution.

1) Mandatory metal detectors in all public places, malls and businesses.
2) Mandatory therapy for troubled children to prevent them from becoming troubled adults.

The caller it appears had determined, with no real information, that he must have been messed up as a kid to be this messed up, and he needed help, not a bullet in the chest. As it was he surrendered after holding hostages 3 hours, but that it irrelevant. The caller felt that an army was needed, but an army of counselors.

Here we see my point. To the caller, it wasn't Dominick's fault, it was the culmination of years of obvious abuse. He effectively absolved Dominick of the responsibility, because society failed him. I called Bryan and told him in my opinion the guy was either a security guard or a counselor, since they are the only ones who would benefit from such a plan.

I mean, I can see his point to a degree. Maybe we don't do enough to help our youth. And I would imagine his defense lawyer will make that very claim along side an insanity plea.

But at the same time he bought, loaded and carried weapons to a Mall and shot people. He had the presence of mind to call the police, brag about his weapons, and tell them he was about to fire on innocent people. When the police asked where he was, he told them to follow the screams. He acted in a callous and premeditated manner, and he made choices. He should have to follow the consequences.

Another example in the news lately is the war protestors all over the country. Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore and Ward Churchil, among others, have overtly or by implication called the Iraqi insurgents "freedom fighters" and have subtly and sometimes not so subtly encouraged them. Peace activists have even gone to Iraq to protest the war. The insurgents have surely listened and felt encouraged. This week they offered the protestors their thanks: They kidnapped 4 of them and are holding them hostage. It's an ironic twist that the freedom fighters of one group of war protesters are now threatening the lives of other peace activists. But it still reeks of choice and consequence, though not as obviously. In this case, it is possible that the anti war protests are empowering the insurgents. It remains to be seen to what degree, but in the same way that the abuses at Abu Ghraib have surely incited some hatred for the US in the minds of some Muslims, it is similarly logical that the protesters calling them freedom fighters emboldened them with a sense righteousness as well as a feeling of America's weakening resolve.

Finally the most complex case that came to my attention, again via Bryan Suits, is the attitude about rape victims here and in Britain.

It started when a rape case in Britain was thrown out. In the case, the 21 year old woman was drunk and a security guard offered to escort her home. He claims they got there and had consensual sex. She claims she never would have consented because he was much older then her.

She also however admitted she had drunk so much alcohol that she could not remember whether she consented or not. The ruling was that drunken consent was still consent.

Now victims rights groups are in an uproar I am sure, and I think they have a case. There is a very fine line between drunken consent and drunken coerced consent.

But what was really eye opening was a survey about the subject that was taken in Britain by Amnesty International. In it, a third of the people surveyed believed a woman is partially or completely responsible for being raped if she has behaved flirtatiously, and it also found that over 25% believe she is at least partly to blame if she has worn revealing clothing or been drunk.

Can you imagine that survey being taken here? Would you expect anything close tot he same response?

Now this is a common tactic by defense lawyer, to blame the victim. She was drunk, she was asking for it, etc etc. And yet at the same time, isn't there a tiny shred of truth there, that maybe some women act irresponsibly, and suffer for it.

Now before you start throwing hate mail at me, I am in no way suggesting rape can ever be justified. Rape is repugnant to me. But at the same time, I am uncomfortable relieving women of some necessity to behave responsibly. I know from personal experience that when I have been drunk, I have made bad choices, ones I would not have made had I been sober. I think that in the same light, some women have made poor choices and turned their regret into rape. And I am really talking about the extreme end of it here, not flirtatious behavior in a bar, not a short skirt, but people who enjoy partying, party to excess and the wake up in bed and cry rape.

Again, I do not excuse date rape, or any other form of rap in any sense. Those bastards who commit it deserve their consequences, and isn't that the point of this?

I am just wondering out loud where we should draw the line.

But regardless of how you see that, and I know many will disagree completely with my last section, it still all boils down to choices, and consequences.

I think we as a culture need to reexamine our sense of responsibility for our choices, and maybe work on making better ones, regardless of whether you apply this to driving, dating, voting or eating.

I know I do.

Letter from Iraq

2005-11-18T22:37:00.000-08:00

Those engaged in the war protest, here is a rebuttal reputed to be from a soldier and his platoon in Iraq

Obviously I cannot attest to whether it is authentically represented, but I will post it anyway, as it clearly represents the views expressed by many returning soldiers.

*********

http://euphoria.jarkolicious.com/journal/2005/11/18/1307/

Preface from Sgt. Hook (http://sgthook.com/2005/11/17/taste-of-freedom) I received an email from a mother whose son is currently fighting in Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division. He and his platoon have penned a message to the American public that is a little different from the message we are getting via the MSM. He asked his mom to help get this message out and she asked me. Here it is from the soldiers on the ground…

Mom,

Be my voice. I want this message heard. It is mine and my platoon’s to the country. A man I know lost his legs the other night. He is in another company in our batallion. I can no longer be silent after watching the sacrifices made by Iraqis and Americans everyday. Send it to a congressman if you have to. Send it to FOX news if you have to. Let this message be heard please…

My fellow Americans, I have a task for those with the courage and fortitude to take it. I have a message that needs not fall on deaf ears. A vision the blind need to see. I am not a political man nor one with great wisdom. I am just a soldier who finds himself helping rebuild a country that he helped liberate a couple years ago.

I have watched on television how the American public questions why their mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters are fighting and dying in a country 9000 miles away from their own soil. Take the word of a soldier, for that is all I am, that our cause is a noble one. The reason we are here is one worth fighting for. A cause that has been the most costly and sought after cause in our small span of existence on our little planet. Bought in blood and paid for by those brave enough to give the ultimate sacrifice to obtain it. A right that is given to every man, woman, and child I believe by God. I am talking of freedom.

Freedom. One word but yet countless words could never capture it’s true meaning or power. “For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know.” I read that once and it couldn’t be more true. It’s not the average American’s fault that he or she is “blind and deaf” to the taste of freedom. Most Americans are born into their God-given right so it is all they ever know. I was once one of them. I would even dare to say that it isn’t surprising that they take for granted what they have had all their life. My experiences in the military however opened my eyes to the truth.

Ironically you will find the biggest outcries of opposition to our cause from those who have had no military experience and haven’t had to fight for freedom. I challenge all of those who are daring enough to question such a noble cause to come here for just a month and see it first hand. I have a feeling that many voices would be silenced.

I watched Cindy Sheehan sit on the President’s lawn and say that America isn’t worth dying for. Later she corrected herself and said Iraq isn’t worth dying for. She badmouthed all that her son had fought and died for. I bet he is rolling over in his grave.

Ladies and gentleman I ask you this. What if you lived in a country that wasn’t free? What if someone told you when you could have heat, electricity, and water? What if you had no sewage systems so human waste flowed into the streets? What if someone would kill you for bad-mouthing your government? What if you weren’t allowed to watch TV, connect to the internet, or have cell phones unless under extreme censorship? What if you couldn’t put shoes on your child’s feet?

You need not have a great understanding of the world but rather common sense to realize that it is our duty as HUMAN BEINGS to free the oppressed. If you lived that way would you not want someone to help you????

The Iraqis pour into the streets to wave at us and when we liberated the cities during the war they gathered in the thousands to cheer, hug and kiss us. It was what the soldiers in WW2 experienced, yet no one questioned their cause!! Saddam was no better than Hitler! He tortured and killed thousands of innocent people. We are heroes over here, yet Americans badmouth our President for having us here.

Every police station here has a dozen or more memorials for officers that were murdered trying to ensure that their people live free. These are husbands, fathers, and sons killed every day. What if it were your country? What would your choice be? Everything we fight for is worth the blood that may be shed. The media never reports the true HEROISM I witness everyday in the Iraqis. Yes, there are bad one’s here, but I assure you they are a minuscule percent. Yet they are a number big enough to cause worry in this country’s future.

I have watched brave souls give their all and lose their lives and limbs for this cause. I will no longer stand silent and let the “deaf and blind” be the only voice shouting. Stonewall Jackson once said, “All that I have, all that I am is at the service of the country.” For these brave souls who gave the ultimate sacrifice, including your son Cindy Sheehan, I will shout till I can no longer. These men and women are heroes. Their spirit lives on in their military and they will never be forgotten. They did not die in vain but rather for a cause that is larger than all of us.

My fellow countrymen and women, we are not overseas for our country alone but also another. We are here to spread democracy and freedom to those who KNOW the true taste of it because they fight for it everyday. You can see the desire in their eyes and I am honored to fight alongside them as an Infantryman in the 101st Airborne.

Freedom is not free, but yet it is everyone’s right to have. Ironic, isn’t it? That is why we are here. Though you will always have the skeptics, I know that most of our military will agree with this message. Please, at the request of this soldier spread this message to all you know. We are in Operation Iraqi Freedom and that is our goal. It is a cause that I and thousands of others stand ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice for because, Cindy Sheehan, freedom is worth dying for, no matter what country it is! And after the world is free only then can we hope to have peace.

SGT XXX and 1st Platoon
101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)

Prophecy or an educated guess?

2005-11-14T23:38:00.000-08:00

I hate being right sometimes. Sometimes it's nice, I admit, to be the one with the right answer, but sometimes it's a pain in the rear.

This is one of those times.

Just under 2 months ago, I blogged about the ban on the pledge of allegiance because it has "Under God" in it. That was, you may recall, the result of a lawsuit by an atheist, Michael Newdow who had originally sued for his daughter, lost that suit due to not having any standing, and re-filed the lawsuit with 2 families as his plaintiffs, who the court determined had standing. So no more pledge in Sacramento.

In that Blog, I made this prediction:

"There will soon, I predict, be a call to remove God from our money..."

And I was right. In less then two months time there are now reports that a lawsuit is in the works, by guess who? Michael Newdow.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47387

Having won a partial victory, partial because the ruling only affected a limited area, Newdow has his sights set on coins.

It is surely not prophecy, because it was so obvious what had to be next on his agenda. Sure, it's hardly a show stopper. I will keep my quarter collection, and in fact, money with the quote "In God We Trust" might even approach collector's item status. It won't change my day to day existence, or my feelings on faith if I miss my daily reminder on a Dime. Sure, it will cost our government millions to defend his suit, and billions to retool all the coin presses if he wins, but that's just money right?

By the way, here is a link to the history of the coins and In God We Trust.

http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

Did you know In God We Trust was first minted on a 2 cent coin in 1864?

I guess it just irks me that something that harms no one is such a harsh burden for these people.

They don't have to subscribe to any faith to spend it, they can look at the obverse of the coin and not even see it. It is as harmless as a Gideon bible in a hotel room. Don't like it? Don't read it.

So I guess I will never fully understand if people like him really have an offense, or just hate God and religion so much that they would remove all traces of it from public view.

And it concerns me that someday, they will overstep, and make someone remove a cross or crucifix they might be wearing. Will they ban crosses on churches? Those signs out on front of churches that preach a brief 4 line sermon?

Will they seek to disband the US Military chaplains, since they are Ministers, Priests and Rabbis being paid a wage by their service?

Ok, yea, I am really over reaching, I admit. Most of those are securely protected and likely will never change.

But seeing the foolishness coming out of the courts and the legislatures, you never know.

That's just my 2 cents.

What Veteran's day means to me

2005-11-13T23:15:00.000-08:00

What Veteran’s day means to me.

I posted my daughter’s feelings on soldiers and the military. Now it’s my turn.

When I look at my military service, I admit I can be less then impressed. I was stationed at one base, Travis AFB CA, for 12 ½ years, and I never went overseas. I left my base 4 times: Once to an overnight training exercise about 100 miles away; Once to repair an aircraft in Santa Ana; once to work on a training exercise for about a week in Monterey and once to attend a leadership course in San Bernardino-all still within the state of California.

While there I worked in a repair shop for several years, did admin for a few more. Then I worked the flightline for a few years then finished my time in a repair dock. I worked on C-5 and C-141 aircraft. In one job, all I did was change tires. Not amazing, unless you count large as impressive: the tires on a C-5 are 49 inches tall, and weigh over 250 pounds.

While active duty, I invariably mopped endless floors, scrubbed countless latrines and even had to pull the horrible duty of running the coffee/snack bar. All very hush hush and dangerous, huh? We painted shops, buffed floors, painted lines on floors and even built our own offices.

But in reality, I did work in hazardous environments. I worked with complex aircraft systems that required years of training. Live aircraft have many hazards, the least of which is fuel, liquid oxygen and nitrogen, high voltage systems and high pressure hydraulic systems.

While stationed at Travis I saw an aircraft blow up. Literally. The crew working made a mistake and BOOM!. I also saw one land without its gear and another one shear a wing off.

I was a member of the Base Crash Response Team, as well as a member of the Disaster Preparedness Support Team. During Desert Storm, I gave aircrew briefings to crews flying to Saudi Arabia concerning Chemical threats.

Yes, he really did have them.

So I guess it was a mixed bag of mundane, strenuous, dangerous and intense.

And all the while I was a volunteer. I had chosen to enter the Air Force at age 20. Why though bears examination. You see, people enlist for a variety of reasons: Some for College Tuition, some for training (doctors and pilots especially) and some for patriotism.

I enlisted because I was bored. I was working at a grocery store, and decided I wasn’t going anywhere. So went somewhere.

Extreme you say? Perhaps. I looked at my alternatives and decided to take the USAF on. I think though I may not have gone in for the best reasons, in the end it was a valuable experience.

I learned a lot of things. I learned about teamwork. I learned about responsibility. I learned about leadership. I learned about trust. I learned about honor. And I learned about betrayal. I learned a lifetime of experiences in the form of diverse working environments and the school of hard knocks.

Mostly, I learned about work ethics. I learned that you can take pride in the smallest most mundane job if you approach it from an attitude of trying to do it your best. Those lessons would not truly sink in for many years after I left, but they were ingrained.

I learned about priorities. I learned that the military means what it says when it tells its recruits “the needs of the Service and the Country come first.” I learned that the military can be a very harsh master, in terms of making a person sacrifice family, friends and even themselves.

Now, I sit and watch people continue to serve, for they, unlike me, face a much different set of circumstances. I faced a cold war, and vague threats. They serve with the news buzzing with casualty reports from Iraq. They serve knowing the likelihood of their being called to go there. They serve with the possibility of being a casualty. And yet they still serve.

I regard anyone who has served, past of present, enlistee or draftee, as worthy of my and the country’s respect, but I must regard this new generation of warrior with a particular awe. They face something I only saw glimpses of.

And still they choose to serve.

That's what Veteran's Day means to me: Remembering those who served, and who still serve and what that means.

Out of the mouths of babes, final chapter

2005-11-11T08:28:00.000-08:00

Kayla's last essay is on how she see the military. Seeing its veteran's day I figured the timing was good.

Soldiers: American Heroes or American Disgraces?

Your first thought. "Whaaat? What does that mean?" It means just what it says. Are our soldiers Heroes or Disgraces to America? According to some people, Heroes. According to others, Disgraces.

When you think of a soldier, do you think of someone coming home in livery, or staying away in a grave? Do you think of millions of evil entities swarming around you to take your home, or someone come to save you from the clutches of an evil tyrant?

For many US citizens, they forget that the soldiers chose to go to defend the home they love. They view all soldiers as a group of one, as a toy of the government used to attack innocent people in helpless countries for one little mistake and steal their money.

What those people forget, is that certainly the government may carry things to far in foreign countries, but our soldiers chose to join the military, knowing that they'd probably get shipped there. They did it for the love of their country, to protect their family and friends from a danger that may still exist. They protect those they love and the country they love.

True, some of the things a few of the soldiers did or do should be frowned upon, but do not mistake one for many. What one foolish soldier did does not make everyone a criminal. Many soldiers help more then hurt.

Maybe our soldiers should be back at home, maybe our soldiers should be kicking more bad-guy butt, but we cannot mistake the love of their country for them being dogs of the government. It is like looking at a crowd of people at a corner and saying they're all stoners. You don't know, because you only took one look.

So, Heroes or Disgraces? In my mind, they're Heroes. They defend the country they love, which is more then many people could say.

Out of the mouths of babes, part II

2005-11-09T10:58:00.000-08:00

Kayla was very appreciative of all the wonderful compliments. Here is her second post, on gay rights.

Her third post, concerning the Military will be posted Friday, on Veterans day,.

****************

Gay And Lesbian Rights
by Kayla Swenson

So, gay and lesbian rights. Many people believe that these people defy the natural order of things, but can you argue with love? True, part of me, the religious part, is sometimes hesitant about this topic, but many of my friends are Bi- or Gay/Lesbian, and my view has changed.

Like racism, many people cry out against giving these people rights, while more cry out for their rights. But tell me, how many on either side are speaking what they truly feel? Could those on the side against rights just be following their parents shadows? Or those people on the side for rights, could they just be cracking under peer pressure? I don't know, but I'm going to speak my mind.

Despite how many people cry out against them, they are still people in love. A man and a woman may love or be forced to love, but a man and man or woman and woman are forced not to love? To me, that is hippocritical.

Some people take gays and lesbians as a joke going "God you're so gay!" or "Are you a lezbo or something?!" Why is that taken as an insult? Is it because people are afraid?

Here's something interesting about the names. "Gay" originally meant happy, bright, joyful on the outside, while "Lesbian" sounds like "Thespian", an elite group of actors and actresses. So, one must wonder, where did these names come from?

If you see a man walking down the aisle of a supermarket, can you tell whether he is gay or not? Stereotypes depict a gay as "A male who dresses in extravagant and often flamboyent, ostentatious and bright colors often worn by females, sometimes drag queens, and often use Valley Girl lingo." But what if your own brother was gay? Can you tell just by looking at him? No, because to you he is another human being.

If you see a woman walking her dog in a park, can you take one look at her and know if she's lesbian or not? Stereotypes depict lesbians as "A female who dresses butchly with a man-like arrogance and stride, wearing rough street clothes and short cropped hair with a bad attitude." If your best friend was a tomboy, is she immediately a lesbian because she chooses to wear sweater and skater shoes instead of a mini skirt and 5-inch heels? No, because she's your friend, a human being with you.

Depsite what many people think, you cannot tell one in a crowd from a straight. So why is it we ban these fellow humans rights? If they are in love, let them get married. Modern science has made it so that two gays or two lesbians can have a child. If they are so in love that they wish to have a child and settle down, then let them. It's their choice and we are breaking the American tradition by not allowing them to choose the gender of their spouse or to withhold rights from them.

I cannot say I always agree with gays and lesbians, but I can say this. One of my good friends is lesbian, and just because she is doesn't mean I'm going to shun her. I know a guy who is gay, and I'm not going to stop coming into his store just because he hits one guys. They're human beings just like me, and I'm not going to deny them anything, even if their way of living is somewhat different then what I am used to.

If someone asked me whether I support of not, I tell them this "As long as they do not go throwing it in my face, I'm fine with it. They're probably nice people deep down."

My mother says that she won't shun them, but doesn't agree with the way they live. I cannot say the same, because becoming friends with Gays and Lesbians has changed my views greatly.

The world is changing, and humankind need to get used to the changes or we'll never get anywhere.

The election finger is in...

2005-11-08T22:29:00.000-08:00

...and it is not the nice one.

I voted first thing this morning, and was impressed with the scrutiny and thoroughness of the polling board, who checked my ID, my signature and verified my address.

Outstanding.

During the course of the day though, the information seems much more unpleasant. In a continuation of the complete lack of ethics and disregard of state law they seem to thrive on, the King County canvassing boards continue to not only allow people to vote illegally, they actually encourage it.

In the worst case I have heard reported this far, a poll judge was forced to quit his position because he refused to violate his oath. The Judge, Stefan Sharkansky, the esteemed owner of Soundpolitics.com, was not doing anything above the scope of his oath and state law mandated duties, was threatened simple because when voter identified himself as being ineligible to vote, he advised him that he was ineligible to vote.

Read the initial report here:
http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/005294.html#005294

Read the oath he had taken here:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?section=29A.44.510&fuseaction=section

It's disheartening that so much time and effort was made to supposedly address election reform and in the end, it all didn't matter. The mostly democratic controlled election board insists that all votes, illegal or not be counted.

So be it.

For my part I just don't get why they would openly encourage cheating, when the reality is that it taints the process for everyone. Elections are one of the most sacred rights and responsibilities we have as a free society, but here it gets no more respect then a Wal-Mart in a small town.

For their part the crooks in King County have proven conclusively that they have absolutely no desire for honest and fair elections, they only care about maintaining status quo, and continuing to stonewall against the truth. And most of the crooks were reelected.

Sad. Disgusting and sad.

So my final evaluation? Thumbs up to my local polling staff, but King County gets an overall bird.

I even colored it purple with a sharpie.....

Stay tuned tomorrow for my daughter Kayla's thoughts on gay rights and gay marriage...

Out of the mouths of babes

2005-11-08T00:17:00.000-08:00

Those of you who know me, know I love to write. With my sister being a published author I have often wondered if my enjoyment of writing is hereditary.

Well, I found my answer, in a way, when I first read the journal I will be sharing with you. Apparently it does.

This is one of three blog style essays my daughter Kayla, age 15 wrote. She didn't write this for school, she just did it for fun.

So today I don't write as a disgruntled moderate, or incensed citizen or even for amusement or entertainment.

I send you this as a proud daddy. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

**********

Racism

by Kayla Swenson

Racism. It's something you don't hear much nowadays except as a joke at a party. But it's far from a joke. When some people hear 'racism', they think 'Oh, like that time ago when African-Americans worked on plantations...' or 'Like World War II against the Japanese, but thats over now...'. Many people believe that racism is gone, left behind in the past, that we've reached a point without it. But they're wrong, dead wrong.

Look around you, at the people walking around you, at work, in the office, at the store. Do you see those kids teasing and belittling that Latino or do your eyes just roam over it, considering it normal? Do you ignore the people shunning that Middle-Eastern man, just because of the Iraqi war? Is it considered alright for yelling at someone who's wearing a sign of their religion, such as a pentagram to show their Wiccan beliefs?

Look at how you treat people yourself. Do you find yourself scooting slightly away from one person who seems mentally retarded, do you find yourself being cold, abrubt, rude just because they are different? Does the word 'terrorism' just jump into your mind when you see someone who's Iraqi?

I'm not trying to say that you are all racist people and need to change your ways, I'm saying that sometimes we don't realize what we're doing because of fear or uncertainty engraved deep in our minds. I too find myself acting subconsciously in ways I abhor. But I try to fight that bit of abomination in my attitude. Do you?

People everywhere suffer from racism, whether we refuse to see it or not. It's there, perhaps engraved from religion, from fear, from uncertainty of the unknown, who knows, it could be from anything. But it is no excuse to refuse to admit another human being's existence, to treat them like dogs. In WWII the Japanese were placed in camps where latrines overflowed, people often had colic and diahrrea, and other stomache/intestine illnesses.

During the Holocaust, millions of Jews were murdered, sent to the crematories, stripped of everything resembling a human, every instinct turned to a savage, animal like need for survival. [For a good insight on this, Night by Ellie Wiesel is a great telling of what exactly happened].

But I wonder, does the book really hit people? Do people really understand it or do their minds automatically shy away from those horrors and view it as a fairy tale? Often while reading Night I caught myself thinking "He won't let his main character die!" then I remember, with guilt, this isn't a fiction but a real story, so horrible that the mind tries to hide from it.

Is it human nature to refuse to admit shortcomings? Is it human nature to refuse to admit that by denying the fact that that peron is human you're denying their right to exist? Such behavior is abominable, terrible, and should never just be ignored, brushed aside, forgotten.

Humans are some of the few species that feel the need to think ahead, think in the past, but what happens when our heads are so far into the future or so buried in the past that we forget about the present? Is it then that racism and prejudice emerge?

No purple fingers in Seattle

2005-11-07T00:42:00.000-08:00

Iraq just had its second successful election in the last year, proving that democracy really can exist despite the "quagmire" our leaders claim we are in.

It seems an interesting comparison to our own election woes. Lest anyone forget, we had the presidential election fiasco in Florida in 2000, where the race was so close several recounts still cannot definitively say who won. Sure Bush was given the office, but the closeness will always leave doubt for his haters. Bush was selected, not elected, a local radio host loves to parrot. Looking at that election, the problems were actually obvious, the double standards blatant, and the hypocrisy, on both sides, unmistakable.

Move to 2004, and the fiasco attempted to move to Ohio, where this time accusations were made, but the facts (and totals) did not support them, and Bush was the clear winner. But the ghost of the fiasco remained and the curse lived on in the Governor's contest in Washington state. By the time it was over, there had been two recounts, and the winner was finally selected by less the 150 votes.

In Florida the issue was faulty tabulation equipment, confusing ballots, inconsistent counting standards, and a few unsubstantiated accusations of intimidation.

In Washington, King County to be precise, the issues were several thousand illegal votes, along with faulty tabulations and rules inconsistently applied concerning provisional ballots and mail in ballots. The totals between the ballots cast and the ballots counted remain miles apart despite the County's attempts to justify and reconcile. The legal challenge admitted that thousands of votes were illegal, but the problem was proving 'who' the votes were for, which was impossible, so even after acknowledging thousands of illegal votes, the results ultimately stood. Once again the results were upheld by a court, but remain in doubt.

The fallout of this was severe voter dissatisfaction, which the legislature attempted to address with election reform that contained a mixed bag of effective and meaningless provisions. But the message from the public to King County was fairly clear: Fix it!!

And so now a year later, we have completed a primary election, and stand ready for the general election, and already the accusations of illegal votes have come in, and in droves. The Republicans, the technical loser in the 2004 fiasco (the people were the ultimate losers) have begun a drive to clean up the voter registration base. This has met with howls of outrage, mostly from the people accused, but naturally from the Democratic Party. There are however many obvious felonious votes, so while the issue may seem partisan, I believe there is a very corrupt database that needs to be fixed.

And I truly don't understand the outrage. It serves all of us to be honest and accurate. Why the protests? If the people are legit they will not have to worry.

But the bottom line of this is that voter confidence is absolute crap in Washington State, particularly in King County, and most of the measures to address it are more "feel good" then effective.

The lesson should have been clear, fix the problems and restore faith in the system. Instead it reeks of institutional coverup and malfeasance.

So it seems ironic to me that with millions spent on computers and safeguards, we cannot have a decent solid election in a peaceful urban city, but a 3rd world country, in war conditions, can do so with manually filled out and counted ballots and a purple inkpot to prevent double voters.

Maybe the US should invade King County.

So Tuesday, I will go to my poll, and vote and hope to hell my vote is actually (and accurately) counted, and my voice is heard. I have to really, to do nothing, even in the face of such institutional stupidity as King County is mired in, is just something I cannot bear.

And after I am done I will offer my salute to King County, a visual testament to my participation in the franchise that my forefathers died to protect for me, that people presently die in Iraq to obtain and that King County for all its money and stated good intentions cannot assure me of.

I will raise a finger just like the Iraqis, though mine of course will not be purple.

*Which* finger I raise however...that remains to be seen.

When is racism not really racism?

2005-11-02T22:26:00.000-08:00

Reading a few news stories today, that seemed to be a popular question: When is racism not racism?

The answer: When it is a liberal being racist against a conservative black person.

Lest you think me making this up, I offer two direct examples:

The first was from an article in World Net Daily that references an Oct 31st editorial in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which made some remarks about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in context of the racial make up of the SCOTUS.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47167
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/oct05/367053.asp

The editorial says:

"Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years."

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

So apparently because Clarence Thomas has conservative values, he is not black enough to be black? This is not the first such comment regarding Justice Thomas. Last December Harry Reid made comments to the effect that Thomas, who was then being vetted about as a possible new Chief Justice for the then falter Rehnquist, was an embarrassment, which critics suggest was concerning his maintaining conservative values incompatible with the liberal talking points.

But this is really minor league on comparison to the brutal and overtly racist attack on Maryland Lt Governor Michael Steele, another conservative African American.

Courtesy of Captain's Quarters:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005716.php

The Democrats in Maryland have decided that they like racism, especially racist stereotypes such as slave gibberish and minstrel-show caricatures of African-Americans, and have publicly come out in favor of their use in political campaigns. While such imagery would get a Republican immediately denounced as a hatemonger, Democrats feel free to use them as long as their targets are conservative African-Americans, such as Michael Steele:

"Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican."

"Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log."

""There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People."

"State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes."

""Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy.""

"Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black."

The point they make is clear really, that racism will not be tolerated, until it is necessary.

What boggles me is that the Democrats claim to be the party of tolerance and opportunity for people of color, the party of equality for all races. Ignoring for a moment the history of the democratic party, its own overt opposition to civil rights in the middle of the 20th century, their modern position shows such an arrogant streak of hypocrisy that it turns my stomach.

Racism is racism, and no amount of pandering, rationalization and justification will change that.

The people mentioned above are nothing more then ideological hypocrites of the first order. They are also childish immature idiots, who rather then confront an opponent on his actions and beliefs, have fallen back to hate filled school yard taunting.

I expect them to start talking smack about his mother next, it would keep to the same program.

One other troubling aspect is the presumption that a person of African American Descent must embrace a liberal ideology. This presumption effectively forces them into a box of chosen, safe beliefs in order to have the benefit of respect for their heritage. Who exactly is oppressing who in this case?

If they truly represent the Democratic party and modern liberalism, then I have found one more reason to remain firmly independent.

What was he thinking?

2005-11-01T22:46:00.000-08:00

Ok, I feel better. The Bush administration has finally focused and moved on from what I have to describe as a period of gross stupidity.

In the past weeks I have not been able to figure out what Bush was thinking.

First we had the Miers nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

Now at first glance the possibility of a non judge being on the court was attractive to me. Historically, the court has done so many times in the past, including the notable late Judge Rehnquist. And honestly, the elitism displayed by the Federal Judges is normally fairly repugnant, so an outsider would have been rather refreshing.

But as I read about her, it seemed she was really a crony appointee more then anything else, which is totally sad. Sure, we all know presidents appoint their pals to positions, so do all politicians of note. The desire to surround yourself with trusted allies is very comforting, and frankly necessary. But the SCOTUS is another animal altogether. It relies on a level of partisan and personal impartiality that is unparalleled. The justices that make up the SCOTUS must be free of entanglements, and someone sitting behind the scenes of Bush doors would be an easy target for conflict of interest.

Maybe some of the other justices have similar conflicts, I really cannot say for sure as I am not a SCOTUS scholar.

The left can say what they want about her, considering one of their own suggested her to Bush in the first place. But when the right rose up against her, for reasons I still don't completely follow, I just didn't know what to think. A battle seemed ready to burst, not in the Judical committee, but in the Republican ranks.

But in an act that both showed her integrity and actually proved her disqualification, she withdrew her nomination, and in effect recused herself from the Judicial Nominee hearings, fearing some (Democrats) would use them to gain information about her actions as Whitehouse Counsel. In that capacity she was privy to a lot of information that would have not been fun to have vetted in a public forum. She justified her withdrawal stating she had to protect confidentiality and lawyer client privilege.

It was the right choice, because let me tell ya folks, they would have wrung out anything they could have in spades. Oh, and please don't froth in righteous indignation Republicans, had the parties been reversed the Republicans would have been just as blood thirsty.

But the real point here is that her recusal is proof she could not place her actions and relationship to the president at arms length. Having a SCOTUS Justice recusing herself during deliberations and hearings on the High Court would have been foolish at the least.

Then there was the media pounding he took over the press conference with soldiers that most media claims was staged. According to a report issued by a soldier ( http://tinyurl.com/83a5n) who was in it, it was not, but the media has all but ignored that rebuttal. I encourage you to read the other side of that story. But I digress

Ok, lets be honest about a couple things. Bush has made a lot of efforts to use optimism to turn public tide and boost morale. The Mission Accomplished banner is a prime example. While technically accurate, it became the focus point of the left's desire to brand him a liar. The primary goal was not finished, just one facet. Congratulations were premature. His administration, as most do, has constantly showed a positive spin to the realities; and that is not really a bad thing, but if carried to far leads to faulty expectations and overconfidence.

But I have to admit the timing of this question and answer session and the all but obvious choreography made this a foolish endeavor. A better forum could have been used that would not have looked so controlled, so scripted, even though a participant insists it was not.

And while I firmly believe most town hall meetings are similarly "handled", they at least have an appearance of spontaneity.

Bush, in my opinion, lost majorly when he stopped fighting the Social Security battle. Sure, privitization may not have been the answer, but the question "is Social Security in trouble" still has the same answer: YES. Maybe his initial idea was not the best, but it could have been the basis for a bipartisan effort to fix the problem. FWIW the Democrats disgust me when they claim there is no crisis. There is. And I hope someone steps up to fix it. Bush gave up the battle, and in that he disappoints me and many of his partisan followers

Now Bush has made two steps to restore the right to the belief he is still conservative, and still in charge. First, he nominated Judge Alito to the SCOTUS, one that virtually guarantees to bring the fight back to the Senate where it belongs (filibuster baby, yea!), and he has proposed a long overdue overhaul of the income tax system.

Concerning Alito, I will look at his record and make a decision on whether he is good or not. A liberal friend has forwarded a petition being circulated against him, presumably for being too anti abortion. I don't know if that is true or not. See tomorrows blog maybe. The tax proposal is welcome though, as that system is terribly in need of changing, though I remain skeptical that he will stay the course. Remember Social Security?

But it is nice to see Washington finally heading for the full combat, guns blazing, no holds barred, free fire zone, totally entrenched take no prisoners battle for the Supreme Court that all the media, the pundits and the American people have been waiting for since Judge Bork failed and Clarence Thomas succeeded. I can see NPR, the DNC and NOW firing up their talking points to oppose him, while the RNC and Right to Life are likewise sharpening their swords. And the media, the literary vultures they are, are circling the fray, patiently waiting for the first blood to be spilled. And the Tax plan assures us of long speeches, contradictory talking points and committees and hearings galore.

This is what American politics is all about: Partisan gridlock and dissension!

Finally things are heading back to normal for DC.

To the loved ones, departed

2005-10-26T23:30:00.000-07:00

I have been light on my writing, due to some serious events here.

The first was fairly mundane, I started my new job last Monday, and I have frankly been too preoccupied with learning the processes to spend a lot of time writing.

But much more serious, was hearing my uncle had died of emphysema the 15th, 2 days before I started that job.

As a matter of background, my father's family is very large. He is second eldest of 13 children. The children arrived from around 1932 to 1953, and all 13 lived and grew into adulthood, despite 3 of them serving in the Marine Corps in Korea (my dad included); despite a much high mortality rate from childhood diseases; and despite having 11 rowdy boys, a feat that I consider to be somewhat blessed all on it's own.

My grandmother is, or should be, a certified saint, having raised these 11 boys and 2 girls. (don't pity the heavily outnumbered girls, they are today two of the most amazing and strong women I know) Grandmother was named Mother of the Year in San Jose California in the mid 50s, a title she earned many times over.. She was also on her own from the mid 60s or so when my grandfather died. I hardly knew him really, but she remains a firm memory.

Allen, my departed uncle was the 4th oldest, age 69. He had been a smoker since high school, apparently, and it caught up with him. I wont repeat his obituary, but suffice to say he marched to his own drummer. For example, he loved motorcycles, and after leaving the Marine Corps he rode for a while with the Hells Angels in LA. Allen never did anything in a conventional fashion. He later became a tax assessor, the only family member I know of to serve in a public office. Consider the extreme changes from Marine, to biker to politician. This was the complex man Allen was.

He eventually married, raised three great kids and upon his death had several wonderful grandkids.

My aunts and uncles descended on Redding this weekend. One of my aunts came up earlier in the week to share her sorrow, but had to depart. One uncle dropped by the night before the service to my cousins house where we gathered, but also had to depart. At the service though, my father, 8 his brothers and one sister all were gathered, along with Allen's children, a couple more cousins besides myself, and some close friends.

The sad part of the whole event came as Allen's mother not only could not come, but has not been told. She is very old now, her memory failing. The decision was made not to tell her, because it would really serve no purpose as it is unsure how much she would understand, and how she would respond, as well as the fact that her health is too fragile for her to have been able to attend even if she had understood.

To me that was the saddest part.

My father's family has been a joy to me, for they embody so passionately what we all strive for: Love. And with this tragedy, they again have fallen back to that foundation of love and support that all seem to
naturally feel.

When my step mother died in 1999, the reaction was the same as it was here this weekend, the gathering from all corners of the country to share the memories of a loved one, and to show support and love as all shared my father's grief.

This weekend, even as all grieved the loss of a father, or a loved one, or a brother, they also rejoiced in a life filled with memories and laughter as they recalled their favorite moments of his life and events they all shared with him.

I still struggle with life, its mysteries and death. I still have a hard time reconciling my feelings on the whole subject.

What I did recognize on Saturday however gives me hope and a lot of comfort. It was a concept so simple in its nature, and so deeply profound in its effect.

Imagine, if you will, my father and his siblings all standing in a circle, holding hands. When Allen was lost from that circle, a gap now existed. But only momentarily, as all stepped slightly forward, shortening the length of the circle. The two open ends joined hands, and once again completed the circle.

The circle has changed, yet remains a circle. And as an ironic bonus, all are a little closer together then they were before.

In the circle of our family, where some families fracture with deaths, ours just draws closer together.

Rest in peace Uncle Allen, you will never be forgotten, for you live in our hearts and we hear your voice in our laughter.

PETA strikes again

2005-10-11T23:12:00.000-07:00

There has been a crime committed. A heinous act of deliberate violence, that resulted in the death of a living creature.

This on its own is disturbing, but it gets worse, much worse. The crime was committed by students, and even worse yet, on school property, during school hours, in full view of not only students but teachers and faculty.

What makes this even more disgusting, even more appalling, is that the students who could have stopped, instead cheered. They applauded and laughed.

It’s hard to describe the brutality. In fact PETA received complaints from several horrified students, and immediately intervened. Their actions were too late to bring back the dead, but they may prevent it from happening again in the future.

In their letter to the principle PETA said:

“If the reports we received are accurate, this cruel spectacle has no place in Federal Way public schools. Given the proliferation of violence in the schools, it is imperative that we teach compassion for all living beings rather than publicly encouraging cruelty to animals,"

They went on to point out that:

“…the incident may have been in violation of Washington’s cruelty statute, which tates that a person is guilty of cruelty to animals when "he or she … inflicts substantial pain on … or … kills an animal by a means causing undue suffering …."

So we have an act of deliberate brutality, and as yet no charges have been filed. What manner of miscarriage of justice is this? Has our culture really sunk so low?

Are Goldfish no longer safe?

Yes, Goldfish. Two students did this on a bet, that if one of them got elected a class officer, they would swallow Goldfish at an assembly. He did and they did.

I am gonna be honest, and say “so what?” Look, I understand what PETA represents, but honestly this just seems silly.

If PETA wants to campaign against animal cruelty, that’s fine. I even support them in principle on two issues. First I don’t have a need for fur, since there are enough synthetic alternatives. And I wont order or eat veal if I can help it. I see no use for killing calves for food, I draw the line there. Those are just my opinions.

I also have respect for my friends who are Vegans. I prefer a Big Mac myself, but they have the right to chose their own diet.

But goldfish? I mean these kids likely heard about it from parents or saw it in movies. I remember some Young Life leaders doing this at a fund raising carnival. Swallowing goldfish is practically an American tradition. OK., I will grant that in a school assembly may have been ill advised. But to equate this to Washington’s cruelty law? The representative I heard on the radio didn’t quite come out and say fishing should be criminalized, but she came close. In fact there is a webpage PETA runs called http://www.fishinghurts.com/ which nicely promotes it.

What bothers me is how often political groups intrude in our schools (and lives), often representing a minority faction. Not that I believe anyone’s rights are open to abuse, but in a democratic environment, where majority rules, the minority is often denied something, and suing is not always a viable option.

This begs the question:

Are we teaching them to protect their rights or to demand excess rights? Are we creating rights out of whole cloth? I personally think that sometimes that is exactly what we are doing.

It makes me wonder though. One of the biggest rights based groups is the ACLU, and they often support the oppressed, often when a minority is oppressed. One of their favorites is freedom of expression as a subset of freedom of speech. One aspect of that is living art or performance art.

Could their acts have been performance art, or freedom of expression? Would the ACLU come to their defense? Hmmm.

So if I decided to make a public statement by swallowing some goldfish on the capital steps- heck I’ll bring some friend and have goldfish swallowing event, to protest…errr…well to protest something. Would the ACLU come to my defense, and would PETA try to suppress me?

It would almost be worth it to see these two titans battle it out, but it wouldn’t happen. The ACLU has already gone to court to defend PETA

So, nevermind. I'll just chow down my Big Mac instead.

Commander in Chief

2005-10-02T23:26:00.000-07:00

'We're making this as entertainment. But God willing, if this show stays on and people see a woman in that office for a while, I think it will help people become more used to it. It's certainly about time that we had a few female presidents.'

I just hope that C in C treats it as a serious issue, and doesnt degenerate it into a DNC tool.

To fight for a woman president is fine, if she has to be a democrat then I think you are again forcing limits where none need exist.

Ed Koch rocks

2005-09-27T22:48:00.000-07:00

I love writing, it is no secret. But when someone else does it better, why bother? I dont agree with everything he says, but Ed sums up *most* of my feelings perfectly.

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/TEMP/ss_koch_09_27.html
Cindy Sheehan: A shame and a disgrace
By Ed Koch
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in action in Iraq on April 4, 2004, has become the face of the anti-war movement in the United States. While her grief is understandable, her rhetoric is outrageous.

As the mother of a son killed in battle in Iraq, she originally struck a sympathetic chord, whether you supported the war in Iraq or opposed it. One cannot help but empathize with the agony of a bereaved mother. But that has changed over the months, and I believe that many Americans who viewed her with sympathy no longer do so.

Many Americans, myself included, now see her as a person who has come to enjoy the celebratory status accorded to her by the radicals on the extreme left who see America as the outlaw of the world. These radicals are not content to be constructive critics. They are bent on destroying this country.

Some of them want to turn America into a radical socialist state. Others hope to create a utopia. But regardless of their agendas, how can Cindy Sheehan's supporters defend her shameful statement, “This country is not worth dying for.”

While we recognize the U.S. is far from perfect, we are still head and shoulders above most other countries in the world in every respect. We remain the place where almost all others, given the chance, want to come to live. We continue to be the land of opportunity. We are the world’s leading economy.

Yes, there is far too great a difference between the incomes of the rich and the poor. Yes, we haven’t provided universal medical care as a matter of right for all of our citizens. Yes, minorities still suffer from discrimination socially, in housing, jobs and education. But we have a political system that for more than 200 years has allowed the electorate to work its will through regularly held elections. The government follows the will of the people, or it will no longer stay in power.

Those who rail against the United States have simply failed to sell their message to the public at large. They keep losing elections, local as well as national. Rather than broadening their appeal, they have narrowed it.

I supported and still support the war in Iraq, because our Congress and President had every right to rely on the advice of the CIA that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. On Sunday, September 25, 2005, Tim Russert of Meet The Press, summed up the situation prevailing before the war, saying, “…post September 11th, there was a fear of terrorism, an inability to know whether there were weapons of mass destruction by the public or by the media. George W. Bush said there were. Bill and Hillary Clinton said there were. The Russians, French and Germans, who opposed the war, said there were. Hans Blix of the UN said there were.”

Iraq had fought an eight-year war against Iran resulting in a million casualties, using poison gas against the Kurds, who were citizens of Iraq, and against the Iranian army. Yes, since the 2003 invasion, we have not found any present supplies of WMD. Nevertheless, based on advice from CIA counterparts advising every member nation of the United Nations Security Council, the Security Council, including Syria, adopted Resolution 1441 unanimously, finding Iraq had weapons of mass destruction for which it had not accounted and advising Iraq that failure to account was cause for war. Iraq refused to account for them to the U.N. We and our allies were right to invade, notwithstanding that other countries, terrified by the prospect of terrorism against them and tempted by corruption at the UN masterminded by Saddam Hussein through the Oil-For-Food program and lucrative vendor contracts with Hussein’s regime, did not join us.

As I have often stated, we have accomplished our original goal to prevent Iraq from threatening us or its regional neighbors. We should declare victory and get out. Yes, there probably will be a civil war among the Kurds, Sunni and Shia. If the UN — which is still under a cloud because of the "Oil for Food" scandal — decides to take a military role in Iraq to stop the civil war, we can join them at that time.

Having accomplished our original mission, we should no longer be fulfilling the obligations of other countries, such as Germany and France which have had a free ride to date. Even in Afghanistan, the latter NATO allies, do not participate in combat duty, leaving that and the ensuing casualties for the U.S. to bear.

President George W. Bush summed up his views on Iraq when he stated, “When the Iraqi army stands up, the American Army will stand down.” I have low expectations of that happening in the immediate future. The estimates provided by the Bush administration on our getting out range from two to ten years. I do not believe we should wait that long, because of the casualties that would be involved. We should get out now, leaving the UN in charge. Although I believe that we should leave Iraq, I do not accept Sheehan’s outrageous statements.

Sheehan has joined those who rail against Israel, labeling Israel as the culprit with her comment, “You get America out of Iraq, you get Israel out of Palestine and the terrorism will stop.” Is that why Sunni and other terrorists have intentionally killed thousands of Shia civilians, labeling them, according to al-Zarkawi, infidels? Is that why Arab fundamentalists have declared war against all Christians and Jews?

According to Wikipedia, on August 15, 2005, on the Chris Matthews Show, Sheehan said, “she would not have responded differently to her son’s death had he died in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq.

Sheehan argued that the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was ‘almost the same thing as the Iraq war.’” Remember, the UN Security Council authorized the invasion of Afghanistan and the war against the Taliban government.

Sheehan’s personal attacks on President Bush include comments in a speech on April 27, 2005, when she said, “We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush.” Shameful.

According to Wikipedia, Sheehan wrote, “Casey was killed in the Global War of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive neo-con cabal.”

In an interview on CBS, Sheehan referred to the foreign insurgents coming into Iraq, who are condemned as terrorists even by other Arab countries, as well as the U.S. and Great Britain, as “freedom fighters.” On September 16, 2005, she said, “Pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans and Iraq.” On the one hand, she and her supporters urge that the National Guard be brought back from Iraq to be used in New Orleans, and on the other hand, she condemns their use there now.

In addressing a veterans’ group on August 5, 2005, she demeaned herself with the use of truly outrageous remarks hurled at the President, describing him as “a lying bastard,” “that jerk,” “that filth spewer and war monger,” and “that evil maniac.”

Sheehan appeared this past weekend in Washington, D.C., leading the parade in a picture captured by the media that included Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and Al Sharpton.

On Monday of this week, while Sheehan and her supporters were in Washington protesting at the White House against the presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq — those forces there at the request of the democratically elected Iraqi government — according to The New York Times, “Armed men dressed as police officers burst into a primary school in a town south of Baghdad on Monday, rounded up five Shiite teachers and their driver, marched them to an empty classroom and killed them, a police official said.” Sheehan believes them to be “freedom fighters.”

Of course, Sheehan has the right to state her opinion in a country she believes shouldn’t be defended. We who disagree with her statements, we who believe this country deserves our thanks, love and willingness to defend it, also have the right to express our views. Speak up, America.

I think I owe Ms Sheehan an apology.

2005-09-20T00:01:00.000-07:00

I know I haven’t been very respectful of her protests, and I have fairly openly chided her for being a left wing tool, of letting the Bush haters use her protest for their own agendas. Don’t get me wrong, they did. But I think all along she was manipulating them as much as they her.

You see, while I was sure she was on an anti Bush agenda, I was wrong. She is totally on an anti war agenda, no doubt about it. And what’s more, no one is safe from her laser guided attacks.

Look at the focus of her latest attack. It isn’t the RNC, or the President. It’s none other then Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No I am serious. See below:

http://www.nysun.com/article/20195?access=889803
War protester Cindy Sheehan came to New York last night with a blunt warning for Senator Clinton: End your support for the war in Iraq or else.

Visiting New York City for the first time since leaving her campsite outside President Bush's vacation ranch in Crawford, Texas, Ms. Sheehan told a packed audience in a Brooklyn church that Mrs. Clinton "knows the war is a lie" but because of her political ambitions refuses to voice any opposition.

Mrs. Clinton is "waiting for the best political moment to say" she opposes the war, Ms. Sheehan said during a 15-minute speech. "You say it or you're losing your job," she said, provoking a roar of approval from the audience. Mrs. Clinton, believed to be a possible presidential contender in 2008, has said she supports the war in Iraq and has pushed for a greater troop presence in the country.

In an interview after her speech, Ms. Sheehan said she has requested a meeting with Mrs. Clinton but has not gotten a reply. Mrs. Clinton's office was not immediately available for comment last night.

Now, Sen Clinton is hardly my favorite, but there is no mistaking that she is the golden child of the DNC. She is by all accounts a strong contender for the 2008 presidential and one of the most powerful people in Washington DC.

Ms Sheehan in going after Sen. Clinton has seized the tiger by tail, in a big way. There are few democrats with more influence then the former first lady, and an attack on her could fracture many alliances.

Sen. Clinton has perfected a moderate stance that will make her presidential bid very hard to counter, and by taking this tone, Ms Sheehan has set Sen. Clinton on a very bumpy road.

For if she appeases her, and capitulates to the demand that she speak out against the war, then she will have to explain her public support of the war, and her calls to increase our presence there. If she maintains her public stance, she risks alienating a good number of liberal followers.

It will be interesting to watch as Ms Clinton decides how to handle this. Ms. Sheehan has made a familiar call for a meeting. Will Ms Clinton shut her gates or open them wide?

And will Cindy camp out in front of the Clinton’s home in New York?

And if so, will MoveOn.Org and Michael Moore support her against one of their strongest allies?

Rather then just attacking the administration in a choreographed partisan parade, Ms. Sheehan is apparently a loose cannon who attacks anyone she decides is necessary.

I will never agree with her or her tactics, but I have to give her grudging credit. She has guts.

This also begs the question: Have they created a monster?

The Pledge

2005-09-15T23:16:00.000-07:00

I admit to being somewhat conflicted concerning the Pledge of Allegiance controversy.

The Pledge remains a strong memory of my childhood, all of us in our classrooms standing united, hands on hearts, reciting this promise. At School, at Church, at Cub Scout meetings and other places, all would respectfully join together.

As I grew older it became less reverent and respectful. Not that we were unpatriotic, but we were youth. It didn't matter.

When I joined the Air Force, it was again important, though perhaps not quite as important as the Oath of Enlistment, and the Star Spangled Banner.

And as it is now under attack it makes me wonder, how have we as a country changed so much in a mere 40 years or so.

It isn't just the Pledge. Any mention of God causes knees to jerk wildly. People have taken the 1st Amendment establishment clause far from it's intended meaning, and seek to remove all reference to God from our society.

There will soon, I predict, be a call to remove God from our money, to sand off the architectural symbols in our public buildings, to edit the Constitution and any thing else they can.

Now, looking at the divisive "under God" in the pledge, first let me say, yes I know it was only added to the Pledge in the 50's. Regardless, I don't see it as establishing any manner of religion. It establishes, to me, a metaphor that we exist united before all to see, God and people alike. It establishes our equality as people before God and before each other. It doesn't say which God, or which faith, it's just a metaphor. I frankly see it as a historical reference as much as anything, an indication of certain facets of our history. It reflect where our country was, and how it was founded. Anyone who looks to our history and cannot see faith as a facet of it is blind.

Having said that, I also see no reason to compel anyone to say those words if they do not believe them. I am not a big one for forced pledges and allegiance in the first place. Compulsory pledges lack the force of conviction usually. It is rote obedience, not allegiance. It is hollow and meaningless.

The pledge should be spoken from the heart as an affirmation of the belief and the participation in something greater then individual wants and desires. It's an affiliation, a bond with freedom as our goal and prize. It's a proclamation of voluntary membership in a society that values us as much as it does me.

And in that respect, what's wrong with people actually giving something back to the system that they take so much from? All these freedoms they abuse, all in the name of the liberty that provides them the freedom. We should be honored to pledge our alliance to the concepts of liberty.

So I guess what I am saying, is that I see no particular reason to remove the words from the pledge. It was put there for a reason, and that reason is now a part of our culture and history. They hurt no one, they impy no particular faith, they are just a symbol.

But, if the take the Under God back out, it won't change anything to me. Those people of faith or the people who revere the tradition will silently (or maybe not so silently) insert it anyway, even as some athiest omit it now. And besides that, the core of what the pledge means will remain, the ideals that it represents will remain.

The important thing is not whether you say God, the important thing is whether you are saying it with conviction.

The following words were spoken by the late Red Skelton on his television program as he related the story of his teacher, Mr. Laswell, who felt his students had come to think of the Pledge of Allegiance as merely something to recite in class each day.

Now, more than ever, listen to the meaning of these words. They seem very appropriate...

"I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?"

I
me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge
dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.
Allegiance
my love and my devotion.
To the flag
our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job!
United
that means that we have all come together.
States
individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.
And to the republic
a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the
people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
For which it stands, one nation
one nation, meaning "so blessed by God"
Indivisible
incapable of being divided.
With liberty
which is freedom -- the right of power to live one's own life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation.
And Justice
the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.
For all
which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.

Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance...
UNDER GOD
Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?

We must not forget.

2005-09-11T22:56:00.000-07:00

As I sit here on the anniversary of Sept 11, 2001 I need to reflect on a couple things.

First, 911 changed a lot of perceptions and paradigms that we as a people had. Hijackings were certainly not a new thing, we had seen them before. A group would take over a plane; we would watch news coverage of them as they negotiated for the release of a comrade, or safe passage to this or that country. But before, there was a typical pattern. Hijack, land, make demands, deliver messages and ultimatums, and eventually (in most cases) some kind of resolution where most hostages were released unharmed. It was theorized that the first three planes in the 911 attack never even considered fighting back because they were probably expecting to land and go through some process of negotiation. We were not prepared for the mindset these hijackers had, where their deaths and their method of dying *was* the message. Flight 93 apparently after realizing their fate chose another path.

It isn’t that terrorism was a new thing. I can personally remember some manner of terrorist like activity going back to the 1972 Munich Olympics. Bombings, including suicide bombings have a long history. The Middle East, particularly the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, has been a source of decades of violence, and even Europe has had its share of problems, specifically in the UK with the IRA conflicts a not too distant memory.

But there has been a kind of bubble in the USA that seems to have insulated us from a lot of this, with a couple of exceptions, those being the UniBomber and the Oklahoma City Bombing. But those seem to be isolated acts of disgruntled individuals, not organized acts by a foreign group against us as a people.

We have been attacked before, but always overseas. The USS Cole bombing, car bombs in Beirut and various other places, all of these were attacks but in lands far from Manhattan. They were news stories, but unless a loved one was hurt, it wasn’t real. It was just a story.

Here we were safe. Until September 11th.

Then the reality came home, and one of our last bits of innocence was gone.

What made the comparisons to Pearl Harbor a little inaccurate was the fact that Pearl Harbor was an attack by a Sovereign nation using an armada of military planes and ships to attack a strategic military target. 911 was a handful of men using our own unarmed civilian planes as devastating weapons against a purely civilian target. Nothing prepared us for how effective a fuel laden passenger airplane can destroy an office building. In the aftermath, we expected to find Iraq at the heart of it, I know I did. And while Iraq did have limited ties to Al Qaeda, there was surprisingly no connection to 911. It was the work of a group, not a country.

All the rules were changed. We had become used to the world as safe place, but no longer.

We became united. We were solid and unwavering in our desire to punish those responsible. Congress was acting in an unprecedented unity…for a while. Eventually politics proved more persuasive then unity. By the time the 2004 election rolled around, we were just as fragmented as we were before, only now we were divided during war.

Our leaders chose to take war to the terrorists and those who harbored them, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Now we again fight them over there. I will defer any arguments on the validity of the places we fight. I am a realist. We are already there, and we will be there for a time to come. The problem I see is we are once again losing valuable unity and perspective. I see this as akin to the pre 911 attitude of seeing it happen “over there”.

We have forgotten the deaths and the pain of watching the towers fall. We forgot the coming together we saw locally in NYC. We forgot the stepping forward as a nation we did, all partisan bickering gone.

Hurricane Katrina has proven just how far back we have fallen and how much we forgot. The response flaws should have been dealt with in proactive correction, and in stepping forward to save those afflicted, and often it was, but as often as not it was greeted with blaming, mostly down party lines.

We have forgotten almost every lesson we learned after 911, and it isn’t really a surpise. The bubble is back. In four years we have not had anything happen here of any significance.

But we are just as vulnerable, because our borders are ridiculous and our security is still flawed. We may be hit here again.

We as a people must wake up and become unified as a country again, not just to combat Al Qaeda and those whose ideology wishes our deaths, but against nature and her fury, which we have seen respects no borders.

The Tsunami was another case of watching it happen over there. Sure whole cities were flattened but that was some place far away. Katrina brought it home again, and the lesson was clear: Yes it can happen here.

And when it did we weren’t ready. As a city, as a state, as a country we were not prepared. Once again, we were faced with something that changed the rules. We had weathered storms, we replaced windows and roofs and moved on. That was the normal procedure.

But the floodwaters, and the resultant pollution in the waters was not what we expected, nor we prepared for the looting and raping. The rules changed. Now local communities are stepping forward, and the spirit of the country is coming close to a partial unification.

The lesson is clear. We must unify as a people, or we will continue to be doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. United we stand and divided we fall. How much more clear can it be?

If we only remember one facet of 911, it must be that we have shown we can stand united.

We must not forget that.

The Lone Wolf

2005-09-08T20:33:00.000-07:00

It’s not a secret to anyone who knows me that I love wolves. Both my tattoos feature wolves, I have several hundred graphics of wolves on my computer, my favorite book series uses wolves as a central character, and my most common nickname is wolf related. On the intro page to my website, I make mention of this and detail some reasons why, which isn’t what I want to discuss.

What concerns my random thoughts today is image that the wolf inspires.

The identity of a wolf is primarily its pack. A pack can be made up of many males and females and their offspring, often up to twelve animals or more, depending on the environment. The family nature of the pack is solid, and provides stability and benefit in hunting. The females will communally raise their pups. Describing the social factors of a wolf pack is a huge task.
Despite this, the image of the lone wolf comes to mind much quicker in many people.

The lone wolf is certainly not a myth. Wolves disperse from their packs for many reasons. For some it is to make a new life, perhaps from overcrowding. For others, dominance competitions, competition for mates and even for food happens and they are driven out.

The lone wolf faces a bleak existence for hunting solo is less efficient. The lone wolf will often trail a pack trying to gain acceptance.

Now bringing this back to me, I was asked by a friend (thanks Erin) if my tattoos represented a lone wolf.

It made me think. As a child I often felt like the loner, or at least one of the loners, if such a thing existed. In fact, most of my life I found myself outside the main flow of the social structure I was in be it church, school, military or work. It’s not that I didn’t have friends; but I was never the social butterfly in the center of group; the main focus of attention. I am actually somewhat uncomfortable in such roles. So yes, in a social context I was a bit of a loner, and when I was younger, I spent many a night bemoaning this fact.

Looking at it today though, my feelings have changed. I began to wonder, is the concept of being alone necessarily a bad one. People choose to live apart from others all the time, for a variety of reasons. My mother was once very isolated in central Oregon, miles from ‘civilization’, and she was content, and healthy. She now lives with my sister, and despite having cancer, she has a strong sense of independence.

In fact the concept of “Loner” is so different from the concept of “Independent”, is it? Look in your trusty Thesaurus and you will find that Lone-Wolf is linked directly to both loner and independent. And if you follow the chain of meanings you see that Independent is closely aligned with Individualistic, Self-Reliant, Liberated, Self-Determining, Self-Sufficient and my personal favorite, Non-Partisan.

All of these terms would commonly be considered positive traits, yet the Lone-Wolf is generally considered the “Odd Man Out”. True that sometimes in our society social groups will drive people out with pack like ferocity, and sometimes this results in maladjustment, but those cases are typically not the norm.

The difference is in how you see yourself isn’t it? The only practical difference comes in perception, nothing more. Sure, I know it’s true that isolation can be unhealthy, and even dangerous. Left to oneself, a person can indeed be their worst enemy. Loneliness can be painful and compelling. But that path leads to self pity, and I personally reject it. Like so many aspects of life, I find that pity is useless. It will certainly allow you think you feel better and you can always blame others and become the victim, but in the end it won’t help.

Instead as the years have gone by, I have learned to draw on self acceptance, self respect, self confidence and self discipline, all of which are components of Self Esteem. Acceptance allows you to grow and learn, and heal. I am not perfectly there yet, but I am trying and a lot happier for it.

I’m still somewhat of a loner, and in some ways I will always be one. The difference is that I no longer mind.

Attitude is the key. I am independent not because I deny the need for others in my life, but because I maintain that need in proper perspective. I don’t indulge in self pity; I simply accept who I am and I enjoy the socializations that I do have. I don’t rely on others for my ultimate happiness; I share the happiness our friendship produces. The mutual benefit means a lot to me.

So call me a lone wolf, I don’t mind and I won’t deny it, it’s true: I am self reliant and non partisan, and proud of it.

The lesson in adversity

2005-09-06T19:24:00.000-07:00

(dedicated to Allison, in Southeast Louisiana- Glad you and your family made it through ok)

Adversity is like a strong wind. It tears away from us all but the things that cannot be torn, so that we see ourselves as we really are. ~Arthur Golden.

Boy isn't that the truth.

When Katrina came to town, her winds stripped the buildings and the countryside, but she did much more. She stripped away the facades from some of the people, as the quote above says and in some cases what was revealed was very bad.

Some of the people in the cities were stripped completely of their humanity. Survival was placed second to greed lust and anger. Looting can be the most basic of survival mechanisms, as the need for food and water and sometimes clothes outweighs respect for laws and property, and in most cases is forgivable, but, when the looting is for a TV set and DVD's, well you have to regard that as opportunistic, not survivalist. And while sex might qualify for a survival mechanism to some evolutionists, I just don't buy it when its rape. I am also at a loss to explain how shooting at the fireman and rescuers is a survival mechanism.

Now, to be fair, I am certain that the overall percentage of people whose inner child was revealed to be a delinquent was small but it was much more prevalent then a lot of people were prepared for. The savagery stunned the nation I think, because we as Americans have this inflated self image that we are a nation of civilized people. In reality, it has been shown time and again we can revert to base animalism almost immediately, as witnessed in the Rodney King riots for example, or the WTO riots here in Seattle a few years ago.

One other place saw the veneer of civilization stripped away, and that was in the comments of the politicians and activists.

Almost as soon as Katrina was detected, the accusations flew. It seemed like mostly the left leaning people were blaming President Bush, first by claiming that the terrible Hurricanes were a result of global warming, and thus directly linked to our refusal to sign the Kyoto treaty. When scientists verified, in the New York Times of all places, that the storm pattern was normal, and in fact we had been running on borrowed time for a big one, they wasted no time in finding other complaints.

Since it hit, we have heard all kinds of accusations, mostly directed at Bush and FEMA including:

There were no national guard response in Louisiana because all their troops were in the gulf- this is patently false, there are adequate troops, just no one called them in, something the Governor should have done.

That the levy broke because the funds to fix it were diverted to the war...or that the funds had been diverted to homeland security. - there is some truth here, but it also appears that there is a much more complex picture, including the fact that the section of levy that burst had just been updated.

That Bush was a murderer for not responding quicker (queue Cindy Sheehan)- I swear, they are determined to pin him for murder somehow, and frankly they are wearing that accusation out.

Some of the worst comments were about race, of course.

"Many black people feel that their race, their property conditions and their voting patterns have been a factor in the response... I'm not saying that myself, but what's self-evident is that you have many poor people without a way out." -- Rev. Jesse Jackson

Well thanks. Now Jesse is trying to incite a race war. Just what is needed.

What is it that makes people want to capitalize on the tragedy of others to score points politically? And why is it that the victims are so willing to go along with it?

And make no mistake; Bush's political enemies are fully on the attack, perhaps seeing this as the way to finally bring him low. No one in the early hours was the focus of more complaints.

Complaints were made that he just toured the area from the air, made a quick stop, looked around and then left. Not like what all past presidents have done during national disasters, which is to use aircraft to fly over and get the broader view of the devastation, then land and assess the damage from the ground, before returning to Washington to coordinate relief efforts. Wait...that sounds just like...

I grant that as the details emerge the overall response was bad, but the reasons for that run in and out of many levels, not just the Federal response. The Mayor responded poorly by not following the evacuation plan for his City; the Governor responded poorly by not calling in her guard units, and requesting timely aid; FEMA responded but may have been so mired in procedure their initial response was slow.

In fact, the issue of proper procedure was one that played a huge role, not the least of it was Bush's inability to do anything until the Governor asked.

The point of this is not to absolve the administration of anything; it is just to point out that the list is not limited to GWB. And think reasonably here folks, it's no wonder this was relief effort was slow considering that the scope of this was far larger then anyone imagined. FEMA had a lot of areas to cover, including the earlier damage in Florida.

Yes, the comparisons to 911 are made, and people point out how smoothly that effort went. But in respect to the area affected 911 was really a small disaster, limited in acreage to several square blocks, not hundreds of miles of rural urban coastline.

Why do people draw on the need to blame someone?

Are we stuck in some twisted form of the stages of grief: First comes denial (it wont hit here); then bargaining (please God, don't let it hit here); Then finally blaming (it's Bush's fault it hit here)Â?seems like it to me.

If so, then the Fifth step of the typical grieving process, acceptance (it hit here and it's no ones fault) better come soon, so recovery can truly begin.

(yes I skipped step 4, depression...I don't think it's hard to believe people are feeling that one already.)

Some people rise to the occasion in diversity, they discover things inside themselves, and they achieve wonders. We as a people have come together so many times in our history to help each other and recover from tragedies, and really this should be no exception. For all the "bad" I have noted above, there is so much more "good" happening: People reaching out to each other; People helping each other; even new lives being born during the disaster. I even saw a wedding at a shelter. We may not hear it much, because of the media's blinders, but we will eventually hear these amazing stories and miracles told.

In summary, in Katrina, we have seen some of the worst in our humanity.

Now it's time to see the best.

The strength of our nation is not always in the initial responses, as anger sometimes overcomes reason. But we always seem to shine in recovery when love overcomes barriers. That is the truth that lies beneath most of us.

Love. Compassion. Selflessness. These are the qualities Americans have in spades, and they are the reason I look at this country with any hope.

A problem is a chance for you to do your best. ~Duke Ellington

Adversity has the effect of eliciting talents which, in prosperous circumstances, would have lain dormant. ~Horace

This weekend

2005-09-02T20:17:00.000-07:00

Rant Ahead.....

I know its a holiday, and normally we would all think about parties, travel and food and drink.

I will be sitting at home, wondering how to reconcile what I expected to happen in New Orleans and what did, not just from dissatisfaction about how the city, state and federal government all responded (or didn't as is the case in all three areas), but how the people there turned so savage so quickly.

I am disappointed on so many ways....how could our so called civilized culture so quickly degrade. Looting I can expect, particularly for food, but shooting at rescue helicopters, burning down a mall then shooting at the firemen and rape and assaults....Its horrible. And enjoy that dvd and big screen tv thieves....A lot of good it will do you. Greed, pure and simple, and so stupid.

Pray for the survivors that they may find both rescue and refuge.

Pray for the looters and rapists so that they find their humanity, and hopefully justice.

Pray for our government that it finds its focus and does what it is required to do. Lets see some leadership in all quarters. Please!

Pray that the bullshit fingerpointing stops and people worry less about who to blame and more about what to do. Its too late to stop it, lets recover and have all the fingerwaving blame games another day.

Right now, while the pundits point fingers, people are fucking dying. These are real lives not talking points and campaign signs.

I hate politics, I fucking hate it.

And pray it never happens where you live.

Rant over.....sorry

And on it goes.....

2005-08-31T23:11:00.000-07:00

Bush has left Texas a few days early to go and oversee the recovery of Hurricane Katrina, and I have to say that he did the right thing. It is a small thing to go back a few days early, but it does speak to his commitment and compassion.

And now with him gone, Cindy "the ringmaster" Sheehan is packing up her circus in Crawford too. She isn't going home though, she is vowing to continue the protest.

But something she said as she was leaving struck me as very much a glimpse into her motives.

A friend sent me an email about this, and with a quick search I found the article in question, from the Seattle Times:

(hat tip to Sheri)

http://tinyurl.com/7byu9

CRAWFORD, Texas: The woman who led an anti-war protest since Aug. 6 near President Bush's ranch said yesterday that she is glad Bush never showed up to discuss her son's death in Iraq, saying the president's absence "galvanized the peace movement."

"If he'd met with me, then I would have gone home, and it would have ended there," Cindy Sheehan said.

Her comments came as war protesters packed up their campsite near the ranch and prepared to leave yesterday for a three-week bus tour that will stop in 25 states.

Buses on three routes will meet in Washington, D.C., for a Sept. 24 anti-war march.

First of all, the comment about it ending there is utterly ridiculous. It would not have, any more then it ended the first time she met Bush in 2004. She, or one of her high power handlers would have a press statement released, detailing his indifference and refusal to listen to her, and her reluctant decision to continue the fight before the mud dried on his shoes.

Second, Bush didn't galvinize a peace movement, any more then she did. She stepped onto the front of a well oiled, highly polished media machine, that had been created long before she arrived. She was nothing more then a new hood ornament.

Third, her comments about being glad he didn't come out were not a surprise, she as much admitted this same thing on Tony Snow's radio show weeks ago, a fact the media must have missed. And if nothing else it proves what her true intention was not to meet with him, but to make enough noise to get the press to notice her and be inconvenient enough to make him stay away.

For all her rhetoric and her signs crying *why*, it was all a joke, and she never cared about the answer. For her, the protest itself meant more then the reason behind it. But it still irritates me as it again, to me, shows how she cared less for her son's actual death then she did for the ammunition it gave her.

And finally, it appears she did not serve her purpose very well.

A recent poll found that 79% of people surveyed did not change their minds about the war, 10% are now pro war where they were against it and 9% now against when they were previously pro.

In other words, a net gain of 1% in favor of the war. It isn't really a significant or meaningful number, except when compared to the claims of overwhelming support she and her followers claim. If she wants to call a 1% net loss of support galvinizing, well ok.

Regardless, public opinion about her was 38% against, 35% for, and that mostly along party lines. Not a big surprise.

So on she goes, on her bus tour...or so it seems. It seems a report from within her camp has uncovered the fact that she will not be on the tour for the most part, she will be off doing speaking engagements and interviews. And that just proves that she is just a figure head, and the protest itself drives on without her at the wheel, which is not surprising, as it shows who is really driving.

By the way, read the report of what the inside of Cindy's protest really looked like here:

http://tinyurl.com/e3uxb

It was hardly the grassroots, simple tent meeting protest it appeared.

Sometimes I disgust myself

2005-08-30T23:24:00.000-07:00

Ok, this is self reflecting, and non political. Sorry bout that.

In the wake of Hurricane katrina, I am reminded about how shortsighted I really am sometimes.

I am a fairly pragmatic person, and usually don't worry about weather, but recently I have been dwelling on missing the sunshine.

Lets face it, Seattle is not the sunniest 'burb in the world. It rains periodically for no apparent reason. And some of those days I drive the interstates to work, and curse the idiot drivers who cannot handle a bit of water on the road.

And I fondly recall where I grew up, where sunshine was more predominant.

Now, watching New Orleans slowly be buried by flood waters and seeing the death toll rise, it reminds me that a little rain here mixed with overcast and some sunshine, well we are pretty damn lucky. No (well extremely rare) tornados, earthquakes happen but very rarely, no Hurricanes or intense tropical storms. Even the snowfall here is light and occasionally even in the coldest part of winter.

The Pacific Northwest is also a beautiful place to live, and the occasional rain keeps it green normally, and despite popular opinion, all the green here is not moss.

No real point to this, this revelation won't save the world, lives won't be changed and I doubt I will lap out of bed tomorrow a new man. Its just something I need to remember a bit more often.

In the same light, I turend 44 today, and I was feeling a bit middleaged and depressed.

But....I am alive. Not everyone can make that claim can they? I have great friends, a good job and an awesome family.

Really, it isn't so bad, and I should be a little more ready to count my blessings.

She just won't quit

2005-08-29T23:07:00.000-07:00

Sigh. Why won’t she shut up? Who you ask? Cindy Sheehan.

Look, the protest has been an incredible event, and media spectacle, but a part of that is a fascination of watching this woman slowly talk herself apart. It’s like watching a train wreck in slow motion on some video accident show on TV.

She is no stranger to controversial and plain ignorant remarks. She has uttered more then a few.

Among her comments:

Continues the meaningless and inaccurate rhetoric of calling Bush a murderer;
She has praised her son’s killers as freedom fighters;
She accused the soldiers she claims she is fighting for of killing innocent people;
She stated she wished that she had not allowed her son a military funeral;
She calls her son a war victim not hero, but then refers to herself as the mother of a war hero.
She has said her son was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel.
She also said “My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel”

Now, she says that her protestors from the Move America Along group who are staging a counter protest in Crawford are Brainwashed.

Oh the Horror!!! Not only is Bush a warmonger, he is also a mind controller.

Its pretty clear what her standard is. Apparently she can say anything she wants and believe anything she wants, but if anyone disagrees, they are wrong, stupid and or they must be brainwashed.

Cindy, honestly, try a new concept called disagreement. You believe something. Someone disagrees. It happens. Why does it have to degrade to insulting someone’s intelligence?

Who decided that only Cindy is right? There are plenty of people here, and over in Iraq, who believe in the cause you protest Cindy. No amount of publicity photos, speeches, sound bytes and TV interviews will change that.

Cindy, face the facts: Your son believed in something you did not, and he gave his life for it. All parents deal with the truth that sometimes our children do not share our values.

Let him go, let him be remembered for the life he chose, not for the excuses you make for him.

Hopefully when Bush’s vacation is over, she will go away, because rather then convincing me to agree with her, she is just using juvenile attacks, meaningless rhetoric and illogical premises about her beliefs, her protest and her detractors, all the while playing the grieving mom to the nth degree and basking in the adulation of her followers, and all it does is make me sick of the games she and her partisan attack dogs play. All this just to get George Bush.

And all the while she dishonors her son’s memory, his service and his sacrifice.

But that’s just my opinion, isn’t it.

Finally, something both sides can agree on

2005-08-29T00:14:00.000-07:00

As a moderate minded person I often try to find common ground with the extremes on either side.

I want to give the people on all sides a chance to express their opinions, and try to make sense of them. It seems logical to me that if a person passionately believes in something, then there must be some kind of foundation to that belief. Most people do not just believe something on a whim, though there are obviously exceptions.

And by the same token, I have noticed that a lot of debates really have a lot of common ground on the two sides. Sometimes it’s just minor issues that really separate them.

And then again, many debates have no commonality at all except stubbornness and refusal to listen..

So when I look at the Anti Bush/War protesters and compare them to the Pro Bush/Support the troops folks, I have to admit, it’s hard to find a common ground. The lone exception is the concept of supporting the troops since both sides ‘claim’ to be supporting the troops in their own way. I will retain the right to blog on that another day.

Instead I found an issue I think most people on all sides might actually agree on, and here it is:

Fred Phelps is a Jackass.

Fred, or the Rev Fred Phelps as he is known, is the founder of Westboro Baptist in Topeka Kansas, and he is one of the Country’s most outspoken anti Gay activists.

He has many utterly contemptible websites, two of which are www.godhatesfags.com and www.godhatesamerica.com. God, according to Fred, also hates Canada and Sweden.

I looked on the sites and I am utterly speechless. He openly praises god for the deaths in Iraq, for the deaths in the London subway bombings and plenty of other similarly minded tripe. Look if you like, but I warn you, it is shocking.

Fred it seems, among other things, has taken to the belief that our soldiers are dying because God is unhappy with the US for harboring Gays and for the US having bombed his church in 1995.

Now look, I can deal with extremism, it exists all around us. And he is not the only one to have made some claims about the US being punished, I believe Falwell and Robertson have crossed that line.
But Fred and his followers have crossed a line that I believe to be so reprehensible, that the pro and anti war people would feel justified in jointly condemning it.

Fred and his ilk protest military funerals.

http://tinyurl.com/8xjyu

This story illustrates one example of it:
(excerpts only)

SMYRNA, Tenn. (AP) - Members of a church say God is punishing American soldiers for defending a country that harbors gays, and they brought their anti-gay message to the funerals Saturday of two Tennessee soldiers killed in Iraq.

The Rev. Fred Phelps, founder of Westboro Baptist in Kansas, contends that American soldiers are being killed in Iraq as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays. The church, which is not affiliated with a larger denomination, is made up mostly of Phelps' children, grandchildren and in-laws.

The church members carried signs and shouted things such as "God hates fags" and "God hates you."

Lovely. Lets make a families pain that much more painful.

It almost happened here in the Seattle area as well. A rumor circulated here that his people were coming to protest at a funeral. A large group of people stood ready to completely block him access, but he didn’t show, thank God. But honestly, you shouldn’t need bouncers at a funeral, should you?

The people in Smyrna took similar action:

The church members were met with scorn from local residents. They chased the church members cars' down a highway, waving flags and screaming "God bless America."

So many counterdemonstrators were gathered in Ashland City that police, sheriff's deputies and state troopers were brought in to control traffic and protect the protesters.

The church members held protesting permits, and counterprotesters in Smyrna turned their backs to Westboro Baptist members until time expired on the protest permits.

And as I said, both sides of the war debate seemed to join on this:

"My husband is over there, so I'm here to show my support," 41-year-old Connie Ditmore said as she waved and American flag and as tears came to her eyes. "To do this at a funeral is disrespectful of a family, no matter what your beliefs are."

"If they were protesting the government, I might even join them," Danny Cotton, 56, said amid cries of "get out of our town" and "get out of our country."

"But for them to come during the worst time for this family - it's just wrong."

And that is exactly the point. Both sides had a common enemy in Mr Phelps. In this case, respect came before ideology.

Not to say both sides will not argue all the way home from the funeral, but its good to know that in some fundamental matters, common sense prevails.

What wonderful creatures, are these trolls....

2005-08-28T00:22:00.000-07:00

I am new to the concept of trolls, so having my first couple has been interesting.

Normally some writers would ignore or delete them, but I am not so indifferent to them as yet.

So here I will answer Anonymous. Here is his post, in full, with my extracted responses to follow.

At which point do you get to realize this war has been and continues to be an unmitigated disaster for America? A growing number of Republicans are being vocal about this now, but you… oooohhhh nooo. On you go, spouting the same mindless, unthinking rhetoric that got America into this mess in the first place. The war is already lost. Much as we would love it to be different, it isn’t. Better get used to it…

1) We have created a terrorist superstate where it didn’t exist previously.
2) Iraq and Iran are increasingly forming an alliance where it didn’t exist previously.
3) Iraq is fast moving towards becoming an Islamic state where it wasn’t previously.
4) Oil prices are soaring
5) Oil security for the United States is greatly compromised.
6) More than 1,800 US troops and many times more Iraqi’s have died for absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing.
7) The US is now the most heavily indebted country in the world, with 25% of all US treasuries owned by China.

It’s time to put an end to your debacle in Iraq. We will secure nothing. The war was lost long ago.

Ok, first, I looked at my posts, and so far I have personally said little about the war. I have focused my comments on supporting the troops, and my comments about Cindy Sheehan were primarily addressed to her methods, her using her son and those who are using her protest to further partisan agenda, not to her protest in principle.

In fact, I have openly stated several times that she has a right to protest anything she wants. So characterizing me as a war monger/lover is wrong.

Also, consider this, my troll. The majority of people in the military hate war, they despise it, and they should, since it may cost them their lives. They, however, do it because they have decided it needs to be done, and that it is worth the cost. In World War II the men drafted then had no love of war, but many fought with enthusiasm because the cause was something they believed in. These people today show even more dedication and belief, because they didnt get compelled, they volunteered.

A person who “loves” war would be close to a psychopath, in my opinion.

On to my response.
“At which point do you get to realize this war has been and continues to be an unmitigated disaster for America? A growing number of Republicans are being vocal about this now, but you… oooohhhh nooo. On you go, spouting the same mindless, unthinking rhetoric that got America into this mess in the first place. The war is already lost. Much as we would love it to be different, it isn’t. Better get used to it…”
As I said, I have spouted nothing about the war, so your comment is cute, but off target. Also, the war is not lost, is not being lost and is not a disaster. This is scare tactics that ignore the realities. Go to a site like Debka.com, and read about the good things that happen that the main stream media ignores.

“1) We have created a terrorist superstate where it didn’t exist previously.”

False, Al Qaeda existed long ago. We didn’t create it.

”2) Iraq and Iran are increasingly forming an alliance where it didn’t exist previously.”

Really? And you figure this how? Iran may have allowed weapons in but that is in support of the insurgents (who are increasingly foreign), not the lawful government of Iraq. This comment is false.

”3) Iraq is fast moving towards becoming an Islamic state where it wasn’t previously.”

Saddam for all his secularism still maintained the façade of being a Muslim state, and called for Muslims to defend him. So say it wasn’t one before is ignorant.

”4) Oil prices are soaring”
Having nothing to do with Iraq, that is to do with production and market manipulation. And actually this complaint continues to be a giggle for me, since people complained Bush wanted war to get cheap oil.

”5) Oil security for the United States is greatly compromised.”
We have always been vulnerable to this because of our dependency on foreign oil, the majority of which comes from places not called Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Maybe you were late in oil Class when they mention that Canada and Mexico are the two biggest importers, with Saudi Arabia in 3rd place.

Look on the DOE pages (http://tinyurl.com/7ldt) and you will be surprised to find out we get only 16 percent of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Here, don’t strain yourself, this is a chart of the major oil importers for June 2005. Click on it for a larger view:

You wanna complain about oil, I am with you, but check your facts.

”6) More than 1,800 US troops and many times more Iraqi’s have died for absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing.”

You are so wrong, so pitifully wrong.

"7) The US is now the most heavily indebted country in the world, with 25% of all US treasuries owned by China."

I am no economist, so I don’t know if this is true or not. And the whole China thing, what is the point?

”It’s time to put an end to your debacle in Iraq. We will secure nothing. The war was lost long ago.”

Tell that to the soldiers like my friend Tristan or radio host Bryan Suits of KVI radio (KVI.Com) who just returned, and can tell stories of first hand experiences of people who’s lives were changed for the better by our futile and losing debacle.

My friend, you are a victim of a campaign to make it look as bad as possible and ignore any actual benefit.

And tell me, even if you are right, how will us leaving now help any of that? Will plunging Iraq into civil war and emboldening Al Qaeda terrorists with a victory help?

For the record, I opposed going to war when we did, not because I did not think our cause was right, but because I felt we needed a stronger coalition. Obviously the President disagreed. Now that we are there, we have to see it through.

Therefore, I support the troops now. I support the effort we have begun as being necessary, and being something that having begun it, we must finish it.

If you disagree, fine. But please, do not categorize this as MY war. It is not. But as a veteran, these troops are MY troops, my brothers in arms.

The bottom line is that I will defend them against any and all disrespect and dishonor, regardless if it is a parent, a politician or a fellow military member.

In the case of Cindy Sheehan, she has chosen to dishonor her son’s service, and I have chosen to disagree with her.

Who supports the grieving mother?

2005-08-27T00:32:00.000-07:00

Did you see this picture? http://tinyurl.com/cjctz It was from a photo diary on Cindy’s website, and also on Fox News.

Cindy sitting pretty with her personal foot masseuse.

Now I don’t want to focus too harshly on what is likely just a guy doing something nice, but it causes me to wonder who else she has in support there.

I mean, we read about Camp Casey and hear about it, but we rarely see it, or the support staff that runs it. It, as I discovered is fairly extensive. They have doctors, lawyers, attorneys, mail sorters etc, some out of Crawford House, and some at the camp.

And that's cool, when people believe in something, they want to support it. Good for them.

But I had heard mention of other support, things like media management and consultants, people screening the press etc...So I wondered who they are, who supports her with money and advice and political management. Let's be honest, it's a slick operation down there, with press reports, and interviews ans such.

So I wondered who supports her and ABC7 in San Francisco kindly provided the answer (hat tip to Mike F). So here is a list of who is now standing behind her protest.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=3382521

PR Machine Behind Cindy Sheehan?

Aug. 25 - With the President back at his Crawford ranch, the anti-war protest right outside his ranch is getting a lot more media attention. ABC7 looks at who is financing the operation and who's providing on-the-ground support.

The camp at Crawford is full of Cindy Sheehan supporters, people from all walks of life, but off to the side are a small group of professionals skilled in politics and public relations who are marketing Cindy Sheehan's message.

Cindy Sheehan kneels before a cross with her son's name on it, touches his picture, wipes her tears. It's an outpouring of emotion that is part of a scheduled news event organized daily for the television, radio and print reporters who crowd in to capture a mother's grief.

Cindy Sheehan: "I'm never going to see him again, I'm never going to hold him again, I'm never going to hear his voice again."

Sheehan's message hasn't changed since she got here, but the support staff interested in getting that message out to the world has grown considerably.

Organizers are set up in a house trailer. Their meetings closed to reporters.

Leading the group is Fenton Communications employee, Michele Mulkey, based in San Francisco. Fenton specializes in public relations for liberal non-profits.

Their bills are being paid for by True Majority, a non-profit set up by Ben Cohen -- of Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream fame.

Ben Cohen, True Majority: "People are willing to listen to her and we want to do as much as we can to make her voice heard."

Cohen's group has teamed up with Berkeley based MoveOn.org, an anti-Bush group co-founded by Joan Blades.

Earlier this month, MoveOn helped organize anti-war vigils in support of Cindy Sheehan.

Current Democratic National Party Chair Howard Dean's organization Democracy for America is also involved, as is the more radical anti-war group Code Pink organized by San Francisco's Medea Benjamin.

Money donated through these groups and others is helping to pay for Gold Star families whose children have been killed in Iraq to attend anti-Bush protests.

This week Simi Valley California Gold Star wife Melanie House flew to Idaho for a protest and then flew to Crawford.

ABC7's Mark Matthews: "Can you tell us if you're getting help in airfare to come down here?"

Melanie House: "What difference does that make?"

There is real reluctance to talk about who's paying, and the P.R. machine that's promoting Cindy Sheehan, but not everyone here is completely comfortable with it.

Gold Star mother Karen Meredith came here from Mountain View. Her son Ken Ballard died last year.

Karen Meredith, Gold Star mother: "Sometimes things don't feel quite right to me. They don't feel wrong, but maybe that's how they do it in the marketing business."

ABC7's Mark Matthews: "You feel you're part of a marketing business?"

Karen Meredith: "Possibly. Yeah I think so."

On the other side, pro-Bush supporters are getting on the ground to help reiterate their message.

Grassfire.org and IM4W.com came back to the same Iowa-based conservative public policy organization, an organization with ties to the Republican National Committee.

There is also the "Cindy you don't speak for me tour," a caravan of military wives and mothers led by Deborah Johns of Roseville. Her son William is a marine who has served two tours of duty in Iraq.

Johns and her supporters are traveling to Crawford to confront Cindy Sheehan.

Deborah Johns, caravan leader: "It means everything for me to be here, to see the support. We're so proud of him."

The caravan is getting a lot of help from MoveAmericaForward.org. It's a non-profit organization co-chaired by former state assemblyman Howard Koologian. Koologian is a Republican who takes credit for launching the recall against Governor Gray Davis. His co-chair is KSFO Radio talk show host Melanie Morgan. The group's PR firm is led by a veteran California political strategist and the firm claims clients running from a county supervisor to President of the United States.

So it appears that the grass roots beginning of this has been usurped by the left wing political machine, and of course to be fair, the counter protests are beginning to receive support in kind.

To me it cheapens the whole idea of the grieving mom crying to be heard, because she is being reduced to being nothing more then another Democratic shill.

She may indeed have started this sincerely, but it seems in her zeal she has sold out to partisan politics. And her supporters are not concerned with peace, they are continuing a 5 year old campaign to destroy Bush, and (as has been quoted before) she is the human bazooka they are launching this time.

Ben Cohen’s Comments says it all for me:

"People are willing to listen to her and we want to do as much as we can to make her voice heard."

That is exactly what is going on. As long as people will listen, they will prop her up, stand behind her, support her and feed her sound bytes to the nightly news.

But, in my opinion, when her 15 minutes are up and her message is no longer fresh, they will be on their way, to prop up the next person people are willing to listen to.

Sheehan: Terrorists are Freedom Fighters

2005-08-24T08:34:00.000-07:00

I always enjoy an article that tickles two of my pet peeves at a time. This one sure does:

Cindy Sheehan and Media Bias.

(I am also posting a note from Drudge on how far the protesters will go, at the end of this blog)

First up, we have this article at Worldnet:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45938
(the website includes a video link)

In it, Cindy is quoted as saying:

..."You know Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. I mean they're not even a threat to the United States of America. Iraq was not involved in 9-11, Iraq was not a terrorist state. But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open, freedom fighters from other countries are going in, and they [American troops] have created more terrorism by going to an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country. The terrorism is growing and people who never thought of being car bombers or suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country."

So they are freedom fighters, despite the fact they kill far more of their own people then Americans.

Now to be fair, she isn't the first, and obviously wont be the last to say this. But it still is an ironic position, as you will see.

The article goes on to point out, the remarks were made to a CBS reporter during an interview, and yet magically never made the news:

She made the remark during her trek earlier this month to Crawford, Texas; but her equating the enemy with freedom fighters has not been highlighted by the mainstream media, despite her telling it directly to a reporter for CBS News. Sheehan's comments were recorded on video by Veterans for Peace, a group pushing for Bush's impeachment.

She also made one of the most disrespectful comments I have heard, in my opinion as a vet:

Sheehan also referred to her son, Casey, not as a war hero, but rather a war victim:

"If I was thinking straight, which I wasn't, I never would have allowed a military funeral, and I wouldn't have buried him in his uniform," Sheehan said. "I just basically stayed sitting on my couch, crying and drinking for a week."

I lose more sympathy for this woman daily.

Noted in the article is a biting comment, but it is interesting at the same time:

"What's her problem then?" asked one messageboard poster on FreeRepublic.com, "Her son was killed by a 'freedom fighter.' She should be proud."

Maybe that's pushing it, but it does raise an interesting point. The people she is subtly supporting killed her son, ambushed him as he was on a rescue mission.

Has that crossed her mind at all? And as she apparently supports their cause now, will her anti war protests embolden them, as some critics charge? Will her efforts to end the war actually cause more death?

Time will tell, and we can pray not.

A final note on a protest related story, courtesy of Drudge:

http://drudgereport.com/flash7.htm
ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS TARGET WOUNDED AT ARMY HOSPITAL
Wed Aug 2005 24 21:20:05 ET

Anti-war protestors besieged wounded and disabled soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, D.C, a new web report will claim!

CNSNews.com is planning to run an expose on Thursday featuring interviews with both protestors and veterans, as well as shots of protest signs with slogans like "Maimed for a Lie."

The conservative outlet will post video evidence of the wounded veterans being taunted by protesters, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Developing late...

This, if true would rank fairly high on my disgusto meter. If true, this is proof that these people have no decency at all, and comes very close to pushing me over the line from irritated to very angry.

The soldiers in that hospital, regardless of how you feel about what happened to them, deserve the chance to recover in peace. They can decide to protest or not later for themselves.

How would the anti war protestors feel if the pro war protestors went to Cindy's mom's hospital to protest Cindy's actions?

Look out Crawford, here they come!

2005-08-23T00:26:00.000-07:00

Attention Camp Casey, reality is coming and it wants to talk to you.

By reality I mean the reality that your position is not the only one protected by the Absolute Moral Authority of having lost a child in the war.

Bush Backers Amass to Counter 'Peace Mom' .
Aug 22 10:57 PM US/Eastern
http://www.breitbart.com/
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY
Associated Press Writer

VACAVILLE, Calif.

A caravan proclaiming support for U.S. troops began a tour through California on Monday, stopping in the hometown of Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war mother who gained national prominence during a vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

Conservative activists and military families embarked on the tour they call "You don't speak for me, Cindy!" They planned rallies in several California cities before heading to Crawford, Texas.

About 30 Bush supporters staged a rally outside the offices of the Vacaville Reporter newspaper.

"It's time to lay down the anger. We need to continue to uphold those people over there, to uphold those men and women with their boots on the ground," said Deborah Johns of the Northern California Marine Moms, who helped organize the caravan, which is sponsored by Move America Forward, a Bay Area-based group.

Sheehan began a protest vigil Aug. 6 on the road leading to Bush's ranch, an act that has encouraged anti-war activists to join her and prompted peace vigils throughout the country. Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, was killed last year in Iraq.

A verbal confrontation erupted when the caravan arrived in Sacramento and was met by anti-war protesters chanting "Bring them home." Sheehan supporter Dan Elliott, 71, confronted caravan members by waving a sign reading "Death is not support" and heckling Johns as she addressed the crowd.

"You are ruining the morale over there," responded Greg Parkinson, a Bush supporter.

Some caravan members called the anti-war protesters communists and said they were "aiding and abetting the enemy." Those comments enraged Sheehan supporter Dee Ann Heath, who said she has two sons serving in Iraq and another preparing to leave.

"I don't support the war, but I support my sons," she said. "I simply want them to come home."

In Vacaville, Toni Colip, 50, said her son, David, went to high school with Casey Sheehan and is now in the Marines, although not in Iraq. She said her son opposes Sheehan's activities and has asked her to support his military service even if he is injured or killed.

"He said, 'Don't dishonor me, don't walk on my grave,'" Colip said.

The pro-Bush caravan plans to join fellow supporters who have set up their own camp in downtown Crawford as a reaction to the Sheehan- inspired vigil.

Bush was in Salt Lake City on Monday, where he spoke to a national veterans group to rally support for the war.

Sheehan vowed to remain in Texas until Bush agreed to meet with her or until his monthlong vacation ended Sept. 3, but she flew to Los Angeles last week after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke. She is expected to return to Texas in a few days.

Several of those in the caravan said they understood Sheehan's anger but disagreed with her protest.

"This is not the way to honor her son," said Lori Judy, 49, of Vacaville, whose son, Tim, served in Iraq.

Already in place in Crawford, and mentioned above, is Fort Qualls:

By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Aug 21,12:49 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/news

A patriotic camp with a "God Bless Our President!" banner sprung up downtown Saturday, countering the anti-war demonstration started by a fallen soldier's mother two weeks ago near President Bush's ranch.

The camp is named "Fort Qualls," in memory of Marine Lance Cpl. Louis Wayne Qualls, 20, who died in Iraq last fall.

"If I have to sacrifice my whole family for the sake of our country and world, other countries that want freedom, I'll do that," said the soldier's father, Gary Qualls, a friend of the local business owner who started the pro-Bush camp. He said his 16-year-old son now wants to enlist, and he supports that decision.

Qualls' frustration with the anti-war demonstrators erupted last week when he removed a cross bearing his son's name that was among hundreds the group had put up along the road to Bush's ranch.

Qualls called the protesters' views disrespectful to soldiers, and said he had to yank out two more crosses after protesters kept replacing them.

Cindy Sheehan, whose 24-year-old son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, died last year in Iraq, started the anti-war demonstration along the roadside on Aug. 6. "Camp Casey" has since grown to about 100 core participants, and hundreds more from across the nation have visited.

Sheehan vowed to remain there until Bush agreed to meet with her or until his monthlong vacation ended, but she flew to Los Angeles last week after her 74-year-old mother had a stroke. Her mother has some paralysis but is in good spirits, and if she improves, Sheehan may return to Texas in a few days, some demonstrators said.

In her absence, the rest of the group will keep camping out for the unlikely chance to question the president about the war that has claimed the lives of about 1,850 U.S. soldiers.

Bush has said he sympathizes with Sheehan but won't change his schedule to meet with her. She and other families met with Bush about two months after Casey Sheehan died, before she became a vocal opponent of the war.

Large counter-protests were held in a ditch near Sheehan's site a week after she arrived, and since then, a few Bush supporters have stood in the sun holding signs for several hours each day.

Bill Johnson, a local gift shop owner who created "Fort Qualls," said he wanted to offer a larger, more convenient place for Bush supporters to gather.

He and others at "Fort Qualls" have asked for a debate with those at the Crawford Peace House, which is helping Sheehan.

It's unclear if that will happen. But a member of Gold Star Families for Peace, co-founded by Sheehan and comprised of relatives of fallen soldiers, said her group would not participate.

"We're asking for a meeting with the president, period," said Michelle DeFord, whose 37-year-old son, Sgt. David W. Johnson, was in the Army National Guard from Oregon when he was killed in Iraq last fall. "We don't want to debate with people who don't understand our point of view."

Fienstein: bad memory or in denial?

2005-08-21T22:33:00.000-07:00

I don't think anyone doesn't know who Diane Feinstein is, the Senator from California. What many people may not know is a small event recently that has an ironic resonance from her past history.

We start here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5224366,00.html

San Francisco Shuns Retired USS Iowa
Sunday August 21, 2005 6:01 PM

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The USS Iowa joined in battles from World War II to Korea to the Persian Gulf. It carried President Franklin Roosevelt home from the Teheran conference of allied leaders, and four decades later, suffered one of the nation's most deadly military accidents.

Veterans groups and history buffs had hoped that tourists in San Francisco could walk the same teak decks where sailors dodged Japanese machine-gun fire and fired 16-inch guns that helped win battles across the South Pacific.

Instead, it appears that the retired battleship is headed about 80 miles inland, to Stockton, a gritty agricultural port town on the San Joaquin River and home of California's annual asparagus festival.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a former San Francisco mayor, helped secure $3 million to tow the Iowa from Rhode Island to the Bay Area in 2001 in hopes of making touristy Fisherman's Wharf its new home.
But city supervisors voted 8-3 last month to oppose taking in the ship, citing local opposition to the Iraq war and the military's stance on gays, among other things.

"If I was going to commit any kind of money in recognition of war, then it should be toward peace, given what our war is in Iraq right now,'' Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said.

Feinstein called it a "very petty decision.''

"This isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in,'' Feinstein said.

Stop there. Ok, San Francisco is a lot of things but in the last few decades, it has become increasingly more hostile to the military.

It's true, The City has a long military tradition. I marched in an Armed Forces day parade down Market Street in 1984, and I can vividly recall the pride in some places and protests in others.

In part, some of that is understandable. The military's history of not allowing gays to serve openly is an obviously unpopular opinion.

In the late 80's Ms Feinstein, then Mayor of San Francisco was courting the USS Missouri to a homeport basing there. I can recall, as I was stationed not far away, the hostility to that in the general population and the anti nuke sentiments.

The Missouri instead went to San Diego.

In 1989 in the lead up to Desert Storm San Francisco made no Military friends when it declared itself a sanctuary city for deserters trying to avoid deployment.

And in the recent conflict, San Francisco has been very vocal in its anti war sentiments.

When you add it up, the council voting to reject this matter isn't much of a surprise at all.

The City has been heading there for years, partially under Dianne's leadership.

Backlash! War moms attack Cindy Sheehan

2005-08-18T13:48:00.000-07:00

This is an article from World Net Daily, about the growing backlash against Sheehan.

The interesting thing to note is her use of names on the crosses to make them more poignant has backlashed as that has offended the familes of some of those fallen heroes.

***

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45826

CAMPED OUT IN CRAWFORD
Backlash! War moms attack Cindy Sheehan

Parents of American fighters in Iraq say protester doesn't speak for them

By Joe Kovacs

The continued focus by the nation's media on Cindy Sheehan, the so-called "Peace Mom" who's demanding a second meeting with President Bush in the wake of her son's death, is sparking a backlash from parents of other American servicemen and women in Iraq.

One Texas family of a fallen Marine became so enraged with Sheehan's use of their son's name on a protest cross, they drove from the town of Spicewood to Crawford to remove it.

"I went there and had Matthew's name taken off of there," said Matt Matula, whose son, a 20-year-old Marine, was killed by hostile fire last year. "It's fine for people to grieve their own way. It aggravates me to see them using other people's names to further their cause."

"He's not a victim, he's a hero," he told KXAN-TV, "and I think that everybody that's serving our country [are] heroes."

Cpl. Matthew Matula, whose wife, Julie, was pregnant when he was killed in action, had planned on bringing his wife and baby back from his base in Southern California to Texas to get a ranch and build a house.

He earned a host of decorations, including the Purple Heart, Combat Action Ribbon, Presidential Unit Citation, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Operation Iraqi Freedom Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and Sea Service Deployment Ribbon. His younger brother youngest son just recently joined the military and is also heading to Iraq.

"Matthew was very proud of being a Marine and proud of his unit and what they were doing," his mother, Toni, said.

Her feelings are echoed by another war mom, Debbie from Indianapolis, who called radio host Rush Limbaugh today to say her own son was wounded in Iraq when his vehicle ran over a land mine twice in one day, and he's now serving his second tour of duty.

"I would never dishonor his actions by doing what this woman is doing," she tearfully said, referring to Cindy Sheehan. "What she's doing is not only dishonoring her son, she's dishonoring mine. ... [Casey Sheehan] didn't die for nothing, he died in the United States Armed Forces.There's nothing more honorable than that. These kids volunteered, they were not yanked from their cradle by an evil government to send them someplace they didn't want to go ... My son knew what was in store for him, and my son stepped up to the plate."

Lee Miller, who has a long list of family members in the service, wrote the China Daily newspaper to blast Mrs. Sheehan, while at the same time heaping praise on her son, Casey.

"He is a better person then you will ever be. So go home and honor his name instead of dragging it in the dirt. Make a difference instead of trying to be in the limelight. You're making an a-- out of yourself. I know your pain. I have been down that path – it hurts, but don't blame someone for a choice a person makes when it doesn't work out. Build a bridge and get over it. Your son was proud of what he did, so be proud of him."

The backlash has led to the creation of the "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy" tour, a caravan of military family members who plan to converge on Crawford for a rally Aug. 27.

The event is being promoted by MoveAmericaForward, and is led by Deborah Johns of Northern California Marine Moms, whose son, William, is a Marine serving in Iraq.

"I am deeply sorry for Ms. Sheehan's loss; however, Ms. Sheehan's actions are only causing pain to those of us who have loved ones serving in the war against terrorism," Johns said. "We understand the need to fight the terrorists overseas rather than face attack here at home. We understand that it was the terrorists led by al-Qaida in Iraq who are responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members, including Casey Sheehan."

Johns is now starring in a new television commercial she produced.

"William is helping to bring about freedom, and people are realizing that freedom is a gift," she says in the spot. "He supports what we're doing over there."

The backlash is not going unnoticed by Cindy Sheehan.

"The right wingers are e-mailing me and spewing filth about me on the radio and on the television saying that I am dishonoring my son's memory," she writes. "The right wingers are really having a field day with me. It hurts me really badly, but I am willing to put up with the cr--, if it ends the war a minute sooner than it would have."

She's also disputes allegations her anti-war protest is all about her.

"I was just the spark the universe chose for some reason to spark this off, because, like I said, the movement was already there."

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, Sheehan met with President Bush in June of last year, and even posted a photo of herself being kissed by the commander in chief on her website designed to honor her son. The photos of Bush have since been surgically removed from the site.

The other side of the story.

2005-08-17T22:55:00.000-07:00

Maureen Dowd made a fairly interesting statement. Speaking of Cindy Sheehan, she said that parents who bury their children have Absolute Moral Authority.

I took her meaning as another lefty trying to make Cindy unimpeachable. Indeed, Air America, Michael Moore and the Huffington Post are full of gushing praises and defenders.

"How dare you attack her, she is a national hero" said one Slate commenter.

But I think they all miss the point that Dowd made. She needs no defense, she has Absolute Moral Authority because she buried her child, killed in war.

So keeping in mind that the left insists she has Absolute Moral Authority, I have a question.

Do the other parents who buried their children have the same level of authority? And if they should ask to be heard in response, would the left give them equal courtesy?

And funny, but what should I notice not too long after I made that observation, but this:

http://www.moveamericaforward.org

"Move America Forward is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization committed to supporting America's efforts to defeat terrorism and supporting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces." says the website about itself.

Now I doubt the non-partisan aspects of it, the Board has some prominent conservatives, but actually that isn'trelevantt. Is someone going to suddenly claim Moveon.org is non partisan? Please...so to hear the right has an advocate group in this was expected.

What I found interesting was this. The group is organizing a rally/cross country tour called "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy."

The purpose of it is to take groups of military families to Texas to confront the protest Cirque du Cindy Sheehan and present the other side of the story.

"The overwhelming majority of military families support their loved ones and the missions they are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. These military families do not share Cindy Sheehan's view of the war on terrorism, and the true story needs to be told. We invite Americans to join us en masse in Crawford, Texas on August 27 so we can send a message to terrorists around the world that American resolve is stronger than ever," says the press release.

And it raises a good point, that the protests have a larger effect, thatemboldenbolden the terrorists because they see it as proof our resolve is fading.

I applaud the group for heading to Crawford and confronting this, because it is important that people realize that there is another side to her protest.

That side needs a voice too.

And since they too have Absolute Moral Authority then there will be no one on the left who should oppose their right to join in the protest.