Rainbows everywhen

87983-poppyIf Ye Break Faith With Us…
-Mark Steyn on 11/11/2001

[T]hough we can scarce grasp what they symbolize, this year the poppies are hard to find. Three Canadian provinces had sold out by last Monday, and by the time you read this the rest of the Royal Canadian Legion’s entire stock of 14.8 million will likely be gone.

Canada today…
Former Conservative party candidate apologizes for viral rainbow poppy tweet

The apology was mistaken:

Rather than having been suspended for rejecting the poppy during choir practice as Bird’s initial tweet read, Natalie outlined that she had been suspended for “rejecting the idea” of the rainbow poppy…

It’s worse that Natalie was suspended for “rejecting the idea.” The idea is the problem.

I do know why Cyara Bird apologized: Unless you enthusiastically support the appropriation of Remembrance Day at SJW whim, and embrace compelled speech, YOU are a bigot.

The LGBT+ folks already have a plethora of their own days, weeks, and months – with parades and celebrations.

Every other occasion for reflection or pride does not require fealty to a group of aggrieved, narcissistic activists who occupy the space at the very edges of the Bell curve of human sexuality.

100 years since

A moment of silence is observed at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month because that is when the guns went silent for the armistice that ended World War I, one hundred years ago today.

This day is Remembrance Day, Armistice Day, Veterans Day. The silence should resound throughout the countries who observe it under those different names, as we recall the sacrifice of those who fought on our behalf.

How could we forget? Easily. We might neglect this history in our primary schools. We might create a university system dedicated to recasting those heroes who rose to meet challenges of personal and cultural annihilation as, at best, quaint throwbacks to an unenlightened age or, at worst, dupes of a “system of power, privilege, and oppression.”

We might wear Che T-shirts, ignorant of the man’s evil.  We might stage protests under flags displaying the Swastika, oblivious. We might call our neighbors Fascists if they utter an opinion with which we disagree, because we don’t really know what fascism is.

Instead, let us express our gratitude to those who defended us at Ypres, Belleau Wood, Dieppe, Iwo Jima, The Bulge, the Chosen Reservoir, Khe Sanh, and Fallujah.  Let us display a humble respect for those who gave their lives on behalf of the ideal of individual freedom.

Without our continuing consciousness of their effort, those who have died and those who die tomorrow protecting our liberty, are literally dust. If we do not honor these heroes, we are likely to lose our way of life by the worst possible means – the habit of thinking things had to be the way they are and not some other way.  We need to reflect on just how amazing it is that we’ve escaped Hobbes’ description of life as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and how fragile the achievement is.

A moment of silence is a pittance to pay in gratitude to fallen warriors and to revive failing memories.

Update, 11:10. In the interests of remembering, the incomparable Mark Steyn:
The War That Made the World We Live In

June 6, 1944

Just after midnight on June 6, 1944, 1,200 transport planes and 700 gliders delivered over 23,000 American and British paratroops behind the German coastal defense in Normandy.

At dawn, 4,000 transports and 800 warships, plus innumerable smaller craft, began an amphibious assault that landed 130,000 soldiers at beaches code-named Sword, Juno, Gold, Utah, and Omaha.

These names will live as long as mankind studies military theory.

We are not likely to see anything so audacious or so necessary to the continuance of Western civilization ever again.

In remembrance of the men who died at Sword, Juno, Gold, Utah, and Omaha – the soldiers who died there defending the West against totalitarianism – I offer some further reading:
D-Day on the Web
WWII Museum
American D-Day
19 of the World’s Best World War II Museums and Historical Sites

People talking without speaking

It has now been six days since the Supreme Court ruled that colleges that accept federal funds must also accept the visits of military recruiters.

This is a monumental affront to the principles and mores that led many colleges to spend megabucks on a legal battle intended to cement their right to admit Taliban ambassadors as students while dismissing the US Armed Forces as persona-non-grata homophobes. Apparently, the treatment of homosexuals under the Taliban is not spoken of at Yale.

It was an utmost principle of free speech that Yale, and others, be allowed federal money with having to follow federal law. So, follow your principles or shut up.

It’s been six days. The sound of these universities following their principles is the sound of silence.

Update: 18-March-2006 Everything I Know is Wrong has the same question

When he’s right, he’s right

I am no fan of John McCain. His sanctimony brings to mind Dudley Doright, but lacking the humor. He takes his morality in meandering, pragmatic sips. When he’s outraged we’re all supposed to be.

He has earned my eternal enmity for his promotion of, and continuing support for, violating the free speech provision of the First Amendment via the campaign finance reform bill. His egoism prevents him from examining his error.

John McCain’s epitaph will be: “I meant well.”

Indeed, he has meant well. I admire and thank him for his obvious courage, demonstrated in service to the United States while a prisoner of war.

However, in part, the fact that he was tortured while so incarcerated contributes to another sophomoric idea he is promoting – a law to prevent any US involvement in “torture” at any level, at any time, under any circumstances. Since he cannot know what the Democrats will call torture, since he cannot know the time or circumstances in advance, this is Pollyanna confronting the Balrog.

He does not, however, waiver in honoring his oath of office as he understands it, nor does he devalue our military. Following is the text of a recent John McCain column in The New York Post.

By JOHN McCAINNovember 17, 2005 — IRAQ is today in the throes of another critical moment in its post-Saddam history. There is both great hope and great difficulty, with a new constitution and an ongoing insurgency, with parliamentary elections in a month and violence plaguing many areas.

At home, the American people wish to see us succeed in helping bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, but express increased uncertainty among the way forward. Now is the last time we should send a message that withdrawing troops is more important than achieving success.

Unfortunately, the Senate considered two amendments this week — one of which was approved with 79 votes — that did just that. In the version that passed, 2006 is designated as “a period of significant transition to full sovereignty . . . thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.”

These words are likely to be examined closely in Iraq, by both friends and enemies. They suggest that the Senate has its priorities upside down, and I voted to reject them.

Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate’s foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America’s first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.

If that means we can draw down our troop levels and win in Iraq in 2006, that would be a wonderful outcome. But if success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006, then we must increase our numbers there.

Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory.

But the amendment suggests a different priority. It signals that withdrawal, not victory, is foremost in Congress’ mind, and suggests that we are more interested in exit than victory.

A date is not an exit strategy. To suggest that it is only encourages our enemies, by indicating that the end to American intervention is near. It alienates our friends, who fear an insurgent victory, and tempts undecideds to join the anti-government ranks.

And it suggests to the American people that, no matter what, 2006 is the date for withdrawal. As much as I hope 2006 is the landmark year that the amendment’s supporters envision, should it not be so, messages like these will have unrealistically raised expectations once again. That can only cost domestic support for America’s role in this conflict, a war we must win.

The sponsors may disagree with my interpretation of their words, saying that 2006 is merely a target, that their legislation is not binding and that it included caveats. But look at the initial response to the Senate’s words: a front page Washington Post story titled “Senate Presses for Concrete Steps Toward Drawdown of Troops in Iraq.”

Think about this for a moment. Imagine Iraqis, working for the new government, considering whether to join the police force, or debating whether or not to take up arms. What will they think when they read that the Senate is pressing for steps toward draw-down?

Are they more or less likely to side with a government whose No. 1 partner hints at leaving?

The Senate has responded to the millions who braved bombs and threats to vote, who put their faith and trust in America and their government, by suggesting that our No. 1 priority is to bring our people home.

We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.

Americans may not have been of one mind when it came to the decision to topple Saddam Hussein. But, though some disagreed, I believe that nearly all now wish us to prevail.

Because the stakes there are so high — higher even than those in Vietnam — our friends and our enemies need to hear one message: America is committed to success, and we will win this war.

Sen. McCain (R, Az.) is one of only 19 U.S. senators — including just 13 Republicans — to have voted against a Senate resolution Tuesday pushing for an eventual draw-down of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Emphasis mine. McCain castigates his colleagues justly and accurately.

P.S., “an eventual drawdown” is inevitable in any case, and stating it as the objective of the resolution reveals a mind-set either damaged by Liberal propaganda or informed by it. “Eventual” was the GOP majority’s weak-kneed response to the Democrats idiotic demand for date certain withdrawal.

This is fighting betrayal with bufoonnery.