October 25, 2005
They stand on Freedom's Wall...and they do NOT want to be USED for propaganda...
Instapundit quoted from this piece, by J.D. Johannes, so you've probably already seen it, but it's worth noting again...
...Numbers 2,000, 1,999 and 1,997 also strapped up every day to stand on a wall many in America are willing let crumble. And to those who would let that wall crumble, they are just numbers.
They are not men of action and conviction, to the anti-war faction, they are merely numbers of sufficient quotient to send a press releases and hold press events.
I asked Marines all across Al Anbar province two questions:
1. If something goes bad and you die here. What would you think of people who used your death to protest the war.
2. After being here, and knowing what you know, would you still join the Marines/volunteer for this deployment?
The answers were invariably the same.
They did not want their death to be used as a prop and they would make the same decision all over again. These young Lance Corporals and Non-Commissioned Officers volunteered to join the Marines, many with the intent of coming to Iraq. And while few would say they like war, they all recognize the necessity of it.
The Marines and soldiers who fight in Iraq are not numbers, but the media and certain groups are treating them as if they were. Number 2,000 was a national treasure, just as number 1,435 was and number 2,038 will be. For what is the value of a man who will fight a war for others who despise him?
But for those who are willing to take action, there would be no wall at all hold back evil and those men and women on the wall deserve more than a number.
Hey, fake pacifists, how about a vigil for these guys in the coffins in the picture? There's a nice round number: 8,000. Thats 8,000 Kurds from the 1983 massacre of the Kurdish tribe of Mullah Mustafa Barzan. (A tiny part of the total of Kurds killed by Saddam.)
So when do they get a candle-light vigil? Ha ha, silly of me, the answer, of course, is never. There's no anti-Bush propaganda coins to be made off of Kurds, so they get no notice.
Instead of a vigil, we’re throwing a trial. And they day they execute Saddam, I’ll be smiling. But I have to ask why you’re using the bodies of the dead as a propaganda tool...
Posted by: Andrew Cory at October 25, 2005 04:08 PMThey're for the demonstration, don't you know? They are being unloaded at Dulles right now...
Posted by: John Weidner at October 25, 2005 06:21 PMDo you suppose Rosa Parks would want her death used as a photo opp for a Supreme Court nominee who voted to "immunize an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the 'best' candidate was the result of conscious racial bias." [Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]?
Just asking.
Posted by: Dave Trowbridge at October 31, 2005 10:44 AMI don't know.
Nor do I know whether she would want her image used as an emblem of a sort of "institutionalized revolution," a long-ago struggle that now justifies an entrenched reactionary class in orgies of self-congratulation, in opposition to reforms that could help liberate minorities from poverty and dependence, in using accusations of racism as a bludgeon to silence those who disagree with them, and who claim to have the right to "define" who is black, and exclude from the club and revile anyone who is conservative or Republican.
The Civil Rights battlegrounds right now are not courtrooms and lawsuits, they are the wretched, often hellish, public schools of the inner city, which blight the hopes of poor and minority children. I'm in the party of reform and new beginnings. Where do you stand?
Posted by: John Weidner at October 31, 2005 03:06 PMAlso, all sides today tend to use court decisions as "sound bites" but it's a stupid way to argue. Judges don't rule against bad guys and for good guys (or vice versa if they are evil conservatives) They rule on the law, on the facts and arguments of a particular case, and on precedent.
On a much smaller scale, Charlene is often a "judge" (an arbitrator, or sometimes a Small Claims judge). And sometimes she will say to me, "I really liked poor Mr X, but his sleazy no-good opponent had the law on his side, so I had to rule for him..."
Posted by: John Weidner at October 31, 2005 03:41 PMAlso, You can read Bray v. Marriot and the dissent here.
I don't think Scalito is saying what he is claimed to be saying. He seems to be saying that the burden of proof required by the case that's the precedent is very high, and Bray hasn't quite met it. The "immunize" stuff is what the majority position says that Scalito's position means, not what he says...
Posted by: John Weidner at October 31, 2005 05:40 PM
