Led by Gen. David Petraeus, 1,215 U.S. servicement from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, representing all 50 states, took their oath of duty at the Al Faw Palace in Baghdad, Iraq earlier today, July 4, 2008, in the largest known reenlistment ceremony in the history of the U.S. military.

Gen. Petraeus, reiterating earlier remarks made by Command Sergeant Major Hill, said that the unprecedented ceremony sends a “message to friend and foe alike.” He told those assembled that it is “impossible to calculate the value of what you are giving to our country . . . For no bonus, no matter the size, can adequately compensate you for the contribution each of you makes as a custodian of our nation’s defenses.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Meanwhile, Stars and Stripes reported that troops at seven bases in Iraq were to get fresh deep dish pizza straight from Chicago as part of their 4th of July celebrations, courtesy of an idea from a retired airman and the generosity of hundreds of others. The 3,000 pizzas — each with a pound of cheese and packed with other toppings — were cooked by Lou Malnati’s Restaurant staffers last week, then shipped though New York, Belgium and Bahrain on their way to U.S. troops around Baghdad.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Sort of brings more perspective to parades and picnics and fireworks, doesn’t it?

[H/T to Bob Krum for the video and details - and the title.]

Three of the six Marines in this photograph died in later fighting on Iwo Jima. A fourth lived the rest of his life a broken man, wracked by survivor guilt. Overall, 6,825 Marines perished in the battle. [Source]

Two photos:

Scary, isn’t it…

Just when you think the nanny state lawyers and judges up in Canada can’t find more areas to stick their noses in where they don’t belong comes this newest gem: 12-Year-Old Grounded for Too Much Internet Use Gets Punishment Overturned in Court.

You read that right, as the news story relates:

A Quebec Superior Court judge has overturned a father’s punishment for his daughter in which the father denied her permission to attend a school trip. Her offense was to disobey her father’s instructions to stay off the internet by continuing to utilize online chat sites and posting posting “inappropriate” pictures of herself online using a friend’s computer. Her behavior was the culmination of a history of disciplinary problems.

However, the judge in her infinitely superior wisdom decided the father’s punishment was too severe.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The first question that screams out from this story is this: how did this case get to a court hearing before this judge in the first place. Why wasn’t it laughed out of court?

Since there isn’t a whiff of abuse that might mandate custody being taken from the parents, why does a judge see fit to waste his time and everyone’s money to intervene in a case of parental discipline? The girl stepped over boundaries regarding her use of the internet (for which her parents face strict liability) and her father appropriately decided to show his daughter that her choices has consequences. How is it that the judge decided to intervene with the authority of the government as a substitute for the parents’ considered judgment, who are responsible for this child until she reaches the age of majority.

This just demonstrates the truth of the slippery slope arguments about government intrusions into parenting practices, such as spanking children. Regardless of one’s view on the merits of the practice, the state has no business mandating or forbidding it. (I’m not talking about genuine physical child abuse, where the state does have a legitimate interest.)

The father’s lawyers, thankfully plan to appeal this decision:

The punishment was for the girl’s “own protection,” according to the father’s attorney, Kim Beaudoin, who is appealing the ruling. “She’s a child,” Beaudoin told AFP. “At her age, children test their limits and it’s up to their parent to set boundaries. I started an appeal of the decision today to reestablish parental authority, and to ensure that this case doesn’t set a precedent.”

Otherwise, she continued, “Parents are going to be walking on egg shells from now on.”

Eggshells? Try abject cowering before determined judicial micromanagement…

Or does this judge want to expand her juvenile criminal docket in the years to come?

Thus, in the interests of promoting sound parenting practices here at ARS, I’d like to add my own advice as to how to handle this judge’s decisions

Specifically, we all know that logical consequences is widely recommended as a good parenting practice. How about the adults in this world apply logical consequences to this judge’s out-of-control behavior. I could think of a few possible ideas:

1) If the judge has children, appoint a court review panel to micromanage the judge’s parenting, empowering the panel to review every parenting decision of the judge and to mandate their own preferred decisions as their sole discretion, with all expenses of this panel (including time) to be paid by the judge.

2) Turn over full decision-making power for this 12-year old child, plus legal liability for the child’s behavior, to the judge, such that she has to make every parenting decision, day-and-night, with 24/7 availability by cell phone (at a minimum) and at no pay.

Other suggestions welcomed in the comments.

Todays Wall Street Journal features a fascinating article by Mary Anastasia O’Grady that brought to my attention for the first time the two-faced game that government plays with environmentalism with regards to natural resources development.

In her article, titled Why Brazil Isn’t Ashamed to Exploit Its Oil, the author provides a number of examples to defend the following thesis:

I have another theory. And mine fits the pattern of resource development – or lack thereof – all over the Western Hemisphere. It comes down to this: Where government has the property right, restrictions on development tend to be low. But when the private sector is the owner, environmental concerns blossom.

Or to put it another way, when natural resources are in the hands of private companies, the national government teams with environmental organizations and local governmental agencies to block development of the resources.

When governmental agencies hold a controlling financial interest, or at least a substantial financial interest, then they override environmental concerns in favor of aggressively developing the resource.

In other words, no surprise - give government a big enough piece of the revenue pie for its own purposes, then blocks to development on environmental grounds conveniently disappear.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been busy much of this week preparing a sermon that I gave at church earlier today, Father’s Day, my first full sermon ever. The purpose was to affirming the necessity of fathers in our 21st century post-modern America, not through a jeremiad against contemporary trends, but rather presenting a role model for fathers who want to make a difference.

Fathers: who needs them?

Throughout most of human history, such a question would have been considered nonsensical.

But, in today’s affluent societies of Europe and North America, and increasingly in Asia, this question is now deadly serious, as the traditional structures of clan and family, along with established roles of men and women, have steadily loosened in consequence of extensive urbanization and increased mobility, along with a reduced threat of visitations from the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: war, pestilence, famine, and early death.

We have first witnessed a winnowing down of blood relationships to the primacy of the so-called “nuclear family” - and now we see an explosion of various alternative structures claiming entitlement to the title of family. We various combinations involving single parents or two adults - married or not, same or different sexes. We have proliferating familial permutations through divorce or break-up of one pair and the forming of new pairs - leading to the rise of so-called “blended families”. Nor are we restricted to pairs: we also are seeing in certain subcultures the rise of de facto polygamy where one male fathers children with multiple women, usually without marrying any of them - and women whose children have different fathers.

Read the rest of this entry »

After all, that program for change first published as the Communist Manifesto has worked so well over the past 160 years: Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe…

(H/T)

In case you’ve been incredulous as to Barack Obama’s ascendence to the cusp of the Democratic party nomination, this video explains the whole Obama messianic movement in terms anyone can understand.

Please make sure you wait at least two hours after eating before watching; I will not be responsible for damage to keyboards and cleaning bills. (H/T)

After all, 16,000,000,000,000 flies can’t be wrong, right?

I spotted this Wall Street Journal article today Protesting the Antiwar Protestors highlighting the Chester County [PA] Victory Movement, which began nine months ago as one man’s protest at the Chester County Courthouse against anti-war protesters and has now become a weekly presence to challenge the anti-war group that has regularly protested there since 2003. Here’s a video of their May 3, 2008 action.

Indeed the group now has it’s own website too: http://americansheepdogs.com/

Today, Memorial Day 2008, the site pays tribute to our soldiers, humbly observing:

But in reality, we are just the Sheep - the real Sheepdogs, the ones who are putting their lives on the line and deserve our gratitude and honor, are the US Soldiers. On this Memorial Day most of us will do just that, we will remember our fallen heroes and we will give them our most solemn thanks.

Definitely a site worth paying a visit to. (And while you’re there, be sure to follow the link to their page about the sheepdogs.)

This WSJ article once again gives testimony to the power of a single dedicated individual to affect his world, in this case a retiree from the Navy after 20 years of service by the name of Ron Davis, who, as the article explains, at first hoped someone would challenge the anti-war protesters, speak up for the troops, and defend their mission. On Sept. 8, 2007 he decided that someone had to be him, and he received a rather unwelcoming reception from the protesters whom he attempted to stand next to with his dissenting sign.

Ron persisted, but it is also true that we are stronger when we are not alone - we need support from others who are willing to stand by our side. The WSJ article also notes the critical assistance from Gathering of Eagles, who a few weeks after Ron Davis began his solitary protests came to show solidarity, bringing some 40 sign-holding, flag-waving supporters to stand at his side and have joined with him since.

Today, Ron, we at ARS stand with you too and with groups like Gathering of Eagles to honor our troops fighting on our behalf and to pay tribute to those who have fallen in battle.

“Greater love has no man than that he lay down his life for his friends”. These words recorded from the Last Supper continue to echo down the ages - and continue to confound us. Few of us encounter such an occasion, and fewer find the courage to do so. Yet for the most part, such self-sacrifice remains unfathomable. And those who have ended up surviving acts of self-sacrifice, the mystery persist, as most can say little more than that it wasn’t something that they thought about or debated - they just did it.

So for this Memorial Day, I would link our readers to an article titled The Lost Heroes of the War on Terror that Jeff Emanuel wrote for Memorial Day 2007, in which he introduces us to four heroes from Iraq representing each of the branches of our military forces:

Michael Monsoor, United States Navy
Jason Dunham, United States Marine Corps
Ross McGinnis, United States Army
Jason Cunningham, United States Air Force

Three of these have now received the Congressional Medal of Honor.

We at ARS salute these young men and the unfathomable nobility of their spirits - and express our condolences to the families and friends of these men along with our gratitude for their sacrifices. May their work not be in vain.

Senator Obama gets more delusional each time he opens his mouth on foreign affairs.

In a interview with an Orlando Sentinel, Obama has this to say regarding our favorite Central American thug (H/T):

I would be willing to initiate such talks with leaders of countries adversarial to the United States. There would be a lot of preparation. The first steps would not be to pre-judge all the items on the list.

…

One of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the fermentation of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about. It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests.

There needs to be a shift in foreign politics and return to traditional foreign politics that were supported by both Republicans and Democrats in the past.

What a lovely Orwellian twist you’ve provided at the end, where you claim that your approach represents a return to traditional U.S. foreign policy practiced by both Democrats and Republicans. So you evidently must be longing for a return of the Clinton administration’s naked diplomacy, or lusting in your heart for the glorious bipartisan era of Jimmy Carter and his foreign policy triumphs… (Now that’s a list shorter than the list of French Military Victories.)

Traditional foreign policy, my ass!

Indeed, we haven’t seen a genuine bipartisan consensus on foreign policy since the Eisenhower administration, or perhaps the early days of the Kennedy administration, before the Democratic Party made a hard-left turn.

The only phrase missing from Sen. Obama’s interview is his solemnly declaring that all previous statements are now inoperative. But then again, surely we’ve heard and know that Messiah means never having to be held accountable to the same standards as other political leaders. (Sound vaguely familiar?)

Among Sen. Obama’s disturbingly illogical and dangerous blather, what was most absurd and fatally misguided is that second-to-last sentence, which I’ll quote again so that you can let it sink in:

It is important to understand that ignoring these countries has not led to improved behavior on their part and it has not served our national security interests.

Excuse me, Senator Obama? We’re clearly not ignoring Hugo Chavez. Certainly Hugo doesn’t feel we’re ignoring him, as he keeps claiming that the U.S. is trying to overthrow him and invoking that threat as a pretextual justification for his dictatorial action.

(Note to you Chavez apologists out there: the U.S. doesn’t force Hugo Chavez to behave dictatorially, we’re not responsible for his actions: Hugo Chavez is responsible for his perceptions and for his choice of response.)

So clearly we’re not ignoring Chavez, as our support for Columbia demonstrates.

(Or is it that the ignoring is actually coming from Obama and his Democratic big-labor, anti-trade fellow-travellers, who willfully ignore Hugo Chavez by betraying our friends, the Columbian government, to curry domestic partisan advantage. Nothing like attributing to one’s opponent the very behavior one is acting out.)

Indeed, Sen. Obama could only title as “ignoring” our present administration’s actions toward Hugo Chavez if he defines “ignoring” strictly as “not talking” and nothing else. Or if he defines “ignoring” as choosing to not dance to their tune at their whim.

If so, Sen. Obama, then by all means we need to “ignore” your pronouncements: there’s nothing to discuss. While you blunder onwards, we adults in the room are going to continue to “ignore” Hugo Chavez by your definition while we take effective measures to deal with his unacceptable behavior

Senator, have you ever raised children or had to deal with bullies? Then you know damn well that you don’t reward misconduct by trying to talk with them without any demands or preconditions, as though the mere act of talking will turn around their behavior. That rightly is called appeasement. In child rearing or controlling bullies, while appeasing misbehavior may buy a moment’s peace, it’s disastrous in the longer term.

Same with dealing with Hugo Chavez, a bully at heart.

I wish it were possible to ignore you, Sen Obama. If this is the drivel that the advisors you listen to are feeding you, God help our country if you become our next President!

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Here uncensored (and unauthorized) are the collected replies of the management here at ARS:

Duncan

He heard me loading my M-4 and realized if he didn’t move out of range right away, he’d be my next dinner.

Raven

He was a dickless liberal wimp without any balls who decided to get out of the way because he knew he couldn’t handle an encounter with a real woman. If only he’d joined the Marines, he’d have learned how to be a man rooster instead of a capon. What’s the opposite of **THUD**…?

civil truth

That’s a very deep riddle that has puzzled the great philosophers down through the ages.

In the earliest known historical allusion, it was recorded that Aristotle posed this question to Archimedes at an alpha prayer breakfast. That same afternoon, while taking his daily bath, Archimedes in a flash of insight, leapt from his tub, and rushed through the streets of Syracuse towards Aristotle’s house, brandishing a sword and shouting Μολὼν λαβέ. Fortunately for the latter, the local gendarmerie arrived first and promptly hauled Archimedes off to a padded cell (after relieving him of possession of his weapon). After calming down a bit, Archimedes turned his attention to pondering how he could manage to displace the prison walls from his path (which later gave rise to his famous boast that he would move the earth if someone could provide him with a place to stand).

The great Roman philosopher Seneca, in response to the badgerings of his students, posted this famous quatrain as a response:

Obile heres ago,
Fortibus est in aro.
Nobile deis dux,
Summa causen, summa trux.

After these verses were brought to the attention of the Emperor Nero, Seneca received his just reward: an imperial sentence of death by poison.

Centuries later, when Voltaire was asked this question, he immediately leapt to his feet and shouted: Vivre libre ou mourir!, which historians have later memorialized as the opening salvo of the French Revolution.

Scholars have since spilled much ink (including at least eleven books and six Ph.D. theses) attempting to decipher the origins of this astounding declaration. However, recent unpublished memoires of Voltaire found at a yard sale in Yardley, Pennsylvania in 2005 have revealed a more pedestrian explanation: Voltaire, as he confessed later to his landlord, simply had misheard the question and thought that his wife was demanding that he put out the garbage across the street. Indeed, he was quite miffed that this phrase of his should have sparked the overthrow of the hated French monarchy, whereas his learned treatises had evoked scarcely a ripple on the lake of history.

* * * * * * * * * *

With all due to respect to the great masters who have gone before me, I would humbly reply:

Because he knew where his next meal was coming from.

Raven, before you go over to the Dark Side, promise me you’ll check out this newest John McCain video. I guarantee it’ll make you change your mind.

I’m never going to give you up to Hillary without a fight.

(Update April 2 12:01am) We now return to our regularly scheduled blogging.

Today’s edition of the comic strip Pearls before Swine contains the most concise précis of the program of the Democratic Party that I’ve seen to date.

Since I couldn’t copy it here, you’ll have to follow this link to read the original comic.

However, I’ve copied the essential dialog here below:

Panel 1:
Danny Donkey was sad

Panel 2:
Sad because everyone around him was good-looking. And he was not

Panel 3:
So Danny Donkey went to a genie and asked to be good looking.

Panel 4:
“That is too much work on my part,” said the genie, “But I can give you this.”

Panel 5:
And with that, the genie handed over what appeared to be some magical wand, and told Danny what it was and how to use it.

Panel 6:
And so, later that day, Danny went out and hit every good-looking person he could find with his own Ugly Stick.

Panel 7:
“Because kids, if you can’t make yourself better, make those around you worse.”

Stephen Paskis, the comic’s creator, clearly was channeling George Orwell today, as in Animal Farm.

This strip describes socialism (the politics of envy) at its purest essence.

And like Orwell’s farm denizens at the end of his novel, I can’t see any difference between this strip and the patent medicine that our Democratic Presidential candidates and Congressional representatives are peddling.