The site of the former World Trade Center where 2,749 innocent people died by passenger filled missiles on September 11, 2001 still haunts our soul. Some of our bravest - police and firemen - gave all that day. In the agonizing aftermath, emergency medical technicians, policemen and firemen began searching for survivors and restoring order. Construction workers stabilized the site. Together, these are the men who keep our city functioning everyday and particularly on that day of infamy. For months thereafter they continued the work that empty suits and talking heads cannot and never will. Others stood on the sides of the road cheering those who can as they kept returning for twelve-hour shifts. Religious services were held. We buried our dead.
Today, on the north side of Vesey Street, a sparkling 52-story high-rise structure replaces one of the buildings that collapsed. Deroy Murdoch, a columnist and senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, said, “The barbarians crushed the gates, but we repelled them, with our beauty and prowess intact.” Those who can, private enterprise and capitalism, have reconstructed 7 World Trade Center. The hole in the ground where the twin towers once proudly stood remain a testament to incompetent government bureaucratic socialism and what it cannot do.
Five years have passed since the attack against freedom, individual rights, science, engineering and capitalism and yet, little has changed in our “fight” for the sanctity of our own lives. Our immediate response was to inconvenience every air traveler by making them pass through magnetometers and screening their luggage. The August 2006 foiled plot to destroy ten aircraft bound from England to the United States had us toss away water bottles and shampoo.
We sent soldiers into Afghanistan and Iraq. If we had not restrained our FBI, CIA and our military, it could have had a valid purpose as a first step in ousting the terrorist-sponsoring, anti-American regimes of the Middle East. Unmitigated restraint in the guise of political correctness is responsible for thousands of unnecessary American deaths in pursuit of the sacrificial goal of "civilizing" these countries. Totalitarian groups such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, and the countries supporting them such as Iran and Syria, are hell-bent on destroying capitalism and killing Americans. They sacrifice their young as suicide bombers to attack us. Golda Meir is quoted as saying, “We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
Western civilization is facing an ideology that would subjugate every human being to Islam and murder everyone else. Would that our President take his own words to heart and that the vapid United States Senate, lacking moral certitude, understood that Islamic totalitarianism will be achieved if allowed to impose its religious dogma by use of force. It is a moral travesty that we do not destroy our enemy using unrestrained force and with everything in our arsenal including nuclear weapons. We should grant those who wish suicide their reward. When Islamists die rather than their victims will victory be achieved as no amount of baggage screening or tossing toothpaste will make us safe.
And if we use unrestrained force, what legitimate concern should we have for possibly harming Middle Eastern “innocents”?
In a lecture concerning “The Moral Factor” held in the Ford Hall Forum in 1976, a
similar question was posed. “Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union: assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?”
Ayn Rand’s response is quoted: “This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn't left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression--in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won't fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people. In Soviet Russia, there aren't very many innocent ones – and they’re mainly in concentration camps.
If you could have a life independent of the system, so that you wouldn't be drawn into an unjust war, you would not need to be concerned about politics. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it--because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.Nobody has to put up with aggression and surrender his right of self-defense for fear of hurting somebody else, guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self-esteem, you will answer him by force, never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is out to destroy you, that is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life.”
It is in our own self-interest, for the sanctity of our lives and that of other free nations whose leaders aught to be urging us to do so, that we must inflict devastation on those who would destroy us. Islamic totalitarianism ceded all “rights” on September 11, 2001.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Honor
“ Say, what is honor? 'T is the finest sense Ofjustice which the human mind can frame, Intent eachlurking frailty to disclaim, And guard the way oflife from all offense Suffered or done.” – William Wordsworth
Is there a consciencious awareness of honor in American society today? Is there an individual sense of earnestness, dedication and honor or is it virtually non-existent?
There are eleven definitions of the word “honor” that appear in Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913). The third definition is: “3. A nice sense of what is right, just, and true, with course of life correspondent thereto; strict conformity to the duty imposed by conscience, position, or privilege.”
In a recent World Street Journal article, Josiah Bunting III reviewed James Bowman’s “Honor: A History” which describes the loss of honor from the lexicon of 21st century American society. The author is quoted, “Honor is stark and unrelenting” and “Americans do not like stark choices”. The article referenced the “old hymn” - “Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside.”
The “old hymn” is a poem by James R. Lowell that appeared in the Boston Courier, December 11, 1845:
Once to Every Man and Nation
Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.
Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.
By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the cross that turns not back;New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.
Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong;Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong;Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.
In an address at West Point, the Objectivist philosopher, Ayn Rand stated, “We are the most moral country in the world.” She defined honor as “self esteem made visable in action. …the highest integrity and sense of honor exhibited by character, resolution, the persistence to do what is right despite the cost are virtues”.
Our poets, and philosophers understand what honor means. The point Mr. Bunting makes is: we must understand our own definition of honor, our enemy’s, and act honorably in confronting them if we are to survive as a nation.
Hank Hessing
Babylon
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Memorial Day 2006
Sand bags were stacked along the outside walls of Quonset huts - gray corrugated metal arches. The sun and rain took turns beating on them alternating between dry and rainy seasons. At any time of the year, they were hot and humid as hell. Who built them? I don’t know. They were there long before I arrived. This was “home” for most of my tour.
After all these years, what does one remember about Viet Nam? I remember Larry, Rick and Frank. Like hundreds of thousands, we were drafted and sent to Viet Nam.
Larry had an easy, gentle smile and Errol Flynn good looks. His home was San Mateo, California. He majored in computer sciences in college and went to work for a bank. But Larry said he “didn’t trust banks”. He kept his money under a mattress at home. Rick was high strung and smoked a lot. He had the ability to hold two cigarettes and a pipe in his hands simultaneously. A Pennsylvanian, Rick majored in computers and worked for a large company. Frank was from Maryland and had earned an electrical engineering degree. A gentle soul, Frank should never have been drafted. After graduating with a degree in engineering science, I had only worked for a civil engineering firm for four months before receiving my draft notice.
Our primary job was to run computers and the associated programs in the data service center but at night we either guarded the perimeter or went on patrol. In the Army, everyone is considered eleven bravo – infantry soldier. When the Army wasn’t getting their money’s worth out of us, we found other things to do.
Frank decided we needed electricity and began by running new wiring to each man’s hooch. Rick put his cigarettes away and wired outlets. Larry connected overhead fans to help cool the place and make it more livable. I installed a switch in each room for lighting and fans. We considered this a major accomplishment. I never asked where Frank got the materials.
Shortly thereafter, Frank’s mom passed away. The Army sent him home on bereavement. We all thought he got out before he got dinged and we cheered for him! Several months later, Frank returned. I couldn’t believe it. If the Army had to keep him, why not keep him state side, near his family? Frank experienced every soldier’s nightmare – he went to VN, he was sent home, and worst yet, he was sent back to VN. He had changed and so had we. To maintain his sanity, we decided Frank would not go on any patrols and he’d be our “official” photographer. I still have some of his pictures of our environs.
It was rare that Larry, Rick and I got together because as squad leaders, one of us went on patrol almost every night. We knew it was a numbers game. The more you went out, the greater the odds of getting zapped. No matter what happened, our code was we would bring all our guys back. We never talked about what happened unless there was something we had to report to our “superiors”. Any other talk served no purpose.
We were excellent marksmen and each had his individual preference. Before going home, Frank liked setting claymores probably because he liked to wire them. Larry preferred the grenade launcher and mortar but always carried a large knife. Rick carried a .38 and a .44 along with his M-16. My preference was the M-16 as I felt very comfortable picking targets between 75 and 200 yards. It was similar to the size and weight of the Anschultz I learned to use as a member of the West Islip High School rifle team. Dry socks and a full canteen were pretty good items to bring along as well.
Larry discovered a source of lumber. We set about building a frame and shelves for stereo equipment even though we didn’t have any. We installed the left over plywood on the inside walls of our quarters for pinup posters. Larry wrote to his sister who sent supplies: a clasp and a lock for the cabinet, day-glow paint, posters and a black light. We thanked her via a letter. We painted the room black and threw white and occasionally yellow, orange or red dots on the ceiling. With the black light on at night, you could look at the ceiling and drift away into the stars. All we needed was stereo equipment.
Larry and I decided to buy stereo equipment however, on E-4 pay, we could afford just one component per month. We agreed to send half of our money home and the other half to fund the stereo cabinet. After a few months, we assembled a rudimentary system.
Before he left the states, Larry was married. I was standing next to him during mail call, when he received a “dear john” letter. Amazingly, he showed no emotion. He just shrugged and said, “She spent too much money, anyway.” I asked, “On what?” Larry’s one word answer was “clothes.” He never spoke of her again. Larry went on patrol that night. I think they made him soldier of the month for his actions which earned him a three-day R and R.
I told Rick and Larry about Joni, a girl I met in college. I didn’t say I missed her. I wondered out loud whether she would be there, if I got lucky and returned to the world in one piece. She was smart and pretty, a great combination. Rick said, if that were the case, she’d be dating and no doubt would get married, “for sure GI” using the Vietnamese expression. I think this had been Rick’s experience, though he never admitted it. He said he didn’t have any attachment back home so we didn’t dwell on the subject.
The day finally came when Rick’s year (tour of duty) was completed and he went back to the states. Three months later, Larry went home with half our stereo system. We had great parties on both occasions! I earned sergeant stripes and when it was my turn, I left and never looked back. And Joni did wait. We married within a year of my return.
After all these years, what does one remember about Viet Nam? I remember Larry, Rick and Frank. Like hundreds of thousands, we were drafted and sent to Viet Nam.
Larry had an easy, gentle smile and Errol Flynn good looks. His home was San Mateo, California. He majored in computer sciences in college and went to work for a bank. But Larry said he “didn’t trust banks”. He kept his money under a mattress at home. Rick was high strung and smoked a lot. He had the ability to hold two cigarettes and a pipe in his hands simultaneously. A Pennsylvanian, Rick majored in computers and worked for a large company. Frank was from Maryland and had earned an electrical engineering degree. A gentle soul, Frank should never have been drafted. After graduating with a degree in engineering science, I had only worked for a civil engineering firm for four months before receiving my draft notice.
Our primary job was to run computers and the associated programs in the data service center but at night we either guarded the perimeter or went on patrol. In the Army, everyone is considered eleven bravo – infantry soldier. When the Army wasn’t getting their money’s worth out of us, we found other things to do.
Frank decided we needed electricity and began by running new wiring to each man’s hooch. Rick put his cigarettes away and wired outlets. Larry connected overhead fans to help cool the place and make it more livable. I installed a switch in each room for lighting and fans. We considered this a major accomplishment. I never asked where Frank got the materials.
Shortly thereafter, Frank’s mom passed away. The Army sent him home on bereavement. We all thought he got out before he got dinged and we cheered for him! Several months later, Frank returned. I couldn’t believe it. If the Army had to keep him, why not keep him state side, near his family? Frank experienced every soldier’s nightmare – he went to VN, he was sent home, and worst yet, he was sent back to VN. He had changed and so had we. To maintain his sanity, we decided Frank would not go on any patrols and he’d be our “official” photographer. I still have some of his pictures of our environs.
It was rare that Larry, Rick and I got together because as squad leaders, one of us went on patrol almost every night. We knew it was a numbers game. The more you went out, the greater the odds of getting zapped. No matter what happened, our code was we would bring all our guys back. We never talked about what happened unless there was something we had to report to our “superiors”. Any other talk served no purpose.
We were excellent marksmen and each had his individual preference. Before going home, Frank liked setting claymores probably because he liked to wire them. Larry preferred the grenade launcher and mortar but always carried a large knife. Rick carried a .38 and a .44 along with his M-16. My preference was the M-16 as I felt very comfortable picking targets between 75 and 200 yards. It was similar to the size and weight of the Anschultz I learned to use as a member of the West Islip High School rifle team. Dry socks and a full canteen were pretty good items to bring along as well.
Larry discovered a source of lumber. We set about building a frame and shelves for stereo equipment even though we didn’t have any. We installed the left over plywood on the inside walls of our quarters for pinup posters. Larry wrote to his sister who sent supplies: a clasp and a lock for the cabinet, day-glow paint, posters and a black light. We thanked her via a letter. We painted the room black and threw white and occasionally yellow, orange or red dots on the ceiling. With the black light on at night, you could look at the ceiling and drift away into the stars. All we needed was stereo equipment.
Larry and I decided to buy stereo equipment however, on E-4 pay, we could afford just one component per month. We agreed to send half of our money home and the other half to fund the stereo cabinet. After a few months, we assembled a rudimentary system.
Before he left the states, Larry was married. I was standing next to him during mail call, when he received a “dear john” letter. Amazingly, he showed no emotion. He just shrugged and said, “She spent too much money, anyway.” I asked, “On what?” Larry’s one word answer was “clothes.” He never spoke of her again. Larry went on patrol that night. I think they made him soldier of the month for his actions which earned him a three-day R and R.
I told Rick and Larry about Joni, a girl I met in college. I didn’t say I missed her. I wondered out loud whether she would be there, if I got lucky and returned to the world in one piece. She was smart and pretty, a great combination. Rick said, if that were the case, she’d be dating and no doubt would get married, “for sure GI” using the Vietnamese expression. I think this had been Rick’s experience, though he never admitted it. He said he didn’t have any attachment back home so we didn’t dwell on the subject.
The day finally came when Rick’s year (tour of duty) was completed and he went back to the states. Three months later, Larry went home with half our stereo system. We had great parties on both occasions! I earned sergeant stripes and when it was my turn, I left and never looked back. And Joni did wait. We married within a year of my return.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Choose Logic
Is there a difference in the basis of debate, whether pro or con, concerning immigration, tax credits or school vouchers, universal health care, social security reform or school prayer? If we review for example, the school prayer discussion we can apply the same logic to the other national concerns.
What is the difference between those who declare that prayer should be banned from school and those who propose its inclusion? How does one make these declarations? From whence comes the knowledge to aver what other individuals must do? Have declarers examined their philosophy to the depth required to goad, urge or prod academia, government or the individual to kowtow to fear of reprisal from one group or another with any moral authority?
Subjectivism holds that there are no absolutes or principles and judgment is relative. Hence, “truth is in the eye of the beholder.” However, “what is right for you might not be right for me”. Ergo, no one can have objective knowledge or objective grounds for evaluating another person’s beliefs or actions. An analogy might be, “On the premise that moral values are merely subjective preferences, there is no factual basis for moral judgment.” Those who believe that “anything goes” also avoid making any judgments.
Those who argue for school prayer dismiss the “truth is relative” or “anything goes” statements of the subjectivists. They espouse “unquestionable truth” and advocate absolute standards of right and wrong.
Are the positions and attitudes of the two opinions diametrically opposed?
It is only on the surface that the subjectivist is opposed to the religious proponent. The two share a fundamental similarity. In denying that there are any objective standards by which to choose how to think or act, the subjectivist makes clear that his choices are ruled by blind feelings. This is precisely the basic policy of the religious proponent as well.
Consider that there is an infinite number of opposing religious sects, how does the religionist decide which faith to embrace, which revelations to follow and which authority to obey? Does he scientifically gather evidence, carefully weigh it, and then adopt the conclusion to which reason and logic point? Obviously not. He feels it. He feels that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, astrology or whatever, is the right faith for him. While the religionist may claim to uphold absolute truths in his argument for school prayer, his beliefs are as arbitrary as those of the subjectivist. The difference between the two is that there is no difference, merely emotionalism.
What neither the subjectivist nor the dogmatist can fathom is the need for an alternate approach, a method of seeking truth, acquiring knowledge, and defining moral standards, not by indulging in emotions, but by the process of reasoning based on factual evidence. In every issue and area of life, our decisions must be based on logical arguments that are grounded in directly perceivable facts and not emotions, feelings or arbitrary whims.
Examine the rhetoric our public representatives espouse on national issues such as immigration and border security, tax credits or vouchers for school choice, social security reform, universal healthcare or any other of the myriad discussions and debates. We must ask what is fact and what is emotion, dismiss emotion and base decisions on facts alone. To avoid their rhetoric, our culture has to reject emotionalism whether in the form of anything-goes subjectivism or emotionally driven feelings, in favor of logic and reason.
What is the difference between those who declare that prayer should be banned from school and those who propose its inclusion? How does one make these declarations? From whence comes the knowledge to aver what other individuals must do? Have declarers examined their philosophy to the depth required to goad, urge or prod academia, government or the individual to kowtow to fear of reprisal from one group or another with any moral authority?
Subjectivism holds that there are no absolutes or principles and judgment is relative. Hence, “truth is in the eye of the beholder.” However, “what is right for you might not be right for me”. Ergo, no one can have objective knowledge or objective grounds for evaluating another person’s beliefs or actions. An analogy might be, “On the premise that moral values are merely subjective preferences, there is no factual basis for moral judgment.” Those who believe that “anything goes” also avoid making any judgments.
Those who argue for school prayer dismiss the “truth is relative” or “anything goes” statements of the subjectivists. They espouse “unquestionable truth” and advocate absolute standards of right and wrong.
Are the positions and attitudes of the two opinions diametrically opposed?
It is only on the surface that the subjectivist is opposed to the religious proponent. The two share a fundamental similarity. In denying that there are any objective standards by which to choose how to think or act, the subjectivist makes clear that his choices are ruled by blind feelings. This is precisely the basic policy of the religious proponent as well.
Consider that there is an infinite number of opposing religious sects, how does the religionist decide which faith to embrace, which revelations to follow and which authority to obey? Does he scientifically gather evidence, carefully weigh it, and then adopt the conclusion to which reason and logic point? Obviously not. He feels it. He feels that Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, astrology or whatever, is the right faith for him. While the religionist may claim to uphold absolute truths in his argument for school prayer, his beliefs are as arbitrary as those of the subjectivist. The difference between the two is that there is no difference, merely emotionalism.
What neither the subjectivist nor the dogmatist can fathom is the need for an alternate approach, a method of seeking truth, acquiring knowledge, and defining moral standards, not by indulging in emotions, but by the process of reasoning based on factual evidence. In every issue and area of life, our decisions must be based on logical arguments that are grounded in directly perceivable facts and not emotions, feelings or arbitrary whims.
Examine the rhetoric our public representatives espouse on national issues such as immigration and border security, tax credits or vouchers for school choice, social security reform, universal healthcare or any other of the myriad discussions and debates. We must ask what is fact and what is emotion, dismiss emotion and base decisions on facts alone. To avoid their rhetoric, our culture has to reject emotionalism whether in the form of anything-goes subjectivism or emotionally driven feelings, in favor of logic and reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)