The DaVinci Cartoons


Ron Howard's film, The DaVinci Code, was released today amidst protests from conservative Christians. Worldwide, hundreds of thousands of Christians held outdoor protests, some resorting to rioting. Police were out in force in seveal European nations where Christians heeded the Pope's order to protest this movie. NBC has reported that some overzealous Christians attacked some theaters overseas; there are even intial reports that one theater may have been torched. Some African nations, known for their large population of Christians, have reported incidents of Muslim deaths over this film. This is in stark contrast to the peaceful protests of Muslims after the "Mohammed Cartoons" incidents, in which some Muslims boycotted the cartoon section of the newspaper and others used it to share their faith with non-Muslims.

Oh, wait - I got that mixed up; it was the Muslims who rioted and the Christians who didn't. As the Vatican has stated...what would the reaction have been if this movie was about Muslims or Jews? It should be noted that a movie made some time ago on the life of Mohammed was pulled from US theaters because of Muslim protest. Imagine the fury if the movie had been "fiction" suggesting that the Holocaust had not occured!

People call Islam a "religion of peace." If what THEY did is peaceful...then what are we?

Rumsfeld's Critics - Are they right?

US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has come under increasing criticism from former generals who believe he has performed poorly as SecDef and should resign. To date, seven former generals have come forward, including two who commanded troops in Iraq. The list is daunting:

-General Wesley Clark, Army, former NATO commander;
-Major General Charles H. Swannack Jr, Army, commanded 82nd Airborne in Iraq;
-Major General John Riggs, Army, head of Army transformation effort;
-Major General John Batiste, Army, commanded 1st Infantry Division in Iraq;
-General Anthony Zinni, USMC, former CENTCOM commander
-Lt. General Gregory Newbold, USMC, director of operations (J3) for the JCS;
-Major General Paul Eaton, Army, responsible for training Iraqi troops in 2003;

In light of this unprecedented criticism, some might be tempted to agree and join the ranks of those who call for the SecDef's resignation. But let's put this in perspective.

To date, seven retired generals have criticised Secretary Rumsfeld. Of these seven, two are outspoken critics of the war, and did not serve under Secretary Rumsfeld, so their testimony should be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that, at the 2004 Republican National Convention, 250 - that's two hundred and fifty - retired generals and admirals endorsed President Bush. The number of retired generals who are speaking out is quite small in comparison.

Additionally, two of the closest people to the SecDef have spoken out favorably. Retired four-star General Tommy Franks, CENTCOM commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom, spoke out in support of Secretary Rumsfeld last Friday. And the general who no doubt spent the most time with the Secretary, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2001 to 2005, also came out strongly in support of the SecDef; he stated that Secretary Rumsfeld gave "tremendous access" to his generals' views, that the generals were not intimidated into not standing up to the civilian leadership, and that he believed that the Joint Chiefs gave the SecDef their best advice.

In addition, a former second in command at CENTCOM, Lt. General Michael DeLong, USMC, issues a strong rebuttal in his NY Times column.

So next time you hear of another general criticising the Secretary of Defense, consider the rest of the story. This is not to say that the generals are necessarily wrong; but their criticism must be kept in perspective.

Not again...

In the lastest update from Howard Dean, entitled "We want your time, not your money" (perhaps because they aren't getting much?), Dean talks about a program in which Democrats inform their neighbors that they have a plan. He states:

Democrats have a clear vision for America, and we're going to get the word out by making personal contact with our neighbors.

Unfortunately, I have never heard what exactly the plan is. Have you?

The reason they aren't presenting one is because they do not have one. I know, you have heard that too many times already. But think about its practical effects. Let's assume we get a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2006. Do you think they will force President Bush to withdraw from Iraq? No, because they know that leaving Iraq as it is would spell disaster, and they would be blamed, which would most likely result in a Republican-controlled congress in 2008. (Not to mention presidency.) That is all complicated by the fact that certain extreme left-wing Democrats may introduce one or more resolutions regarding a withdrawl, which would put the Democrats in a tight spot - either vote for withdrawl and certain political doom, or vote against it and risk angering the anti-war base as well as proving that they aren't any different. Neither alternative looks good. So the best they can hope for is to announce the existance of a plan, but keep the public guessing as to what it is.

*******

If you haven't done so already, check out the next issue of Regenerate Our Culture!

Why They Should not Serve

In a recent poll, 2/3 of Californians said that they support homosexuals serving in the military. Ever since the Clinton administration passed the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals, this issue has remained controversial, attacked by critics on both sides of the issue. Homosexual advocates claim that it discriminates against homosexuals, stifling them from expressing themselves. Conservatives argue that it forces the military to play both sides of the issue; allowing homosexuals in, but kicking them out if their sexual orientation is revealed.

Some will raise the question - why not? Why not let a homosexual serve his or her country? We would all allow a Mormon or Democrat to serve in the Armed Forces even though we disagree with their theology or political position. Why then discriminate against homosexuals?

The answer is simple: Because it effects morale, which, in turn, has a negative impact on combat effectiveness. And the military has a right - a duty - to discriminate against those whom it deems will have a negative impact on morale and combat effectiveness. This is not an issue of freedom of expression. Here is a portion of the text of the law passed in 1993 by Congress regarding women in the military (which the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy is loosely based on). While these are all very good points, I have put a few especially relevant ones in bold.

Pub. L. No. 103-160, § 546, 107 Stat. 1670 (1993) (codified at 10 U.S.C. A. § 654 (West Supp. 1995)).

The statute provides:

§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

(a) Findings.-Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

(2) There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

(3) Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.

(4) The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

(5) The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.

(6) Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.

(7) One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.

(8) Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that-

(A) the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and

(B) the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9) The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member's life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.

(10) Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.

(11) The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.

(12) The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

(14) The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces' high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(15) The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(Read the full text of the law here.)

Recap: Military service is NOT a right. Thus, the military can discriminate, should it deem certain qualities/characteristics detrimental to morale, unit cohesion and combat effectiveness. Nearly anyone who has served in the military can tell you how important morale and unit cohesiveness is. They can also tell you that homosexuals would have a very negative effect on it, by breaking down trust and adding suspicion. Bottom line: It's not close-minded policy; it is common-sense.

**This is my own opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of DoD/Army**

China Expands Role in South America

China has begun filling a vacuum left by the US in South America. The 2002 American Servicemembers Protection Act forbids the US military from "financing and training to nations that have not agreed to bar the extradition of U.S. citizens to the International Criminal Court" according to the Washington Times. And China is stepping into that role. The article quotes several high ranking military and congressional officials who are concerned about the move and its impact on the influence of the US on the region. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is quoted as saying that China may seek to export nuclear goods for civilian use to the area. The article names Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, and Brazil as nations that the Chinese are actively courting. Together with increased trade with Canada, one Pentagon official believes that China is attempting to encircle the US with alliances, just as the US has encircled China with alliances of US-friendly nations. Some senators are pushing to allow the US to be more involved in that region.

My thoughts: While our influence in South America is important, we must keep our prioirities straight. Do we really want to put US citizens in a position where they can be extradited to the jurisdiction of a foriegn court? Absolutely not! While it may seem insignificant at the time, this is a principle upon which we can yield no ground. The United States is a sovereign nation, and our citizens will not answer to a foreign court - especially one that will most likely be stacked against us. If we compromise that foundational principle for "influence," we will soon have none of which to speak. However, it does not end there; this situation gives us one advantage.

By giving training and equipment to the region (China has supplied MANPADS to Bolivia, fighter jets to Venezuela, artillery to Cuba, etc.), the US is given an opportunity to observe Chinese training and tactics. Additionally, did the US want to examine a certain Chinese weapon, it would be much easier to seize if it is in our continent (e.g. last year, the US, afraid that they would fall into terrorist hands, covertly seized over 40 Chinese missiles from Bolivia). China has unwittingly given us a window from which to observe them more closely. And if the situation suddenly deteriorates, we can claim the "Monroe Doctrine" and clam down on China's invovlement. Not to say that it would be easy; by then, there might be several Chinese-friendly nations in the area. But when timeless principle clashes with temporary popularity, we must choose the former.

*******

Also of interest, from the Washington Times. Evidence for Saddam-WMD connection? Let's wait and see....

Setback for Equal Rights


Washington DC: Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that colleges which do not allow military recruiters on campus may lose federal funds. This case came as a result of a lawsuit filed by Wellington University against the Federal Government, after federal funds were withdrawn from the university because it did not allow recruiters on campus. WU President, Roy Parrington, said that the college was uncomfortable with the fact that the recruiters discriminated against people with disabilities. "We found that the recruiters were very narrow minded in who they let in. They refused to even consider this one very qualified young man, simply because he was in a wheelchair." Captain Andrew Benson, ROTC recruiter on campus, offered this statement. "We are very open to well-qualified candidates, and have never turned anyone away who met our standards. But people must realize that you can't send someone in a wheelchair into combat."

Dr. Julia Seward, professor of psychology at Harvard, disagrees. "The issue here is not qualification. It is whether or not the federal government can discriminate against students who don't meet their perceived expectations." Albert Finkleston, the student in question, had this to say: "I believe that I could have served my country, maybe not as an infantry soldier, but maybe at an office." Several other students agreed with him, noting that women are allowed to serve, even though they are barred from land combat. "Anyone should be able to serve their country," said one of the students, summing up what others believed.

Kay Matthews, spokesman for the Justice Department, said that people need to be realistic about this. "The college was accepting government funds. They can't then turn around and say that certain government agencies are not allowed on campus. The military sets the standards that they believe are most appropriate, and people need to realize that they know best." The Justice Department represented the government before the high court.

So where does today's ruling leave colleges now? Professor Michael Spencerfield, professor of government at George Washington University, believes that it will send a negative message to society. "What you have here is a government that is willing to discriminate against a large protion of the population, telling the education system of this nation that they will not recieve government funds unless they essentially partner with this discrimination." Disabled people make up 20% of the population, according to the 2000 census. "That is one fifth of the population that the government is forcing colleges to discriminate against," Dr. Spencerfield stated. He also pointed out that about 40% of colleges rely heavily on government funds, and thus will not have a choice but to accept this ruling. Senator Edward Kennedy, spoke on behalf of most Americans when he said, "This outrageous ruling reflects the Bush administration's attempt to return this nation to the pre-1860s, when women and minorities were discriminated against." Says Finkleston: "We have lost more than a battle - we have lost a portion of America."

(c)2006 AB All Rights Reserved.

*******

(FYI this is a parody on the recent Supreme Court ruling which said that universities that don't allow military recruiters on campus because they discriminate against homosexuals can lose government funds. This post should not be construed as being against disabled people or comparing them in any way to homosexuals; the author recognizes and appreciates all that people with disabilities have done for this nation, and notes that many great Americans suffered disabilities.)

I haven't updated in like forever. I haven't forgotten. I will update. :)