Gay Ban and the Military: A Bad Fit

Today, I read a column in the Washington Post entitled Gays and the Military: A Bad Fit. It was entirely frustrating, but it served some good, because it motivated me to finally write that post about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Without further ado (and because Casey is staring at my blog, hitting refresh, and waiting for me to post this), here you go. My comments are in bold.

Gays and the Military: A Bad Fit
By James J. Lindsay, Jerome Johnson, E.G. “Buck” Shuler Jr. and Joseph J. Went

With the nation engaged in two wars and facing a number of potential adversaries, this is no time to weaken our military. Yet if gay rights activists and their allies have their way, grave harm will soon be inflicted on our all-volunteer force.

Letting gay members serve openly doesn’t change the makeup of the military. Gay Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen ALREADY serve in our armed forces and there is absolutely no evidence that they have weakened our strength. Our all-volunteer force isn’t falling apart. It’s insulting to suggest that our military is so unprofessional that the troops would mutiny if they found out that some people—with whom they’ve been serving without problem—are gay.

The administration and some in Congress have pledged to repeal Section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10, which states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. Often confused with the “don’t ask, don’t tell” regulations issued by President Bill Clinton, this statute establishes several reasons that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

Section 654 is based on several distorted facts and a number of unfounded opinions, but aside from that, it DOES NOT state that homosexuals are not eligible for military service on the basis of being homosexual alone. It states that homosexual behavior is not accepted by the military, but provides for certain circumstances in which it can be permitted. For example, a normally heterosexual soldier can go out and have a homosexual encounter when he gets drunk one night, and that’s alright. A homosexual soldier can have a long term devoted relationship, and that’s not ok. Yep, certainly seems to be promoting a culture of self control and discipline.

Section 654 recognizes that the military is a “specialized society” that is “fundamentally different from civilian life.” It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands “extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.” The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often “characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.”

I’m not even sure how this supports their argument. Are they suggesting that homosexual soldiers are incapable of “extraordinary sacrifice”? Doesn’t the fact that so many gay soldiers are currently serving and DENYING a part of their of identity because the military thinks they should be ashamed of it mean that they are actually more used to sacrificing than heterosexual soldiers, who can easily discuss relationship problems or bring their significant others to military functions?

While there have been changes in civilian society since this statute was adopted by wide bipartisan majorities in 1993, the military realities it describes abide. If anything, they are more acute in wartime.

In our experience, and that of more than 1,000 retired flag and general officers who have joined us in signing an open letter to President Obama and Congress, repeal of this law would prompt many dedicated people to leave the military. Polling by Military Times of its active-duty subscribers over the past four years indicates that 58 percent have consistently opposed repeal. In its most recent survey, 10 percent said they would not reenlist if that happened, and 14 percent said they would consider leaving.

If just the lesser number left the military, our active-duty, reserve and National Guard forces would lose 228,600 people — more than the total of today’s active-duty Marine Corps. Losses of even a few thousand sergeants, petty officers and experienced mid-grade officers, when we are trying to expand the Army and Marine Corps, could be crippling.

First, the Military Times poll was not drawn from a representative sample of the military population, but rather from a self selected group of people who read their publication. Anyone who’s taken a class in basic statistics and research methods knows you can’t draw solid conclusions from flawed data. Second, there is a difference between attitudes and behavior. Servicemen in the 40’s were opposed to integration of the services, but when they were told to accept it, they did. West Point students pledged to leave the service if women were admitted in the 70’s. They didn’t. Approximately half of British and Canadian troops said they would not serve with gays, but when their respective bans were lifted, they didn’t. Let’s talk about some more reliable statistics:. In 2004, an Annenberg poll found that a slight majority of junior enlisted favored openly gay service. In 2006, a Zogby poll of Iraq and Afghanistan vets found that 72% were “personally comfortable” around gays. [Source:Palm Center Policy Memo] Around half of the troops knew of or suspected that someone in their unit was gay. Somehow, they’ve managed to continue effectively functioning. Shocking. The authors must have missed those studies. I would expect more attention to detail from retired flag officers.

And the damage would not stop there. Legislation introduced to repeal Section 654 (H.R. 1283) would impose on commanders a radical policy that mandates “nondiscrimination” against “homosexuality, or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.” Mandatory training classes and judicial proceedings would consume valuable time defining that language. Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.

A “radical policy”? Not really. It just says you can’t discriminate based on someone’s sexual orientation – whether it’s their actual orientation or just what you think their orientation is. Notwithstanding the fact that you should just be able to say, “Hey, you know how you’re forbidden from discriminating against people based on gender and race? Now you can’t do it based on their sexual orientation either,” such anti-discrimination training could prevent things like the pointless murder of Barry Winchell from reoccurring. A waste of valuable time? Not so much. Cohesion in the military is based on task cohesion, which is actually stronger than social cohesion anyway. Letting gays serve openly wouldn’t hurt that.

We don’t need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life. “Zero tolerance” of dissent would become official intolerance of anyone who disagrees with this policy, forcing additional thousands to leave the service by denying them promotions or punishing them in other ways. Many more will be dissuaded from ever enlisting. There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces. Discharges for homosexual conduct have been few compared with separations for other reasons, such as pregnancy/family hardship or weight-standard violations. There are better ways to remedy shortages in some military specialties than imposing social policies that would escalate losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced.

Is “zero tolerance” of dissent something new to the military? Now I’m not in the military (yet), but I’ve always been under the impression that in the military you don’t get to decide which policies you agree with and will abide by. They tell you to do something, you do it. If you don’t do it, you don’t get promoted and you get punished. If you’re really opposed to being told what you can do and when, you are dissuaded from enlisting. Essentially, these officers are saying they don’t think people should be forced to abide by this policy, but forcing people in the military to abide by policy is nothing new.

And comparing homosexual conduct to pregnancy/family hardship and weight-standard violations is like comparing apples to oranges and bananas. For one, if pregnant, women are given the option to leave – not told that they have to. In the Navy, they’re not even allowed to leave unless they can prove “overwhelming and compelling factors of personal need.” When they’re no longer pregnant, they go back to work. Being overweight can keep you from doing your job; it can endanger your life and the life of those around you. And, sort of like pregnant women, when you’re not overweight anymore, you can get back to work. I would like to see the statistics on losses from pregnancy and weight standards, because I’m not quite sure I’m buying this statement. Even if I did, the military deals with those losses because there’s no way around it. You can’t tell women not to get pregnant, you can’t tell people not to get overweight (although you can stick them on strict training regimens)… but you can somehow tell people not to be gay? No. Those are completely avoidable and unnecessary losses.

People who are gay are always going to be gay. Their sexual orientation does not endanger the lives of people around them. The integration experiences in other countries suggest that being open about sexual orientation also decreases the probability that their sexual orientation will endanger their lives. When a person is free to report harassment to his chain of command without fear of being discharged for homosexual conduct, the frequency of harassment decreases.

There’s also a problem with the authors’ statement about the losses of experienced personnel who are not easily replaced. I’ve already expressed my doubt that many people will actually leave, but guess what else? The gay soldiers being discharged aren’t easily replaced either. The GAO estimated that 800 of the 12000 servicemen discharged under DADT held mission critical positions: pilots, linguists, medics, intelligence analysts. The cost to replace them and train new service members was over $363.8 million.

Some suggest that the United States must emulate Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada, which have incorporated homosexuals into their forces. But none of these countries has the institutional culture or worldwide responsibilities of our military. America’s armed forces are models for our allies’ militaries and the envy of our adversaries — not the other way around.

What about Israel, the UK, and Australia? Convenient omissions maybe, because these countries have also integrated gays into their militaries, and with high levels of success. No one disputes the strength of the Israeli military, or the strength and worldwide responsibilities of the UK. No one is suggesting that the United States military needs to model itself after Denmark, the Netherlands, and Canada (and Israel, the United Kingdom, and Australia). Rather, they are countering the belief that allowing gays in the military will reduce military efficiency and cause mass numbers of servicemen to flee the service by providing examples where these things did not happen.

As former senior commanders, we know that the reason for this long-standing envy is the unsurpassed discipline, morale and readiness of our military. The burden should be on proponents of repeal to demonstrate how their initiative would improve these qualities of our armed services. This they cannot do.

How can telling our service members that they must respect all their peers regardless of their sexual orientation hurt discipline? It seems to me that it would demonstrate the strength of our services to follow through on orders that they may not personally support. How can the addition and retention of qualified soldiers—especially linguists, pilots, medics, and intelligence analysts—hurt morale and readiness? It can’t. They cannot do because you are all close minded bigots—and that is not a word I use lightly.

Consequently, our recent open letter advised America’s elected leaders: “We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”

You can believe that all you want gentlemen, but it is an ignorant and unfounded belief. There is no proof that allowing gays to serve openly would undermine recruiting and retention or impact leadership. If military officers cannot enforce a policy on their troops, they are lacking the leadership required to be military officers. Further, parents do not “lend” their sons and daughters to military service. Young men and woman choose to enlist because they want to serve their country. If they feel they cannot serve their country because the person to their right or left happens to be a homosexual, perhaps they should find another way to serve their country. Just as we would not indulge their prejudices against the opposite sex or different religions and races, we should not indulge their prejudices against people with different sexual orientations.

For further reading, I strongly recommend Unfriendly Fire by Nathaniel Frank.

Barack Obama is NOT Winning Me Over.

He’s repelling me a little more each day.

From an article in the Telegraph:

Mr Obama has told Republicans in Washington to stop listening to the right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh, risking a new culture war with conservative voters.

Well gee, Obama, you may be the President, but I don’t think you have the right to dictate who or what your political opposition listens to. Dissent is patriotic, remember? Obama apparently has a personal vendetta against Limbaugh who said “I hope he fails.” To be clear, what Limbaugh was talking about was Obama’s liberal policies – as in, I hope Obama fails in creating a socialist state. I hope so too.

[Obama] faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.

The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: “I won. I’m the president.”

Again, you may be the president, but we have a little thing in place called checks and balances. Remember? It was all people talked about when Bush was president, but I guess now that the One is president, we don’t need them anymore. What Obama wants, goes.

Mr Obama has pledged to end the culture wars on social issues that have riven American politics for a generation and did not allow television cameras to film him signing the executive order reversing the Bush abortion funding ban on aid agencies abroad, in order not to provoke pro-life groups.

When he finally did sign the order he issued a statement in a bid to placate abortion critics by promising to “reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies.” He added: “It is time that we end the politicisation of this issue.”

Because if it’s not on television, it’s like it didn’t happen. Those pro-life groups won’t oppose it if it’s not publicized. It is time that we end the politicization of this issue: I wonder if that means it’s time we find a common ground, or if it’s going to be another “I win, I trump you on that, you have to agree with me.” — i.e. we’re going to kill babies, and you need to stop listening to your church, your conservative pundits, your conscience, etc, because otherwise we won’t get anything done.

The president has also reacted badly to his first taste of tougher questioning from the previously supine Washington press corps – becoming visibly irritated, during a visit to journalists’ offices in the White House, when asked a substantive question about the ethics affair.

How dare you ask a substantive question! I hear Obama tells the reporters who will be called on beforehand, and if you haven’t been informed, you don’t even try to get in a question. I love our newly transparent government.

This was probably the most annoying to me:

The Obama people like a scrap, they’ve proved that throughout the year, none more than the president. But they know they’re in a fight now. And it probably won’t let up for eight years.

He’s less than a week into his presidency. Can we stop assuming he’s going to have a second term? When we get hit with another terrorist attack because he’s crippled the intelligence community with inexperienced leaders and asinine interrogation restrictions, and returned the people at Gitmo to their home countries and allowed them to become terrorist leaders), any chance at a second term for him will be gone. Unless the media somehow finds a way to blame it on Bush.

The Bright Side

In spite of the fact that I will have to deal with smug Obama supporters tomorrow, I can see several good things for the future:

1. Maybe–just maybe–Obama will stick to his promise to have a bipartisan administration and the divide in the country will shrink.

2. I like his idea about putting the head of the National Guard on the JCS.

3. With a Democratic Congress, Obama might be able to overturn Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and let gays serve openly in the military. I hope he can.

4. Youth are politically energized more than they ever have been. I think that’s awesome (and will be more so when they pass out of the bleeding heart liberal phase and come to their senses).

This is not the end of the world. It’s four years. There will be a peaceful transition of power, there will be checks on power, and we’ll still be guided by the same Constitution that’s governed this country for 220 years. We will still be America and we will still be based on the ideals of justice and liberty.

There had to be a Carter before there was a Reagan. It’s just the way democracy works.

100th Post!

Sadly, not something meaningful… but it is hilarious.* Enjoy.

It actually looks like it could be a Disney movie, and probably one that I would go see…

*Disclaimer: I do like Sarah Palin, but even I have to admit that this is pretty well done.

Liberalism, Conservatism, and Sarah Palin

My friend Claire–EXTREMELY liberal–posted this article about Sarah Palin. It was the typical rant from the left wing media, but then I saw this line:

According to that right-wing social viewpoint, divorce, teen pregnancy, and other lapses in family values are the fault of liberals. According to this political movement, respecting the right of gay and lesbian people to formalize their relationships; refusing to censor the Internet, books, television or movies; supporting age appropriate sex education; and refusing to allow religion to be inculcated by official government means, are the causes of social dysfunction in America.

I’ve seen a lot of articles lately telling me why conservatives like Palin and what they think, but this pushed me to a point of needing to respond–I won’t respond to her directly because it would be like talking to a brick wall. Gotta love those open-minded liberals.

Anyways, the author of this article is missing a very important point here: Christians aren’t perfect, and any Christian who claims to be is not a true Christian. One of the fundamentals of Christianity is that people are flawed–and not just some people, not just unbelievers–but ALL people. Some things may make it harder or easier for people to stumble, but I guarantee that even in a completely religious, censored, gay-marriage prohibiting, non sex educating society, people would still sin. There would still be teen pregnancy, there would still be divorce, there would still be violence and crime. I know that Catholic schools can have high numbers of pregnancies, that the Christian divorce rate is very near the general population rate, and that some of the most violent acts in history have been carried out in the name of God. The cause isn’t the environment, it’s the nature of people.

That said, there are things that can make it easier for people to mess up. Sorry to point this out to you, US Representative Barney Frank, but it’s not liberalism. Well, it’s not liberalism per say, but the refusal to accept responsibility for anything. I think that liberalism can invite this behavior by creating excuses and offering easy solutions, but that not all liberals fall victim to this. [Disclaimer: I'm not claiming conservatives are without flaw either, but that's a whole different topic]

You had bad grades/no experience? No problem, you’re a minority and it’s probably because we oppressed you. Let’s give you priority to make up for that.

Oops, you’re in high school and had unprotected sex and got pregnant? Get an abortion, and don’t worry- you don’t have to tell your parents. Try to pay more attention in sex ed, but if it happens again, don’t worry about it. These things happen to everyone.

Ooh, you found out your child is going to have Down’s Syndrome? Go ahead and abort and try again. We’ll cross our fingers that your next child will be “normal”.

Saying something isn’t wrong doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. Having an easy solution to a problem doesn’t mean you shouldn’t think about your mistake or that the easy way out is the correct answer.

Sorry. I got carried away for a minute there.

Rules don’t change because people mess up or don’t want to abide by them anymore (oops, my moral absolutism is showing). This is why conservatives get frustrated with liberals and why conservatives adore Sarah Palin. Her daughter is not taking the easy way out–she has faced up to the consequences of her actions.

To correct another liberal fallacy, conservatives are not supporting Bristol Palin’s pregnancy because she’s a conservative and they are not saying it is ok at all. They are supporting her decision to do what is correct even though it’s not easy.

To all of those out there who are criticizing Sarah Palin’s parenting skills because Bristol is keeping the baby and getting married, I think you need to take another look. Kids don’t always listens to their parents, but it looks like Sarah and Todd Palin passed on the messages of personal responsibility and accountability pretty successfully.

Sarah Palin = Fred Thompson in Female Form

I LOVE her.

Text, Full Video, and Video Highlights

Best part:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

She obviously loves freedom. Just like me.

Lieberman and Google

Joe Lieberman has requested that Google remove terrorist produced videos from Youtube. This includes, but is not limited to: killings of American soldiers and civilian workers, assassinations, training videos, and anti-American speeches. All of these videos are apparently branded by the terrorist groups and thus pretty easily identifiable (and as a sidenote, how arrogant is that terrorists use American media to disseminate their anti-American messages and blatantly state that they belong to terrorist groups? And you know why they can? Because no one is going to stop them.).

Google’s response is that violent videos will be removed as will hate speech, but they will not outright ban groups from posting, because it violates their policy of freedom of expression and the right for people to say unpopular things. The CATO Institute endorsed this view and accuses Lieberman of censorship. Ah, First Amendment rights. Some might consider this a reasonable argument. Do I?

No. Considering that terrorism is on principle a psychological weapon used to gain an advantage over a conventionally superior opponent, one of the best ways to counter it would be to prevent the opposing propaganda from being spread. When a company not only allows a terrorist groups ready access to such a wide spread and easily accessible network of viewers, but defends the right of the terrorists to disseminate their propaganda, they have crossed a line. Google’s policy of promoting free speech for everyone — even those who have been declared by the State department as Foreign Terrorist Organizations — has been rightfully challenged. By providing access to American audiences, Google is assisting the terrorist groups. Last time I checked, that was illegal. Lieberman is right to ask them to remove the videos: Google should go beyond removing just the violent and blatantly hateful videos and remove all videos identified with known terrorist groups.

CATO argued that the best way to counter bad speech is with better speech. There is no doubt that the US could do a lot better in the hearts and minds category, and there’s no reason for us not work on countering terrorist propaganda with our own propaganda, but there’s also no reason we should help the terrorists spread their message.

We have our hands tied fairly frequently in this war. Are we actually going to sit back and win the war for the terrorists now?

Why I’m Opposed to Affirmative Action

I hate affirmative action, and am genuinely shocked that anyone (aside from shamelessly opportunistic people with no sense of pride) would ever support it. Someone made me mad last week by telling me first that I should support Affirmative Action because I’m a minority, then telling me that none of my reasons for opposing it are valid because I’m white. I HATE that. It’s like when people tell boys they can’t have a stand on abortion because it won’t ever apply to them. My race – whatever it is – should have nothing to do with the veracity of my arguments. When it comes down to it, that’s the thrust of my whole argument against affirmative action in general, which I suppose is a fundamental difference in world views.

My opposition to affirmative action formed (the previous view was apathetic) pretty much the day after I got my acceptance letter to Stanford and a girl in my class said, “Well obviously you got in there, you’re Mexican.” Obviously.

Well, I know she was bitter after getting rejected from everywhere she applied, and my acceptance was more about my APs and GPA and SAT score and recommendations and extracurricular activities than my last name, but the idea that anyone can think that bothers me. In some sense, it lessens all the work I did during high school. I knew that my freshman roommate never had her acceptance doubted and everyone assumed that she was just brilliant, but everyone always wondered if my last name got me in. It made me want to staple my transcripts to my shirt to prove that I was worthy too.

(Disclaimer: I’m not claiming that going to Stanford makes you brilliant – I know some pretty dumb people who went there.)

Affirmative action not only lessens the actual achievements of minorities (or even apparent minorities, since I don’t consider myself one), it also insults minorities by insinuating that they would need a boost to be on a level playing field with white kids.

Who decides what a minority is anyway? My sophomore roommate flaunted her minority status, claiming that she was receiving payback for years and years of oppression of blacks in America. I’m all for making up for oppression – if you were actually oppressed. Seeing as how she drove a Benz and lived in a mansion, I’m willing to bet that she wasn’t.

Another beef with affirmative action is that people who aren’t qualified are admitted to jobs and schools where they don’t as well as they would in jobs and schools for which they are better suited. Some of them fail out of school, become discouraged, and quit trying altogether. In that sense, affirmative action is actually hurting the minorities that it’s trying to help.

Finally, it’s just a hypocritical policy. We’re going to make up for racism by being racist…? Martin Luther King talked about his children being judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Let everyone be judged by their abilities and character, and forget about skin color and ethnicity. Affirmative action is just another form of racism, and it’s not helping anyone.

War: Then and Now

I came across this article while I was at work and I thought it was interesting. Enjoy. Oh, and if you haven’t noticed, I added a little thing to my blog that shows my shared clips from my Google reader, with which I am in love.

Anyway, this isn’t in my reader, so here you go:

From the “The Past and the Present” by Douglas Stone, at the Center for Security Policy

“Challenge: Setbacks in War . . . .

Then: In 1862, Union General Ambrose Burnside leads a disastrous frontal assault on Confederate positions at Fredericksburg; over 12,000 casualties; even so, another assault is attempted at Chancellorsville fewer than six months later, this time led by General Hooker, that results in more than 18,000 Union casualties; the North begins drafting troops two months later as it redoubles effort.

Now: In Iraq, American combat deaths are totaling approximately 800 a year; opposition leadership in Congress says the war is lost and calls for withdrawal of troops; the fiscal 2008 defense appropriations bill includes $2 million for brown tree snake interdiction in Hawaii and $3 million to provide “learning facilities and educational programs that promote character development and life-enhancing values through the game of golf.”

Challenge: Media response to war . . . .

Then: In 1917, the American press largely supports U.S. efforts in World War I; respects President and military leaders and helps to rally public opinion; relatively little media opposition after we enter war.

Now: Large segments of U.S. media oppose Iraq War; emphasizes American atrocities and setbacks; rarely reports positive news and in many cases seeks to remain “neutral” as between U.S. and our enemies; 36 year old Lara Logan reports from Baghdad as CBS News “Chief Foreign Correspondent.”

Challenge: Unprovoked attack on the United States with thousands dead . . . .

Then: In 1941, the U.S. declares war on Japan and Germany and wages relentless war; at its height, war consumes close to 40% of GDP; rationing; over 12 million serve; Germany and Japan defeated four years later.

Now: Following second World Trade Center attack; small all-volunteer army invades Afghanistan; U.S. spends less than 4% of GDP on defense; few people personally know a serviceman; war continues six years late; some “allies” send force of one (1) troop or refuse to fight at night.

Challenge: Irregular “fighters” make war on U.S. . . .

Then: In 1942 eight Nazi saboteurs land in the U.S.; rounded up by the FBI before doing any damage; trial before a Military Commission; six executed as spies within two months of arrival.

Now: Al Qaida- and Taliban-affiliated irregulars captured in Afghanistan fighting without uniforms; sent to Guantanamo; human rights campaigners and the media take up their cause; international pressure forces some to be released; “torture” consists of prisoners being forced to keep company with American lawyers.

Challenge: Foreign power threatens U.S. . . .

Then: In 1952, responding to Korean War and Soviet threat, the U.S. begins massive military build-up; spends over 13% of GDP on military; U.S. tests first hydrogen bomb; President Kennedy would later vow to “pay any price, bear any burden” and go to brink of war over nuclear weapons in Cuba.

Now: Iranian President Ahmadinejad taunts U.S. and threatens an ally with destruction; Iranian President pushes forward program to become nuclear power; U.S. intelligence services undermine efforts to counter Iranian threat; President attacked by U.S. media as warmonger — President Bush, that is.”

I don’t want to quote the whole article because that’s probably copyright infringement, and there’s not much left to it anyway. It makes you think though. Ok, I’ll quote one last part, because it’s the question he leaves off with, and I think it’s a good one:

“Would our approach to the world in 2008 be foreign to a Truman or an Eisenhower, to a Henry Jackson?”

Yes. What are we going to do about it?

Things that Make Me Feel Patriotic List

1. Morning colors at NPS. Everyone stops and turns toward the flag, I put my hand over my heart and the national anthem plays – I can’t think of a better way to start the day.

2. Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers were amazing.

3. Fireworks

4. Nuclear Weapons. I’m not really sure why, but I used to come out of my history of Nuclear Weapons class and be all gung ho America.

5. Small Towns

6. Any Memorial in DC, but especially the Lincoln Memorial. The spot where MLK gave his speech? Amazing.

7. Charlie Daniels

8. Comparative Politics. Our country is amazing.

9. Baseball. It’s an American tradition. On the same note – high school football games.

10. Voting. Knowing that you can make a change, voicing your opinion, exercising your right as a citizen… being reminded that not everyone gets to vote around the world and it’s not something I should take for granted.

And the bonus… recruiting commercials for the Marines. Man, those are awesome.