View Stolen Honor
View Stolen Honor
for free at this site
. It should be seen by everyone.
Red Sox - World Champions
Good bye old friend . . . it's a new century.
Red Sox 4, St. Louis 1
Who's your daddy? Pedro was the man, not only on the mound, but at the plate! Kiko Calero pitched around Pedro? What was that all about? And Manny with an assist at home plate from left field to prevent a score? What is the world coming to? I nominate Manny for a copper glove. And Poppi Ortiz with a strike to third to double off Suppan. David Defense. One to go, with D-Lowe on the mound with something to prove. Boston history may be made tomorrow. Go Sox!
Iraq War Rationale
A lucid and compelling rationale for the Iraq war is presented at Wizbang
. The introduction is here
Red Sox 6, St. Louis 2
We're on our way. Again tonight, four
errors for the Sox. Three errors for Billy Mueller, but I thought he only deserved one of them. The first error I thought should have gone to Tek. It was Billy's ball, but Tek would not give way. The ball actually struck Tek's glove, and bounced off it. I have no idea why the error was called on Mueller. The second error to Mueller was a bad hop - it jumped up on him and hit the heel of his glove, bouncing away. It could be argued that he should have charged the ball more, but I still thought the error call was questionable. The third error was a true error - but by that time he was probably so shell shocked from the previous two error calls that he was self conscious in his effort to make the play. The fourth error was by Bellhorn, but he has contributed so much that it's hard to criticize him. In any case, the Sox prevailed once again. Like last night, it wasn't pretty, but it got done. Sox pitching was very effective, and the production was distributed throughout the lineup. Tuesday in St. Louis - Go Sox!
Red Sox 11, St. Louis 9
One down, three to go. Notwithstanding a couple of "mannys," the Sox were able to beat back St. Louis' several attempts to make a run at them. The Cards came close, and even managed to tie the game, but never went ahead of Boston. Through all of their errors, and St. Loius' runs at them, Boston just seemed to know
that, in the end, they would prevail. Nothing discourages this team. After what Boston went through in the ALCS, no setback seems insurmountable to them. They are absolutely tenacious. They will never give up, and that is why they will win this series.
Red Sox/Yankees ALCS Revisited
RED SOX: God is on our side
RED SOX: God is on our side
Red Sox Win Pennant
The Red Sox have beat the Yankees and won the American League Pennant in the greatest baseball comeback in history. I am without words.
This ALCS game 7 tonight is the fight of the century – continued from last year’s ALCS game 7 – a heavy weight match between legendary adversaries, both of whom have already struggled mightily, and are barely standing. It’s going to get bloody. This is Red Sox/Yankees baseball, and it doesn’t get any better than this. The World Series is secondary – an anti-climax to an ALCS game 7 struggle between the Red Sox and Yankees that means everything to these two clubs, and probably to baseball nation across the country. Whatever the outcome tonight, both teams do each other great honor in this Herculean clash. This incredible game is not possible without both
It may seem trite or sentimental to say that there will be no loser tonight, but it is true. These warriors have given everything they have in this amazing contest, and have been found worthy. The honor and glory each team derives is in proportion to the skill and effort of the other.
Thank you both. Go Sox!
A Prayer for the Magic Shoe
By Chris Rattey of Boston.com
There once was a magic shoe,
designed by Reebok in a day or two.
For Game 6 of the ALCS,
For a dude named Schilling, who's ankle was a mess.
Everyone thought the ace's season was finished,
high Red Sox hopes were quickly diminished.
Then came the magic shoe.
Oh magic shoe, oh magic shoe,
From now until 8:19 p.m., we pray for you.
After Game 1, the Nation had never felt weaker,
all that has changed because of one super sneaker.
It's come down to this, two games in New York,
Sheffield's got a big mouth, Matsui's a dork.
And Reebok, if this works out and we win in the end,
I promise: I'll never, EVER, buy Nike again.
Representative Democracy and the South Dakota Senate Race
There is a nice piece about the South Dakota senate race between Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, and Republican challenger John Thune, by Kirk Victor of the National Journal,
entitled Fighting For His Political Life
, which appeared on Friday, October 15, 2004.
To me, the race highlights the question of just what representative democracy means. We vote for the candidate who we believe will most closely represent our interests – economic, political and social. It is unlikely that we will find a candidate who will agree with us on every issue, so we are often guided in our choice by the political philosophy and observed character of the candidate, with the hope that the judgments our representative in government is called upon to make on our behalf will reflect our own interests and beliefs. We understand that there are specific issues about which the representative will be far more informed than we, and expect him to exercise his good judgment, as our surrogate, with the understanding that he may well be held accountable to explain to us any such decisions he has made on our behalf. We also expect our representative to vote his conscience, and not merely vote as a matter of political expediency. If that vote is seemingly contrary to positions held by his constituency, then it is incumbent upon the representative to fully explain his vote – in fact to attempt to persuade his constituency of the justness of his vote, by moral or logical argument. Reasonable people of good will may disagree on issues.
The failures we see in modern representative democracy are attributable less to candidates who consciously misrepresent, or otherwise fail to reveal their true political and social philosophies to their constituents than, more importantly, to an ill-informed, apathetic electorate that fails to hold its representatives answerable for their positions and record.
Our representative democracy is further subverted by the media, which frequently colors, distorts or outright misrepresents the issues and positions of candidates, to serve its own agenda, which is often in conflict with the agenda of the constituencies. It is difficult to make an informed choice when the choices are not accurately portrayed. Good faith political discourse should involve a logical discussion of clearly-framed and understood issues and positions, not muddied misrepresentations and distortions. If you need to hide or misrepresent your position, then perhaps you need to revisit the merits of your position. Ultimately, the success or failure of representative democracy rests with the electorate, which is charged with holding the candidates and the media to task.
That is what makes the South Dakota senate race so interesting. Senator Daschle is campaigning in this close race solely on economic issues that matter to his constituency – the so-called bread and butter issues, arguing that as a power broker in Washington, he is uniquely positioned to bring home the bacon to his constituents in South Dakota. He has played down, as much as possible, his liberal social and political positions, which are antithetical to much of his constituency. He has resisted having a forthright discussion of those positions with his constituency, and failed to explain his vociferous obstruction of every effort undertaken by the current administration, which is favored by a majority of his constituency. The South Dakotan electorate, however, is an informed constituency, so it will indeed be an interesting race to follow.
Today I sent the following note to the Sinclair Broadcasting Group:
As a United States Marine Corps veteran of Vietnam (1967-1968), I urge you not to back down from broadcasting Stolen Honor
. It is a story that needs to be told, even now, when the spit on my face upon my return from Vietnam has long since dried. The stain of it remains. Please do not turn your back on us -- again.
I have just started major construction on the blog template, and the posts are temporarily without headings, which makes the entries difficult to follow. That will be corrected as soon as I can figure out the code. But not right now. It's Red Sox/Yankees time. Go Sox!
The Truth about Truth
Can we ever really know Truth? Does such a thing exist? Can we know anything?
Philosophers have grappled with that question. In fact, there is an entire discipline of philosophy devoted to the subject: epistemology.
The famous 17th Century French mathematician and philosopher, René Descartes, attempting to answer that question, posited for the immutable foundation from which he was to construct his philosophy, the premise: Cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. That was to be the incontrovertible certain Truth forming the starting point of his contemplation. (Even that premise, however, has been challenged.)
For those of us not inhabiting the ivory towers of academia, what, if anything, of practical value, can be said of the notion of Truth, and our ability to know it? With your indulgence I will briefly lay the foundation of the argument.
Our awareness of external objects is made possible by, while simultaneously limited by, our “channels of awareness,” i.e., sight, sound, touch, smell, and perhaps intellect, although that may merely be a projection of an internal construction (a discussion for another time.) Those are the mechanisms by which we apprehend and form our understanding of an external object. The point is, that of the many facets inhering in the existence of the object of our perception, we are limited to apprehending only those characteristics that appear to our channels of awareness. There may well be many other facets or dimensions of the object that escape our observation because we do not have the means (additional channels of awareness) with which to apprehend those dimensions of the object. (It is interesting to note that the evolution of increasingly complex life forms introduces additional channels of awareness as that evolution progresses.)
With the limitation of our perception, perspective is introduced.
A perspective necessarily represents a limited view, rather than a complete view. By analogy, consider a circle of artists drawing an asymmetrical object positioned in the center of their circle. Each, looking at the same object, will draw something different. They will see the object differently, depending upon their vantage point – their perspective. What each artist draws will be true, but only a partial truth, not the whole Truth.
Some would have us believe that Truth does not exist, that at best, it is a purely relative construct. I would argue that Truth does exist, in its fullness and immutability, but that we are limited in our ability to know it by our limited channels of awareness. Yet it is in our constant striving to know Truth that we fulfill our destiny in the evolutionary procession of life.
The Peace Movement Then and Now
I take my departure into this inquiry with a brief analysis of the peace movement of the 1960s.
I make no pretense at being an historian or a sociologist, but having lived through that moment in history, I have some personal observations to make. My source is firsthand -- I was there -- as a Marine serving in the northern I Corps of Vietnam in 1968 during the Tet offensive, and as a student on the campus of a renowned liberal arts college during the height of the peace movement, when virtually all of the campuses across the country were torn apart by protests and sit-ins.
The peace movement was less a moral repudiation of war than it was a repudiation of personal risk. It was the prospect of being placed in harm’s way, rather than moral outrage at a “gook” village being razed on the other side of the world in Southeast Asia, that set aflame the ire of the protesters. It was the disagreeable call to duty, and all that implied. The majority of students – kids, really – became caught up in the excitement of the cause celebre. During protest rallies, as on other occasions, I never witnessed any substantive discussions on the moral philosophy of waging or not waging war, but heard only sloganeering. Political discussion, then, as now, was formulated on the basis of personal interest. The vast majority of students did not come to independent judgments on the issue of the Vietnam war, other than for a personal preference to not go – they chanted slogans, wore peace signs, did some drugs, got laid, missed some classes, and generally enjoyed themselves in their rôle. The “cause” made many otherwise undistinguished adolescents feel important while having a good time. They were accepted, and reinforced in their defiance, by their peers. They parroted the word as it was handed down by the leaders of the movement. Their vacuity became a purposeful repository for an infusion of group condescension which, to them, implied superiority – intellectual and moral superiority. In short, the great majority of students were led by the nose. But by whom? Who were the architects of the peace movement? It is not sufficient to merely say the “radical left,” although it was certainly an anti-American, radical left philosophy being espoused throughout the peace movement. (Understand, we are not here speaking of liberalism, but of a virulent anti-Americanism.) This was more than simply an anti-war movement. The parrots were whipped up and fomented into an ideological rejection of the entire American value structure. (Remember the hippies?)
The notion of duty, ridiculed as a conservative anachronism, was rejected in favor of personal safety and convenience. Personal responsibility was replaced with “anything goes” permissiveness. “Free love.” “Make love, not war.” The expressed notion of questioning authority degenerated into ridiculing authority. In the space of less than a decade this country went from a 1950’s “Ozzie and Harriet” mentality to Woodstock.
Born of the chaos of that time was a face-saving new morality. A moral relativism was adopted, serving as the philosophical rationalization for the rejection of duty and responsibility. The political embodiment of the new morality became “political correctness,” where critical thinking and independent thought were, and remain, anathema. Truth no longer exists. Group thought is dictated from on high, and the parrots follow in lockstep, with nary a dissenting opinion. (Witness the mainstream media. They even use the same vocabulary and phrases in their “independently” conjured articles.)
John Kerry was one of the leaders of the peace movement then, as now. His agenda, then, as now, was rooted not in moral outrage at a war, but in personal political opportunity afforded to him by subverting the efforts of his country while at war.
But Kerry, while a leader of the peace movement during the Vietnam era, was merely an opportunist, not a primary architect of the movement.
With your help, we will attempt to trace and identify the source of the radical anti-Americanism that has infected liberal thought in this country – as espoused by our own universities and media.
Ichiro wa, ichiban desu.
Seattle Mariners outfielder Ichiro Suzuki declined for a second time to accept the People's Honor Award from Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi for superior achievements in the game of baseball, according to the Asahi Shimbun
. Ichiro broke George Sisler's major league record of 257 hits in a single season, which has stood since 1920, with 262 hits this year. Suzuki humbly demurred that at 30 years of age he was too young for such an honor, adding that accepting the award might dampen his energy for the game.
The Noble One
The Noble One
Genghis Khan burial site just a steppe away?
From the Asahi Shimbun
"Archaeologists say they may be close to solving one of the world's great mysteries: the burial site of Genghis Khan, the Mongol ruler who was one of the most famous conquerors in history.
A joint team of researchers from Japan and Mongolia announced Monday in Tokyo they had found an ancient mausoleum dedicated to the warrior chieftain who died in 1227. They said the discovery could pinpoint the site of his long-sought-after tomb, which they believe is probably located within 12 kilometers of the mausoleum."
It would seem that Kerry was mistaken, and it wasn't the army of the Genghis Khan in Vietnam afterall . . .
Kerry has made a career out of subverting American troops
It is difficult for me to believe that John Kerry, who launched his political career by turning on his brothers-in-arms in Vietnam, is at it again -- once again building his political aspirations on the backs of American troops, whom he is at every turn undermining and subverting. Once again his fifth column homefront subterfuge gives hope to the enemy that if they can only hold out a little longer, Kerry and the liberal media will succeed in undermining the public's determination to prosecute the war to its conclusion. The enemy is thus emboldened to intensify hostilities, as the NVA did
during the Tet offensive, to break the will of the American homefront
. NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap and Colonel Bui Tin have detailed how North Vietnam could not have prevailed without the help of the peace movement
, and in fact, John Kerry and Jane Fonda are honored in Communist Vietnam's war museum
. Now Kerry is at it again -- undermining the war in Iraq. It is not clear to me who Kerry believes he is even ostensibly helping (besides himself) by denigrating the effort in Iraq, and promoting it as a quagmire, as the troops themselves overwhelmingly support President Bush.
Henry David Thoreau
Simon & Garfunkel