baldilocks

The Good Fights

Army Reservist Brad K. Torgersen eloquently attempts to get Reggie Rivers to see sweet reason; a losing battle, but a valiant one nonetheless.

Not all former athletes are as clue-immune as Mr. Rivers, however. Laker Legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has co-authored a book called Brothers in Arms: The Epic Story of the 761St Tank Battalion, WWII's Forgotten Heroes, chronicling the exploits of this battalion, the first black armored unit ever, serving during World War II. (Prior to its existence, all-black units had been support units, i.e. food service, supply, etc.)

Lots of irony located in this story: a Muslim (Abdul-Jabbar) celebrates the exploits of some of our soldiers who were known as...the Black Panthers. Here’s more from the article:

At Fort Hood, a young lieutenant fresh out of UCLA in the 761st was nearly court-martialed for refusing to move to the back of a bus. His commander refused to approve the court-martial, but the lieutenant was transferred to another unit and never saw combat. He missed his chance to be a war hero. But the man -- Jackie Robinson -- became a household name a few years later as the first black player in Major League Baseball.

And more:

Recognition came slowly. In 1978, the 761st Tank Battalion received a Presidential Unit Citation. In 1997, 53 years after giving his life on the battlefield, Staff Sgt. Rivers, whose family settled in the East Bay, was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor.

(Thanks to Booker Rising)

The Standard

Those of us who pay attention to such things are constantly bombarded with the allegation of how racist this country is. Supposedly, no non-white man or woman in today’s society can make it without a hand up or a hand-out. Examples to the contrary are ignored by those making the allegation. And when someone who knows what he’s talking about--who actually lived through real racism and came out on top—who’s actually experienced the horrifying murder of his child at the hands of a racist—has the nerve to explicitly says that the “victims” of today’s “racism” actually have some responsibility in pulling themselves up out of the mire of poverty, the “Soul Patrol,” as Michael King so eloquently refers to the black racialists, is up in arms.

With this state of affairs in mind, I am constantly astonished by love that older black people have for this country. If I walk outside my home, I might see a flag or two flying in front of a house. Generally, there are three types of people here in the hood that will display the flag: Americans of Mexican descent, veterans and black Americans over sixty (in this house, there are people who fit into two of those categories).

For black Americans who’ve experienced explicit racism up close and personal, their love of this country is nothing short of a miracle.

We all know about December 7, 1941. In its wake, nearly the entire adult male population of the USA was mobilized in defense of this country and most of those who were able, answered the call.

As many may have forgotten, the American military wasn’t desegregated until after the end of WWII, under the direction of President Harry S. Truman. So my grandfather and uncles served this nation and did so proudly, when it still legally considered them second-class citizens.

With the exception of my step-father’s father—a crazy, fun, cigar-smoking, whiskey-drinking, gravelly-voiced old coot--all the World War Two vets in my family are gone (Grandpa is retired Air Force, too). I blogged about the one I was closest to here. (I always pick the flimsiest of pretexts to link to that post again. I love that portrait and want to share it all the time. Additionally, I'm constantly reminded of how much I love and miss the man portrayed in it.)

My great-aunt had a boyfriend—before she met and married the man described above--who served as an officer in one of those segregated units. He died in a fire fight on French soil and was buried there for years, until his family brought his body home to rest in the same cemetery as the one in which my great-grandmother’s body is buried.

*****

This country isn’t perfect, but its citizens constantly review its values and its culture. The changes have often been painful, however, the blueprint for change is part of our cultural mindset. That mindset was set in motion upon the founding of this country. I fly a flag proudly on this blog and in front of my home to show my love for that idea and, yes, my pride in having served. The flag in front of the house is so large that my neighbor, who flies a smaller flag in front of his home, jokingly said that he’s got to get a larger one to compete. He’s a black man in his seventies--I’m actually not sure of his age, but I think he’s too young to have been a WWII vet--undoubtedly possessing living memory of having not been allowed to buy the house in which he now lives; and he proudly displays his love of our country. How cool is that?

Those who have actually had to go to separate restrooms—or behind trees—know what real malice looks like. Those who have had shotguns and fire-hoses brandished at them know how much things have changed in this country. Those who have had the bodies of their loved ones turn up mutilated in bodies of water, can hold the rest of us—their younger family members—to a higher standard than they were able to meet. It would be understandable if most of them held a grudge. However, I think that long life has many benefits, the chief of which are being able to observe patterns, having perspective and being able to forgive.

Back In Da House

...is the Creator of Worlds. All praise is due.

Special Case

Rivrdog has problems with my public re-linking of Gut Rumbles.

No offense intended here ma'am, but what is the big deal about linking or de-linking? Blogging is simply the public expression of personal thought. If you find something that offends you, stop reading it and don't refer to it. Conversely, if you find something that you like, you can say so and or link to it.

I explained about linking and de-linking in the first paragraph of the post. You claim to have read it and re-read it, so I’ll only re-iterate this: Acidman is a special case (no pun intended).

You have no clue how much Rob and I have communicated before or after this incident; no clue as to how close (in on-line terms) we had become. You might have considered this, before you made your hasty judgment. My ego is large, but not so large that I don't consider that there may be factors in a situation that I don't know about.

The blogroll of a blog is not controlled by some pompous government regulation.

Really? Thanks for informing me of that. I had no idea that this wasn’t the case. /sarcasm

If you update your blogroll by adding to it or deleting from it, that is likewise a personal decision.

Alright. Since it’s obvious that you actually ignored this part, I’ll repeat it just for you. (It is really all about you, isn’t it?)

Generally, I don’t make a big to-do about linking or de-linking to a blog. If a blogger has a nice body of work, I’ll simply add it to the blogroll. Conversely, if a blogger hasn’t posted in a while, states his/her intent to quit blogging or the blog manifestly no longer exists, I’ll simply de-link the blog without comment (with one or two exceptions). I’ve only de-linked one blogger for cause.[SNIP]

So I quietly de-linked him and we handled our business in private. I hate unnecessary drama.

Rivrdog continues:

In evaluating the worth of a blog, I look to content only. Content is composed of the elements of creative concepts and writing proficiency.

That’s a fine standard to uphold. I try to use it as well. However, this situation had nothing to do with any of that. This was, and I repeat, a special case.

I view with suspicion any blogger who would make any kind of fuss, positive or negative, about linking or delinking another blog.

As do I, which is why I said nothing publicly during the mass de-linking. In this special case, however, I felt that, since Rob was so widely de-linked in public, that he should get the same for a re-linking, which goes against my usual policy, as I said in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the post in question.

That smacks of ego projection, which is NOT an essential element of writing.

It does if one ignores the special case elements of this situation, as you have done.

Rivrdog makes another attempt to show me the error of my ways.

I'm afraid you didn't get MY point, which was that decisions on linkng or delinking have zero to do with the content of one's blog, are simply housekeeping, and shouldn't require any discussion.

Since I agreed with this—spelled it out at the beginning of the post in question that I don’t normally make that decision in public, then implied there and spelled out here that this is a special case--what’s your point? Since I never said or implied that decisions involving linking or de-linking to a blog had anything to do with the quality or content of my blog, what’s your point?

Shakespeare said it best: Methinks you protesteth too much? (or similar).

Protesting what? Okay, I suck as a writer, my content stinks and my ego is too much for my readers to take. Any blog-reader would spend his/her on-line time better elsewhere.

Is that enough humility (hah!) for you, Rivrdog?

I’ve never claimed to be a great writer. I post, others read and make their judgment, one way or the other. If they like, I’m gratified. If not, I assume that most of them are intelligent enough to find the “door.”

If you’re trying to say that you don’t like my writing, just be direct about it. As you so sardonically pointed out, there’s no government regulation which directs you to read this blog.

I have a large ego, but not one so overblown that I would write to a blogger—either in public or private—telling him/her that I am suspicious of something he/she wrote. I am humble enough to suspect that he/she wouldn’t give a rat’s behind and would deserve it if he/she called me out in public, if I kept pushing it and kept ignoring the special case elements that went against the SOP of the blog in question. Under normal circumstances—unlike in this special case--if I don't like a blog, I simply don't read it or link to it. To repeat to some who cannot read and needs it constantly drilled into their heads, this is a special case.

Take the last line of your last comment and turn it around on yourself, sir. On the large ego score, I rate high; however, I defer to you.

Another One

After reading this column, I’m tempted to speculate on how the IQ of the average GI compares to that of the average NFL player, Pat Tillman—who brought honor to both professions—notwithstanding. Many enlisted military members are required to understand the intricacies of mechanics, electronics, information technology, foreign languages—well, you get the idea.

So, I won’t go there. Not there, in spite of the fact that someone like former NFL player Reggie Rivers insults the intelligence of the average military member:

Yes, our slaves [members of the Armed Forces] signed up of their own free will, but most of them were as misled about their job as the rest of us were about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

We’re slaves, says he. I seem not to recall the instances in which a gun was put to my head or the times in which a whip was brandished at me to coerce me into enlisting and re-enlisting. Perhaps I need to take some memory-enhancing classes. Or maybe I need to brush up on the history of American slavery. Or maybe I need to do both, because I certainly don’t remember reading that American slaves signed contracts stipulating the terms of their servitude.

Surely, as a former member of the Denver Broncos, Mr. Rivers understands the concept of fulfilling the terms of a signed contract. Admittedly, my mind hasn’t been trained in legal matters. However, as I understand it, those who sign a contract are legally bound to its terms. At least the military members who’ve been invited to sign the enlistment contract can actually read it, which is more than can be said for many members of the NFL. Oops! Said I wasn’t going there.

However, it is apparent that Mr. Rivers can compose a column—assuming no one wrote it for him and asked him to sign his name to it. (Darn it! I keep going there. Practice self-control, Ochieng, practice.)

According to Chalmers Johnson, author of "The Sorrows of Empire," almost half of our enlisted forces are between 17 and 24 years of age, and they were lured into military service with promises of education, job training, escape from poverty, medical benefits and the chance to operate some cool, high-tech equipment.[SNIP]

The U.S. Army has an official video game that can be downloaded at www.americasarmy.com It's a recruiting tool aimed to win the hearts and minds of children of all ages. The goal is catch them before they develop critical thinking skills that might lead them to question the wisdom of volunteering for slavery.

So, assuming you’re past the age group in which no one could possibly join the military and have properly developed critical thinking skills, Mr. Rivers, when are you going to develop critical thinking skills? Too many hits to the head, maybe? Or maybe you think that going to “war” simply means to have a successful goal-line stand under the two-minute warning. Or is it possible that the words duty, honor and sacrifice only mean something to you when they involve millions of dollars?

They just want to go home, but they can't. And domestically, we continue to trot out the tired mantra that supporting the troops means supporting the war.

Yes, support us stupid tools, for we know not what we do.

Bite me, Clown. Court Jester. На хуй, блядъ. (Have one of your more educated friends translate that for you, Mr. Rivers. BTW, the military taught me that particular language.)

I’ve had enough of these condescending twits who think that no one could possibly be mentally competent and have an opinion different from theirs. You profane the memory of Pat Tillman and every other person who has given his/her life in defense of this country.

Happy Memorial Day to you, Mr. Rivers. Many of us in the military, present and past, have long memories.

(Now this is an example of intentional offense. In response to the last post, some people said I had class. Heh.)

UPDATE: Sgt Hook is far more eloquently than I.

Un-Banished

Generally, I don’t make a big to-do about linking or de-linking to a blog. If a blogger has a nice body of work, I’ll simply add it to the blogroll. Conversely, if a blogger hasn’t posted in a while, states his/her intent to quit blogging or the blog manifestly no longer exists, I’ll simply de-link the blog without comment (with one or two exceptions). I’ve only de-linked one blogger for cause.

Once upon a time, there was a mass de-linking of a popular blog. The post for which the de-linking occurred was indeed offensive, and, for me, personal. The sentiments expressed in that post I agreed with, to a point. However, the way it was expressed and the use of my blog to back it up were over-the-top. As we all know, one can express a thought in whatever manner one chooses. If they choose to be blunt—as I often am here—they can still choose the proper queue of words: straight-forward need not mean distasteful. The words used were racialist (to borrow Francis W. Porretto’s term). Now, I’m not one of those people who believes that the n-word coming out of any non-black person’s mouth is automatically a fighting word. If you’re using it to make a non-offensive point (as Francis does in the post linked, or as Mark Twain famously did), I’ve no problem with it.

To give a contrasting example, in Mr. Porretto’s post, he also uses the words “honky” and “ofay,” offensive terms for white people among black Americans. The blogger in question even consistently refers to himself as a “cracker.” I would never use those terms, except to make a specific point—as I am doing right here.

Before the posting the widely-denounced missive in question, this blogger had used the n-word to spell out specific, cogent points. That wasn’t the case in this post, however: it was used to intentionally inflame and it served its purpose indeed. Additionally, a link to my blog was used to back up its validity.

More even than having the n-word batted around carelessly, I hate being embarrassed in public or used for any purpose (without my permission), especially when it comes from someone I consider to be a friend. However, I usually won’t reciprocate the offense to that friend, even if the friend deserves it—not unless they push me.

So I quietly de-linked him and we handled our business in private. I hate unnecessary drama.

“A gentleman never gives offense intentionally,” Francis reminds us. (I thought that a gentleman never gave offense *unintentionally,* but either version is rhetorically useful.) Call it Christian charity, call it mercy, call it caring about someone who never claimed to be a gentleman, call it whatever the heck you want to call it. I am choosing to publicly re-link Gut Rumbles.

I don’t expect the crazy old buzzard to be grateful. I accept him as he is which, of course, doesn’t mean that I won’t call him on his BS when warranted. I may do it private, I may not. Does he deserve being re-linked? Heck, no. But who among us deserves anything we get?

Squeal Again

We’re nuts. Bloggers, that is (registration required).

For some, it [blogging] becomes an obsession. Such bloggers often feel compelled to write several times daily and feel anxious if they don't keep up. As they spend more time hunkered over their computers, they neglect family, friends and jobs. They blog at home, at work and on the road. They blog openly or sometimes, like Mr. Wiggins, quietly so as not to call attention to their habit.

Does that mean bloggers have become a protected class? Will there be a twelve-step program?

Of course, most of those millions are abandoned or, at best, maintained infrequently. For many bloggers, the novelty soon wears off and their persistence fades.

Ignore it, says the Gray Bag Lady. It'll go away. They don't have the stomach for it. It’s just a passing phase; like the 8-track tape. It’s a character flaw, a crutch for the lazy, too narcissistic to go out and get a real job; and on and on and on.

Suu-EEEEE!

(Thanks to Memeorandum)

Column Left

Former Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. recently made a rousing speech under the auspices of MoveOn.org and I’m having some problems with several aspects of this event, to understate the matter.

Isn’t former Vice President Gore supposed to be part of the mainstream Democratic Party? Wasn’t he once a hair’s breath away from being the President of the United States of America, the Commander-in-Chief of its Armed Forces? Didn’t he lose the last presidential election in a furiously-contested, judicially-decided race?

And, isn’t MoveOn.org a far Left organization?

Knowing, of course, that the answer to all of these rhetorical questions is in the affirmative, it was quite unnerving to hear the Deanian tone in which he delivered this speech (heard on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show). The unleashed hysteria in which he called for the resignation of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Advisor, the CIA director, et alia, makes me shudder. Has he been angry, seething and furious all this time? Has he not put the election behind him? I don’t know. Watching him now, I think how former Vice President Gore might have reacted to adversity as POTUS, say, during an attack on the home soil.

And then there are the things that he actually said.

At first, I had planned to do a by-the-book fisking of the speech. Former Vice President Gore’s mischaracterization of the circumstances under which the Abu Ghraib abuses took place deserves a point-by-point refutation all on its own. However, I decided to take one part of it to comment upon, because it is symbolic of the whole thing. Amid the lies, half-truths and out-of-context truths with which he peppers his speech, one part of it stands out as a symptom of the problem. That problem is defined as such: denial.

He [President Bush] has exposed Americans abroad and Americans in every U.S. town and city to a greater danger of attack by terrorists because of his arrogance, willfulness, and bungling at stirring up hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us. And by then insulting the religion and culture and tradition of people in other countries. And by pursuing policies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children, all of it done in our name.

President Bush said in his speech Monday night that the war in Iraq is "the central front in the war on terror." It's not the central front in the war on terror, but it has unfortunately become the central recruiting office for terrorists. [Dick Cheney said, "This war may last the rest of our lives.] The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the United States. Just yesterday, the International Institute of Strategic Studies reported that the Iraq conflict " has arguable focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition." The ISS said that in the wake of the war in Iraq Al Qaeda now has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks.

“hornet's nests that pose no threat whatsoever to us”

“the Iraq conflict " has arguable focused the energies and resources of Al Qaeda and its followers”

Were the attacks of September eleventh an example of Al Qaeda’s *unfocused* energies and resources? Did the “hornet's nests” demonstrate that they “pose[d] no threat whatsoever to us” on that day?

I am astonished by this speech.

I am frightened by the fact that a certain segment of our society sees President Bush and his cohorts as more of a threat to civilization than those who would convert us to Islam by the sword or destroy this country as an alternative.

And I am most frightened by the fact that someone like Albert Gore—for eight years and for one tedious month in the last part of 2000, inches from the presidency--chooses to be their champion.

UPDATE: Think I was exaggerating? Check this out.

(Thanks to Rachel Lucas)

Columns Right

A Little Interesting Reading From The Paid Pundits

Peggy Noonan documents the boo fest that author E.L. Doctorow incited, during his commencement address at Hofstra University in New York Why was he booed? He was booed for referring to President Bush as a liar. President Bush has fans in the great state of New York? Whoda thunk it?

And this quote from Hofstra faculty member is telling:

"I thought this was a totally appropriate place to talk about politics because that's the world our students are entering," sociology professor Cynthia Bogard told Newsday. "I only wish their parents had provided them a better role model."

Guess the indoctrination education didn’t work to well.

Michelle Malkin rips into the blogger known as the Washingtonienne, real name Jessica Cutler. For all you guys, a picture of this girl appears in this Washington Post article (registration required). She’s a very attractive girl, but it seems to me that a young woman with other things going for her besides her looks wouldn’t have to resort to the things she did to make ends meet, so to speak. Michelle herself should know.

And Dennis Prager contends that one sin is worse than all of the others: using God to justify what God has condemned. I can’t say better than he does:

When a secular person commits evil, it is surely evil, but it doesn't bring G-d and religion in disrepute. When a person commits evil in G-d's name, however, he destroys the greatest hope for goodness to prevail on earth — widespread belief in a G-d who demands goodness (ethical monotheism). There is nothing as evil as religious evil.

Three guesses to whom he is referring.

They Hate The Sunlight

...do the trolls.

Now here’s some witty repartee from sam:

f**k you ni**er

My nights will never be that cold.

Sigh. I don’t get any really interesting trolls. Just in case this one leaves its snail trail across your path, its IP address is 69.145.41.14. It’s probably posting from a library computer, but what the hey.

(I like to leave most troll droppings posted. You know, like keeping the pelt of some pestilent rodent you've killed nailed to the wall; a trophy.)

Snails and rodents. Am I mixing my metaphors? Well I'm having fun doing it, at any rate.

Speaking of witty repartee…

I know it’s difficult to listen to a viewpoint that different from one’s own. I have a tough time doing it myself. The main reason I started this blog is to have an outlet for my own viewpoints. Why would I need that, I hear you ask. I need it because a black conservative Republican gets interrupted, shouted down and has his/her views twisted so often that he/she learns to just keep quiet. We all saw a nationally televised example of the interrupting phenomenon during the Condoleezza Rice testimony before the 9/11 Inquisition Commission.

Well, keeping quiet isn’t my strong suit.

Of all the methods used to shut us runaway slaves up, the nastiest and most infuriating one is the ‘spin.’ When your ideological opponent is insufficiently armed for a head-to-head battle of wits and/or is dishonest and craven, he/she will take your words, twist them to his/her purposes and argue with that man made of straw, rather than you. But he/she will pretend it actually is you, and those who are less discerning will think that you’re the one that’s made of straw. In my forty-two years, I’ve seen it over and over again.

What do I do about it? I get angry for a few minutes. After I calm down, however, I laugh at the tactic and, if I’m in a particularly good mood, I might make gentle fun of the person.

But that’s only with the first offense. And only if I’m in a charitable mood. The way I handle such things when I’m OTR or just feeling generally froggy (as opposed to Froggy) can be demonstrated here on this blog.

*****

The reason I asked King Buzz to post here is because he is an ideological anomaly: a non-conservative military officer, one who hasn’t mouthed off while pushing papers (unlike yours truly). I also know that, while he is passionate about what he believes in, he is very intelligent. Lastly, and most importantly, I trust him. (BTW, he’s absent with leave from posting here. Considering what he does for a living, you can imagine that he’s quite busy just now.)

So when he posts his opinions here that are different from mine and/or controversial, keep this idea in mind: all beliefs, ideologies, theories, etc. should be examined and challenged. I asked King Buzz to set forth his beliefs, theories and ideologies here to help you to challenge yours and to help me to challenge my own.

I did it before, during my transformation from a Democrat to a Republican, but I don’t want to become stagnant. And, of course, Good Readers, I don’t want that for you.

And as for readers like sam, your short bus awaits.