As I recall, one of my best friends from high school was a member of the great deliberative body that is the UW Student Senate. I don't think his generation of student senators would have undertaken a misguided protest like the one described in the following paragraph.
From John Fund of the Wall Street Journal:
__________
'Pappy' Shot Down by Campus Ignoramuses
It's well known that college students today aren't as educated in our nation's history as they should be, but it's still hard to grasp the mind-bending political correctness just displayed by the University of Washington's student senate at its campus in Seattle.
The issue before the Senate this month was a proposed memorial to World War II combat pilot Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a 1933 engineering graduate of the university, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service commanding the famed "Black Sheep" squadron in the Pacific. The student senate rejected the memorial because "a Marine" is not "an example of the sort of person UW wants to produce."
Digging themselves in deeper, the student opponents of the memorial indicated: "We don't need to honor any more rich white males." Other opponents compared Boyington's actions during World War II with murder.
"I am absolutely bewildered that the Student Senate voted down the resolution," Brent Ludeman, the president of the UW College Republicans, told me. He noted that despite the deficiencies of the UW History Department, the complete ignorance of Boyington's history and reputation by the student body was hard to fathom. After all, "Black Sheep Squadron," a 1970s television show portraying Colonel Boyington's heroism as a pilot and Japanese prisoner of war, still airs frequently on the History Channel. Apparently, though, it's an unusual UW student who'd be willing to learn any U.S. history even if it's spoonfed to him by TV.
As for the sin of honoring a rich white male, Mr. Ludeman points out that Boyington (who died in 1988) was neither rich nor white. He happened to be a Sioux Indian, who wound up raising his three children as a single parent. "Colonel Boyington is luckily not around to see how ignorant students at his alma mater can be today," says Kirby Wilbur, a morning talk show host at Seattle's KVI Radio. Perhaps the trustees and alumni of the school will now help educate them.
-- John Fund
__________
Is this what people mean when they discuss--in reverential tones--great, open-minded, liberal universities?
I think UW profs need to teach less of the "white male screwed everyone" critique of history and more history. I understand the discontent over the war in Iraq, what I don't get is the venom directed to WWII heroes. Is their knowledge of that war limited to repeated screenings of "Pearl Harbor"?
Note to UW students: America was not the aggressor in WWII. The Japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor. Fascists in Germany, Italy, and Japan caused the death of millions. Heroes like Boyington helped bring that war to a successful conclusion and end that fascist threat. I repeat the call I first made on Pearl Harbor Day 2005. Resist the urge to rent, for the umpteenth time, fanatical conspiracy theory based movies like "Syriana" (come on, do you really think the CIA is that good? give me a break), and pick up "Band of Brothers." US Armed Forces were made up of men like these and Boyington who joined because they believed in America and hated Hitler and Tojo. On the lines in Europe or in the skies over the Pacific, these men fought for each other.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court stuck it to schools who maintained Vietnam era bans on campus recruiters. They ruled that schools receiving federal funding had to allow military recruiters on campus. Makes sense, right? This hasn't stopped these schools and their students from protesting most vigorously the recruiters presence on campus. I love the irony of a group that protests the very existence of an organization that maintains their freedom of speech. Time and again soldiers in Iraq are quoted as saying that they don't agree with anti-war protesters, but that they still fight for their right to publicly disagree. Do you think the islamifascists would allow them their right to free speech? Lest you think 9/11 was anything other than a part of an ongoing attack on our way of life and right to freedom and liberty, think again.
Hopefully someone at UW with more sense than the student senate will step up and push through the Boyington memorial. As a part of the ceremony to dedicate the memorial I suggest a short history lesson about Boyington. Maybe then the students will understand the honor associated with serving this country in the United States Marine Corp. Seriously, who would you rather have represent you--this fatuous student senate or Medal of Honor winner Colonel Gregory "Pappy" Boyington?
I'll take Boyington.
17 comments:
The UW students were wrong and misguided- no question. However, we cannot assume that the students are acting as pawns of a liberal faculty and we have no way of knowing the reasons for their strong opposition to celebrating a war hero's sacrifices. I personally guess that this is a manifestation of a growing backlash against war and violence... war and violence perpetrated by our own government and funded by our tax dollars, although the connect to WWII is faulty and is not a parallel example, as you adroitly pointed out Jake. We will just wait and see what happens in Iraq, but my gut instinct tells me that eventually, Jake, you will review your writings on Iraq and reconsider your sources and position. If civil war rips the country apart, it will be the Defeatecrats who predicted it and all that conservative propaganda you have parroted will seem rather silly. Then again, maybe I will be the one to eat crow and acknowledge success in Iraq. For the sake of the Iraqi people, I hope I do. Until then, I stand firm in my Christian belief that war and violence is usually not the answer. What is the answer? My hope for mankind sits with fair business, responsible government, and human compassion.
Well put Raisin. If more people presented opposing views in such a manner it would be much easier to identify common ground and address the core issues that should be non-partisan i.e. port management.
There is a major crisis looming right now that can only be addressed by a non-partisan effort. Port security is one of the many questions that will have to be considered, and while legitimate debate exists on both sides of the issue, it seems to me that this is just another indication that Bush really doesn't know what is going on. Consider the mounting, damning evidence coming from the Katrina Response investigation- this has been one of the worst natural and administrative disasters in recent U.S. history and an Executive Branch that seems bent on extending its powers should be scrutinized even MORE intensely when there is a breakdown in its operations. For those business-oriented Republicans out there, this lack of competence in the White House is equivalent to a CEO absolutely neglecting his/her management responsibilities. Shareholders (voters) should impose discipline on management in order to bring the managers' agendas inline with the equity-holders' (citizens of America). I choose to end the analogy there, but you can compare the role of Market Disciplinarian to the Legislative Branch or to the opposition party; come November, the two may be the same. For the average American, the port security item is way down on the list of reasons we feel that management is incompetent. Bush is now supported by only 34% of the nation, and members of his own party are dissenting from him over a SECURITY issue, of all things. Unfortunately for the world, the damage of our foray into Iraq cannot simply be erased by electing a new leader here in the U.S., but it's a start. In our attempt to spread democracy (I'm gonna just play along with those of you who believe our actions in Iraq were motivated by altruism) we have destabilized a region that was held in check by a merciless tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Who will control Iraq in the future? Which way will al-Sadr break? Will Iran get a bomb? We might be one nuclear blast away from global conflict and next time Americans go to the ballot box, I hope abortion and gay-rights are the last things on our minds. Fundamentalism draws lines between people, and when no common ground can be found, extremism dominates and Civilization stumbles.
One more tidbit from Sandman that might be worthwhile considering:
“Risks that you control are much less a source of outrage than risks that are out of your control… (and) fear best thrives in the present tense. That is why experts rely on it; in a world that is increasingly impatient with long-term processes, fear is a potent short-term play.”
Crap my first post for the day disappeared. The gist of it was this:
Risk = Hazard + Outrage
- Peter Sandman
Thanks for buying into the outrage raisin. Fear sells and you are just solidifying that paradigm. Don't believe the hype.
Also, wasn't there a video recently "discovered" where the Mayor of New Oreleans told FEMA and the Bush Administration that everything was under control? The Federeal Gov't should just assume control of everthing. The local gov't can't be trusted.
I'm not sure I fully understand what angle you're taking Morgan, but in the future you should make a specific claim and link to something I have said so I can at least know what we are discussing. You're exactly right that fear sells... that's why we're fighting in Iraq buddy. The truth is that there really are some genuinely horrifying scenarios that could play out if cooler heads don't prevail, and since when were the anti-war folks the ones being acused of buying into the fear? Please clarify the point you were trying to make because it must have been over my head.
If you were referring specifically to the Katrina Response, I would encourage you to read the charter of FEMA and understand at what point a local emergency is considered a national disaster and the responsibility of the Federal government to act appropriately. The valid worry is that if we can't really respond as a nation to something that we could see coming a couple days in advance and which event was simply a routine Gulf Coast event except at a higher magnitude, then how can we feel confident that our systems could handle a doomsday scenario involving a severe terrorist disaster. Do I think terrorism will ever have a direct effect on my life? Probably not. But do I feel safer knowing Bush is the Executive appointing middle-managers to these essential roles? Not at all.
So once again Morgan, feel free to make a claim that we can discuss. In regards to the quote you gave about a world that thrives on short term fear at the expense of long term solutions, you should re-read that quote and think about the buildup and push for an invasion of Iraq and then consider the long-term strategy of diplomacy, sanctions, international observation, etc... then come back and try and explain how Bush's policies exhibit restraint, foresight, and long-term vision.
Raisin-
I wasn't defending Bush's actions in Iraq with my post. As such, no reference to Iraq was made. The point of my post was my observation regarding the consistent tone of your posts critcizing anyone and everyone. There is a consistent "doomsday" tone throughout your angst filled posts that make me feel like I am living in Seattle in the mid 90's. You also often sound like Michael Moore or Bill O'Reilly, two men who often use fear and outrage convey their points. Constantly pushing up the outrage (which your posts appear to be doing from my perspective) vastly overstates the risk. A perfect example of this is the hype surrounding Dubai and the control of ports. When I reference this I am not referring to your statements on the subject but the general media and political hype surrounding the situation. Essentially what I am getting at is that I feel that many people need to lighten up. "The Man" is not out to get everybody. There is not a giant conspiracy at the root of everything. I guess that is my point.
raisin "eating crow" that would be a good thing for this site.
I agree!
Well, we've essentially managed to avoid any discussion of substance, thank God. Somehow it became a critique of my tone, and I accept any due criticism of my approach, however I tend to think this is really just another mild ad hominem assertion and lacking in merit. I am aware that I sound angry, which sometimes I am, but for the most part I am extremely optimistic about my personal future, as well as the future of mankind. In fact, I believe I am the opposite of a doomsdayer because I don't believe in Armageddon or the return of a messiah, and I DO believe in Man's ability to transcend and create a more peaceful and tolerant society. I don't believe in conspiracy theories and if you actually wanted to discuss an ISSUE, we could see if there is merit to the points and counterpoints we make. This idea that my provactive tone in some way weakens the validity of what I am saying isn't an argument, but rather the lack of an argument. Granted, it may not be the best approach for winning the hearts and minds of the masses, but the idea is to shake the tree and see what crap falls out. I really don't care whether I am liked or supported by a single person on this slanted blog. I can at least know that whether we discuss religion or politics, I am the one presenting an alternative viewpoint and making hard statements. I have been disappointed by the response because no one ever comes back with a well reasoned thought or counterpoint (generally speaking). When we were discussing the lds religion, the best anyone could do was spew an emotional defense and claim that some things are only understood by the heart. Are there no high school debaters in this readership who can at least construct a legitimate argument?! No one had the balls to even step up and address the issue I was bringing to the table (for good reason because you don't have a leg to stand on) but nobody even attempted! (By the way Morgan, you should read the cover story from the new National Geographic on DNA lineages of our early ancestors, since you asked. I know, that damn liberal publication probably just wants to corrupt the youth and crucify jesus all over again, but at least they have that whole scientific method thing going for them.)
You guys are hilarious.
Fair enough Laura. I'll try to keep future criticism of an idea separate from the person who presented it.
Raisin-
It appears that the genetic evidence regarding the Book of Mormon is very important to you. As such, I will treat it with care.
When it comes to DNA, genomes, and chromosomes my experience and knowledge is limited to a high school class where I was exposed to micropipets, centrifuges, and making DNA gels. I in no way consider myself an expert regarding nomadic movements and genetic impact. I did do a quick google search and read up a little on the topic. From my understanding the basis for the claims regarding the genetic evidence and the BofM is couched in the research performed by deCode in Iceland. A little further research indicates that it is specifically based on the analyses of mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA and the non-recombining portion of the Y chromosome. From my reading a recurring theme is that one must excercise caution when interpreting analyses of mtDNA and Y chromosome variance to to the statistical nature of one highly variable "locus." This caveat is summarized very adroitly by Lynn B. Jorde, PhD University of Utah in his Genetic Variation and Human Evolution article at link. Note: I got an error message when I tried to hotlink so just copy and paste to your browser.
I am not sure that the link will work so if not you can copy and past this to your browser:
http://ashg.org/genetics/ashg/educ/jorde.shtml
The point of my post is that one must exercise caution when dealing with statistics and emerging technology. Especially when dealing with something that happened thousands of years ago. Many times there is no logical explanation for things of religious nature. As Laura pointed out before, that is where faith and trust come into play. I need to get back to work now so I will leave it at that. As a side note there was and interesting article posted on teh FARMS website at
http://farms.byu.edu/publications/dna/ButlerBofMandDNA_Feb2006.php
That is a BYU site though so the academic integrity of the article is definately in question :)
I actually really respect you for taking some time to look into this Morgan. I will read the links and let you know what I think. Thanks for breaking a stereotype in my mind. Later.
Hey I just have question.... I know this has nothing to do with anything but can I put any name in the Name box, even one that people have used?
I continue to enjoy the conversation on the blog and appreciate that many of you are willing to air your opinions publicly.
We see and hear conflicting information all the time. Some of it may even challenge long held religous beliefs and convictions. The Deseret Morning News on Wednesday published an article regarding a new book being released addressing the LDS view on evolution. So why am I bringing up evolution in the context of this current discussion you may ask? A statement from the First Presidency in December 1910 is quoted, "Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy...." I believe this applies to the DNA evidence verses The Book of Mormon and a multitude of other issues. These conflicts, at least they appear as conflicts to us...cause great consternation among some. Sometimes the real issue may be we really don't know what we don't know! That is why we must walk with faith while on this earth. President Hinckley is quoted at the end of the DMN article as saying in regards to evolution, "Studied all about it. Didn't worry me then. Doesn't worry me now."
I too have read several articles on the DNA evidence, some of which were referenced by Morgan. It's obvious to me we can't reconcile all of this yet but I remain confident we will at some point. But in the mean time one question that often troubles me is, why do we always take the first challenge to religion from science at face value and are so quick to throw off our faith when it conflicts with science? It's like science is infallable and we rush to embrace it so readily when so much of what science purports as truth is in reality still in the testing stage and sometimes is even just lousy science.
Anyway for now I will continue to study and faithfully carry on. Keep up the dialogue, there is much to learn as we talk together.
Scott-
Your post was like a breath a fresh air to me. Although we likely come to different conclusions on things, I think your approach is right and thanks for your tone... one I would do well to pattern my comments after.
I agree that there is no reason to fear science, if in fact it is science. And in my opinion, there are some things that science simply won't ever be able to explain and for that reason religion will always exist. I love Gordon B. Hinckley because he is so good at presenting a reasonable and sincere face for the church, and I have always appreciated his reluctance to take a hard-line approach on controversial issues, even when his predecessors have not chosen the same stance. I believe that what the church IS, is more important than what the church WAS, and I expect that advances in understanding and increased openness in dialogue will encourage the church to focus on the real advantages of faithful living rather than the irrelevant (my opinion) issues of authority, infallibility, control, etc. I believe that different churches have different effects on different people and God is fine with that. For me personally, the cognizant gap between my desire to believe and my desire to understand became too great for me to feel unified in thought and purpose within the church, although I openly acknowledge that my conclusion may not be the right one for other people. I hope that one day LDS intellectuals (I may or may not be an intellectual) will feel comfortable expressing independent opinions within the church that may not fully jive with doctrine. In the end, truth will prevail and open discussion does more to serve the cause of truth than defeat it. The biggest tragedy would be to marginalize those honest seekers of truth who would love to be a part of a wholesome religion that accepts individuality and personal intellectual exploration.
Scott, I am guessing that you are a little bit older than the rest of us who make comments and it seems that you have found a comfortable ground for yourself in which you are able to reconcile faith with an honest approach to science. Good for you.
Jake- You've been slacking in post lately.
Post a Comment