In the 17th century women were frequent visitors to warships to comfort the crew. And these relationships produced children, some legitimate, some not. The fathers were sometimes known, sometimes not. Babies on board were birthed out between the cannon on the gun deck providing some measure of privacy. The baby's paternity might be noted as "son of a gun."

Gun deck USS Constitution
Image Credit

Our military heros have been siring sons for centuries; men who did the right thing for their country but, perhaps, could have done better for their women.

Let me tell a story, a true story . . . but no names, no links. I want to honor the young man of whom I speak, while yet grieving over a wound left behind. . .

In a very public event, in a very public place, our young man was laid to rest in the Hallowed Grounds of Arlington National Cemetery. He gave the last full measure of devotion defending our country and our way of life.

As the military honor guard moved through the sad ritual of folding the casket flag -- snap and crease, smooth and fold -- a young woman sat solemnly holding the young man's son. But the young woman was not his wife; the little boy did not carry the young man's name: he's a 21st century son of a gun.

The little boy received the folded flag, honoring his father. Another flag went to the mother of the fallen soldier. . .not the mother of his child.

Scriptures teach us that there is no greater love than that a man give his life for another. There is no greater love, but might there be some regrets, some good not done? Is our soldier in the warrior's Valhalla wondering now what he might have done differently? As he passes the streams at Fiddler's Green does he wonder what he could revisit on this side of eternity?

Stories about the young man's death said that he joined the military to provide for his son; he wanted to be an honorable man. And he eagerly planned to return to the young woman and care for his son.

The young man gave his life for us all. And the Nation is grateful. But I wonder if our grieving would be more complete if, as he gave his life for us, he had given his name to his son.

God bless him, and his son of a gun.

And a salute to Outside The Beltway

Posted at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (2)

Napoleon was stepping through battlefield carnage when an aide grieved over the horrific loss of life. Bonaparte replied that France could replace the bloody losses in a single night from a Paris whorehouse.

Image Credit: Liberation

Today's European leaders seem to have a similar lack of regard for the French citoyen. To the horror of the European ruling elite, the French have rejected ratification of the European Union constitution fairly soundly. However the Daily Telegraph says that the EU leaders view the vote as merely a disappointing speedbump in their resolute march to unification:

Ignore all the febrile threats of chaos. Far more accurate was the analysis given by Jean-Claude Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg and currently the holder of the EU Presidency: "If it is a 'Yes' we carry on; if it is a 'No' we carry on." There you have it: as neat a statement of the EU's guiding philosophy as you could ask for. The project is far too important to be denied by the ballot box.

(From Chrenkoff, who covers the vote with outstanding links, including this one to Mark Steyn, "EU just won't take 'no' for an answer.")

Of course, as leaders throughout history (including Napoleon) have learned, political hubris can lead to stunning miscalculation. It isn't all that easy to ignore the will of the people. And it appears that the French may have to contend with their own "red-state/blue-state" issues.

Or orange and blue, as Liberation styles it. (This via Bad Hair Blog with excellent reporting and analysis.)

The vote map (above) shows "blue states" voting "oui;" light yellow voting 50-50% "non;" darker yellow voting 55-60% "non;" and orange voting over 60% "non." Just like recent American elections, there are clear regional patterns of voting. One of the more interesting results is the dark orange swath of voters in the northeastern area of France: the area closest to Brussels, the seat of the EU.

And, indeed, sovereignty was a real issue in this vote. The Washington Post reports on the non vote:

"I voted no out of a concern for democracy," said Gilles Noeul, 28, an engineer who attended an opposition victory rally Sunday night in Paris. "For me, the decisions should not be made by Europe, but by each nation. I want France to make decisions for herself."

Still, though Americans instinctively tap into this "defense of sovereignty" angle of the vote, it is important to avoid imposing an American filter on the French vote. Bad Hair Blog provides a translation of a Spanish blog which lists five reasons for the vote. I want to emphasize the first two: concern over high French unemployment rates (it's 10%) . . . and concern over the EU's, relatively (compared to France), greater emphasis on free-market principles.

Right. Fix unemployment by going more socialist?? Again: avoid looking at this vote through an American lens. These citoyens ain't us, ain't U.S.

No, the French have a Gallic reasoning all their own. And those who remain optimistic about EU prospects, in the face of this defeat, might do well to recall the French retreat from NATO in 1966.

This is not the first time the French have waved le tricolore and distanced themselves from international partnership. Then-French President Charles DeGaulle stated that NATO was unnecessary, because France would have an independent nuclear striking force or force de frappe. By 1967 the French had built a fleet of nuclear bombers.

During the Cold War the French did not want to subordinate the defense of France to NATO. And now the French don't want to surrender sovereignty to the EU.

(So, yes, there are two, two times that the French wouldn't surrender. Three, if you count speaking French in Quebec.)

All fun French jokes aside, it's a cautionary tale for EU enthusiasts.

Image Credit: BBC
Nine countries have ratified the treaty: Austria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.

LINKFEST:
Ahoy to Captain's Quarter's

Polished red apple to Betsy's Page

More at Jackson's Junction who alerts us to Iowa Voice

Another interesting angle on this story: the Left is divided, a complicated story which defies easy summary. . . See Daily Kos here.

Right Wing News writes well on the EU as bad news.

danieldrezner has an excellent international relations (IR) take.

Posted at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Do All Roads Lead to Arizona??

I'm beginning to be a little concerned about Arizona. There appears to be some sort of harmonic convergence developing, with sinister, even nefarious, implications. . .

Consider the evidence:

First, Howard Dean used data from Arizona to erroneously claim that abortion has increased 25% in the last several years. . .

Senator John McCain
Betrayed!
Pic Credit

Second, John McCain, Republican Senator from Arizona "saves America" with a filibuster compromise only to have the Democrats turn around and use the filibuster within the week. . .

Third, Route 66 runs through Arizona.

The Penta-Posse
at the famous
Jack Rabbit Trading Post
on Rt. 66

Fourth, PepsiCo has a facility in Arizona.

Clearly: traveling on Route 66 is dangerous to your ability to reason, Clearly. Spread the word. Alert the (Mainstream) Media!

(Hey, I heard a rumor that Linda Foley was recently spotted, drinking Starbucks coffee, in Arizona.)

Have a nice Memorial Day weekend: full disclosure -- all links above take you to marginally relevant not-to-be-missed previous posts within Reasoned Audacity!

(Well, and truthfully, my wonderful sister-in-law comes from Arizona . . . so it can't be too bad a place!)

LINKS: Huzzah to Wizbang, Carnival of the Trackbacks XIII

Posted at 9:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (2)

Victor Davis Hanson

For those who have been following the controversy surrounding President of PepsiCo, Indra Nooyi, and her remarks at Columbia Business School, Victor Davis Hanson weighs in today on National Review Online.

He groups Nooyi together with other global elites who benefit from unparallelled American opportunity, and then hypocritally disparage the very system that catapulted them to positions of wealth and privilege. He cites Imran Khan, an internationally-known cricket star now running for public office in Pakistan who incited the Newsweek riots; Arundhati Roy, an Indian novelist who has won the Booker-prize, who is also a harsh critic of America; and Lars von Trier the Danish filmmaker who specializes in the anti-America genre.

I particularly liked Hanson's point that these privileged elites indulge in their anti-American rants as something of an egoistic pasttime:

The anti-Americanism that we frequently see and hear, then, is often a plaything of the international elite — a corporate grandee, a leisured athlete, or a refined novelist who flies in and out of the West, counts on its globalizing appendages for wealth, and then mocks those who make it all possible — but never to the point that their own actions would logically follow their rhetoric and thus cost them so dearly.

We might expect that a chagrined Ms. Nooyi would resign from Pepsi since it is the glossy fingernail of the American middle finger that apparently so bothers her. We pray that Mr. Khan will stay among the mobs and rioters of the madrassas and mosques he stirred up. Perhaps novelist Roy can write in an indigenous Indian language, peddle her books at home, and thereby disinvest from this hegemonic system that drives her to fury.

Meanwhile, Nooyi appears to have weathered the storm her remarks created. However, if traffic on this site is any indication, there are still people interested in the issue.

And we're still not drinking Pepsi or Gatorade here.

Posted at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1)

Senator Al D'Amato (R-NY) had such attention to detail to the everyday needs of his voters that he earned the not unkind moniker: Senator Pothole.

Senator Al D'Amato
Power, Pasta and Politics

While the Congress has devolved into a low-level constituent service provider, the Courts have evolved into legislative law givers. Our elected officials will fulfill our every request -- save make a difficult decision.

They are all Senator Pothole now.

Fixing Potholes

Need a road repair on your street? Can Do -- call your Senator. Vote on abortion? Can't be done.

Professor of Law, Lino A. Graglia wrote in the Wall Street Journal, on Tuesday that our very system of government has been changed by activist judges. While our legislators are busy with pork-barrel politics, our judges are running the country:

Lino Graglia

The battles in Congress over the appointment of even lower court federal judges reveal a recognition that federal judges are now...our real law makers. . .

The problem is that the Supreme Court justices have made the due process and equal protection clauses empty vessels into which they can pour any meaning.

This converts the clauses into simple transferences of policymaking power from elected legislators to the justices...

And it's not clear the legislators want policymaking power back.

Political Scientist, Hadley Arkes suggests in his book, Natural Rights and the Right to Choose, that coddling the voters will ensure re-election. Making hard voting decisions will alienate some and might cost a election. Congress would rather the Courts make controversial decisions and take the heat -- judges have tenure, anyway, so who cares? Congress would rather just stay out of the kitchen.

Potholes, yes. Abortion, no.

More good links at The American Mind

See Three Bad Fingers for filibuster/cloture difference

Posted at 12:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 19, 2005
DoD Identifies Army Casualty

The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Pfc. Sam W. Huff, 18, of Tucson, Ariz., died April 18 in Baghdad, Iraq, of injuries sustained on April 17 in Baghdad, Iraq, when an improvised explosive device detonated near her HMMWV. Huff was assigned to the 170th Military Police Company, 504th Military Police Battalion, 42nd Military Police Brigade, Fort Lewis, Wash.

Sam Huff was, says her grieving father, a "cutie pie."

Sam Huff
High School Graduation

Paul Hogue at My Dogs Are Smarter draws our attention to the story of Sam's recent death in Iraq . . . and her father's comments about women in combat.

Paul comments that "subjecting women to the vagaries of combat" is not just an issue of military readiness, but is also inherently immoral. He also adds movingly that this issue is "about how civilized societies treat their wives and daughters, their moms and sisters."

I agree. But Barbara Eakins does not. She recently wrote, in response to the post I wrote about the draft, to ask:

Why is it unacceptable to draft my daughter but not my son? I am opposed to war and have no desire for either of them to go to die. But why is it fair to send my son to his death and not my daughter?

Sam Huff's dad said much the same thing, arguing that any child's death is a great sorrow: "It doesn't make a difference whether their kids are male or female, young or old."

Of course, he's right about that.

As the mother of three daughters, and two sons, I've thought a lot about why we send our sons, and not our daughters to war. There's no easy answer to this question: it's like Sophie's Choice.

Let me respond in this way. At Sam's funeral, they played the song "Butterfly Kisses" a song Bob Carlisle wrote, he says as a "private love letter" to his daughter Brooke.

The song is about "daddy's little girl," and they played it at the funeral of an 18-year-old 110 pound cutie-pie, KIA. USA Today quoted Martha Kleder, formerly an Air Force enlisted, and a policy analyst for Concerned Women for America, who observed: "You don't play Butterfly Kisses at the funeral of a warrior."

Why our sons, and not our daughters? It's hard to express why, but it is unutterably sad to hear "Butterfly Kisses" lingering in the air, along with the sharp crack of a military rifle salute, and the mournful notes of Taps. . .

God bless the Huff family in their loss.

There's two things I know for sure

She was sent here from Heaven

And she's daddys little girl

As I drop to my knees by her bed at night

She talks to Jesus and I close my eyes

And I thank God for all of the joy in my life

Oh but most of all

For butterfly kisses after bedtime prayer
Stickin little white flowers all up in her hair
Walk beside the pony daddy
It's my first ride
I know the cake looks funny daddy
But I sure tried
Oh with all that I've done wrong
I must have done something right
TO deseve a hug every mornin
And butterfly kisses at night

Sweet 16 today
She's lookin like her mama
A little more every day
One part woman
The other part girl
To perfume and make up
From ribbons and curls
Trying her wings out in a great big world
But I remember

Butterfly kisses after bedtime prayer
Stickin little white flowers all up in her hair
You know how much I love you daddy
But if you don't mind
I'm only gonna kiss you on the cheek this time
Oh with all that I've done wrong
I must have done something right
To deserve her love every morning
And butterfly kisses at night

All the precious time
Like the wind the years go by
Precious Butterfly
Spread your wings and fly

Continue Reading »

Posted at 11:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Elaine Donnelly
Center for Military Readiness

Today, the House of Representatives dropped a provision in the Defense spending bill that would have codified the military regulations which prohibit assigning women to units with a direct land combat mission, or support companies that collocate with combat units. This was an important amendment that addressed the Army's recent "boiled frog" strategy of moving women into Forward Support Companies, that you've been reading about here.

Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, who has been working on this issue, was upbeat about today's development on the Hill. She says that having the Congress begin a debate on women in combat represents real progress:

This was the first time in 10 years that women in combat has been on the legislative radar screen.

Nevertheless, Francis the frog is still a-boilin'. And more sisters, daughters -- and mothers -- are in harm's way.

** Check out the other great posts at Mudville, Open Post.

Posted at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Let's have more fun with numbers. I concluded the post below about Howard Dean's wholesale invention of abortion data on Sunday's Meet the Press (transcript) by asking:

Wondering what the political agenda is here? Why would Dean lie about abortion data (so outrageously)?

It's a question worth exploring a little further.

Glen Stassen

Dean's debacle appears rooted in an article that appeared in the Christian Century, this past February, "Supporting parents: A pro-lifer’s critique of Bush," by Glen Stassen, the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Seminary. (Variations of the same article are all over the web. See also here.)

Stassen makes Dean's argument that abortions are increasing because of President Bush's economic policies, which hurt women. . . and back them into having abortions:

During the 1990s, as unemployment steadily decreased and average real income rose, the annual number of abortions in the U.S. actually decreased by 300,000—from 1,610,000 to 1,310,000. But in 2002, the first full year of the Bush presidency, abortions increased in the 16 states for which I could find data by a total of 5,855. If the data from the rest of the nation fit that pattern, abortions increased nationwide in 2002 by about 24,000 a year, reversing the dramatic decreases of the 1990s.

Surely that increase reflects economic and social conditions.

Elsewhere on the web, at Malkin Watch, Stassen has argued that: "The thirty-year trend shows abortion rates moving in tandem with women's unemployment rates."

Does it? Let's see:

So where did Dean get the 25% abortion increase under Bush? Arizona in 2002. One year in one state, does not a nationwide trend make. Furthermore, Arizona's own Department of Health Services cautioned that their data reflected "a better response rate of providers." (More from the National Right to Life.)

In statistics we call this a sample size error (or "mining the data"). In politics we call it spin. (In raising children. . . we call it lying.)

See more at Shock and Blog

Posted at 1:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The good-guys over at the Unalienable Right had a hilarious response to Howard Dean's comedic appearance on Meet the Press. Here's the set-up:

Tim Russert

MR. RUSSERT: Let me stay on your rhetoric. [You said] that "I hate the Republicans, what they stand for, good and evil, we are the good." . . . you said, "Republicans are brain dead." You mentioned you're a physician -- "[Dean] did draw howls of laughter by mimicking a drug-snorting Rush Limbaugh. . . ."

But is it appropriate for a physician to mock somebody who has gone into therapy and the abuse for drug addiction?

Howard Dean

DR. DEAN: . . .The problem is it is galling to Democrats, . . .to be lectured to about moral values by folks who have their own problems. Hypocrisy is a value that I think has been embraced by the Republican Party. . .

MR. RUSSERT: But should you jump in the fray and be mocking those kind of people?

DR. DEAN: I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy.

And here's the punchline response from Unalienable Right:

Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear this silly “Republicans are hypocrites” meme.

This is the typical ‘thought’ on the left - Judging is wrong, hypocrisy is wrong, except it’s OK for us to judge people who are hypocrites, and that doesn’t make our judging hypocritical, because the people we’re judging are meanies, and judging is wrong, except when you’re judging meanness, and we’re good, so judging us is bad, but Republicans are bad, so judging them is good, so our judging is by definition good, and they’re judging is by definition bad. . .

Dead on.

And with all the criticism leveled at journalists (including mine) the last few weeks, it's worth pausing a moment to say: Tim Russert is a stand-up guy. Those are some great questions he leveled at Dean - more in the transcript.

Posted at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ben Bradlee

Would you sell out the American soldier for a Pulitzer Prize? No? Ben Bradlee would.

My friend Gary Bauer tells this story:

A number of years ago at the National Press Club I had the opportunity to ask Ben Bradlee, then executive editor of The Washington Post, what he would have done if he found out ahead of time about the D-Day invasion to liberate Europe.

Would the Post have printed the story?

Bradlee’s answer took a while, but the bottom line was . . .

“yes.”

I think this story is important for what it tells us about American media culture. Ben Bradlee is the godfather. And he set the bar for the Linda Foley's -- and the Newsweek editors -- who have followed him.

D-Day at Normandy, picture credit: Chief Photographer's Mate Robert F. Sargent

Update: Tim Schmoyer's Sysiphean Musings has a must read at Patriotic Journalism. He writes, "Let's face it, calling a journalist patriotic is an insult, a casting out term among the tribe, in the same vein as "true believer". See more on the "tribe" -- his excellent word -- at "And the Left Wonders Why the Country Thinks They Are Anti-Military?

Thanks to Greyhawk for Open Post at Mudville Gazette. . .

Learn what the commo officer said on a Pont du Hoc progress report at Daisy Cutter

Eric's Grumbles Before the Grave honors the Greatest Generation without politics

other links to:
TMH Bacon Bits

RightWingNutHouse

Update: Jackson's Junction has more choice words on journalists.

Update: Media Slander has letter to The Newspaper Guild

Posted at 11:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (3)

Here's what Howard Dean had to say on Meet the Press yesterday about abortion:


Howard Dean
on Meet the Press

DR. DEAN: . . .You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was president?

And here's the truth:

This data is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (research organization founded by Planned Parenthood). In fact, this chart includes data from a press release just issued on Thursday, entitled "DECADES-LONG DECLINE IN NUMBER AND RATE OF U.S. ABORTIONS CONTINUES, NEW ANALYSIS SHOWS":

A new analysis from The Alan Guttmacher Institute shows that U.S. abortion rates continued to decline in 2001 and 2002, although the rate of decline has slowed since the early 1990s. The Institute estimates that 1,303,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2001-0.8% fewer than the 1,313,000 in 2000. In 2002, the number of abortions declined again, to 1,293,000, or another 0.8%. The rate of abortion also declined, from 21.3 procedures per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 2000 to 21.1 in 2001 and 20.9 in 2002.

Wondering what the political agenda is here? Why would Dean lie about abortion data (so outrageously)?

The Guttmacher press release mentions "speculat[ion] that abortion has increased as a result of Bush administration policies," and then the President and CEO, Sharon Camp, says that: "It takes time for political decisions to be reflected in the statistical data, so it is too soon to tell what the impact of Bush administration policies will be on U.S. abortion rates."

So there you have it: It's President Bush's fault that the number of abortions has been increasing. Except that they haven't been. Yes, the truth. Such a pesky thing.

Take a look at the whole transcript. This is just a small slice of the comedy Dean served up yesterday. . .

For more abortion decline data, see here.
And here's a link to a series of articles Ramesh Ponnuru has written on abortion decline.

UPDATE May 27: Welcome Michelle Malkin readers. . . she has more great links and info here. See also my post above, "Those Pesky Facts," about the Democrat's underlying claim that abortion and unemployment are linked. Michelle links to a post by FactCheck.org which provides a response from Stassen.

LINK UPDATE:

More links: Michelle Malkin and Just One Minute here and here with excellent analysis on the Democratic talking points Dean was using.

Posted at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (6)

Rudyard Kipling had Linda Foley's number.

Linda Foley

For God and the soldier we adore,

In time of danger, not before!

The danger passed, and all things righted,

God is forgotten and the soldier slighted.

~Rudyard Kipling

Linda Foley is the President of the Newspaper Guild, 35,000 member union of "media workers." On Friday the 13th in St. Louis, she gave a speech in which she accused the United States military with targetting and murdering journalists:

Journalists, by the way, are just being targeted, ah, verbally or, ah, or, ah, politically. They're also being targeted for real. Um…in places like Iraq. Ahn and, ah, what outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq. I think it's just a scandal.

Here's the insight Rudyard Kipling gives us into Foley's speech: the liberals still don't understand that we are at war.

After slandering our military, she has the temerity to talk about the need to defend free speech, the free press and the freedom of association:

And so as you go forward on this struggle, keep in mind that the other part of the First Amendment, besides the free speech and the free press part, also talks about the freedom of association. And I'm telling you right now, . . .the ability of workers in media and elsewhere to form free trade unions, is imperiled as it's never been imperiled before. . . there never has been a democracy, in this world, that has not had both a free press and a free trade union movement.

Does she think we keep those freedoms, for free? Our military is busy defending her freedoms -- while she is self-righteously safe here at home.

Unbelievable. Just as Kipling said: the soldier is slighted . . . because she thinks the danger is passed.

Thanks to the Dusty Attic for a full transcript, which puts the lie to Foley's "I was taken out of context" defense. And, even better, hear it for yourself! Trey Jacksons has a 3:22 minute video up, so you can parse her speech, word for word.

Worst of all, you can hear the laughter from her audience when she gets snarky about Republicans, and the applause when she insults the military.

A great roundup today over at Word Unheard, who pointed me toward the transcripts and video. See also his indispensable Foley fisking here.

LaShawn Barber also has extensive coverage and links.

Posted at 1:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Thomas Sowell writes a must-read column about bigotry. . . and he sees it in the Senate maneuvering to keep judicial nominees from getting a vote.

Thomas Sowell

Maybe the non-stop denunciations of judicial nominees by Senate Democrats will seem relevant to some people but it is in fact wholly beside the point. Senators who don't like any particular judicial nominee -- or any nominee for any other federal appointment -- have a right to vote against that nominee for any reason or for no reason. . .

. . .The real issue is whether those Senators have the right to deprive all other Senators of the right to vote on these nominees. . . The essence of bigotry is denying other people the same rights you have. For generations, it was racial bigotry which provoked filibusters to prevent the Senate from voting on bills to extend civil rights to blacks. But bigotry is bigotry, whether it is racial bigotry, religious bigotry or political bigotry.

The truth is, the Left lost the election in November. And they simply refuse to accept the loss. After all, "those people" couldn't have won, could they?

Case in point: Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation, on This Week yesterday talking about those "right-wing Christians." Voice dripping with scorn. That's bigotry. And it's not any prettier dressed up with intellectual pretension.

Katrina vanden Heuvel

And they can't say that the question of the courts wasn't part of the election: Judicial nominations were a part of the national discussion at the time.

So now, we've moved on to a raw power grab. The debate over the filibuster is hardball politics, plain and simple. Fueled by, as Sowell brilliantly recognizes, good old-fashioned bigotry.

Posted at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

She did it! Gianna did it!

Readers may remember a report a month ago from Carol, who wrote to tell us the inspirational story about a young woman at her gym, Gianna Jessen, who was training for the Country Music Marathon in Nashville.

But Gianna is not your average runner -- she has cerebral palsy from surviving an abortion attempt at her birth. (And here.)

So what's a girl to do with those kinds of challenges, both physical and spiritual, weighing her down? Run a marathon of course!

And she did.

Here's the full story of her training and amazing finish. I have run two marathons, and we're training now for the Marine Corps Marathon in October. So I can tell you: I can't believe she did it. I really can't.

A marathon is 26.2 miles of pain. After mile 20, there's a voice in your head screaming, "stop, stop, stop" with every step. Gianna didn't stop. Her story is humbling, and she's an inspiration to us all.

Posted at 9:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This is the cover of the Japanese edition of Newsweek, on newstands in Tokyo February 2nd. When I first saw this, I was sure it was a hoax, but I found it through Michelle Malkin, so I looked a little longer . . .It comes from a guy named "gaijinbiker," a New Yorker who lives in Tokyo who writes Riding Sun blog. A good source.

Riding Sun reports that the large white text reads, "Amerika ga shinda hi", which translates to "The day America died." And LGF reader, rickadams adds that the yellow text reads: "The ideal of ‘freedom’ falls to the ground due to Bush continuing in office.”

The cover Newsweek issued that week here in the US was entitled "Oscar Confidential" and featured Hilary Swank, Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio.

What possible excuse could Newsweek have for putting our flag in the trash?

Posted at 8:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (2)

To all of you serving our country in the military today -- and your families -- we salute you! We thank you. We pray for you. And to Josh, Michael, and Will, in particular . . .We Love You! Be Safe.

Voluntaries

By Ralph Waldo Emerson

***

In an age of fops and toys,
Wanting wisdom, void of right
Who shall nerve heroic boys
To Fathom all in Freedom's fight -
Break sharply off their jolly games
Forsake their comrades gay
And quit proud homes and youthful dames
For famine, toil and fray?
Yet on the nimbler air benign
Speed nimble messages
That waft the breath of grace divine
To hearts in sloth and ease
So nigh is grandeur to our hearts
So near is God to man
When Duty whispers low, Thou Must
The youth replies, I can.

Thanks to Paratrooper.net for the moving poem.

Matt at Blackfive, says that there are protests scheduled today at recruiting offices around the country (how dare they?), and suggests buying a recruiter a cup of coffee instead! He also provides a link to events honoring the military around the country.

Posted at 8:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From astute reader, "ESL":

Pepsi basically sells sugar water. One sugar water is just as good as another. . . .I would think that Gatorade will be the biggest loser. I’m willing to bet that demographics for Gatorade would be seriously offended at what [Indra Nooyi] said.

Enjoying POWERADE After Victory!

Goodbye Gatorade. The reader quoted above is right. I'll give you demographics: Here's the Dude, with his buddies on the Savage baseball team, after a stupendous victory, fueled by (Coca-Cola's) POWERADE!

Ironically, this Pepsi debacle follows close on the heals of my decision to no longer purchase Starbucks products either. (Their corporate chiefs donate almost 100% to Democrats.) Sean over at The American Mind took me to task for that one, saying that:

My life is more productive and fun because I don't deeply examine the politics behind everything I buy. Doing that means letting ideology rule your life. That's a very unconservative way to live.

Good for Sean. But ideas (principles) should rule your life. "Boycott" is really shorthand for something subtler, and ultimately more powerful: the power of consumer choice. The market has such an elegantly clean focus to it -- I'm the customer; I choose.

And, God bless America, I've got a lot of products to choose from. It's just sugar water.

The Dude drinking Powerade

Pepsi spends millions of dollars trying to influence my buying decisions by working to associate their products in my mind with appealing, trendy images: Britney one year; Beyonce the next. So why would it be better to buy their products because I think their spokesperson is cool (or "hot," as the case may be). . . rather than to take the time to assess, as best I can, their corporate values?

Of course we don't usually know much about their values. But sometimes we do. Sometimes their CEO is imprudent enough to stand up in front of a large audience and insult America. (Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo) And, sometimes their corporate leadership is completely, and publicly, allied with a political party that advocates partial-birth abortion. (Howard Schultz, Starbucks)

Sean wrote that: "When Dunkin' Donuts creates an atmosphere as inviting as Starbucks in a location I can find and have free WiFi. . .then I'll start going there."

Fair enough. Dunkin' Donuts should have WiFi. I bet they soon will. The exciting thing about the free market is that it could happen. Competition gives us what we want. We just have to demand it.

342 cases. . . of Gatorade
tossed in the Boston Harbor, Dec. 1773

There is a direct parallel between democracy and capitalism. In the political system, the ballot box referees the referendum. In the economic market, it's the cash register.

Pepsi. . . Starbucks. . . you lost my vote.

LINKS:

Thanks, Mudville Gazette, Open Post.

For a different view: The Anchoress, mad at Nooyi, still loves Diet Pepsi . . .

Posted at 12:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This one's for our Milblogger friends!

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Jabberwocky, Lewis Carroll

Posted at 12:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So what's all the fuss about Indra Nooyi's Columbia speech. . . and the digitus impudicus? Images are important. Symbolism is powerful. Look to the story about the USS Pueblo and the crew's defiant use of the "impudent finger."


Captured Crew Members,
USS Pueblo

In January 1968, the North Koreans captured the USS Pueblo. One crew member was killed when the ship was captured and the remaining crew of 82 were held prisoner for 11 months.

The North Koreans released photos of the captured crew as propaganda. . . with middle fingers extended. The brave and inventive crew told the North Koreans it was "The Hawaiian Good Luck Sign."

To their credit, The New York Times and The Washington Post published the photo without comment. But the October 18, 1968 issue of Time magazine (hello, Newsweek) published this foolish caption:

The North Koreans are having a hard time proving to the world that the captive crewmen of the USS Pueblo are a contrite and cooperative lot. Last week Pyongyang's flacks tried again -- and lost to the US Navy. In this class-reunion picture, three of the crewmen have managed to use the medium for a message, furtively getting off the U.S. hand signal of obscene derisiveness and contempt.

Embarrassed, the North Koreans tortured the crew. They suffered through what the survivors dubbed "Hell Week."

Images are important. Symbolism is powerful.

The great irony of Nooyi challenging her audience to greater cultural sensitivity, while flagrantly violating that principle herself is staggering. In fact, she says in her latest apology that "Regrettably, I've proven my own point."

Despite the apology, Hugh Hewitt observes that it still appears that no one at PepsiCo "understands why people are outraged."

Brave men were tortured for that impudent finger, that's why.

The USS Pueblo is a popular tourist attraction on the Taedong River in Pyongyang, North Korea

LINKS (updating throughout the day):

There's a new Pepsi boycott page here.

And more from Donald Sensing: "if it’s true that “the personal is political,” it’s also true at Ms. Nooyi’s rarefied altitude that the personal is the corporate."

And Corante, with a discussion of brand management, suggesting that Pepsi start a blog as an outlet for "engaging with the enraged community of Pepsi drinkers."

Michelle Malkin weighs in. . .

Hugh Hewitt follows the story and links to two parody sites: Curt Jester and Huffington's Toast -- both have developed illustrations for Nooyi's talk. When I read her speech, one of my first thoughts was that this kind of parody pictures would be in production quickly. Pepsi should have known it, too.

Thanks, Greyhawk, for Open Post at Mudville Gazette. . .

More at The Write Wing Conspiracy

UPDATE April 7, 2007 from an Alert Reader at Little Green Footballs on British vs American captive sailors.

Posted at 1:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (3)

Indra Nooyi made $5.5 MILLION US total direct compensation in 2003. She was #12 in the list of the top earners among CFO's.

I explain below what I mean by "bimbo" in the headline. It's not what you think (well, not exactly). . .

But first: Welcome Powerline readers. . .I like very much Scott Johnson's comments about Indra Nooyi's Columbia speech (see post below) where he highlights the "immaturity of her remarks" and he concludes:

. . .they are indeed sophomoric, as though an audacious undergraduate had sought to impersonate the distinguished executive of a multinational corporation and parody the genre of the commencement speech. The trope of the middle finger brings it almost to the level of . . .transcendent tastelessness . . .

I also think Powerline reader, Tom MacLaughlin's comment about the ridiculous mismatch between topic and audience is particularly astute: "No doubt a few of the Americans in Ms. Nooyi's audience might qualify as boorish, but speaking to the Columbia crowd on this is like lecturing a group of public interest law graduates on the evils of greed."

And then Scott concludes his post with a letter from Eric Egland, writing from Iraq. This one will make you tear up, as he offers better "finger" examples Ms. Noori might have considered, and would discover if "she could ride on a combat patrol here":

She might notice her fingers moistened by sweat as she unconsciously gripped her armrest, noticing a tinge of fear from attack by a roadside bomb--the same fear felt by myself and every other American on Iraq’s roads. . .In Afghanistan, many children and parents stick their thumbs straight up when Americans pass, demonstrating gratefulness for no longer living under the Taliban.

Be sure to read Egland's whole letter. He concludes by saying he will no longer be drinking Pepsi, or using their products. Neither will I.

For responding to Ms. Nooyi's insult with a Pepsi boycott, I am being taken to task. An anonymous reader from India responded to my first post on Nooyi's speech below by saying: "Only sheer childishness and lack of maturity would lead to not using pepsico products and offloading pepsico shares!"

I'll write more about my boycott rationale in another post. Let me say again: Ms. Nooyi makes over $5 MILLION a year -- and she needs tutoring in PR 101?

When I talked with Elaine Palmer, Director of External Affairs, at PepsiCo yesterday, she was trying to convince me that Nooyi had a "positive message." But, Nooyi used a "bimbo" in the speech, over and over and over again. Palmer knew this. That's why she was clearly shaken.

So what's a "bimbo?" I am indebted here to my friend Merrie Spaeth, at Spaeth Communications, who developed this concept. Merrie puts out a regular "Bimbo Awards" report in which she reports on all the "unfortunate" statements made by public figures. It's named after the young woman who, after a public affair, proclaimed to the world: "I am not a bimbo!" The statement went around the world, and what do you remember today? The negative. Bimbo, Bimbo, Bimbo. . . Follow on -- Richard Nixon: "I am not a crook." What do you remember? Crook, Crook, Crook.

Now, piling on. Let's look back at Indra's speech:

Today,. . . I want you to consider how you will conduct your business careers so that the other continents see you extending a hand . . . not the finger. . .

And again:

Now, as never before, it's important that we give the world a hand. . .not the finger.

And again:

So remember, when you extend your arm to colleagues and peoples from other countries, make sure that you're giving a hand . . .not the finger.

What do you remember? What's the message? The finger, the finger, the finger. . .

That's what $5 mil gets you??!!

Pepsi? Gatorade? Count me out.

Somebody pass me a Diet Coke.

LINKS:

Donald Sensing wants to boycott, just "because it simply is a really lousy speech."
Sierra Faith says: "Tired of this Hate America First crowd. They’re bores. . "

Wizbang also discussing. . .
The American Mind on not boycotting in general . . .

Thanks to Greyhawk, Open Post.

Posted at 9:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1)

Indra Nooyi
President and CFO, PepsiCo

I've been on the phone this morning (and again this afternoon) with PepsiCo, and, once they finish their prepared script, their Public Relations staff sounds hesitant, puzzled. . . and scared.

They should be.

Let me see if I can help with the puzzled part. I've just finished reading a speech that business school students will be reading for years to come as a case study in how to keep your job, or not to, as the case may be. I'd bet money that Indra Nooyi won't be keeping hers.

Here's the background. Indra Nooyi, who is, for now, the President and CFO of PepsiCo, gave an address to the graduating class of Columbia Business School on Sunday. In the speech, she talked about America's role in the world, using the hand as an analogy. Each finger of the hand was assigned a country: little finger, Africa; thumb, Asia; pointer finger, Europe (oh pu-leaze!); ring finger, South America; and middle finger -- oh yes, that would be us: the United States.

Wes Martin, one of the graduates listening to this speech, was appalled, and wrote to Scott Johnson at Powerline about Nooyi's "diatribe about how the US is seen as the middle finger to the rest of the world."

Another Powerline reader, Rayne Steinberg, wrote in to verify Martin's account: "Wes Martin's report is 100% accurate. . . .It was rather shocking."

Ms. Nooyi responded this morning in a "Message from Indra" on the PepsiCo website:

I refer to North America and particularly the U.S. as the middle finger because it is the longest and anchors every function the hand performs. The middle finger also is key to all the fingers working together effectively. That is how I view America’s place of importance in the world. . .The point of my analogy was to emphasize America’s leadership position. . . Unfortunately, my remarks at Columbia University were misconstrued and depicted in a different context as unpatriotic. Although nothing could be further from the truth, I regret any confusion or concern that I may have inadvertently created.

PepsiCo is trying valiantly to emphasize the "misconstrued" line. That word come up several times when I talked with them this morning. Terri Maini, a Consumer Relations Supervisor, told me, "I really think it was misconstrued." In response to my follow-up questions, Donna Leskowski, Manager for Public Affairs, said much the same thing.

One question I asked was: What is their speech clearance process? Did anyone in PepsiCo sign off on this speech? Did they really let Nooyi sally forth talking about America giving the world "the finger" and no one said, "Uh, boss, I think that's a bad idea?"

Apparently not.

That's the question that got me kicked upstairs. Elaine Palmer, Director of External Affairs for PepsiCo, called a little while ago to answer my question. Turns out, "We were aware of the speech," she said. Nooyi has given the speech, using the analogy many other times, says Palmer, and has gotten a good reception. "We believe it's a positive message," Palmer tried to emphasize, "her point was that there are people that don't put out the best face. . . "

Really? Now that's a charming Commencement message: "Don't be an Ugly American."

Then Palmer conceded that "perhaps" there might have been parts of the speech "in hindsight" that were . . . her voice trailed off and she shifted into positive mode about Nooyi's "unique perspective" as a naturalized American citizen.

Speaking to Palmer's thread about Nooyi's ability to challenge us all to rise to greater cultural sensitivity, I asked her if she thought there was any irony in Nooyi addressing the problems related to cross-cultural communication by talking about . . . the finger.

Well, she admitted tentatively, "the analogy might have been unfortunate."

What's unfortunate is owning Pepsi stock right now.

So is Nooyi being "misconstrued?" Do read the whole speech. There are several examples of "unfortunate" phraseology. I think the worst is when she launched into the Ugly American example of several US businessmen in a bar who were mocking Chinese toilets. Here's Nooyi:

This incident should make it abundantly clear. These men were not giving China a hand. They were giving China the finger. This finger was red, white and blue and had "the United States" stamped all over it.

Unfortunate, indeed.

It's too bad that Pepsi makes Gatorade, too, because we live at the ballfield, and the Dude likes it. And training for a marathon this summer, we would have been buying Gatorade by the gallon.

But, you know, I like Powerade just fine.

(Thanks to Donald Sensing.)

LINK UPDATE:

Roger Kimball observes that in giving a speech delivery counts as much as words. . .

Thanks Mudville, Open Post. And Traffic Jam at OTB

Posted at 12:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBacks (3)

I have a very distinct memory of hearing a speaker, prior to my marriage, offering advice to married couples and suggesting that they introduce themselves as "we." As in: "Hi, we are the Yoests. Nice to meet you."

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene asks married women why they changed their names, if they did.

I changed my name so that together the two of us could become "we." Now, we two have become seven, and the idea of "we" is even more important. Nay, essential.

Charles and Ruth Shaw
My Grandparents

Actually, I can't express it any better than does one of my favorite poems, written by my Grandmother . . .about being "we."

We

I was I and he was he
A ceremony made us 'we.'
When in the sight of God and men
We pledged our troth and kissed our kin
And set our sails ... breathlessly
On the matrimony sea.

My handsome prince
... he held my hand.
My every wish
... was his command

Until one day
... I said, 'I think we
Should see my friends
... more frequently.'

He said, so loud ... it shook the house
That he was man ... and not a mouse
And furthermore ... he said we should
See his friends more ... he said we would.
He said, we would ... most certainly
I said, we won’t ... we both said 'we'.

Strange, when we do ... or don’t agree
One thing is clear ... we both say 'we'
Now that’s the secret ... for love to grow
Through Summer’s sun ... and Winter’s snow
Through diaper rash ... and teething ills
From P. T. A. ... to college bills.

Through three-point circuit ... and inner-city
And Pastor Parish Relations Committee
Through Conference moving time ... again
When you’re not one ... of the bishop’s men.
Through covered dishes ... well, thick and thin
Love like this ... will never end
For when we do ... or don’t agree
We still find joy ... in being 'we'.

Sarah Ruth Baird Shaw and Charles Shaw were married nearly 50 years before his death in 1986, and had seven children together. Baby Boo was her 15th great-grandchild. (My truly amazing grandmother has a website, and more poetry here.)

Posted at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Why worry about women in combat? Why not just let the Pentagon go ahead with boiling the frog? After all, proponents argue, it is an all-volunteer army now.

Let me highlight one reason, among others: the draft.

This argument is often dismissed automatically as being politically untenable. "They'll never bring the draft back!" But that is short-sighted and naive.

If women in the military begin serving in combat, voluntarily, and the ban against women in ground combat is lifted, then there will be no legal basis for maintaining their exclusion from the draft.

Not My Little Girls

This is just common sense. As further evidence of how plausible this scenario is, here's an article in this month's Washington Monthly, "The Case for the Draft," arguing for a reinstated draft now, that would include both men and women:

A better solution would fix the weaknesses of the all-volunteer force without undermining its strengths. Here's how such a plan might work. Instead of a lottery, the federal government would impose a requirement that no four-year college or university be allowed to accept a student, male or female, unless and until that student had completed a 12-month to two-year term of service. . . They would be deployed as needed for peacekeeping or nation-building missions. They would serve for 12-months to two years, with modest follow-on reserve obligations.

The authors do hedge their bets a little by including "national service programs" like tutoring with AmeriCorps as part of their draft program. But there is still the legal issue: on what legal grounds would you exclude the rest of the female population from mandatory combat service once some women are serving voluntarily, should the need arise?

We face an unknown future, so our policy decisions today should be guided by wisdom informed by yesterday's history. One thing we do know is that nation's must be prepared to protect themselves against the unexpected. Any other posture is sheer foolishness.

Some of the wisdom of yesterday includes knowing the politics of the draft. One of the legacies of Vietnam was General Westmoreland's strategy of using the draft to fill ranks. Instead of calling up the standing army, reserves, national guard, then finally the general population, Westmoreland bypassed this cascade -- we went from standing army directly to the civilian population. His rationale was that he could keep the draftees longer.

We all know the domestic political tension that resulted, and continues to haunt us today. How much worse would that political conflagration be if Uncle Sam comes after our daughters?

The politics of "allowing" women in combat lead remorselessly toward drafting women. And a feminine mobilization leads directly to political gridlock right at a time when self-defense requires prompt, resolute, decisive action.

We simply cannot afford to advance on the assumption that we will never again need a mass mobilization to defend our country. In some sad tomorrow, we may need to call up civilians, but not now, not today.

And not women.

LINKS:
See Outside the Beltway for info on tomorrow's vote on women in combat in the Armed Services committee.

And Intel-Dump for a pro-women in combat argument. . .

Thanks for the link to Mudville's Open Post and to OTB's Daily Linkfest.

Posted at 1:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

The blogosphere is abuzz with the Newsweek "retraction." But I've just finished reading Evan Thomas' "How a Fire Broke Out" and it sounds more like J'accuse -- a reassertion of their accusation -- to me.

They're just looking for a little wiggle room to double back and run at their target again. Essentially, what they are saying is: "Well, our source at the Pentagon was wrong about the Koran desecration coming out in their own internal investigation, buuuuutttt, it really is happening anyway . . . " That's also the line they're taking over at the Daily Kos. Here's the j'accuse; the retraction, well, it's kind of hard to spot:

NEWSWEEK was not the first to report allegations of desecrating the Qur'an. As early as last spring and summer, similar reports from released detainees started surfacing in British and Russian news reports, and in the Arab news agency Al-Jazeera; claims by other released detainees have been covered in other media since then.

On Saturday, Isikoff spoke to his original source, the senior government official, who said that he clearly recalled reading investigative reports about mishandling the Qur'an, including a toilet incident. But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report. . .

In the meantime, as part of his ongoing reporting on the detainee-abuse story, Isikoff had contacted a New York defense lawyer, Marc Falkoff, who is representing 13 Yemeni detainees at Guantánamo. According to Falkoff's declassified notes, a mass-suicide attempt—when 23 detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves in August 2003—was triggered by a guard's dropping a Qur'an and stomping on it. One of Falkoff's clients told him, "Another detainee tried to kill himself after the guard took his Qur'an and threw it in the toilet."

More allegations, credible or not, are sure to come. Bader Zaman Bader, . . .claims, as the inmates' latrines were being emptied, a U.S. soldier threw in a Qur'an. After the inmates screamed and protested, a U.S. commander apologized. Bader says he still has nightmares about the incident.

Let's be clear: Newsweek isn't really retracting their story; they are just trying to manage it.

Easy Prediction: they'll come back with more "evidence." Howard Fineman told Don Imus this morning that "Mike Isikoff. . .is not a kid trying to break in and score here. He's not on a holy mission of any kind. . ." (From Michelle Malkin - she's got more of the transcript, well worth reading.)

Right. So now we know he's on a holy mission.

In all of this, so far I've yet to see anyone refer back to the number one must-read in order to put Toiletgate in perspective. The Winter issue of City Journal featured an article, "How to Interrogate Terrorists," by Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute.

She completely annihilates this false notion of prisoner abuse. Read it and you'll see why she won the Bradley Prize. . . and be well-prepared for Round Two.

This issue isn't going away any time soon.

Thanks also to Scott at Powerline and Tim at Sisyphean Musings. . .

Posted at 12:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (2)

We've been following the Pentagon's "boiled frog" strategy related to women in combat. . . the plan has been to simply go ahead and put women into combat, present it to the American people as a fait accompli, knowing that the media would then do profiles on the women as hero(ine)s. . .

As predicted, that's exactly how it has unfolded.

Specialist Jennifer Guay
82nd Airborne

An article by Amy Scott Tyson, "For Female GIs, Combat Is a Fact: Many Duties in Iraq Put Women at Risk Despite Restrictive Policy," in Friday's Washington Post lays it all out. They aren't even pretending.

Many commanders in Iraq say they see a widening gap between war-zone realities and policies designed to limit women's exposure to combat.

Although the Army is barred from assigning women to ground combat battalions, in Iraq it skirts the ban with a twist in terminology. Instead of being "assigned," women are "attached in direct support of" the battalions, according to Army officers familiar with the policy. As a result, the Army avoids having to seek Pentagon and congressional approval to change the policy, officers said.

"What has changed? Nothing," said Lt. Col. Bob Roth of the 3rd Infantry Division. "You just want someone to feel better by saying we don't allow women in dangerous situations."

Although the Army is banned . . .it skirts the law . . .?!! And now, because what they are doing is in line with The Washington Post's opinions, the media just goes along as cheerleaders? What happened to a little healthy media skepticism?

Continue Reading »

Posted at 4:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

Children: The new status symbol. So says Simon Doonan at The New York Observer:

Onto the landscape of Manhattan, a new and lethal status symbol has alighted—and it’s causing the J.A.P.’s and WASP’s of the Upper East Side to quiver with envy. No, I’m not talking about those impossible-to-find strings of oversized Lanvin pearls wrapped in black mousseline. Or, for that matter, those $20,000 Rochas dresses that are selling before they hit the racks.

Yes, I’m talking about THE THIRD CHILD. Call it the Grace Kelly Syndrome. You can even call it the Demi Moore Syndrome. Either way, three is the new two! That critical third child—quite possibly the status symbol of this decade—will get you more Park Avenue cred than a fleet of Bentleys.

(Wait, I'm still stuck on the $20,000 dress. . . give me a moment. . . )

So if "three is the new two," then how 'bout five??!! Woohoo! I'm in! I've got kid cred!

Here's my favorite quote from the article -- Liz Lange, maternity-wear designer: "Many of the customers she met when she first opened her eponymous store back in 1998 are now on their third or even fourth child, she reported."

Italics in the original.

Yes, imagine. What kind of alien being would have a fourth child? To be serious: a lucky one. (A Peter Lawler kind of alien, an alien just passing through. . . )

It's nice for a change to read that having more children is becoming trendy because many people do tend to look at the Penta-Posse a bit strangely when we are out and about.

"Mom, people are staring at us."

"I know honey, I know. Stand up straight. Smile."

Today's Ballet Performance
Diva, Dreamer, Dancer

The truth is, each child brings richness and joy exponentially. This last week the Dreamer hit her ballet mark, the Dude hit a triple, the Diva hit her note, the Dancer hit her brother and Boo hit his stride . . .

A tip of the bonnet and new, must-read blog over at feminine-genius. They are on my "read every day" list.

Posted at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For today's history exam: "The relative merits of Abraham Lincoln. . . and John Edwards." Please discuss.

The Discovery Channel and AOL have just released a list of nominees, based on an online poll, of the 100 Greatest Americans. . . an "extraordinary, interactive project to highlight Americans of importance and the incredible contributions they made to our society."

Over at Betsy's Page, she astutely notes: "If you have Abraham Lincoln and George Washington on a list, you don't include John Edwards unless you don't realize that the Great Awakening preacher was Jonathan, not John, Edwards."

Wait. . .there's two more: Michael Moore and Madonna, natch.

The Dreamer asked: "Is James Madison on the list?"

Nope. He's not.

But Hugh Hefner is.

Update: A+ on Betsy's Page with a real list of great Americans

Right Wing News invites submissions for a better list.

Posted at 8:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (3)

In the spirit of "You were there!" . . . a report from your Nation's Capital. . .

Christine and Tom DeLay, with the Hammer Cake

Monday's Washington Post article about tonight's dinner in honor of Tom DeLay quoted Marshall Wittman, (former Republican-now DLC staffer) as saying: "Tribute dinners are how politicians sit shiva for their dead."

Well, maybe that's often true, but the event tonight at the Capital Hilton was pretty festive and, as Brent Bozell said, had more the air of an old-fashioned hootenanny. . . for over 900 people.

Rocky Top. . . You'll always beeeee....

With, well, fairly well-dressed people. And salmon and filet mignon. Not to mention the butter in the shape of the Capitol Dome.

Like buttah!

Our friend Mike Franc, VP/Govt at Heritage, commented that the media has a very narrow perception of Tom DeLay, focusing on him as a K-Street kind of pol, (all about money, access and lobbyists) and that, perhaps, they might have seen a broader spectrum of who he is, and the issues and people he cares about through the dinner. I hope he's right, though I'm a little skeptical that the human Tom DeLay will make it through the Main Stream Media caricature of him.

So here are a few things about DeLay that I think might interest you from the dinner tonight.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 1:27 AM | Permalink |

Sex and virtue . . . Men across cultures: Are good-girls back still in style? Maybe there are some customs so enduring they sell in both Hollywood . . . and Iraq.

Army Colonel John R. Martin writes from Iraq:

One of the servicemen here married an Iraqi woman working for us. Even in the twenty-first century, American soldiers are supposed to ask permission before doing such things. He didn’t, but we’re still trying to help him get his war bride home.

I took the issue to the consular officer at the embassy today, so I got to look at the application. The marriage certificate included certification that a dowry had been requested ($25,000) and excused by the bride’s family.

Also had a statement of the bride’s chastity. Wonder if those things would sell in the U.S.

Well, yes, Col. Martin, they just might.

The tabloids are all agog with word that Katie Holmes has stated to the world that she will remain a virgin until she marries.

Katie Holmes
with her parents

And now she's dating Tom Cruise (not really a Top Gun, but played one in the movies).

Tom and Katie together in Rome

The tabloids have reported breathlessly that Cruise filled Katie's room with dozens of red roses.

I wish I could tell Lynndie England she could have done so much better than having sex with a dud.

Of course, we've seen this scenario before with other starlets. But my vote is with Katie. Why? Look at that picture of her with her parents. Both of them. While other reporters are fixated on the wolf with red roses, I'm interested in what she has to say about the other man in her life -- her father: She consults him on every major decision, and "He always tried to intimidate boys who wanted to date me," she says (according to Sky Showbiz, link above.)

It's a dad thing. In every culture.

On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?

Would he offer me his mouth?

Yes

Would he offer me his teeth?

Yes

Would he offer me his jaws?

Yes

Would he offer me his hunger?

Yes

Again, would he offer me his hunger?

Yes

And would he starve without me?

Yes

And does he love me?

Yes

Yes

On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?

Yes

You took the words right out of my mouth. . .

© by MeatLoaf

Thanks to alert readers, Stan H., and the Brilliant Brother.

Link to Mudville's Open Post

Attaboy to Attaboy

See Jackson's Junction

Outside the Beltway has news and pic

Update: Blogger 11D also thinks the couple is odd.

Update: Common Sense Runs Wild is making sense

Update: See what the Professor thinks at Daniel W. Drezner about Katie Holmes/Cruise

Update: Steal The Bandwagon presents another question at Katie Holmes...

Update: Michelle Malkin has pic of the Death Grip

update 22 June 2005: The Owner's Manual has more wisdom/wit at Tom Cruise: The Movie

The Anchoress has an excellent opinion as always

Update July 14: The Movie Star Blog says Cruise Gets Results.

Posted at 9:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Just got word: Congressional Republicans are finally moving to address the problems we've been highlighting with the new Army policy of assigning women to Forward Support Companies. I wrote about the FSC issue here. And the women in combat posts on one page can be found here.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Women soldiers in the U.S. Army would be barred from serving in combat support units under language added to a defense bill Wednesday. Proponents of the measure said it would affect only a small number of women, while opponents said over time, it would drastically alter the face of the modern army.

The amendment sponsored by Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's military personnel subcommittee, would prohibit women from combat support and combat service support units.

``The current policy does not serve women well,'' said McHugh. ``The current policy places them in a company and treats them as equal until it's time to move forward and then they have to be left behind.''

The subcommittee voted along party lines to approve the amendment. The bill, setting Defense Department policy for next year, is expected to be debated by the full Armed Services Committee next week.

Full article from Newsday, here.

Thanks, Greyhawk, for Open Post and Outside the Beltway, for Traffic Jam.

Posted at 11:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A dear friend called today to say that she is moving. Great news for her and her family; not so great for those of us who love them.

So I set off for the grocery with Dreamer, Dancer and Boo, my heart heavy. I went through the routine motions of parking and getting Boo out of his car seat with my mind a million miles away.

Then Dreamer came up behind me with one of those grocery carts that has a plastic car on the front for Dancer and Boo. (Who knew he had gotten big enough to sit up there?)

The look on Boo's face as he grabbed that stearing wheel!

Who knows, maybe I'm not the only one who had a sad day. I thought I might share the sight that made me smile . . .

Posted at 11:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Linda Ellerbee strikes again.

Linda Ellerbee,
Nickelodeon's new historian

She's now hosting a "news bump" for Nickelodeon, the kids' television channel. The segment recently ran a piece on the Alamo. The short clip feautured a young girl who said that the real story behind the Alamo was that the battle was about slavery.

Thanks to the Wide Awakes for the heads-up. Here's a link to the Nick site where they were running a clip of the piece -- I just checked and they've now replaced it with another one. When you search for "Alamo" on the site, nothing at all comes up. Still, you can see the format and Ellerbee in action.

My prediction: with Ellerbee's involvement this won't be the last time this Nickelodeon segment causes heartburn. . .

So here's text of what the piece said (thanks to WorldNetDaily):

What you may not know is that at the time, Texas was part of Mexico.

By the early 1800s, a lot of people living in San Antonio were farmers who brought their slaves with them. In 1829, Mexico abolished slavery and what followed was years of conflict between farmers who wanted to keep their slaves and Mexican authorities. This conflict led up to the battle for the Alamo.

In the end, Gen. Santa Ana and 5,000 Mexican soldiers surrounded the Alamo and all the defenders of the mission were killed.

So, when you remember the Alamo, think about the soldiers, the battle and the true story behind it.

This particularly offended me because, you may remember, we just took the Penta-Posse to the Alamo on our grand western tour, and were inspired by the bravery of the Texians in confronting General Santa Anna. So when I was watching the clip yesterday, I called them in to see it.

Immediately, the Dude says: "Hey, I saw that on Nickelodeon."

Great.

Continue Reading »

Posted at 9:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A reader, Martha, a former Air Force enlisted, who has been following the thread on women in combat with concern, writes to explain the "Abracadabra" issue:

I have heard horrid stories from deployed friends about the attitude toward women in the ranks. Even unattractive girls have a throng of men around them all the time when they are in "Bad Guy Land". The names they give those women is crass. "Golden P**sy Syndrome" and similar things.

Then, on the flight home, "abracadabra" they are ugly again. The rejection is as sudden and violent as an IED attack. How can men be allowed to treat fellow soldiers like this, then turn around and treat them with respect on the battlefield?

Sadly, I didn't have to go further than today's New York Times to get a real-life illustration of why this kind of thing is no small matter. In an article, Behind Failed Abu Ghraib Plea, a Tangle of Bonds and Betrayals about Lynndie England, Charles Graner and Megan Ambuhl, the reporter, Kate Zernike lays out a tragic story that puts an even sorrier twist to the already sordid tale of Abu Ghraib.

Lynndie England and Charles Graner

Credit: L.M. Otero/Associated Press
Megan Ambuhl,
Graner's new wife

The short version of the story is that Charles Graner was treating the United States Army like his own personal harem, carrying on overlapping affairs with both Lynndie England and Megan Ambuhl. Then, when Lynndie got pregnant, and sent home, they broke up. Graner sent an email to his father: "I stopped seeing her back in january but when all this garbage came out i started seeing her again," he wrote. "chances are very good that it is my child....o well....daddy what did you bring home from the war????"

That's some war souvenir.

With Lynndie sent home, Graner focused on Ambuhl. The two co-conspirators recently married at Ft. Hood, a surrogate groom standing in for Graner, who is already in prison.

A few quotes from the NYT piece:

Continue Reading »

Posted at 10:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Howard Kurtz quotes our review of the new blog, the Huffington Post today in Media Notes Extra.

Howard begins: "A rather mixed reception in the blogosphere:" Then quotes, American Mind, Jack Shafer at Slate, Nikke Finke at LA Weekly, Boi from Troy, and Reasoned Audacity, following:

"[Huffington's] blog is a strange disconnect for me: in person, Arianna is strikingly beautiful, quite engaging, and her accent, so distracting on television, is charming. By contrast, the blog, named after her, is strangely none of those things."

I thought one of yesterday's most interesting comments on Arianna's venture came from Jim Geraghty:

Attention, Arianna: We already know what celebrities think. They're telling us all the time. . . this has "Tina Brown's Talk magazine" or "John F. Kennedy Jr.'s George magazine" written all over it.

Today Arianna has one recognizable conservative female, Danielle Crittenden along with Joe Scarborough. Then for "balance," Tina Brown, and a whole gaggle of male liberals: Rob Reiner, Bill Maher, Andy Stern, Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, Larry David, Walter Cronkite, Jon Corzine, Ed Markey. . .

Actually, come to think of it, that looks like a fair fight.

Posted at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For those of you following the women in combat issue, you'll want to be sure to see Elaine Donnelly's piece on women in combat on NRO today:

The blueprint appears to be a “Women in the Army Point Paper” prepared by the office of Army Secretary Francis Harvey on January 24, which includes a subtle but significant change in the wording of Defense Department regulations.

Current directives exempt female soldiers from direct ground-combat units such as the infantry and armor, and from smaller support companies that “collocate” (operate 100 percent of the time) with land-combat troops. The new, unauthorized wording narrows the “collocation rule” to apply only when a combat unit is actually “conducting an assigned direct ground combat mission”.

General Schoomaker recited Defense Department regulations, but claimed (without justification) that the Army has separate rules that exempt female soldiers from collocation with land-combat battalions “at the time that those units are undergoing those operations”. By adding the words “conducting” or “undergoing” (a direct ground-combat mission) to the collocation rule, the Army has created a new regulation that has not been authorized by the Secretary of Defense, or reported to Congress in advance, as required by law.

Posted at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Arianna Huffington's new blog, the Huffington Post, debuts today.

Arianna Huffington I forgot to mention earlier, that I saw and chatted briefly about her new project with Arianna at the Correspondents' Dinner.

I bring that up because her blog is a strange disconnect for me: in person, Arianna is strikingly beautiful, quite engaging, and her accent, so distracting on television, is charming. By contrast, the blog, named after her, is strangely none of those things.

First, I do understand branding (does she really need to worry about that?) but a little more verve in the appellation would have been welcome. And second, the Washington Post today reports that she has seven paid staffers on this project. Wow. Any designers among them? Today's the first day, so maybe they are working on the list of bugs -- start with the too-small, too-blurry pictures, guys: see Arianna's pic, and John Cusack's, copied here as Exhibits A and B.

Now the "celebrity" writing has possibilities. But again, I'm skeptical. After reading the gay marriage piece by Julia Louis-Dreyfuss and her husband (see this post below) I skipped down to John Cusack's tribute to Hunter Thompson:

John Cusack

Went to Hunter S. Thompson’s memorial service in Aspen. The next day, we went to Owl Farm -- which remained untouched since Hunter’s death two weeks before. The sun was shining and gunfire echoed as friends and family gathered and shot targets on the lawn. Norman Greenbaum’s “Spirit in the Sky” booming. Books, notes, numbers, pills, bullets, totems and talismans everywhere. Outside his wife offered liquid acid to people in the driveway. . .

I don't know. One wonders how long before the ghostwriters take over. Or, worse thought: maybe that is a ghost's attempt to sound "real."

Anyway, lest I sound too negative, I do think Arianna's blog is a great thing for the blogosphere. If nothing else, her entry emphasizes the new reality: blogs are the future and the blogosphere is where it's at.

Posted at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two very different stories this morning -- the loss of a young mother in Wales. . . and a mocking, snide piece on gay marriage on Arianna Huffington's new blog -- both via Michelle Malkin, and I want to tie them together this morning. The first story is real life; the second politics -- where they meet, here, is Politics in Real Life. . .

Helen and Ffion
Tributes to mothers were everywhere this weekend, of course. But the story about Helen Harcombe's death was among the saddest. Helen died at age 28 after a battle with breast cancer, leaving her husband Antony to raise their daughter Ffion, age seven, by himself.

Helen, however, left a "Mummy Manual" for Antony, and mothers everywhere, in every country, will recognize some of the issues she worried her husband might need a little female input on:

Xmas time, don't forget smaller things like stocking fillers to make it look more + fill the stockings - chocs, bobbles, clips, make-up, joke stuff, fun stuff, girly fun etc.

Make sure serve food with veg/peas - get fruit down her - don't let her live out of cans, noodles + toast etc.

Regular trims on hair - may need extra conditioner or leave in conditioner for knots. Ensure hair is tied back for school - neat parting, no bump. Smooth with tail comb if necessary, ensure fixed with spray & hairspray to keep neat + no straggly bits.

It's the "girly fun" and the "no straggly bits" that get me. It's a mom thing.

Which is precisely the point. When confronted with the loss of a mother, or a father, we all instantly understand -- in our gut, where it really matters -- the empty space left in the child's life. And it's not just the person, per se: It's also their role as Mom, as Dad.

Ffion still has a Dad. But there is still a place in her heart, and her everyday life, where Mom should be . . . Helen understood that. So she left the Mummy Manual, that covers uniquely mum things.

So skip with me over to Arianna's blog, where you will find your daily quotient of pseudo-sophistication -- the very top post is from Julia Louis-Dreyfuss (she of Seinfeld fame) and her husband, Brad Hall, with a snarky little entry on gay marriage. . . Here's some blue-state sarcasm from Brad on the Defense of Marriage Act. Ironically, he stumbles into an important truth in the middle:

Julia Louis-Dreyfuss and Brad Hall

I have been married to a beautiful, smart, funny woman since 1987. Together we have had two happy children and shared nearly 18 years of marital bliss. Now the whole thing is ruined.

Like most Americans, I had hoped that the Defense of Marriage Act would do just that: defend my marriage. Apparently not. Look around and you’ll see the gays getting gay-married all over the place, and, to quote, well, everyone: gay marriage destroys real marriage. Now, when I come home to my wife, I feel nothing. How could I? SHE COULD BE A MAN. Thanks a lot, gays. Thanks for rendering our vows obsolete. Thanks for illegitimizing our sons. Thanks for tearing asunder a great institution that has heretofore withstood Las Vegas, Elizabeth Taylor, Larry King and Britney Spears combined.

She could be a man!! Right. My point exactly. . . She couldn't be a man.

We can make a lot of arguments about the importance of marriage between a man and a woman -- from natural law, from philosophy, from sociology, from epidemiology, from tradition, from theology, from utilitarianism -- all of those are worth visiting. Today, in the wake of Mother's Day, I want to point us back, for a moment, to a gut check.

Helen left a Mummy Manual for her husband and daughter because she wasn't a man. And she knew in her heart that being a woman, a mom, was important. And irreplaceable.

I think I'll go get my girls' hair trimmed today. . .thank you Helen. And God bless sweet Ffion.

Posted at 8:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

A Marauding Marsupial Mom?

As the mother of five children, for Mother's Day, let me offer a cautionary tale. The context -- this week marked a major milestone in my life: I became a "Marauding Marsupial." Which makes me, I figure, a Marauding Marsupial Mom! M-cubed!

How blogging has changed my goals in life -- not only am I excited about being a marsupial, now I want to be a "Large Mammal." Large not being an adjective I have heretefore wanted anywhere near me. . . Previously, I had been an "Adorable Rodent," so you understand my excitement -- even as an adorable one, I do much prefer marsupial to rodent. (If you're new to blogs, rodents and marsupials are categories in the rockin' TTLB Ecosystem thanks to N.Z. Bear.)

So, I was checking my progress in the Ecosystem one day this week, when the Dude walked in.

"Hey, guess what?" I said. "I've moved up! I'm a Marauding Marsupial now!"

"Cool," said he. "What's Instapundit?"

(Instapundit??!! The kid is 10 years old. How does he know about Evil Glenn?)

"Well, frankly, he's pretty much at the top. A Higher Being, I think."

"So how long will it take you to be as high as him?" he asks with sweet earnestness.

I snort. "The chances of that are basically nonexistant," I said.

"Mom!" the Dude exclaimed, "you can't say that! You wouldn't let me get away with that. You can do anything you want to do!"

Oh. Right.

The moral to this story: Be careful what you teach your kids -- it will come back at you sooner than you think.

So, okay, people. The mission is now clear: tell a friend about Reasoned Audacity. . . and visit often. A ten-year-old's faith in the Mom Who Can Do All Things is riding on it.

No pressure though.

I'm a Marauding Marsupial Mom on a Mission, and on the Move. . . Watch your back, Glenn Reynolds!

Posted at 1:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Be sure to see the results from a Washington Post poll of area moms. Love the headline: "Most Area Moms Revel in the Role, Challenges and All." A little sad that they think that's news. (Thanks, KLO)

Kind of like the people who, when they see me with the Penta-Posse, say: "I'm glad it's you and not me." Yeah, well, I'm glad too.

More on this on Monday -- the Post made the crosstabs available and I want to take a look. Appears to be a lot in there.

Mother's Day posts to put up first. After spending a little time actually being a mom . . .

Posted at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In his ongoing attempt to get me to: a) take my vitamins, and b) give up my Diet Coke addiction, the Chairman has sent me an article on aging (aarrrgggh) from Scientific American.

Apparently, he thinks my brain is functional here at the end of the week. Because the article includes words like "catalase" (very important) "hydrogen peroxide," (bad, very bad) "free radicals" (even worse) "mitochondria" (I'm thinking, I'm thinking) "organelles" (connected to the mitochondria?). Insert random verbs. Your choice.

Dorian Gray: For Perpetual Youth,
What Would You Do?

But hey, I'm on the job, to figure out what all this means! So, I dug out the original article, "Extension of Murine Lifespan by Overexpression of Catalase Targeted to Mitochondria":

To determine the role of reactive oxygen species in mammalian longevity, we generated transgenic mice that overexpress human catalase localized to the peroxisome (PCAT), nucleus (NCAT), or mitochondrion (MCAT). . . Cardiac pathology and cataract development were delayed, oxidative damage was reduced, H2O2 production and H2O2-induced aconitase inactivation were attenuated, and the development of mitochondrial deletions was reduced. . .

Okay, okay. Basically, it says: take your vitamins. (Better approach than Dorian Gray. . .)

But I'm not giving up my Diet Coke.

Posted at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A few weeks ago, I mentioned the story of an aborted baby, Baby Rowan, whose mother says he was born alive. She says the clinic did not help him and that he then died.

The autopsy of Baby Rowan has been released, and you can read it here. (Thanks Evangelical Underground.)

The autopsy says that there was no evidence of air in the lungs or stomach, which is the only forensic evidence the medical examiner would have been able to find to prove that he had been alive. However, under the Born Alive Victims Act, movement is also evidence of life. The mother claims that he grasped her hand, and is pressing forward with her lawsuit against the clinic. More details here.

The autopsy also shows that there was no trauma to the baby's body -- no needle marks -- so that is being offered as evidence to corroborate the mother's claim that the baby was not given digoxin to stop his heart.

This is the point that grabbed me: reading the autopsy report, in each category Baby Rowan was examined, the report concludes that he was well-formed and free of abnormalities. Developing well.

That is ineffably sad.

Posted at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

May 5, 1990

Those two didn't know what they were getting into did they?

May 5, 1990: The day dawned dark and dreary. . . but, then -- midway through the service, the sun broke through, a single ray of light piercing the chapel windows, illuminating the altar. . .

No, we had no way of even imagining the hurdles and challenges that lay ahead.

But then, no way of even dreaming of the joys either.

The Penta-Posse
Four Corners Monument, April, 2005

May 5, 2005: another dark and dreary day. . . just take-out dinner on folding chairs at the ball-park, . . .but there, still, rays of light, piercing our hearts, illuminating the future. . .

I do.

Posted at 8:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A prayer for our soldiers. . . and most especially, for the families today who grieve. . . our debt of gratitude is unbounded.

Eternal Father, Strong to Save, "The Navy Hymn," Fourth Stanza

Posted at 4:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Photo: Sandra Jontz
Chief Warrant Officer 2
Jill St. John
Combat Logistics Battalion 8

Here we go. Again. From the Stars and Stripes, "Marine raid breaks gender barrier." (From Lucianne.)

Photo: Sandra Jontz
Lance Cpl. Erin Libby
"Rocking on the front line"
Handing out toys in Karmah

The Stars and Stripes is reporting that this past Saturday, the Marines took 14 women from the Combat Logistics Battalion 8 with them on a raid 15 miles northeast of Fallujah. The women's usual jobs involve "supplying ammunition, food, water, fuel and mail." The reason for the change in job assignment?

Cultural sensitivities precluded male Marines from searching women, so the female Marines were meant to deflate fears of Iraqi men and women, said the battalion executive officer, Maj. Larry Miller. It was a first in Iraq to have female Marines embedded at the lowest levels of infantry companies and working alongside their male counterparts.

So "cultural sensitivities" now justify violating Department of Defense regulations against taking women into combat and the law which requires Congressional notification before doing so?

The problem with this vignette explodes in several directions. The article uses female suicide bombers to explain why we need to be searching Iraqi women.

That's a real problem. But let us get this straight: because terrorists encourage their women to blow themselves up, we have to send our women into harm's way? To respect "cultural sensitivities?"

Here's Daniel Pipes on our efforts at cultural sensitivity: "This is probably the most "culturally sensitive" occupation of a country in all of recorded history. . . and is not likely to be rewarded with reciprocal good will."

And then there's the inherent contradictions in the situation -- they're in a combat zone. . . handing out teddy bears. It's like some sort of weird fluffernutter sandwich. They are using this experience to say that women can handle combat as well as men, (see the boiling a frog thread; this is a perfect example) but they have enough leeway to take time and hand out stuffed animals afterward.

Lance Corporal Erin Libby is quoted as saying: “We’re out here, and we’re rocking on the front line.”

Our cultural sensitivities, and our law, includes not sending women into combat. This issue of using female soldiers to pat-down female Iraqui's did come up in our recent Pentagon meeting: it's time for Congress to get serious about women in combat policy.

UPDATE: And one more thing -- what does this example of the Marine's taking female support troops along on a combat raid say about the Army's argument (see here) that their newly gender-integrated Forward Support Companies won't take women into combat?

Posted at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Arthur Chrenkoff posts a picture of Lyndie England. Very funny.

Posted at 10:15 AM | Permalink |

For everyone following the frog. . .I've been writing about the Army's plan (nefarious!) to insert women in combat. Some readers have been skeptical that it is a deliberate plan. But I'm the one collecting coins now.

Secretary of the Army, Francis Harvey
looking toward Army Chief of Staff,
General Peter Schoomaker

Any Army soldier who has seen active combat while in Iraq or Afghanistan may now receive a new "Combat Action Badge," making tens of thousands of soldiers who are not in the infantry ranks -- including women -- eligible for a combat award for the first time.

Wait one -- there are some really subtle points that need to be made about this decision. I support our women in uniform. And, surely our support goes to the women who have come under fire in Iraq. This really isn't about them.

The issue is the policy decisions being made, and some that are studiously not being made, that are putting an increasing number of women in harm's way. Deliberately. The badge merely comes after as a way of presenting the fait accompli.

This is a case study on path dependence.

A further quote from the Post story helps illustrate my point:

The badge is the first non-medical combat distinction to honor women who are caught in battle during U.S. wars, largely because women are not assigned to frontline combat duties.

Read that carefully. Women are being "caught in battle" because they are being assigned near where battle can, might, will happen. It's that simple.

At the announcement of the new badge, Schoomaker said: “Warfare is still a human endeavor. Our intent is to recognize Soldiers who demonstrate and live the Warrior Ethos.” The Band of Brothers now includes your Sister.

Posted at 11:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Bush is a war criminal. . ."

Here's what Rosie O'Donnell recently said to Geraldo Rivera, according to the New York Post (Photo credit-Getty):

You know [President Bush] invaded a sovereign nation [Iraq] in defiance of the U.N. He is basically a war criminal! He should be tried in the Hague!

Not to take Rosie too seriously. But, typical liberal. Back to the courts. And, of course, even our USA courts aren't lefty enough for her. If she really believed he was a war criminal, guess what, Rosie, Civics 101, we do have methods of dealing with that, right here at home. But nooooo... let's take it all the way to the Hague.

This is a woman whose career is over, but she just doesn't know it yet. When it does dawn on her, I'm sure she can find a way to turn it into gender discrimination, and complain to the EU.

Posted at 10:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Since I am a big fan of Laura Bush's, I had been skirting the issue of her questionable taste in jokes on Saturday night. But Paul, of My Dogs Are Smarter, has backed me into a corner (of the dog pound)! So here we go. . .

But first, "Roo-Roo!"

I refuse to explain that punchline. The joke is a guy thing, apparently.

In fact, I once read a Dave Barry column in which he said every guy knows the joke behind that punchline. Skeptical, I asked Jack if he knew the "Roo-Roo" joke, and he started laughing.

And that gets me to my point. I would wager any amount of money that Mrs. Bush's speechwriter for Saturday night. . . was a guy. (And not Mike Gerson, either.)

My beloved recently beseeched me to add the Roo-Roo joke to a post. And, actually, it would have been really funny. But. . . . I just couldn't.

I explained this to him. "But honey," said I, "it's about . . well, you know. . . I just can't. . .it's, it's. . ."

Perhaps George and Laura needed to have a similar conversation in the limo on the way to the Washington Hilton.

(Now Jack wants me to add a whole section of Famous Punchlines Every 14-year-old Boy Knows. . . beginning with "The doctor says you're going to die.")

I'll let you in on a secret -- I was on Politically Incorrect with Andrew Dice Clay, and when I came home, Jack had to explain the jokes to me. . . when we go jogging together, my former Army captain, keeps me going by singing, um, somewhat colorful "Jody cadences:"

Ain't no use in going back Jody's got your cadillac

Ain't no use in calling home
Jody's got your girl and gone

Ain't no use in feeling blue
Jody's got your sister too

(That's the official clean version.)

So I digress. Our Best Man, Tom B., says the difference between men and women can be summed up by the popularity of The Three Stooges. Among men. The point is, some jokes are by and for just guys.

Republicans just never seem to learn. They are always trying just a little too hard to be "one of the guys/girls/other" -- part of the permanent DC (Democrat) establishment.

Instead of joking about Mrs. Cheney, the First Lady should have had her review the script. . .

Posted at 10:07 PM | Permalink |

On Saturday night, we headed to the Washington Hilton to join the fun at the reception hosted by National Review before the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld and Me

One of the Big Moments of the night: Rumsfeld and Me. That sounds like a Michael Moore movie, doesn't it? Yes, well, Michael Moore would not have been happy about our conversation. (And I didn't know Rumsfeld was carrier-qualified.)

So who is the mystery woman, chatting with my husband?? It's our lovely, charming (and self-effacing) hostess, none other than K-LO, Kathryn Lopez from NRO. . .

Kathryn Lopez and Jack

Thanks, Kathryn, for a great party!

Then, a double-take, (this happens a lot at one of these events) and, yes, it was indeed Dr. James Dobson and his wife, Shirley.

Jack and Charmaine with Dr. and Mrs. James Dobson

We told them how much we had appreciated the Justice Sunday simulcast, and expressed our mutual concern about the coming conflagration over judicial nominees. . .

. . .and. . .was that Al Franken?? Sure enough. It was. Nope, no pic with him.

Too busy talking with more interesting people like Jonah Goldberg and his beautiful and brainy wife, Jessica Gavora. (Sorry, since this is a family-oriented blog, I can't reveal the joke that made the Fair Jessica laugh. . . ) You can also find Jessica's best-selling book on Title IX on the left side-bar.

Jonah Goldberg and Jessica Gavora

We also ran into Michelle Easton, President of the Clare Boothe Luce Institute, who introduced us to Celia Sandys, who is Winston Churchill's granddaughter. Celia told us that, while England tends to . . .

Continue Reading »

Posted at 5:17 PM | Permalink |

Captain Thunder6

Lieutenant Thunder6 was promoted to Captain in a wonderful, and history-laden, ceremony. It's worth reading the whole thing -- Thunder6 writes beautifully, and his words take you to the scene. But here's his promotion ceremony, in the middle of the desert, in the middle of the night:

...As he finished pinning the rank the LTC half whispered “take a knee”. Once I had dropped to one knee he pulled out his tomahawk and gently placed it on my left shoulder. Then he told everyone assembled “he kneeled a lieutenant, now he rises a Captain” and helped me to my feet.

There was no pageantry in that wretched field. Truth be told there were few witnesses – all eyes were scanning for contact. But I wouldn’t have traded the rugged midnight ceremony for any amount of pomp and circumstance. For an instant that wretched field was nobler then any parade ground - war be damned.

The Majesty. The Gallantry. The Chivalry. The Tradition. . . . there is something about the warrior ethos, so mysteriously masculine, that deserves preservation.

Tradition holds that women were not knighted on the battlefield as Thunder6 was. A Gentlemen would never permit a blade to touch a lady. (With few exceptions.) It was his mission to stand between her and the edged weapon.

Were it so today.

Posted at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)