“ December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy”
Just off the coast of the island of Oahu, in the Hawaiian Islands, is the USS Arizona Memorial. If you visit this World War II shrine you will learn that 2388 United States personnel were killed and 1,178 were wounded in an unprovoked attack. Twelve US ships were sunk or beached and nine were damaged. On the ground, 164 US aircraft were destroyed and 159 were damaged.
Two governments were negotiating their differences and one decided to choose war. The deliberate, planned strategy was to immobilize the US Pacific Fleet so that the United States could not interfere with the aggressor’s invasions throughout the Pacific.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech to the Congress of the United States begins: “Yesterday, December 7, 1941 – a date which will live in infamy – the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” The President describes severe damage and loss of American lives. He went on to state that simultaneous attacks were launched against Malaya, Hong Kong, Guam, the Philippine Islands, Wake Island and Midway Island
As Commander in Chief, the President had no choice but to defend “the very life and safety of our nation.” He stated unequivocally, “No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory…I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again. Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger. With confidence in our armed forces – we will gain the inevitable triumph – so help us God.” President Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war based on the unprovoked, premeditated and “dastardly attack.” We went to war.
Take time to reflect on the events that led to December 7, 1941 and the President’s speech the next day. Attend a ceremony and watch seven men raise rifles to their shoulders and fire three volleys, a 21gun salute. Hear the bugler play his mournful tune, Taps. See the American flag folded. How often has the bugler played those notes that penetrate solemn, earthy stillness and quiet?
See the tears come to the veteran’s eye. What is it he remembers? What has he seen? Which of his buddies’ faces comes back to him as the bugler plays Taps? He does not want his sons or their sons to experience the carnage of war. Isn’t that why he served? Has he shown them his Combat Infantry Badge or his Bronze Star? Has he said anything to them about the horrors he has experienced?
Does your mother have a shadow box containing medals and ribbons of her brother who died after a lifetime in military service to his country? Do you understand the significance of his Bronze Star with Oak Leaf Clusters and his Silver Star?
Our Founding Fathers were armed with the conviction that political freedom is an ideal worth fighting for. Their moral certainty gave them the courage of their convictions. President Roosevelt realized our survival depended on our moral certainty and courage to use our might to defend our freedom. It is no different today. Listen to the bugler. Look into the eyes of a veteran. If we cannot see why we fight for our freedom, and therefore all people’s freedom, we are blind to the graves of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. On December 7, remember that eternal vigilance and the will to exercise our strength is the price of freedom.
Sunday, December 07, 2003
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Withdraw from the UN
Withdraw from the UN
In 1974, Ayn Rand addressed the graduating cadets at West Point. An abridged version of her remarks follows: “Our armed services have preserved three characteristics that were typical of America’s birth, but are virtually non-existent today. They are earnestness, dedication and a sense of honor. Honor is self-esteem made visible in action. The army of a free nation has the responsibility to use force as an instrument of self-defense, which means the defense of a man’s individual rights. The principle subordinating might to right is to use force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army has achieved it. ...To all the men of West Point, past, present and future: Thank you.” Ayn Rand came to this country from the USSR, a country guilty of the worst tyranny on earth. She expressed her appreciation for the supreme value US soldiers would defend.
The September 11 attacks led us to ask why do terrorists hate the U.S.? We can pose the same question to those who oppose war with Iraq. The anti-war view is not a demonstration against military aggressions of Russia or Iraq. It is solely America, retaliating against the threat of aggression that evokes widespread hostility. It is anti-American because our country has declared a moral right to uphold its self-interest. Protestors oppose individualism that lies at America’s foundation. They despise capitalism where the individual is sovereign, free to live his own life and pursue his own values. They despise the idea that America has the sovereign right to defend its self-interest, irrespective of the wishes of the international community.
Anti-war protestors are not against an invasion of Iraq, if authorized by the U.N. They don’t want the decision to be made by the United States. They seek America’s deferral to the UN, as “a higher power.” But it is one’s moral right to uphold one’s self interest. Undercutting America’s sovereignty by surrendering the principal of individualism to the principle of collectivism is their motive.
Islamic terrorists seek that as well. They want us to renounce individualism and bow to theocratic dictates. “Anti-war” activists want the individual to subordinate his freedom to the collective of his community. They want the government of a free people to subordinate the liberty of its citizens to the collective of the international community.
Peter Schwartz wrote on March 17, “We are smeared as “unilateralists” if we defend our interests by engaging in military action ... We are smeared as “isolationists” if we defend our interests by not sending troops on altruistic, “peacekeeping” missions. Every refusal to sacrifice ourselves to the demands of others provokes the same essential response.”
The United States will not capitulate to anti-American protestors. We will not mollify the U.N. We will act on our moral right to defend ourselves, regardless of the wishes of any other nation. The choice of how the United States defends itself is not to be made by the collective called the U.N. Can any American believe that cynical France, resentful Russia, and the enlightened powers of Angola, Cameroon and Chile should decide our security? The only thing that gives the U.N. legitimacy is the United States, i.e., our money, our might and our moral sanction.
We should withdraw from the U.N. and let it fail as a debating society. This would permanently unshackle U.S. foreign policy from the debilitating consensus of the corrupt collection of regimes that run it.
In 1974, Ayn Rand addressed the graduating cadets at West Point. An abridged version of her remarks follows: “Our armed services have preserved three characteristics that were typical of America’s birth, but are virtually non-existent today. They are earnestness, dedication and a sense of honor. Honor is self-esteem made visible in action. The army of a free nation has the responsibility to use force as an instrument of self-defense, which means the defense of a man’s individual rights. The principle subordinating might to right is to use force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use. The highest integrity and sense of honor are required for such a task. No other army has achieved it. ...To all the men of West Point, past, present and future: Thank you.” Ayn Rand came to this country from the USSR, a country guilty of the worst tyranny on earth. She expressed her appreciation for the supreme value US soldiers would defend.
The September 11 attacks led us to ask why do terrorists hate the U.S.? We can pose the same question to those who oppose war with Iraq. The anti-war view is not a demonstration against military aggressions of Russia or Iraq. It is solely America, retaliating against the threat of aggression that evokes widespread hostility. It is anti-American because our country has declared a moral right to uphold its self-interest. Protestors oppose individualism that lies at America’s foundation. They despise capitalism where the individual is sovereign, free to live his own life and pursue his own values. They despise the idea that America has the sovereign right to defend its self-interest, irrespective of the wishes of the international community.
Anti-war protestors are not against an invasion of Iraq, if authorized by the U.N. They don’t want the decision to be made by the United States. They seek America’s deferral to the UN, as “a higher power.” But it is one’s moral right to uphold one’s self interest. Undercutting America’s sovereignty by surrendering the principal of individualism to the principle of collectivism is their motive.
Islamic terrorists seek that as well. They want us to renounce individualism and bow to theocratic dictates. “Anti-war” activists want the individual to subordinate his freedom to the collective of his community. They want the government of a free people to subordinate the liberty of its citizens to the collective of the international community.
Peter Schwartz wrote on March 17, “We are smeared as “unilateralists” if we defend our interests by engaging in military action ... We are smeared as “isolationists” if we defend our interests by not sending troops on altruistic, “peacekeeping” missions. Every refusal to sacrifice ourselves to the demands of others provokes the same essential response.”
The United States will not capitulate to anti-American protestors. We will not mollify the U.N. We will act on our moral right to defend ourselves, regardless of the wishes of any other nation. The choice of how the United States defends itself is not to be made by the collective called the U.N. Can any American believe that cynical France, resentful Russia, and the enlightened powers of Angola, Cameroon and Chile should decide our security? The only thing that gives the U.N. legitimacy is the United States, i.e., our money, our might and our moral sanction.
We should withdraw from the U.N. and let it fail as a debating society. This would permanently unshackle U.S. foreign policy from the debilitating consensus of the corrupt collection of regimes that run it.
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Volunteerism
Volunteerism
A few years ago, President Clinton called for hundreds of thousands of volunteers to teach children how to read because schools weren’t. One year later, President Clinton continued to call for mandatory “volunteer” service for all school students. The President went even further by saying it would be good for fourth and eighth graders to learn the “joy and duty” of service. President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have made similar statements.
None of our leaders explained how “public service” is morally uplifting to students. If few are getting around to teaching students how to read, what were the government and schools doing with the world’s largest expenditure on education?
Some defend mandatory service by saying: “If we can require English and math, why shouldn’t we require public service?” If the purpose of education is moral indoctrination, compulsion and punishment, this is a good point. If the purpose of education is to teach skills that help individuals to produce achieve and build their own lives the focus should be teaching students to read, think clearly and solve basic arithmetic problems.
The purpose for volunteerism is service for its own sake and not whether it helps the recipient. Why else mandate public service for nine year old fourth graders? What would nine year olds be required to do? Read to the elderly? Ooops! Can’t be that – these children can’t read, remember? Have nine year olds in the past succeeded where $5 trillion in government expense (War on Poverty) has failed? Are nine year olds expected to learn to live for others and surrender their lives and their values to the government at the earliest possible age? If they surrender the right to live for themselves, they will serve the purpose of those who want to exercise power over every detail of their lives.
Mandatory volunteerism forces Americans to serve those who do not produce, achieve, invent or create. We were liberated from that thinking when the Founding Fathers proclaimed the inalienable right of each individual to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If our presidents, secretaries and the education establishment continue to focus on their goal of teaching “every young American” the “joy and duty of service” - that they have no moral right to pursue their own happiness but a duty to pursue everyone else’s – our freedoms recede into history. Then it will make no difference if anyone can read or not.
Where has it been proven that service in slums and nursing homes is a moral ideal that will galvanize our youth, adding value and significance to their lives? The young are not motivated by the prospect of selfless service at a homeless shelter. They are motivated by budding careers in business, law, medicine and computer science. They need a vision of man the hero, the bold individual, who holds his own values, sets his own goals and pursues his own happiness. This inspiration is especially important to the poor, the handicap, and immigrants, for they face great obstacles to achieving personal success. An Oprah Winfrey who rises from poverty, succeeds by her own effort and becomes the wealthiest woman in America will offer more hope to our young than indentured servitude offered by President Clinton.
There is nothing wrong with an individual doing charity work, if it is not a sacrifice for him. Charity is not a moral ideal, nor does human life depend on it. Achievement is the moral ideal because man’s life does depend on it.
The sight of Michael Jordan soaring through the air, winning championships, earning millions, then flashing his brilliant smile – his extraordinary success – has inspired far more young people to strive for their own dreams. Certainly far more than an army of social workers could ever think possible. As Ayn Rand wrote in “Atlas Shrugged,” “The sight of an achievement is the greatest gift that a human being could offer others.”
A few years ago, President Clinton called for hundreds of thousands of volunteers to teach children how to read because schools weren’t. One year later, President Clinton continued to call for mandatory “volunteer” service for all school students. The President went even further by saying it would be good for fourth and eighth graders to learn the “joy and duty” of service. President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have made similar statements.
None of our leaders explained how “public service” is morally uplifting to students. If few are getting around to teaching students how to read, what were the government and schools doing with the world’s largest expenditure on education?
Some defend mandatory service by saying: “If we can require English and math, why shouldn’t we require public service?” If the purpose of education is moral indoctrination, compulsion and punishment, this is a good point. If the purpose of education is to teach skills that help individuals to produce achieve and build their own lives the focus should be teaching students to read, think clearly and solve basic arithmetic problems.
The purpose for volunteerism is service for its own sake and not whether it helps the recipient. Why else mandate public service for nine year old fourth graders? What would nine year olds be required to do? Read to the elderly? Ooops! Can’t be that – these children can’t read, remember? Have nine year olds in the past succeeded where $5 trillion in government expense (War on Poverty) has failed? Are nine year olds expected to learn to live for others and surrender their lives and their values to the government at the earliest possible age? If they surrender the right to live for themselves, they will serve the purpose of those who want to exercise power over every detail of their lives.
Mandatory volunteerism forces Americans to serve those who do not produce, achieve, invent or create. We were liberated from that thinking when the Founding Fathers proclaimed the inalienable right of each individual to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If our presidents, secretaries and the education establishment continue to focus on their goal of teaching “every young American” the “joy and duty of service” - that they have no moral right to pursue their own happiness but a duty to pursue everyone else’s – our freedoms recede into history. Then it will make no difference if anyone can read or not.
Where has it been proven that service in slums and nursing homes is a moral ideal that will galvanize our youth, adding value and significance to their lives? The young are not motivated by the prospect of selfless service at a homeless shelter. They are motivated by budding careers in business, law, medicine and computer science. They need a vision of man the hero, the bold individual, who holds his own values, sets his own goals and pursues his own happiness. This inspiration is especially important to the poor, the handicap, and immigrants, for they face great obstacles to achieving personal success. An Oprah Winfrey who rises from poverty, succeeds by her own effort and becomes the wealthiest woman in America will offer more hope to our young than indentured servitude offered by President Clinton.
There is nothing wrong with an individual doing charity work, if it is not a sacrifice for him. Charity is not a moral ideal, nor does human life depend on it. Achievement is the moral ideal because man’s life does depend on it.
The sight of Michael Jordan soaring through the air, winning championships, earning millions, then flashing his brilliant smile – his extraordinary success – has inspired far more young people to strive for their own dreams. Certainly far more than an army of social workers could ever think possible. As Ayn Rand wrote in “Atlas Shrugged,” “The sight of an achievement is the greatest gift that a human being could offer others.”
Friday, July 11, 2003
Is your home your castle?
Is your home your castle?
The July 10, 2003 Beacon editorial states, “A recent supreme court ruling has turned upside down the right of the municipalities over zoning matters making it now the obligation of the community to show why they shouldn’t approve applications from property owners for overbuilding, over extending and otherwise violating local building and (sic) code laws.” Just to clarify some of these thoughts, zoning laws describe land use. Building codes describe minimum structural requirements for construction and fire code compliance. If used effectively, they can be risk management tools that save lives. What is important is to identify whether a municipality or planning board is attempting to regulate whether your property is yours or the government’s to control through zoning. The specific case in question involved the height of a decorative wrought iron gate. The municipality claimed its “right” to limit the height to four feet that was out of proportion to the scale of the property. The owner desired an eight-foot high, ornately gated entrance to his mansion.
Using a theoretical example, a municipality’s zoning laws tell an owner that he can or cannot build a single-family home on his land, even if it is adjacent to other suburban homes. Laws establishing “historic districts,” “landmarks,” or “improvement zones” vex owners who are consequently unable to erect fences, change rain gutters, add rooms, paint their houses, remove trees or install a gate. It is estimated that these regulations are responsible for nearly thirty percent of the cost of a home and are a major cause of soaring home prices – effectively restricting who can buy a home and where.
These government regulations demand the sacrifice of the property owner’s rights to the esthetic “preferences” of random strangers. What is the reason? The planning agency has not said that the construction of a new home is a hazard to others. It has not said that construction will cause pollution to flow from one property to someone else’s property. Should esthetic opinions dominate? The government essentially wants power to control the design choice of the property owner in the name of the non-property–owning public.
This sort of power abuse is an inversion of the very purpose of government. There is no such thing as a “right to a pleasing view.” If one owns property, one has the moral right to control it – even if that conflicts with the esthetic tastes of a passerby. One has the right to acquire property, and once acquired, to use it without interference from others. An owner must not interfere with the rights of his neighbors to do likewise, but there is no moral basis for demanding that an owner alter his property to make the view more pleasing to an onlooker. Your life (and property) belongs to you and not to others.
The Declaration of Independence reminds us that it is only “to secure these rights” that “governments are instituted among men.” A legitimate government agency would not try to “protect” the view – it should do all that it could to protect the property of (home) owners from interferences of tourists and neighbors who claim to have a view that they are unwilling or unable to pay for. Planning agencies do not have the right to plan away the rights of property owners in order to satisfy the preferences of others.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence warned about incursions on our rights, writing, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” In our villages and towns, the basic notion of the right to property is under attack. The court ruled correctly for individual rights.
The July 10, 2003 Beacon editorial states, “A recent supreme court ruling has turned upside down the right of the municipalities over zoning matters making it now the obligation of the community to show why they shouldn’t approve applications from property owners for overbuilding, over extending and otherwise violating local building and (sic) code laws.” Just to clarify some of these thoughts, zoning laws describe land use. Building codes describe minimum structural requirements for construction and fire code compliance. If used effectively, they can be risk management tools that save lives. What is important is to identify whether a municipality or planning board is attempting to regulate whether your property is yours or the government’s to control through zoning. The specific case in question involved the height of a decorative wrought iron gate. The municipality claimed its “right” to limit the height to four feet that was out of proportion to the scale of the property. The owner desired an eight-foot high, ornately gated entrance to his mansion.
Using a theoretical example, a municipality’s zoning laws tell an owner that he can or cannot build a single-family home on his land, even if it is adjacent to other suburban homes. Laws establishing “historic districts,” “landmarks,” or “improvement zones” vex owners who are consequently unable to erect fences, change rain gutters, add rooms, paint their houses, remove trees or install a gate. It is estimated that these regulations are responsible for nearly thirty percent of the cost of a home and are a major cause of soaring home prices – effectively restricting who can buy a home and where.
These government regulations demand the sacrifice of the property owner’s rights to the esthetic “preferences” of random strangers. What is the reason? The planning agency has not said that the construction of a new home is a hazard to others. It has not said that construction will cause pollution to flow from one property to someone else’s property. Should esthetic opinions dominate? The government essentially wants power to control the design choice of the property owner in the name of the non-property–owning public.
This sort of power abuse is an inversion of the very purpose of government. There is no such thing as a “right to a pleasing view.” If one owns property, one has the moral right to control it – even if that conflicts with the esthetic tastes of a passerby. One has the right to acquire property, and once acquired, to use it without interference from others. An owner must not interfere with the rights of his neighbors to do likewise, but there is no moral basis for demanding that an owner alter his property to make the view more pleasing to an onlooker. Your life (and property) belongs to you and not to others.
The Declaration of Independence reminds us that it is only “to secure these rights” that “governments are instituted among men.” A legitimate government agency would not try to “protect” the view – it should do all that it could to protect the property of (home) owners from interferences of tourists and neighbors who claim to have a view that they are unwilling or unable to pay for. Planning agencies do not have the right to plan away the rights of property owners in order to satisfy the preferences of others.
The authors of the Declaration of Independence warned about incursions on our rights, writing, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” In our villages and towns, the basic notion of the right to property is under attack. The court ruled correctly for individual rights.
Saturday, May 31, 2003
Memorial Day 2003
Memorial Day
Memorial Day is special to all who love freedom. It is a day set aside to remember the bravery, sense of duty, honor and ultimate sacrifice of those who have protected our freedom and those who do so today.
Do you remember the Big Band sound of the Glen Miller Orchestra? Can you remember the World War II tune “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree with Anyone Else but Me?” The West Islip High School dance band often played it in the 60’s. We learned the music but not the lyrics. Play Glen Miller’s version today and listen to the lyrics. The male singer asks his girl friend to remain faithful while he’s away. She responds by asking him to remain faithful to her and not place a girl upon his knee while he is on foreign shores. They join in the reprise and promise not to sit under the old apple tree until you come marching home. The words are light-hearted emotions shared by many thousands who were separated by war.
Baseball was our favorite sport in my neighborhood in West Islip. We spent many childhood hours playing baseball and stickball. Some of the guys could really hit a baseball or a Spalding. We’d pretend we were our favorite baseball heroes. We learned to field the short hop and make the pivot for the double play at second base. We walked, talked and read about baseball. There was an illustration in the 1957 sport pages of Ted Williams trying to land a fish, which was inscribed “. 400 batting average.” Could he land that title again? And Mickey Mantle was fishing with him. Conversations were about how many home runs Ted might have hit if he had not served in WWII and rejoined the service to fly missions in the Korean War. After serving in two wars, Ted Williams hit .388 in 1957.
As kids growing up during the Cold War, we practiced air raid drills in elementary school through high school. The fear and threat was that communist Russia would launch an attack of intercontinental ballistic missiles or missiles with nuclear warheads. The theory was if the US matched the USSR, the threat of retaliation implied total destruction of life on earth. Therefore, no one would ever be foolish enough to “press the button.”
Some of the victims of the Cold War included men who died on the Scorpion, a nuclear submarine. One of those was Joe Miller from West Islip. Joe could hit a baseball a long way. We played pick up games, for example, Arcadia Drive vs. Roderick Road. If you played on Joe’s team, you’d anticipate him hitting a long beautiful arc, like Ted Williams. If you played against him, you’d hope you could run like Joe DiMaggio or Mickey Mantle and catch his line drive. If you get a chance, stop at the intersection of Higbie Lane and Montauk Highway in West Islip. Look for a granite block with Joe’s name on it. Remember a kid who played baseball and became a member of the “silent service.”
Some volunteered and some were drafted and went to Viet Nam in the sixties and seventies. Others went into the National Guard. One who played stickball and baseball on Arcadia Drive wrestled for West Islip High School. Bill Richter was a scrapper with undefeatable spirit, who appeared in the state finals in the 98 lb class one year and the 105 lb class the next. As a Marine, Bill went to Viet Nam. During a patrol, the point man stepped on a land mine. Bill was injured, sent home and died a year later. His name does not appear on the Wall in Washington but we, who knew him, remember. Over 58,000 Americans died in VN.
My first night on a bunker near the perimeter of Long Bihn, a former rubber plantation, was in August 1971. It was cooler on top of the bunker than in it. Before dawn, there was movement on the nearby highway. As light pierced the dark sky, Vietnamese could be seen walking, carrying their children and belongings. They were refugees. Some had carts with wooden wheels drawn by water buffalo. I wondered if we had gone back in time 5,000 years? There were other nights and situations when fear gripped our squad. Men cried out to God, others for their mothers. And I wondered why a West Islip kid, who played baseball and stickball, was away from home, half way around the world.
Today, we remember those who perished on September 11, 2001. The attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center was an attack on civilization. When the WTC was attacked, we were shocked and could not comprehend the depth of evil, the evil that worships death and the subjugation of our consciousness to the destruction of existence. This evil is worse than anything we feared in Viet Nam. That initiation of force ended any thought of morality because we do not place moral sanction on murderers. Terrorists do not wish to live. Their morality is death. Death is their value system and their chosen goal. Today we are in a fight for freedom and our way of life. Paraphrasing John Galt’s speech in “Atlas Shrugged” written by Ayn Rand: “Reason, purpose and self-esteem are our values. Reason is man’s only tool. Purpose is the choice of happiness. Self-esteem is man’s certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. Our morality is life while the terrorists’ is the antithesis.”
Remember the men and women of our armed services who are fighting this war against evil today. Understand their act of service for this country is to preserve our freedom and our choice to live. Let the world know that America stands for freedom for all people.
Memorial Day is special to all who love freedom. It is a day set aside to remember the bravery, sense of duty, honor and ultimate sacrifice of those who have protected our freedom and those who do so today.
Do you remember the Big Band sound of the Glen Miller Orchestra? Can you remember the World War II tune “Don’t Sit Under the Apple Tree with Anyone Else but Me?” The West Islip High School dance band often played it in the 60’s. We learned the music but not the lyrics. Play Glen Miller’s version today and listen to the lyrics. The male singer asks his girl friend to remain faithful while he’s away. She responds by asking him to remain faithful to her and not place a girl upon his knee while he is on foreign shores. They join in the reprise and promise not to sit under the old apple tree until you come marching home. The words are light-hearted emotions shared by many thousands who were separated by war.
Baseball was our favorite sport in my neighborhood in West Islip. We spent many childhood hours playing baseball and stickball. Some of the guys could really hit a baseball or a Spalding. We’d pretend we were our favorite baseball heroes. We learned to field the short hop and make the pivot for the double play at second base. We walked, talked and read about baseball. There was an illustration in the 1957 sport pages of Ted Williams trying to land a fish, which was inscribed “. 400 batting average.” Could he land that title again? And Mickey Mantle was fishing with him. Conversations were about how many home runs Ted might have hit if he had not served in WWII and rejoined the service to fly missions in the Korean War. After serving in two wars, Ted Williams hit .388 in 1957.
As kids growing up during the Cold War, we practiced air raid drills in elementary school through high school. The fear and threat was that communist Russia would launch an attack of intercontinental ballistic missiles or missiles with nuclear warheads. The theory was if the US matched the USSR, the threat of retaliation implied total destruction of life on earth. Therefore, no one would ever be foolish enough to “press the button.”
Some of the victims of the Cold War included men who died on the Scorpion, a nuclear submarine. One of those was Joe Miller from West Islip. Joe could hit a baseball a long way. We played pick up games, for example, Arcadia Drive vs. Roderick Road. If you played on Joe’s team, you’d anticipate him hitting a long beautiful arc, like Ted Williams. If you played against him, you’d hope you could run like Joe DiMaggio or Mickey Mantle and catch his line drive. If you get a chance, stop at the intersection of Higbie Lane and Montauk Highway in West Islip. Look for a granite block with Joe’s name on it. Remember a kid who played baseball and became a member of the “silent service.”
Some volunteered and some were drafted and went to Viet Nam in the sixties and seventies. Others went into the National Guard. One who played stickball and baseball on Arcadia Drive wrestled for West Islip High School. Bill Richter was a scrapper with undefeatable spirit, who appeared in the state finals in the 98 lb class one year and the 105 lb class the next. As a Marine, Bill went to Viet Nam. During a patrol, the point man stepped on a land mine. Bill was injured, sent home and died a year later. His name does not appear on the Wall in Washington but we, who knew him, remember. Over 58,000 Americans died in VN.
My first night on a bunker near the perimeter of Long Bihn, a former rubber plantation, was in August 1971. It was cooler on top of the bunker than in it. Before dawn, there was movement on the nearby highway. As light pierced the dark sky, Vietnamese could be seen walking, carrying their children and belongings. They were refugees. Some had carts with wooden wheels drawn by water buffalo. I wondered if we had gone back in time 5,000 years? There were other nights and situations when fear gripped our squad. Men cried out to God, others for their mothers. And I wondered why a West Islip kid, who played baseball and stickball, was away from home, half way around the world.
Today, we remember those who perished on September 11, 2001. The attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center was an attack on civilization. When the WTC was attacked, we were shocked and could not comprehend the depth of evil, the evil that worships death and the subjugation of our consciousness to the destruction of existence. This evil is worse than anything we feared in Viet Nam. That initiation of force ended any thought of morality because we do not place moral sanction on murderers. Terrorists do not wish to live. Their morality is death. Death is their value system and their chosen goal. Today we are in a fight for freedom and our way of life. Paraphrasing John Galt’s speech in “Atlas Shrugged” written by Ayn Rand: “Reason, purpose and self-esteem are our values. Reason is man’s only tool. Purpose is the choice of happiness. Self-esteem is man’s certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. Our morality is life while the terrorists’ is the antithesis.”
Remember the men and women of our armed services who are fighting this war against evil today. Understand their act of service for this country is to preserve our freedom and our choice to live. Let the world know that America stands for freedom for all people.
Sunday, January 19, 2003
Nobel Peace Prize 2002
Nobel Peace Prize
The 1973 Nobel Peace Prize winner was Le Doc Tho, the North Vietnamese Communist, who, along with Ho Chi Minh and other Party leaders, imposed a vicious Communist dictatorship in North Vietnam that slaughtered at least 50,000 Vietnamese in the 1950s and then invaded South Vietnam. The death toll by that Communist dictatorship totaled 2 million. The 1994 prize went to Yassar Arafat, the brutal dictator of the Palestinian Authority, who imposed a despotic regime on his own people and initiated a murderous war against the free citizens of Israel. This years Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to former President Jimmy Carter. The five member committee, solemnly intoned: “In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and international development.” Was this the criteria in 1973 and 1994?
During President Carter’s term of office: The Sandinistas seized Nicaragua and used it as a base to assist anti-American guerillas in El Salvador. Iranians overthrew the pro–American Shah, installed a revolutionary Islamic regime, and in an egregious violation of human rights and international law seized U.S. diplomats and held them as hostages. The USSR installed SS-20 missiles in its then satellites and invaded Afghanistan. These were not years of peace and tranquility.
All told, Carter’s “principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law” created a world that was far more unstable than the one he inherited. If that achievement is the one the Nobel Prize Committee wants emulated, they would have been well advised not to make the award. Carter did manage to convince Egypt to recognize Israel’s right to exist but he did not receive the award for this notable effort. (We support his legacy to the tune of $2 billion a year.) Jimmy Carter won the prize for his intervention with the North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung. At the time, Carter said about the brutal Stalinist dictator, “I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country.”
The police state of North Korea is a dictatorship that starves its people while feeding its million-man army. It sells ballistic missiles to our enemies and it builds nuclear weapons. Jonah Goldberg described Carter’s intervention in the May 15, 2002 issue of the Washington Times as “bollixing up then-President Clinton’s efforts to stop nuclear proliferation in North Korea.”
On October 25, 2002 Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post, “One of the proudest achievements of the Clinton administration was the Agreed Framework with North Korea. Clinton assured us that it froze the North Korean nuclear program. North Korea gave us a piece of paper promising to freeze; we gave North Korea 500,000 tons of free oil every year and set about building – also free – two huge $ 2 billion nuclear power plants that supposedly could be used only to produce electricity. Japan and South Korea were induced to give tons of foreign aid as well…” Eight years later, we learn that a signed agreement has been ignored.
Paper diplomacy such as the North Korean fiasco or the Oslo “peace” between Israel and the Palestinians mean nothing when a dictator renews violence. Written agreements with Kim Il Sung, Yassar Arafat, or Saddam Hussein are worthless. When it comes to al Qaeda and terrorism, to Iraq, to North Korea, no accommodation or negotiation is possible. Political courage, a.k.a. leadership, the will to use force against those who initiate the use of force, is required.
The committee may have looked at the imams and mullahs around the world however the voices of high religious authority in Muslim communities have been deafening silent in the wake of 911. In the 1990s America rescued a beleaguered Islamic people: Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo. We have just liberated a fourth – Afghanistan. Who should be soul searching? Who should be atoning? Who should be reaching out for religious tolerance and acceptance? Carter may not be the worst choice in history for the Nobel Peace Prize. The question is who should have earned it in 2002?
The 1973 Nobel Peace Prize winner was Le Doc Tho, the North Vietnamese Communist, who, along with Ho Chi Minh and other Party leaders, imposed a vicious Communist dictatorship in North Vietnam that slaughtered at least 50,000 Vietnamese in the 1950s and then invaded South Vietnam. The death toll by that Communist dictatorship totaled 2 million. The 1994 prize went to Yassar Arafat, the brutal dictator of the Palestinian Authority, who imposed a despotic regime on his own people and initiated a murderous war against the free citizens of Israel. This years Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to former President Jimmy Carter. The five member committee, solemnly intoned: “In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law, respect for human rights and international development.” Was this the criteria in 1973 and 1994?
During President Carter’s term of office: The Sandinistas seized Nicaragua and used it as a base to assist anti-American guerillas in El Salvador. Iranians overthrew the pro–American Shah, installed a revolutionary Islamic regime, and in an egregious violation of human rights and international law seized U.S. diplomats and held them as hostages. The USSR installed SS-20 missiles in its then satellites and invaded Afghanistan. These were not years of peace and tranquility.
All told, Carter’s “principles that conflicts must as far as possible be resolved through mediation and international cooperation based on international law” created a world that was far more unstable than the one he inherited. If that achievement is the one the Nobel Prize Committee wants emulated, they would have been well advised not to make the award. Carter did manage to convince Egypt to recognize Israel’s right to exist but he did not receive the award for this notable effort. (We support his legacy to the tune of $2 billion a year.) Jimmy Carter won the prize for his intervention with the North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung. At the time, Carter said about the brutal Stalinist dictator, “I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the decisions about this country.”
The police state of North Korea is a dictatorship that starves its people while feeding its million-man army. It sells ballistic missiles to our enemies and it builds nuclear weapons. Jonah Goldberg described Carter’s intervention in the May 15, 2002 issue of the Washington Times as “bollixing up then-President Clinton’s efforts to stop nuclear proliferation in North Korea.”
On October 25, 2002 Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post, “One of the proudest achievements of the Clinton administration was the Agreed Framework with North Korea. Clinton assured us that it froze the North Korean nuclear program. North Korea gave us a piece of paper promising to freeze; we gave North Korea 500,000 tons of free oil every year and set about building – also free – two huge $ 2 billion nuclear power plants that supposedly could be used only to produce electricity. Japan and South Korea were induced to give tons of foreign aid as well…” Eight years later, we learn that a signed agreement has been ignored.
Paper diplomacy such as the North Korean fiasco or the Oslo “peace” between Israel and the Palestinians mean nothing when a dictator renews violence. Written agreements with Kim Il Sung, Yassar Arafat, or Saddam Hussein are worthless. When it comes to al Qaeda and terrorism, to Iraq, to North Korea, no accommodation or negotiation is possible. Political courage, a.k.a. leadership, the will to use force against those who initiate the use of force, is required.
The committee may have looked at the imams and mullahs around the world however the voices of high religious authority in Muslim communities have been deafening silent in the wake of 911. In the 1990s America rescued a beleaguered Islamic people: Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo. We have just liberated a fourth – Afghanistan. Who should be soul searching? Who should be atoning? Who should be reaching out for religious tolerance and acceptance? Carter may not be the worst choice in history for the Nobel Peace Prize. The question is who should have earned it in 2002?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)