Memorial Day

You are here because they fought there.

Update: McCain's speech.

Gateway Pundit has an awesome poster brought to us by the soldiers themselves.

John Hawkins shares war quotes. One of my favorites is from Winston Churchill but not on this list: "When going through hell, keep going."

MaxedOutMama says, "Peace is not the natural state of mankind, and peace dies the day there are no more soldiers."

Michelle Malkin quotes soldiers. Here's one of my favorites,"Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils."

Donald Sensing writes this (read the whole thing):

Historian and retired infantry officer T. R. Fehrenbach observed that the virtues required to protect a democracy are often at odds with the virtues of democracy. So while we cherish life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as just ends of democratic freedom, our Marines put their lives at risk, surrender many personal liberties and submit to rigorous discipline that is often most unhappy.
Why did they do this? The most reasonable thing to do when battle begins is to run away, not stay and fight. Were they truly willing to die for their country? I don't think so. There's an old story that goes back probably to the Civil War of the young soldier whose commander asked him, "Are you willing to die for your country?" The young man answered, "Certainly not. But I am ready to die, unwilling."

The American armed forces really have no use for someone who is willing to die. We do not seek and soon weed out anyone seeking martyrdom in battle; this is a key distinction between us and our enemy. We do not send our soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines to die even though we know some inevitably will. Our country is instead ably protected by those who accept the risk rather than seek it. But why accept it? What civilians rarely discern but what every veteran knows is that military service, especially in battle, is steeped with the convictions of deepest emotion.

In battle there is fear and courage, anger and compassion. There is resignation and determination. There is hope and despair. The chief emotion of the battlefield is an unlikely one. It is love. Across the range of mental, physical and emotional states in the desolation of combat, love abides.

Kim DuToit writes: "Charles Loxton thought only about other people his entire life."

Rachel Lucas remembers her grandpa who died in WWII.

Remembering visually.

Words of advice for Memorial Day revelers.

"How do you remember something you've never learned?" Fred Thompson asks. Via Photon Courier who has more links.

Pierre LeGrand, "Do not dishonor them."

Via Powerline, "We are their children."

A prayer from Red State.

Tigerhawk says, "Welcome home." Best picture of our soldiers returning home I've seen for a while.

"Remember the wounded." Blackfive has more.

Rolling Thunder via Blogs of War.

The Warrior Caste by Greyhawk.

Peace Thugs Wage War On Veteren's Family

Here's the video of the peace activists beating the shit out of a a family: father (vet), mother, 14 year old daughter. The courage. The valor.

Michael Yon's Book

Hey, ya'll (I never say that in real life, but it sounds endearing doesn't it?)! Anyway, I got the Micheal Yon's signed book Moment of Truth in Iraq. Yo, Michael! Looks good, so far. If you want the real story of what is going on in Iraq, read this.

On Waterboarding

Does anyone really question whether waterboarding is torture? Read this and see what you think and then come back.

This really doesn't address the question, does it? Waterboarding doesn't leave a physical mark, it won't kill a person, and it works effectively. It is coercive. The person feels like he will die and will spill the beans, if he has any, quickly. To me, it's torture.

The question, though is this: Is torture worth it to prevent further catastrophe? If you caught an operative who knew the placement of a dirty bomb set to go off in a city, would you waterboard him? I would. Without guilt. I'd have some anxiety though.

It becomes a question of how accurate your information is about the dude you're about to torture. Torture in the hands of the sadistic and paranoid is one person's pain for another person's pleasure. That is wrong. And everyone advocating for no torture (which means only America or the Western countries don't torture, because we know Al Qaeda tortures and waterboarding is the least of their techniques) envisions some sinister government operative pulling out his briefcase of horror, chuckling in delight. This is a worrisome picture, indeed.

An act of torture to prevent the deaths of soldiers or citizens is not immoral. To do nothing, to let people die in the name of a principle is to put the principle--torture is wrong--above life itself. The life a scumbag terrorist is not valued over the lives of scores or hundreds or thousands of free people.

That's the uncomfortable truth under all the babbling about whether torture is wrong or not. Of course it's wrong. Mass murder is wrong, too. Those against the use of torture in all cases seem to be willing to detach themselves from the consequences of their actions. Nope, they're not responsible for the murder, when the murderer is sitting there with the information and they could stop it.

In a free country, we're all responsible. I think citizens have come to that uncomfortable place. You don't hear people lamenting a terrorist getting waterboarded to prevent death. Ok, maybe some at the fringes lament it, but most people are pragmatic. We're at war with an enemy who has no regard for life. So, he can forfeit his, if necessary, to preserve the lives of those who value it. Or, he can just bear the psychological scars inherent in being waterboarded. Add the trauma to the rest of his demented psyche.

Iran Provokes the U.S.: Open War .... Almost

You should know about this, if you haven't read about it already.

Why Do We Care?

Why do we care about the Middle East? When people ask me that question, it still shocks me. Do they really not get it? Maybe with the murder of Benazar Bhutto of Pakistan, we need a reminder why it is in America's, in the world's best interest, to care about this sandy, forsaken landscape half-way around the world.

It has been my belief since the beginning that George W. Bush entered Iraq secondarily because of Saddam Hussein's WMD flirtations. Yes everyone, including the lily livered Democrats and squishy Republicans, believed Saddam was a bad guy desiring to do bad things with bad substances. He had done bad things. It wasn't a stretch that he'd do more bad things. But that didn't seem to me to be the most compelling reason for Iraq. To me, and I feel that George Bush must have seen this too, Iraq is first and foremost a strategic launching pad. For all Saddam's bluster, he was weak. No one could imagine how weak until the Yanks marched through Iraq. It happened so quickly, everyone was stunned. But the fall and subsequent search for scant WMDs mattered less than being planted as a bulwark against crazy in the Middle East.

Iraq borders Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, a couple Stans and a lovely thing called the Persian Gulf. Trouble brews in every place on the list. And trouble there means trouble everywhere. Russia trembles with hypermasculine impotence. Any way to cause trouble to the alpha males of the world will be and are being embraced. Putin squeezes Europe already. Georgia sits like a plum in a vice. Iran would happily be the conduit for Putin's displeasure. More on all this here.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan and Pakistan boil with extremism. Here's what's happening now:

"We've really got a new situation here in western Pakistan," said Army Col.
Thomas Lynch III, who has served in Afghanistan and with Central Command, the
U.S. military headquarters for Pakistan and the Middle East. He said the
assassination marks a "critical new phase" in jihadist operations in Pakistan
and predicted the coming months would bring concentrated attacks on other
prominent Pakistanis.

"The Taliban ... are indeed a growing element of the
domestic political stew" in Pakistan, said John Blackton, who served as a U.S.
official in Afghanistan in the 1970s and again 20 years later. He noted that
Pakistani military intelligence created the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Pakistan must take drastic action against the Taliban in its midst or we will face the
prospect of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of al-Qaida — a threat far
more dangerous and real than Hussein's arsenal ever was," he said, referring to
the deposed Saddam Hussein.

Nuclear warheads in the hands of Jihadists in a country where 40% approve of Osama. America may not be able to do anything from Afghanistan to stop willful annihilation, but I hazard to say it could do less without a mid-east presence.

And Pakistan is a crazy little country compared to China with her supersized ambitions. Imagine the panic should China not get the fuel needed to keep its economic engine humming. Forget for a moment American's cries of despair at being deprived of cheap consumer products, the bigger problem would be an unstable country armed to the teeth.

Don't forget Israel, either. Like Tawain, Israel is a freedom-loving democracy, and America is about democracy building, remember? As shaky as that idea may be as a long-term solution to extremist middle east regime problems, there is one democracy that thrives over there. Should that country be abandoned?

Oh yeah, there's this other little thing called oil. I never have understood what's so upsetting about trading a little blood for a lot of oil. If China, Japan, Europe and America come to a screeching halt economically, the next step would be, inevitably, war. And there would be a whole lot more blood spilled. The whole world is entertwined in ways that could have never been imagined during the World War II era. The internet reflects a world interconnected.

Our fate rests in the Middle East as much as any other country's. The Jihadists hate freedom. They hate life. They believe they have a holy mission. If Pakistan crumbles, if Iran arms, if Afghanistan turns back to the Taliban, if China becomes aggressive, if Russia presses, if, if, if, the free people of the world have big problems.

America is in the Middle East because, well, isn't it obvious?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Thwarted Attacks

Just because we haven't lost a battle since 9/11 doesn't mean were not at war.

H/T Instapundit

Killing Monks

What is happening in Burma is gut-wrenching. The peace and freedom loving monks reveal that all wars are wars of ideas. Even unarmed, these men are threats to the government,

Iran's Crazy Men

On the same day Ahmadinejad asks to visit Ground Zero, Iran is said to be putting together plans to attack Israel.

There might be a time to have U.S. troops out of that viper pit just so they don't end up in the fallout--literally.

Child Mortality Hits Record Low

Child mortality dropped because of easy, low-tech, and mostly nutritional improvements:

1. Breast-feeding
2. Vitamin A drops
3. DDT spraying, draining swamps, and mosquito nets
4. Immunizations
   

If hygiene and nutrition improve, babies live. If they aren't bit by nasty bugs, babies live. Pretty simple solutions, actually. But the most difficult solution is to end war:

Despite the improvement, two sets of countries have worsened, Unicef said: those in southern Africa that have been hit hardest by AIDS, and those that have been at war recently, like Congo and Sierra Leone.

Iraq is worse, too, but the numbers come from 2004 and the situation has dramatically changed. It also depends on the part of Iraq. Experts expect better overall numbers the next time the study is released:

Interestingly, Unicef officials said, the new estimate comes from household surveys done in 2005 or earlier, so they barely reflect the huge influx of money that has poured into third world health in the last few years from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; the Gates Foundation; and the Bush administration’s twin programs to fight AIDS and malaria. For that reason, the next five-year survey should show even greater improvement, they said.

This is good news.

One Soldier's Experience

Matt Sanchez who is embedded in Iraq, writes of the complexity of being a soldier. The whole article is worth reading. Here's a snippet:

Private Beauchamp questioned the criticism of those who had never fought in Iraq, but Nate Fick fought both in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Fick asked just as many question as Beauchamp and humbly left plenty of the big questions unsolved. Fick risked his life and that of his reconnaissance unit to provide medical attention to a young Iraqi girl because he knew his humanity was in the balance, and not just the life of a stranger. Nate Fick not only wrote about his experiences, in the best selling book One Bullet Away, but his story will endure as required reading for any young man aspiring to become a Marine. Fick may not have set out to write an iconic work of the complexity of the warrior, but sometimes the written word can have unintended consequences--Private Beauchamp can attest to that.

I've met plenty of troops who question the reason, logic and futility of being in Iraq, but I met no one who said the experience has left them less of a human being. Those who read the misadventures of Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp and shook their heads in pity felt a false kinship with a caricature that devolved. The reality is quicksilver complex, where hardship and discouragement meet duty and resolve. Despite the heat, horrors and hardship of Iraq, the honest lesson is not that war turns men into monsters, but that men go off to war and often come back even better men.

Any sane soldier would have doubts, questions and mixed emotions when it comes to war. Any sane voter has the same. It is possible to have doubts, to question and to hold the government's collective feet to the fire without betraying your buddy or your country. And it is possible for war to improve the person.

War reveals the character of the person. Like fire, it purifies the spirit and a true nature is revealed.

I look forward to rich and complex literature and other art forms coming out of this war. Some of the best writing has been written by former soldiers: Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Hemingway, even Churchill. The writing is great not because these men are simpletons or automatons or monsters but because they've seen the fleeting nature of life, the brutality of men and their morality tested. We live in a flawed world, the battlefield magnifies those flaws.

But heroes rise out of adversity--more heroes, than villains. And to only see evil is to choose to be a pessimist. We are too blessed in this country, both in war and in peace, to be pessimists. It is the height of ingratitude and the ultimate in cynicism to assume that all soldiers are evil.

Failed States--UPDATED Post Evolving In Weird Ways

Interesting map and conclusions:

The vast majority of the states listed in the index have not yet failed; they exhibit severe weaknesses that leave them vulnerable, especially to shocks such as natural disasters, war, and economic deprivation. The power of such events should not be underestimated. The war in Lebanon last summer helped undo nearly two decades of economic and political progress. But Lebanon was vulnerable because its political and security structures lacked integrity and remained tensely divided by factionalized elites. Those vulnerabilities not only helped turn the clock back on the country’s development, but they reverberated across the region—into Israel, Jordan, and Syria. It shows again that a country’s problems are never simply its own.

H/T Siggy

I didn't look far enough down Siggy's page. He has this hilarious and strangely fascinating video. It's a slow start, but stay with it.


And then I found this....

Adam Cohen: Imperious Ass

Just what bloggers expect: A pompous ass spouting baseless opinions at The New York Times and believing them to be fact just because he wrote them.

Presidents wage war. Congress funds them. When Congress is certain that de-funding the war will be politically expedient, it will happen. And not a moment before.

The Left is not interested in winning or losing against al-Qaeda. They're interested in George Bush losing. That's why the war is still funded. That's why there's talk of censure and impeachment, not de-funding. The former gives the Left onanistic pleasure, the latter actually means taking a stance and living with the consequences.

There will be no grown-ups in a Democrat-led Congress, not when it's so much fun to undermine the troops by attacking the Commander-in-Chief.

MSM Ignores al Qaeda's Massacre--UPDATE

I wrote about the massacre when Michael Yon wrote about it and I'm writing about it again. This time, it's to express outrage that the media and the reporters right in Baquba refuse to report on this.

The media continues to remove all doubt about whose side they fight for. They've stopped being a passive ally for some time. An Army colonel calls it Emotional Terrorism. Exactly.

Glenn Reynolds has more.

UPDATE: Ace says this is the reason it doesn't get reported:

Part of it is just more basic: simple vanity. Journalists' status comes from their presumption that they, and only they, have the skills necessary to report big stories.

They have an emotional investment in this ego-serving proposition.

If a non-accredited gate-crasher like Michael Yon breaks a story, it must therefore have not been a big story in the first place, otherwise, of course, they would have covered it first, right?

And something a little more than that: It embarrasses them they they seem to rely on emails from shady police operatives for their "scoops" -- without even bothering to visit the alleged site of massacres -- while Michael Yon is actually out in the field, slogging through the sand, digging -- quite literally -- for the stories they're supposed to be oh-so-expert at reporting on.

Ego. Laziness.

How much you want to bet that doofus who owns the body armor vest thing called NBC to tip them off that the U.S. uses sub-par armor? Lisa Meyer's assistant sets up the testing, gets the bogus results, gives them to Lisa who importantly "reports" it. Puhleeze. Lazy.

With the news cycle turning over so quickly, most reporters don't have the time, money, or inclination to actually investigate anything. They act on tips and that's "investigating". That makes the press easy marks.

Lazy and easy. Not an impressive combo.

Christians: Too Soft For War?

My last post was rather mysterious what with casting love in doubt. A commenter suggested that I define love and that will most definitely happen.

I couldn't sleep last night and while I lay there thinking about the state of this sad, fallen world, my mind went to how intellectually and spiritually soft Christendom had become. Non-Christians dismiss the Bible's truths and so-called Christians cherry pick their beliefs or are just plain ignorant about God and His teachings. So I meditated on the Christians and love and war and the division within our country, and really, all of the West, between would-be pacifists and the sword-bearers. What will become of us, if we can't agree on the fundamental issue of self-preservation...really of what the self is at all?

****

Carl Jung named the notion of shared thought the collective unconscious. It seems that no sooner have I thunk a thought than someone smarter and more interesting has written about it. This time, over at Brussels Journal. Seems a debate brews about whether Christianity itself interferes with fighting the war on terror. Baron Bodissey started the conversation at Gates of Vienna with the aptly titled piece "On the Impact of Christianity." Truly, these two posts are absolutely required reading.

It occurred to me, upon reading both that this is a conversation that is not happening in the academy--that perhaps the only place where free thought is free these days is on the internet. Intellectual dogma has constricted to the point that accepted truth is axiomatic and not worthy of debate. Any debates are just decisions on the details.

Why is this philosophical jibber jabber even important? The tip of the sword, the soldier, is but an instrument in the service of an idea. If the idea is wrong, the soldier is doomed to fail (in the long run). If the idea is right, but no one believes or cares enough, the soldier is again doomed. The rightness of the idea and the will to defend it is the strength of the sword. The West has an army of supreme soldiers, but they fight in vain if they fight bereft of righteous purpose. Those who send the sword will lose courage or interest and the sword won't matter.

Back to Christian warriors. Machiavelli's argument, that Christianity has no place in an empire, is a recurring theme. The belief--that a loving, God-fearing Christian wouldn't take the steps necessary to conquer or defend--is held by many, even Christians, even now. Consider how modern athletes have endured questions as to their ability to win. David Robinson, Andy Pettitte, and John Smoltz, dedicated Christians, and in Smoltz's case Catholic and Christian, are asked about the killer instinct. Can Christian professional athletes be winners?

Their [Ohio State's] stunning win brought national attention to the fact that the Buckeyes’ coach, Jim Tressel, and several of his players are professing Christians. For anyone who has ever surveyed the competitive landscape, wondered if faith makes you “soft” and asked, “Can Christians really be winners?” the Buckeyes’ success answers a resounding “yes.” It seems to imply that living by Christian principles isn’t a handicap and may even give the winning edge.

Even if Christians can be winners, there are those who believe God should be kept out of the ball stadium, anyway.

So it goes in Western politics and the battlefield.. Christian thought and belief are incongruous with the survival instinct, some believe, or in any case have no place in the stadium of modern ideas and certainly not war, where science and rational secular thought rule.

Tortured Christian theology has taken people down the pacifism path. Though pacifism hasn't ever completely taken hold--we're not speaking Arabic yet and that possibility existed as far back as Constantine--it has always been a strain within Christianity and it certainly forms a significant part of the foundation of multicultural secularism which, as Bodissey notes, has it's roots in Christianity. This path is destructive, ignorant and relies on those "Christian bromides" I talked about yesterday.

There are a few tenets in the New Testament that are used, out of context, to form the socialist and pacifist rational. More on those in a minute. The context that is missing for proof-texters comes from the Old Testament, the "Jewish" books, the law. When Constantine unified the empire (AD 321) by becoming Christian, he melded Passover observance with pagan holy day observances and Easter and Sunday worship (as opposed to Sabbath worship) resulted. The scriptures that supported many of the "old" observances fell into disuse. This was further cemented at the Council of Laodicea in 364AD. Christians were eager to distance themselves from Jews due to persecution by Jews, and by Romans toward Jews. Sunday worship increased the distance.

The desire to leave behind Jewish ways lead to leaving behind the evidence of thousands of years of Gods direct interaction with a people. He created laws for a just society. Israel was a nation at one time, and rules associated with governance pervade the Old Testament. Christians, and those who would use Christian dogma, often misstep because they dismiss the law as irrelevant. They are "under grace", which is true. This problem became solidified by Martin Luther at the reformation who wanted to abolish the Book of James for being too "works" based. In addition, when Jews rebuffed his attempts to convert them, Luther's antipathy toward them grew. He then attempted to expel all Jews from German public life.

By emphasizing the New Testament to the exclusion of the Old, and by minimizing the actions a Christian should take in deference to grace above all, a softer, gentler, squishy version of God took center stage. Revelation, James, and any scripture implying righteous action or punishment for sin was dismissed as legalism. In one sermon I heard not too long ago, a pastor said from the pulpit, "Under Christ, there is no sin. It is now impossible for me to sin." I bet his wife would differ on that assertion. This pastor tills fertile ground for all sorts of behavior to be excused. And this misrepresentation of Christ's mission is not new. Paul admonished the church at Corinth because of their excusing sin in their midst.

In addition to the trend of divorcing the Old Testament to prove being under the New Covenant, specific scriptures are misapplied to support pacifism, socialism and multiculturalism:

• Turn the other cheek
• Live by the sword, die by the sword
• Give up worldly goods
• Judge not, lest ye be judged
• God is love
  

Almost every cult in Christian history has seized upon one piece of truth and distorted it beyond recognition. Note, that I say truth. Not one of the above paraphrases is untrue, but amplified and distorted does not convey Jesus' whole message. In isolation, many Christian principles can lead people seriously away from a true understanding of God.

Finally, Christianity, just like the West, isn't a borg-like collective. There are gradations along the spectrum. At one end, the infiltration of self-help language into Christian thought has blurred the lines between pop-psychology and salvation. Joel Osteen, pastor of Lakewood Church, the mega ministry his father founded, said this on Larry King Live:

KING: What if you're Jewish or Muslim, you don't accept Christ at all?

OSTEEN: You know, I'm very careful about saying who would and wouldn't go to heaven. I don't know ...

KING: If you believe you have to believe in Christ? They're wrong, aren't they?

OSTEEN: Well, I don't know if I believe they're wrong. I believe here's what the Bible teaches and from the Christian faith this is what I believe. But I just think that only God will judge a person's heart. I spent a lot of time in India with my father. I don't know all about their religion. But I know they love God. And I don't know. I've seen their sincerity. So I don't know. I know for me, and what the Bible teaches, I want to have a relationship with Jesus.

He goes on in the same interview to say that he doesn't like using the word sin. My point isn't to bash Osteen's ministry. I'm sure he's reached many people and helped them. But it is telling that one of the major voices in the Christian world won't use the word sin, that is, he's selective in how he approaches the gospel. It's a softer sell. It's an easier approach. And it only touches on one aspect of God.

The soft-headedness leads to wobbly places. Recently, the Unite Church of Christ synod changed it's discriminatory stance against Israel. Like many other church groups, they have been hard on Israel for protecting herself in the Palestinian conflict. The moral equivalence between the actions of these two groups displays a gross misjudgment. The post-Christian British (but they are not alone) secular zealotry in academia have gone the other direction by boycotting Israeli academic institutions.

With the Iraq war, here is a common modern Christian leadership elitist view from Jim Wallis:

The tradition of Christian non-violence and pacifism, of course, rules out all war as a way to resolve conflicts. Most remarkable, however, in this instance, is that the majority of American church leaders who have spoken against prospective military action are not pacifists. They are opposing war because they believe it does not meet the standards of a ''just war.''

Church leaders have used the traditional just war criteria dating back to St. Augustine in the 4th century. These criteria start with a presumption against war, then apply a series of judgments to determine whether that presumption can be overridden. And most church leaders have concluded that in the current circumstances, it cannot - a war against Iraq would not be just.

They have asked whether there is a just cause, and concluded that a doctrine of preemptive war to change a regime, however evil or threatening that regime may be, is not acceptable.

Given this criteria, no war would be found acceptable. Wallis' magazine Sojourners is replete with articles about environmentalism, racial justice, global warming, "greening our churches", poorness in the burbs, etc.

This transition from Old Testament to New Covenant to secularism is described thusly by Fjordman at Brussel's Journal:

Some observers are aware of the fact that notions such as human rights are ultimately based in Christianity. I don’t always agree with the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who does have some quirky ideas, but he is right when he says that “Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.”

If we assume that Christian anti-Semitism is partly a reflection of a Christian Oedipus complex vis-à-vis its parent religion, Judaism, which is a plausible hypothesis, this opens up new perspectives on the hatred directed against Christianity by Multicultural, post-Christian Westerners. Since their creeds are secularized versions of Christian ideas, Christianity without Christ, some of them hate their parent religion, this outmoded and abrogated creed that still dares to exist.

According to Vanishing American, “Truly, liberalism in general, even the extreme secular brand of liberalism, is a sort of counterfeit Christianity. This has been pointed out many times. Karl Marx, the son of a Christian convert, was a nonbeliever, but whether consciously or not, the system he fathered was a parody of Christianity. Instead of looking to a kingdom not of this world, Marxism and its offshoots proposed to create a heaven on earth.”

With the way Christian leaders have watered Christ's message down, Christianity is becoming a parody of Christianity. If a Christian pastor can't mention sin and salvation in a message, how different is Christianity from a Tony Robbin's seminar? If the focus is on temporal material success, how can one muster the will to fight for tomorrow? Why bother?

Mark Steyn shows the practical consequences of the "why bother?" attitude. Birth rates are down in large part because people pursue perpetual adolescence. They live for today. How do they manage to justify such selfishness? They will stress the environment less, less diapers, less fuel, smaller cars, the list of reasons childlessness is morally superior is endless. It is also, ultimately, slow suicide.

Love, as defined by this lazy thinking, means more than tolerance, it means endorsing everything and everyone. No one can feel bad. No one is bad. Evil doesn't exist so much as people with difficult life experiences need to be rehabilitated.

The healing part of Christianity--the forgiveness of sins and change that comes from the transformative power of the Holy Spirit--is never touched upon. When Jesus freed the adultress, who, under the law could be stoned, many conveniently forget his admonition to "go and sin no more."

Transformation in Christ means stopping self-destructive behaviors. Social institutions like marriage promote health and longevity. A Christian perspective values liberty free of sin and life that comes from it.

Not all Christians adhere to the soft form of feel-goodism. They see the state as a necessary part of having dual citizenship and that the laws promote justice and ultimately peace. It isn't peace and pseudo-love first. In addition, many Christians view it as evil to sit by and do nothing in the face of injustice, murder and mayhem. It is not Christian to walk away from a friend or enemy in need. Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan shows that.

The difference between the ends of Christianity is truly the difference in defining love. Loving one's neighbor as one loves self means protecting our neighbor. It also means laying down one's life and having faith in eternal life. This is not the belief of a softy. This is the belief of someone willing to do the hard work for the future.

Ultimately, love does conquer all, but not the soft love many Christians and almost all secularists so revere.

Harry Reid & Denethor--UPDATE, UPDATED AGAIN

Denethor: "Gondor is lost."





Harry Reid: "This war is lost."



Just watched the third LOTR, Return of the King again tonight and thought of Harry Reid as Denethor spiralled into madness.

By the way, we watched the moving using the Samsung DVD-R155 Tunerless DVD Recorderand I bought the Logitech Harmony 670 Universal Remote for the hubby for Father's Day. He's as triumphant as Aragorn being crowned king--except he's lounging on his bed and pushing one button on one remote to rule them all.

UPDATE: Sorry about the links. They're fixed.

UPDATED AGAIN: I'm not the only one thinking about Harry Reid and his delusional antics. Chris Lynch from a Large Regular thinks Reid more resembles Grima Wormtongue:

Grima Wormtongue was supposedly an advisor to King Theoden of Rohan but in instead he was working on behalf of Saruman. Really what Wormtongue was doing was working at feathering his own bed. Harry Reid is supposed to be public servant but other than Congressman William Jefferson no public official is seemingly more adept at making personal financial gains from what is supposed to be public service.

Chris has a point. He puts Reid's activities squarely in league with the enemy. Is Reid that far gone? Maybe. Or is he so consumed with power hunger and anger that he isn't, nor will he ever be all-powerful (Denethor was simply a steward, Reid is simply a Senator). In addition, he's dabbling into things he shouldn't while getting only part of the information and getting more despairing as he goes.

Hmm..... the more I think of it, the more I see nefarious motives by Reid. Denethor despaired where Grima connived. Would Reid be happy if the Enemy won against America? Maybe...right up until the point where he was under the boot himself, just like Grima.

Ya gotta admit, though, that the resemblance between Denethor and Harry Reid is striking.

H/T Betsy Newmark

Government Health Care Doesn't Work: See the VA

Part of war funding is preventative (missle shields), active (combat troops and equipment), passive (military bases, technology, R&D) and post-combat (wounded, reassimilation, etc.). It seems to me that America has been so out of practice and so defunded militarily that parts and pieces of all these aspects of war readiness have been ignored. It is especially egregious to know that Vets from all wars receive sub-standard and mismanaged care, but truly there hasn't been the funding or stream-lining of beaurocracy (an oxymoron if I've ever written one) to efficiently help Vets.

Still, it is important to remember that beaurocracies in general are uncaring beasts. Private doctors know the frustration of dealing with insurance companies, as do patients, trying to get care they need. At least with private insurance, there is some recourse. A vet has no recourse, really, with the government--except through elected officials. The Washington Post finds a disgruntled Vet who says:

"Once we can no longer be utilized as a soldier, we are of no use to them," said Michael Foley, 52, a former Navy intelligence specialist who served in Vietnam and Cyprus during the 1970s. "There is an impression of indifference when you are dealing with the VA benefits people. They are going to get a paycheck no matter what."

I don't believe the first part at all. All branches of the government do care, but are rather impotent to do anything about it without being irresponsible with the taxpayer dollar. The second part of his concern is true. With insurance workers and claims advisors (doctors who couldn't make it in real practice) detatched from their client's plight, what difference does it make?

I remember a story about a patient who pulled a gun on a doctor because his Workers Comp benefits didn't come fast enough and he was about to lose his home. He was in pain, out of money, absolutely hysterical and didn't know who to blame. Like any institution, the government is very efficient at taking in money, but not so efficient in disbursing it. And citizens have little recourse.

The solution is not more government. The solution is private industry. At least there would be some accountability.

Support A Soldier, Buy His Poetry Book

Iraq and Afghanistan will produce a generation of artists. Every war has their own. My favorite author, J.R.R. Tolkien is a soldier-poet and writer. Would he have written the same lyrical prose without his war experience? We'll never know, but some how I doubt it.

Our current soldier-poet is Brian Turner. I haven't read his work yet, but I sure do plan to. I'll let you know. In the meantime, order his book and let me know what you think.

Mental Illness in Soldiers

Do you think 25% of returning soldiers have mental disorders? That sounds like a lot to me. What are they including?

Venerating Vietnam--UPDATE

You know how a teenager feels triumphant when he gets permission to drive to a party and drinks and feels so adult. And then, in his drunken stupidity drives home and causes an accident where an innocent stranger dies? The Democrat party waxes nostalgic about their first car ride and party and conveniently forgets the deaths they caused after their joy-ride. I have never been able to understand the Left's veneration of Vietnam. To me, it is proof positive that their high-minded war strategies end in death. But they got to drive the car, man. They got to drive!

How is a strategy that ends in the deaths of half a million people a winning strategy? Well, it's absolutely fantastic if you're craven enough to leave all those people to die so that your party will win back power--assuming that winning power back will be the result. The only problem is that now, Americans, seem to have a stronger conscience and better memory than the Democrats and the progressive leftists, and aren't particularly enthused about living with the blood of a million or two people on their hands. They do take responsibility for this choice--even if the Left seem determined to pin it on President Bush.

Jonah Goldberg points out what Americans remember:

Yes, but those arguments were right. Our withdrawal from Vietnam did contribute to a great bloodbath. More than a half-million Vietnamese died at sea fleeing the grand peace Kennedy and his colleagues orchestrated. And more than 1.2 million Cambodians died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, thanks to the power vacuum created by our "humanitarian" withdrawal. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a presidential candidate, insists that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq can't make things any worse. In 1975 he took a similar line: "The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." Someone rent Dodd a DVD of The Killing Fields.

Goldberg includes this nice sum up:

As my colleague Rich Lowry said in regard to Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha's effort to sneakily thwart the Bush surge: "It used to be that the war had to end because it was a failure; now it must fail so that it can end."

How did the Democrats win in Vietnam? Personally, I think the doped-up counter-culture anti-establishment types felt vindicated, listened to, and powerful. That was the "win". The little, narcissistic guy, triumphed. America certainly didn't triumph. Now, these same hippies are in power and continue to try to be anti-establishment. They are the establishment. The loathed parent. If they "win" in Iraq by contributing to America losing there, what have they won? And are they so sure the populace hates the President the way they do that the loss in Iraq will be perceived by average Americans as a win for them? Are they willing to stake their political futures on it?

Finally, on what principle does the Left want out of Iraq? What over-arching American good will losing there serve?

H/T Betsy Newmark

UPDATE: Protests just like Vietnam. And uncivil intercourse, just like Vietnam, too. Ah, the good old days.