Bragging on my University

This post isn't about war, but about a response to Hurricane Katrina which makes me proud. We just received the following announcement from our Chancellor:

Devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama has left thousands homeless, businesses destroyed and livelihoods uncertain. Universities in the area, including Tulane, Xavier, Loyola, and Dillard, all located in New Orleans, have sustained major damage and there is great uncertainty as to when they might re-open. To that end, *** is offering admission until Tuesday, September 6 to local undergraduate students previously admitted to a university severely damaged by Hurricane Katrina. I am asking that each member of the *** community be flexible in accommodating these late arriving students and help them feel welcome. Although we are at our maximum for this year’s freshman class, we feel a great sense of duty to offer this gesture of goodwill to these college students.

I have deleted the name of the university, simply because it provides more information about my identity than I want floating around the blogosphere. If you have a real need to know, you can contact me. Otherwise, you can just feel good with me about one small way that our community is trying to help those who need it.

Where is the National Guard?

The gulf coast is in ruins, the looters have the run of some areas, police don't have the manpower to protect property because they're already stretched terribly thin trying to rescue people stranded from the water. This is a job for a massive number of National Guard troops--but many of those troops have been sent to Iraq. Anyone care to discuss the wisdom or the implications of having those dedicated to keeping peace at home fighting in a foreign country? Any and all comments welcome.

Also, a word about looters: I was told, although I haven't heard specifics, that a policeman was shot to death by a looter in New Orleans this morning. What are your thoughts on a shoot-on-sight policy toward looters?

Update: it turns out that I'm not the first person to think about this. A quick Google search turned up a few random sites dealing with the National Guard issue here and here . I'm sure there are more.

Oh, just what the anti-war movement needs

"NEW YORK - The Rev. Al Sharpton plans to join peace activist Cindy Sheehan, known as the Peace Mom, on Sunday near President Bush's Texas ranch. " (www.news.yahoo.com)

I may have to swear off reading conservative blogs for a few days--they're bound to have a field day with this news.

Pat Robertson calls for Hugo Chavez to be killed

Well. Here's one way of looking at the world. Perhaps Robertson has forgotten that "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" (Jesus Christ). I think Robertson's comments speak for themselves.

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Source: http://start.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20050823/430a9f40_3ca6_1552620050823-54242001
Robertson's site: http://www.cbn.com/700club/

"An Interest in Protecting Human Life"

A Navy sailor's wife was pregnant with a baby which had a fatal birth defect; they opted to end the pregnancy with an abortion at five months, and wanted the Navy to pay for it. Ccoverage for the procedure was denied. She then filed a lawsuit claiming an armed forces health plan owed her $3,000 for the procedure.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that U.S. armed forces medical benefits should cover abortion costs only when a mother's life is at risk, a decision that the judges acknowledged was "callous and unfeeling." They said that they were not judging the "wisdom, fairness or logic" of congressional legislation that limited abortions under military medical plans.

I pulled all of the above information from various AP sources. I think it's pretty straightforward, and I'm not particularly interested in debating the morality of abortion in this space.

Here's what interests me:
"The government argued that refusing to cover such services 'furthers the government's interest in protecting human life in general and promoting respect for life.'"
We're talking about the military here. Soldiers learn all sorts of useful skills during their time in the service, but the main thing that they learn is how to kill people.

I'm not a pacifist; I know that war will always be with us; I also know that in war, all kinds of people--soldiers, the elderly, babies, pregnant women, children--die. So it strikes me as strangely incongruous to link the military to "protecting human life." It tries to protect some lives; it tries to protect our national interests and our way of life. And it does that by killing other people, not by "protecting human life in general."

Does this strike anyone else as odd?

Running down crosses

As you know, Cindy Sheehan is camped out at Crawford, Texas, asking for a meeting with President Bush in regard to the war in Iraq, in which her son was killed. Judging from news reports, it seems that many Crawford residents don't mind her peaceful protest, but are tired of the traffic and congestion that is accumulating around it.

Regardless of how you feel about Sheehan and her actions or Crawford's residents and their reactions, I hope we can all agree that purposely running over the crosses she had erected in memory of fallen soldiers is a callous act.

Here is how Reuters reported it:

"Some 800 white wooden crosses, bearing the names of soldiers killed in Iraq like her son, have lined the road near the area where Sheehan has pitched a tent. Witnesses said they saw a lorry dragging a pipe and chains drive over some of the crosses on Monday night.

Larry Northern, 46, of nearby Waco, Texas, was arrested and charged with criminal mischief in connection with the incident, Crawford Police Chief Donnie Tidmore said.

'We're trying to be good neighbours,' said Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in combat in Iraq in April 2004. 'We're trying to make everybody happy and the only thing I want is to talk to one of their neighbours. If they want us to leave, they should talk to their neighbour, George Bush, and tell him to come to us.'

By Tuesday morning, many rows of crosses had been put back in the ground, where they are adorned with flowers and flags.

'It's so ironic that I'm accused of dishonouring my son's memory by doing what I'm doing, by the other side, and then somebody comes and does this,' Sheehan said.

Charles Anderson, a 28-year-old Iraq war veteran from Virginia Beach, Virginia, called the vandalism of the crosses a 'sacrilege.'

'These crosses represent five of my comrades in my battalion who are no longer with us,' he said at a news conference with Sheehan. "

So, what do you think?

General removed for . . . adultery!?

Four-star general Kevin Byrnes, with a reportedly-unblemished 36 year record in the Army, was relieved of his command 3 months before his scheduled retirement. Separated since May 2004, divorce finalized August 8, 2005, Gen. Byrnes's offense was an affair with a private citizen.

Now, I realize that adultery is against the UCMJ, and I believe it's wrong, unwise, and a generally bad idea. But holy smokes--relieved of his command? If I recall correctly, Eisenhower was more than just good friends with his driver, Kay Summersby, and I feel quite confident that we could quickly turn up a search of other military officers who have been less than true-blue to their spouses.

When I hear "relieved of his command," I think of Captain Bligh, or someone who purposely puts soldiers at grave risk for his personal glory (think Catch-22), or someone who participates in and encourages gross atrocities (think William Calley). But a single adulterous relationship? Seems odd to me.

Welcome home, Tex!

I am delighted to post another message to a veteran friend returning from Iraq.

Captain T.W. "Tex" Williams returned safe and sound to the United States this week for the first time in 2 1/2 years.

Welcome home!

"I Don't Need 20,000 Dollars"

A book by John Crawford, a National Guard veteran who spent a year in Iraq, has just been published: The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell: An Accidental Soldier's Account of the War in Iraq. He was interviewed today on "Fresh Air," and told the story of two friends of his from high school, both wealthy, who were discussing the current war with another friend of his, a soldier.

Both young men stated that they support the war, believe it is an appropriate action for the U.S. to be involved in, and would certainly join if they were needed.

If they were needed? There are recruiters all over this country who would walk five miles through the rain to sign up two new soldiers.

If they were needed? The military eligibility age has just been raised to 42.

If they were needed? Replacements will need to be found for the 14 Marines killed today, in addition to the soldiers killed yesterday, and the day before that.

If they were needed? The army is offering signing bonuses of up to $20,000. Their response to this information? "We don't need $20,000."

Then what I think they need to do is to shut up about how they would go if they were "really needed."