RIP DADT

Today marks the end of the Clinton-era policy "Don't Ask Don't Tell" or DADT, which barred service members from being openly gay.  To be clear, it never barred gays from enlisting and serving, but they could and would be discharged from service if they ever came out.  That's over now.  I say good riddance. 

Most of you probably have one of two reactions, because issues like this generally breed strong feelings one way or the other.  You might be happy.  Some of you are probably very angry.  I will confess to you that I've always been largely ambivalent about DADT.  I've never supported the policy, but I never really put a lot of effort into denouncing it.  I've always thought it stupid; just as I've always thought making a big deal over someone's sexuality to be rather stupid.  Or the color of their skin.  Or how much money they made.  I figure it's best to judge someone by their virtues as a human being rather than some categorical notion.  I guess I never saw what the big deal was.  Why does it matter if someone's gay or not, and how does that effect their ability to serve our nation? 

The fact is, I'd never had any gay friends, or people I knew to be gay who served.  So I never actually experienced the effects of this policy.  It was one of those things that affect other people.  You know the feeling, I'm sure.  While I was in Germany, however, I met a gay service member.  He became a valued friend, and even though we'd disagree on some issues, he was always interesting to talk to, and always interested in my point of view.  One night at a party, he came out to me.  I told him that I didn't give a shit that he was gay.  We were drinking after all, so while my choice of words might sound dismissive or harsh, they were not.  I was honored that he confided something in me that he was not allowed to publicly say.  

I shall not lie and say that I never suspected, because I did.  And while I was suspecting, I began to think of the issue in more personal terms.  Here was a man who was a honorably serving his country, had a sharp mind, was a good writer, and took his responsibilities as a leader seriously.  But he couldn't be who he was, because to do so would have effectively ended his career.  My friend had to pretend that he wasn't gay.  Gay.  Something that affected nothing as it pertained to his job.  He wasn't pretending to have an arm when in fact he didn't.  He wasn't pretending that he he was physically or mentally fit.  He was gay.  He was something that conveyed neither special advantage nor disadvantage.  It just was. 

My friend came out today.  It's all over the news.  He has shown great moral courage; both today and in preparation for today.  Can you imagine the moral courage it took?  Have you ever had to exhibit such moral courage?  My guess is that you've never had the opportunity, and if you have you probably failed.  Moral courage is hard.  I'm sure he's heard it from all quarters, but I'm proud of him.  And I'm proud to call him a friend. 

I have great faith in the professionalism of my brothers and sisters in uniform.  Despite this, I have a feeling that many of my brothers and sisters will be looked upon differently today by their fellow service members, my friend included.  They might even be looked at differently than they were yesterday.  And this might even continue tomorrow and the next day and so on.  It is my hope that professionalism and dedication to the service of our great nation will allow bigotry and false judgment to melt into the background.  We are joined by that uniform; we are made a family.  We are joined by service and self-sacrifice and common goals.  We share these things regardless of personal preferences.  Is it not our service that is supposed to guarantee us all the freedom of personal preferences? E pluribus unum?  Homogeneity may be comforting to the weak of mind, but it is boring and self-limiting.

Let us judge the capacity and ability to serve by the honor of an individual's service and not by race, creed, sexual orientation, or some other arbitrary category which only serves to separate us from one another rather than bind us together.   

**As always, I encourage discussion and dissent and I hope that you opine.  I also hope that if you choose to do either, you'll do so professionally, intelligently, and logically.  You're welcome to ignore my request; I will not delete or moderate comments but will let them rest on their own merits.  As you may know, I believe the greater power of the First Amendment lies not in allowing you to say whatever you wish, but in its ability to expose fools.

Morning Coffee (87)

I hope that everyone is relatively warm. The map indicates that it is certifiably frigid throughout our nation. But do you know what is not frigid? That’s right. Your Morning Coffee. I wonder though, how the cold will affect the turnout for the hugely important and greatly interesting caucus in Iowa…you know our citizens. If voting is in any way inconvenient, you can forget it.

Edwardian Politics:

John Edwards, he of the flashy smile and expensive hair, has revealed unto us his plan for Iraq. Should he become President, he will withdraw virtually all US troops from the country within 10 months, including those who are training the Iraq military and police. In this, Edwards defeats his rivals in one way that will be appealing to Democratic voters; his withdraw plans are far more thorough and will be accomplished in a far shorter time period than either Clinton or Obama.

Edwards’s plan consists of the immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, and then the withdrawal of the rest within 9 or 10 months. He would leave 3,500-5,000 in place to protect the Embassy and maybe humanitarian aid workers. To combat any increase in sectarian violence, which he acknowledges as a possible side effect of such a rapid withdrawal (or “redeployment” as some Democrats call it) in a nation so thoroughly addicted to US troops, Edwards would keep a quick reaction force (QRF) in Kuwait or Jordan. That sounds good, right? Even reasonable. We could rapidly redeploy troops a few hundred miles to another country that doesn’t want a large contingent of US troops in order to rapidly redeploy them should the initial redeployment prove ill-advised, or cause genocide. I wonder though, if Edwards has bothered to speak with Jordanian or Kuwaiti officials, or if he just assumed that they’d be okay with hosting an undetermined number of redeployed troops.

Which leads me to further wonder, since Edwards’s figures seem pretty specific already, if he has an idea as to many troops he would keep in Kuwait or Jordan? Or would he defer to the judgment of the military on that one? I would find that interesting, since he’s ignoring what most senior military officials (and an NIE) are saying regarding the unfeasibility of such rapid and comprehensive troop withdrawals. Wouldn’t that be ironic? The military deciding on the numbers of troops to maintain in the region which would be there for pretty much the sole reason of saving Edwards’s skin should his plan, which is the complete opposite of what the military suggests, not produce results? Basically, we’ll keep ‘em close by just in case we shouldn’t have took them out in the first place.

Whatever the numbers, it doesn’t sound like Edwards has much faith in his plan, the main crux of which is that we must leave Iraq to force the Iraqi leadership into finally doing things for themselves. How benevolent of us. We’re like parents, kicking out our children because they’ve become too much of a burden, and doing so will only force them to clean up their act and become responsible adults. Except that it doesn’t really work that way. Because we’re not parents and the Iraqis are not children. In this case, they’re grown men, and each separate group in Iraq has a different set of agendas, all of which will be contrary; not only to each others’ interests, but our interests. If we leave prematurely, it will not be the nice, friendly, peace loving Iraqis that inherit power; it will be the brutal, power-hungry types who will do anything who will secure power. If we are going to leave just to let a brutal, anti-US regime take power, then why did we topple the previous regime, which in the end might actually turn out to have been LESS brutal and anti-US than a new one? If we’re beholden to our mores of spreading democracy, we would simply be forced to remove another regime in a few years, otherwise we’d be cast as hypocrites. It matters not what the true reasons we demolished Saddam’s regime were, we later billed the endeavor as an opportunity to spread democracy to the Middle East, thus it can be argued that this is where our obligation lies.

In the same article, Edwards asserts that we (he) must restore our moral standing in the world. I’m not sure I see how leaving Iraq and sparking widespread conflict and chaos does this. In 1991, we ceased providing aid to Afghanistan. We had no further use for them, since our only goal was to provide them with the means to defeat the Soviets. You may think this is apples and oranges. Surely, our intent there was not to spread democracy or even leave the Afghans with a stable government or economy. But since this was not a priority, and we gave it hardly a thought, leaving Afghanistan unstable and in the hands of warlords turned out to be a bad idea. It embittered a generation of Muslims against the United States, which they felt simply abandoned fellow Muslims after their use had expired. We didn’t create al-Qaida and its knockoffs by providing them with money and training during the Soviet-Afghan War, we created them by leaving Afghanistan to poverty and a dozen years of war and chaos. The situation in Iraq has the potential to be even worse. We did not support the Iraqis in some proxy war with our chief rival, which left them impoverished and war-stricken. Instead, we obliterated a stable (albeit brutal) regime, conducted non-stop combat operations against an insurgency which ravaged Iraq’s infrastructure and economy, helped create an un-bridgeable gap in the demographics of the country where there had previously been few and then abruptly redeployed troops. We do this because Mr. Edwards (or whoever else) believes that it’s time to make the Iraqis stand on their own because we’re tired of shouldering the burden on their behalf. We were directly responsible for their situation, unlike in Afghanistan. This does nothing to improve our moral standing. I would argue that this accomplishes the opposite of what Mr. Edwards intends. Surely, we’ll continue to pump money into Iraq’s infrastructure even after we redeploy troops because it has oil, so unlike in Afghanistan, there’s a more practical reason for providing aid. And if we don’t do so, the Chinese will. So economically, the outlook, at least temporarily, is better than it was for Afghanistan. But how long will conflict there continue after we leave? And will this conflict make any potential aid moot?

I, frankly, do not care about the spread of democracy as an end, nor about the use of the military as a means to that end. I care about Iraq for far more practical reasons. We were involved with helping Japan regain its footing after WWII longer (seven years) than we have been involved in Iraq, and we didn’t even have an insurgency with which to contend. We helped the Japanese despite the fact that they actually attacked us. We did the same for Germany (four years). So committed to stabilizing Japan were we, that we banned a religion (Shinto). We stayed and helped these two nations because we learned this lesson once before. Germany and Germans, not feeling militarily beaten, were bitter and resentful of the crushing repatriations and military limitations of the Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed upon them by the Allies. Hitler brought to the Germans hope and a chance for redemption. Perhaps much like Salafism and bin Ladin. For practical reasons, we have an obligation, if not to the Iraqis then to ourselves. For prematurely “redeploying troops”, i.e. abandoning Iraq, will likely cause us more problems in the future; potentially worse than our abandonment of Afghanistan. Staying in Iraq and helping create a stable, secure Iraq is a propaganda win; a moral win. Showing people that we clean up our messes and do not abandon people is valuable. I’m surprised that Iraq is not seen as an opportunity for a moral victory by Democrats, especially considering that they generally paint themselves as more idealistic than Republicans (role reversal anyone?). But the demand for an end to what they call an “illegal war” (authorized by Congress) is more about political expediency, which in our nation is always more important than idealism, even for idealists, who generally prove to be politically practical enough to abandon ideals when necessary. If only their political practicality could inform their policies on this occasion.

Edwards’s policy on Iraq will change a great deal once he were to see the situation through the lens of the Presidency, of this I’m certain. But as it stands right now, I view his policy as even less appropriate and more ridiculous than his Democratic rivals. He’s simply trying to be more “hard core” in order to pander to the anti-war crowd and others who are disillusioned (and who will fail to realize that this plan still requires an unknown number of troops to be deployed overseas), never mind that it’s simply a bad policy. But who cares when all you’re trying to do is win the office? But does this manner of thinking surprise anyone? Aren’t they all the same? I wish I could discuss Iraq policies free from the soft, fuzzy glow of Presidential politics, but unfortunately that is impossible right now.

As a side note, I heard a political ad from Hillary Clinton this morning, proclaiming that it is time to take a new path, one that is different from the path we’ve been on for the previous seven years. Hillary is a master of the obvious, considering this is an election year in which the incumbent cannot run, and thus it must be time for a new path no matter who wins. I get her point, but I still find this commercial absurd. Apparently though, it needed to be said, and she paid for it to be said. Oh, and each vote in Iowa costs $200, based on the amount of money candidates have spent there and predicted voter turnout. Neat.

Word of the Day: Arcanum (noun): 1. A secret; a mystery. 2. Specialized or mysterious knowledge, language, or information that is not accessible to the average person (generally used in the plural, which is arcana). Reminds me of the specialized knowledge that politicians have, which is not accessible to the average person.

On This Day in History: Marcus Tullius Cicero, the great Roman orator, philosopher, lawyer, political theorist and politician, was born (106 BCE). Leonardo da Vinci fails in his tests of a flying machine (1496). As discussed previously in the MC, Pope Leo X excommunicates Martin Luther (1521).

“Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system.”

“Even if you have nothing to write, write and say so.”

“Next to God we are nothing. To God we are Everything.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero. I find the last quote interesting considering monotheism wasn’t exactly en vogue in Rome while Cicero lived. Sounds like someone revised Cicero’s statement somewhat…revisionism at its finest.

Morning Coffee (72)

It’s the last day of the second to last month in 2007, and we’re still here, sipping piping hot Coffee. Good for us. I really wish I could quit my job and just do spectacularly awesome Morning Coffee’s for a living. I’d be the Starbucks of the blogosphere; making delicious opinion lattes and wonderful cynicism frappucinos for the world to enjoy. But alas, I have bills to pay, and the Morning Coffee, for all its greatness, simply doesn’t bring in more than zero dollars a month.

American Legionaries – Unwitting Victims:

There is a site I visit once a day, maybe less, the main crux of which is nude women with tattoos and piercing. It’s classy stuff if you’re a biker or a goth. But lately, I’ve visited solely for their current events writers. They’ve got a pretty decent set up there. I think there are 30 writers or so who opine regularly. I call it pseudo-journalism, because they take themselves very seriously, but aren’t really bothered with things like journalistic integrity or other inconveniences. Much of what they write on isn’t really news at all, but a bunch of uber-liberal opinion (what do you expect from a site such as this?). Don’t get me wrong, a few cite sources (links), and most are intelligent and articulate. Some even make good points. Then, site members are semi-welcome to post comments about the articles, usually provided that you agree with the author and/or hive. Woe unto those who do not. My point though isn’t to explain the site or why I go there to read things, however. Let’s just say that I like being exposed to stupid, er…opinions different than mine. I digress…

There are so many “good” articles that it’s hard to pick just one about which to write. However, yesterday I read one about Al Gore’s meeting with President Bush. The author was wondering, in their snide, sarcastically demeaning way, what the topic of the conversation was between the two. His (her?) take was that Bush was a blithering idiot and merely wasted the regal Al Gore’s time, and he even provided us with a possible script of what took place. A discussion of the actual article is not worth my time, but it’s the comments posted below it that I want to address. A short back-story before I get to my main point. Some poster, a member of the Air Force, made mention to the audience at large to stop whining that their guy lost (which is what some were doing in their snide, sarcastic, hipster way). Well, wouldn’t you know it, the community jumped on this guy pretty good. He stated that he was glad Bush won (imagine the argument that elicited – robbed election, I dare say!), and that he was better off because of it, despite deployments in support of the Global War on Terrorism. Then someone said, “well, you’re in the Air Force, why don’t you ask some soldiers and Marines!” He retorted that he knew soldiers and Marines and they too were okay with, *gasp*, doing their duty. Then someone whipped out the big guns…they pointed him to the Veterans Against the Iraq War (VIAW) website, as if that were the end-all, be-all of soldierly opinion and sentiment.

My point, which I’m taking overly long to make, is this, and I want to make this abundantly clear: we are not victims. Soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are not victims being abused by some warmongering government. I know that liberals (who make up a majority of this particular site) like to champion victims; it’s in their DNA to find victims all over (I really think it’s some sort of compensation complex many have). That’s fine. Sometimes it’s necessary. But we (the aforementioned groups) do not need a victims’ advocacy, shouting loud for all to hear, lamenting about our plight – that being volunteering to be members of a military force and then having to go to war. It’s not a plight, folks. It’s a duty. One that the vast majority of men and women who serve carry out proudly, with honor, and with nary a complaint. You might even say that some of these men and women, young and old, actually desire war. I know that most people don’t want to hear that, but it’s true. Some of these men and women live for warfare, because if they didn’t we wouldn’t have all those handy manuals and, get this, the most proficient military machine (i.e. killing machine) in the history of warfare. Warfare is the ultimate team sport, so why should soldiers’ sentiments about it be any different than they have for thousands of years (the length of time dependent upon the weight you place on the fossil record).

But the fact is, some people, liberals mostly, want to make us into victims. “Bush is sending these people to fight in this unjust war!” The implication is that they’re being sent to die and that it’s against their will. Ignoring the justness of this war, these men and women are neither being sent to die (although some will) nor being sent against their will. When someone points out these facts, a liberal’s response is to simply point that person towards a group (VIAW) that does feel victimized, as if that segment of military society represents the whole. Not true. These people also like to point to the wounded (the more horrifically the better) and suggest that this is the fate of those who are sent to fight and die, against their will, in this unjust war. They are hijacking our wounded comrades to make political statements that border on misleading, if not wholly misrepresentative of the majority. These people also like to point to rare instances of bureaucratic ineptitude – such as the soldier who was asked to return his enlistment bonus because he was wounded and thus couldn’t fulfill the contractual obligations of his reenlistment – and suggest that this is the norm; that this is how our soldiers are treated and victimized by the rich, white, Protestant elite. Never mind that these errors are usually quickly corrected. It’s all evidence of victimization. It’s the liberals’ “white-man’s burden” to champion us.

“'Forward, the Light Brigade!' Was there a man dismay'd ? Not tho' the soldier knew Some one had blunder'd: Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die, Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.” This prose, written by Lord Tennyson about in ill-fated charge during the Crimean War, is what it means to be a soldier. If a soldier (or Marine, sailor, airman) doesn’t know that this is what he is about while he wears the uniform, then he is in dereliction of duty; then he is the victim. But we signed up for this; without coercion we spoke the Oath of Enlistment with our right hand raised. From that point on, ours is not to make reply, nor to wonder why; ours is but to do or die, and into the Valley of Death will we ride, a duty about which we shall never cry.

The Religion of Peace:

If you have not read about Gillian Gibbons, a British school teacher who left her country to teach children in Sudan, I suggest you do so. You’ll be shocked, amazed, and appalled at the behavior of some of the practitioners of the “Religion of Peace.” Because her students named a teddy bear Mohammad she was under threat of death. Not by an unruly mob as is normally the case, but by a court. Now, death was not a sentence that was considered, but some suggested that it be. She could have received 40 lashes and a year in prison, but instead will serve 15 days and be deported. She’s lucky that cooler(ish) heads prevailed. She’s also lucky that she’s being deported, because some young Muslim with too much time on his hands would surely cut her head off because she “insulted” Islam. Do you know how many Muslims are named Mohammad? Hint: it’s more than a baker’s dozen. Since the bear was actually named after a student in class, how is this even a question? She’s lucky. I hope that this teaches some hard lessons to people who wish to Third World countries to help educate its populace.

Word of the Day: Malapropos (adj): Unseasonable; unsuitable; inappropriate. (Adverb): in an inappropriate in inopportune manner; unseasonably. Sort of like a death sentence for naming a teddy bear Mohammad.

On This Day in History: Elizabeth Hodges is hit by a meteorite after it bounced off her radio in her living room, giving her a mere bruise. She’s the only known person to have been hit by a space rock (1954). The famous (or infamous) Cleopatra died today (30 BCE). Also, 300 cities around the globe celebrate “Cities for Life Day”, during which these cities declare their opposition to the death penalty. Excellent, now let’s divide our death row inmates equally amongst these 300 cities. Each should net at least 10 or so murderers and/or rapists.

“When can their glory fade? O the wild charge they made! All the world wonder'd. Honour the charge they made! Honour the Light Brigade, Noble six hundred!” – Lord Tennyson, Charge of the Light Brigade, 1854.

Morning Coffee (71)

The Morning Coffee has been serving up hot, steaming cups of opinion and fact, sans cream and sugar, for almost 13 months now; 70-ish editions. The Coffee Pot was out of order for about six months, so if you take out that period of time, my numbers look a lot better – basically 10 editions per month. See, stats really CAN do anything. Anyway, the Morning Coffee is proudly back online, in blog form, and will be updated as I brew. It is current now, up to the most recent edition. Here’s the link: http://the-morning-coffee.blogspot.com. Someone check it, because I cannot do so at present. That also means that I cannot post the MC to the blog in the mornings.

Moving on. I was worried that I would suffer from performance anxiety with the new blog commitment, but it seems that there’s a lot to write about today, and I want to do each topic justice. Just don’t get used to the length or frequency.

Afghanistan Revisited:

Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway would like to draw down Marine forces in Iraq and redeploy them in Afghanistan. You remember Afghanistan, right? It’s that place right between Pakistan and Iran. It’s easy to forget about the first battlefield in the so-called War on Terror, what with all the excitement in Iraq. Besides, the Taliban were utterly wiped out right after 9/11, and Afghanistan is a stable democracy with a thriving economy based on the production and export of benign agricultural goods. Unfortunately, the entire last sentence is false, and Conway knows this. It appears that not many other people know this, however. The ones who do seem too focused on the political.

The Marine Corps was sent to one of the most troublesome spots in Iraq (al-Anbar), and after a time, their tactics yielded remarkable results. The Army has begun to use some of these tactics as well. But Afghanistan is growing increasingly problematic, with a resurgent Taliban in the southeast. Every year, poppy production sets a new record, and the government of Afghanistan is having a difficult time dealing with either by itself. With little attention paid to the Crossroads of Civilization by our leadership, we run the risk of losing whatever we’ve worked for there. The Corps would like to prevent this, and bring an actual combat element (a so-called “kinetic bent”) to bear in Afghanistan.

This plan is not received with open arms by many in the military and government. For one, some think that it’s the Marine Corps’ attempt to disengage from Iraq while the going is somewhat good and get involved in Afghanistan, taking a leading role in the theater that has the most public support. A mere PR move, basically. But in addition to this, there are fears that the military would lose a great deal of experience in dealing with the various factions in al-Anbar. Probably true. But perhaps more importantly, the Army would feel that it is shouldering the burden of Iraq alone, and if things got worse there, it would then shoulder the blame – alone. And if the Marine Corps went to Afghanistan and had the same success as it did in Anbar, well, that wouldn’t look good on the Army, and the Corps, which virtually never has the recruiting problems the Army has, would further endear itself to the American public and the public of Afghanistan.

The main-stage may be in Iraq, but along with the glory are the searing lights; the glare of public and governmental scrutiny. It seems as if the Army is worried that success might not be attainable (with or without the Marine Corps), and they want someone to share the inevitable blame that will be doled out to the military. The success the Corps had in Anbar merely builds the legend further. Near single-handed success on the side-stage (but nevertheless, in a WHOLE COUNTRY) by the Corps would make the Army feel bad. And we cannot have that. We cannot even run the risk of hurting feelings, no matter how important Afghanistan may be geopolitically, and let’s not forget, strategically. No matter the Corps’ goals and intentions, this is pure CYA. I doubt if the proposition will even be seriously entertained by the powers at be simply because, well, this sort of talk is bold and radical. See yesterday’s edition for snide remarks on the prospects for the bold and radical.

Side note – the US Air Force also feels bad that it’s not taking an active role in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it’s worried that funds will be cut because of this. The latter is probably true, due to the unfortunate short-sightedness of our elected officials. But to address the USAF for a second, I suggest this: keep on practicing bombing things to devastating affect, and keep working to achieve air superiority against all enemies. I have a feeling we’ll be in need of your services in due time.

Army Recruiting Revisited:

I wrote a bit about this yesterday, but a new article by the Wall Street Journal has given me more to discuss. In this article, it is revealed that the Army has realized that it must assuage the fears of “mom and dad” before it can sink its hooks into America’s children. You know, like, “what will my kid do when he gets out of the Army”, that sort of thing. The Army has the answers, and the answers are slick.

The “Army Advantage Fund” (not to be confused with the “Army Disadvantage Fund” in which you are divested of your limbs in return for service) is being rolled out which will give enlistees money for the purchase of homes or the starting of businesses upon the completion of service. Do 18-year-olds think about mortgages and business ventures? No. But 45-year-old parents do, hence the desire to go after “influencers.” Not bad when you consider Col Sterling’s statement: “In marketing terms, the Army’s core product – military service – is a tough sell right now. That means the Army needs to develop new ways of reaching people. We need a new kind of competitive advantage.” That’s a fact. Serving your country, as discussed yesterday, just ain’t what it used to be. There’s simply no glory in it.

You may have noticed the Army has gone through a few recruiting slogans recently. “Be All That You Can Be” was a winner. But it apparently didn’t reach the “Me Generation.” So they moved onto “An Army of One” which sounded more like it belonged on a trailer of a Rambo movie. Since that one sucked, they started using “Army Strong,” as in, “you made him strong, we’ll make him Army strong.” Frankly, I don’t really know what that means. With the lowered standards, does it mean, “we’ll expose him to organized crime, gangs, arsonists, make him fat and morally bankrupt?” Of course, I exaggerate, but does anyone know what that means? With the Army Advantage Fund, the next slogan should simply be, “We’ll Give You Everything You Need. Period.” Never mind giving you the mindset necessary to make something of yourself when you leave, we’ll just give it to you.

Honor:

This is a great story; one of the shining examples of honor and courage. Bill Krissoff’s son, Marine Lt (1^st or 2^nd I don’t know) Nathan Krissoff, was killed in Iraq. Bill is an orthopedic surgeon with a well-off practice, and he wanted to honor his son by joining the Navy as a combat surgeon. Can you believe this?! A 61 year old man leaving a life of luxury because he wanted to honor his son who died in combat while serving his nation. But, he’s 61, and a bit too old. What to do?

In Reno, Bill was in a room with a bunch of families who also lost loved ones in Iraq. They were meeting with Bush. The President asked if there was anything he could do, likely a question for which he wanted no answer. But he got one from Bill: “Yeah, there is one thing. I want to join the Navy medical corps and I gotta get some help here.” The Navy called him three days later; his waiver was granted. Bill has been commissioned a Lieutenant Commander in the Navy. Unbelievable courage and honor. It’s what we need more of.

Word of the Day: Kvetch (intransitive verb (also used as a noun)): to complain habitually.

On This Day in History: The UN General Assembly passed UN Resolution 37/37 which stated that the Soviet Union should withdraw forces from Afghanistan (1982). Clearly, that worked, since the Soviet Union stayed until 1989 – what a waste of time – a mere suggestion Perhaps a resolution stating that the sun should not set would be worthy of UN consideration.

“...the glorious memory of brave men is continually renewed; the fame of those who have performed any noble deed is never allowed to die; and the renown of those who have done good service to their country becomes a matter of common knowledge to the multitude, and part of the heritage of posterity.” – Polybius. If only this were the case…

“The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.” – Plutarch