One thing I don’t write much about is the fact that I’m a member of the United States Air Force Reserve. I do my “One Weekend a Month” (at least that’s what they tell me). I don’t dedicate too many pixels to my service not (certainly) because I am not proud of serving my country – on the contrary, I am very proud. It’s just that there are many more who have done much more than I and my service, however honorable and respectable, has not really been particularly distinguished. I will praise the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in the combat zone 1,000 times before I toot my own horn.

Having said all of that, I had the occasion to attend the retirement ceremony of my First Sergeant this past drill weekend. For those ignorant of Air Force terminology, the First Sergeant (often called the “First Shirt” or just “the Shirt” for reasons I haven’t discovered yet) acts as a liaison between the enlisted force and the unit Commander. His job is to pass the Commander’s policies on to the rest of the squadron (and enforce those policies), and to take up the concerns of the enlisted force with the commander. He is, at once the enlisted serviceman’s advocate to the officer corps, and the spokesman for the Commander to his troops. A good Commander and a good Shirt make for a good unit. And a lousy Commander OR a lousy Shirt have the corresponding effect. (Of course, a lousy Shirt is usually not the Shirt for long.) It’s a tough job and it takes a certain type of person to do it well. Our (now former) First Sergeant is that type of person.

The retirement ceremony was at once full of the expected pomp and circumstance one expects from a formal military ceremony; formal and dignified as the men and women in uniform were wearing the semi-formal dress uniform or the full, tuxedo-style “Mess Dress” uniform; riotously funny as the Shirt’s family, friends, officers, and co-workers gently roasted the guest of honor, and as he, in turn told stories about times when the senior enlisted members of my squadron had consumed copious amounts of “adult beverage”; and poignant as the religious traditions of the US military came out.

One ceremony in particular that I found especially moving was the flag-folding ceremony. The Shirt’s son, himself a member of the Air Force, was not in attendance because he IS one of the airmen serving overseas, right now. For his father’s retirement, this man wrote his senator to have a flag flown over the Capitol Building in Washington, DC, then expedited to Iraq so that it could be flown over the country the Shirt’s son was helping to liberate and secure. That flag was carried into the ceremony by two of our Chief Master Sergeants, unfolded, displayed to all in attendance, then re-folded as the other two Chiefs read the following:

“The flag folding ceremony represents the same religious principles on which our country was originally founded. The portion of the flag denoting honor is the canton of blue containing the stars representing the states our veterans served in uniform. The canton field of blue dresses from left to right and is inverted when draped as a pall on a casket of a veteran who has served our country in uniform.

“In the Armed Forces of the United States, at the ceremony of retreat the flag is lowered, folded in a triangle fold and kept under watch throughout the night as a tribute to our nation's honored dead. The next morning it is brought out and, at the ceremony of reveille, run aloft as a symbol of our belief in the resurrection of the body.

1. “The first fold of our flag is a symbol of life.

2. “The second fold is a symbol of our belief in the eternal life.

3. “The third fold is made in honor and remembrance of the veteran departing our ranks who gave a portion of life for the defense of our country to attain a peace throughout the world.

4. “The fourth fold represents our weaker nature, for as American citizens trusting in God, it is to Him we turn in times of peace as well as in times of war for His divine guidance.

5. “The fifth fold is a tribute to our country, for in the words of Stephen Decatur, ‘Our country, in dealing with other countries, may she always be right; but it is still our country, right or wrong.’

6. “The sixth fold is for where our hearts lie. It is with our heart that we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

7. “The seventh fold is a tribute to our Armed Forces, for it is through the Armed Forces that we protect our country and our flag against all her enemies, whether they be found within or without the boundaries of our republic.

8. “The eighth fold is a tribute to the one who entered in to the valley of the shadow of death, that we might see the light of day, and to honor mother, for whom it flies on Mother's Day.

9. “The ninth fold is a tribute to womanhood; for it has been through their faith, love, loyalty and devotion that the character of the men and women who have made this country great have been molded.

10. “The tenth fold is a tribute to father, for he, too, has given his sons and daughters for the defense of our country since they were first born.

11. “The eleventh fold, in the eyes of a Hebrew citizen, represents the lower portion of the seal of King David and King Solomon, and glorifies, in their eyes, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

12. “The twelfth fold, in the eyes of a Christian citizen, represents an emblem of eternity and glorifies, in their eyes, God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost.

13. “When the flag is completely folded, the stars are uppermost, reminding us of our national motto, ‘In God we Trust.’

“After the flag is completely folded and tucked in, it takes on the appearance of a cocked hat, ever reminding us of the soldiers who served under General George Washington and the sailors and marines who served under Captain John Paul Jones who were followed by their comrades and shipmates in the Armed Forces of the United States, preserving for us the rights, privileges, and freedoms we enjoy today.” (from www.USHistory.org)

The effect of this ceremony is to show us what we are fighting for. It’s also good to see that there is a branch of the Federal Government that does not shun religion in general and Judeo-Christianity in particular, but actively and positively embraces it. We are a Christian nation. Period. And it’s high time that the courts and the schools and the rest of the government accept that and follow the lead of the military in embracing that Christian heritage.

It also warms my heart to see a taxpayer funded institution do something that would make apoplectic those who would take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance and remove His name and His words from the halls of government forever.

God Bless America!

HJG

 

Yesterday the US Senate passed, 65-34 with 1 abstention, what most people with any level of awareness would consider a common-sense bill. The bill (S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act) prohibits taking a minor across state lines for an abortion without the parents’ consent, to circumvent parental notification laws. The maximum punishment is a little light in my opinion, but a fine of an undetermined amount, and a year in the pen is a good start, anyway.

The disturbing part of this is that there are 35 Senators, including, astoundingly, four Republicans who did not vote in favor of this bill, and several of them argued vehemently against it.

Let’s look at the situation the bill is addressing. Presume you have a 13-year-old daughter. Then, presume that for whatever reason she has a sever lapse in judgment and becomes pregnant. She doesn’t tell you, of course, because she is afraid that you will be angry (as most 13-year-olds would be). So she tells her boyfriend she wants an abortion so you (her parent) don’t find out. The law in your state says that you (the parent) are to be notified when your minor daughter seeks an abortion. Knowing this, her boyfriend gets his father (for the purposes of this story, a flaming liberal who is proud that his son has “become a man”) to take her two states over to find one that does not have parental notification laws, and she gets the abortion. When you find out (and you will, it always happens) just exactly how angry are you going to be that someone took your daughter out of your state without your knowledge or consent.

In most states that’s comparable to kidnapping.

Now, any reasonable human being would probably be ready to inflict severe physical violence on someone who kidnaps his or her daughter and takes her out of the state to have an abortion. I know I would.

Senators Boxer and Feinstein (D-CA) claimed that the bill should allow exceptions for such close confidants as clergy or grandparents. Thankfully, my parents would never do something like that, but if (hypothetically speaking) my mother-in-law were to kidnap my daughter for the sake of getting her an abortion, I’d have the same view as if it was a total stranger. And any priest who does that should be defrocked and excommunicated. Taking a young girl from her parents so that she can get an abortion is worse than molesting her. It’s telling her that it’s OK to have sex at her age and it’s OK to lie to her parents about it. No clergyman of any religion should ever even consider that sort of thing. That’s completely contrary to what they are supposed to do.

Despite the Democrats’ protests to the contrary, this bill isn’t about reducing the number of abortions, or preventing teen pregnancy or anything like that, it’s about giving parents the right to exercise the responsibility they have to their children without interference by someone else who has an interest in seeing that child have an abortion. It’s about preventing an adult from being able to dispose of the lasting physical evidence that he molested a child. And it’s about preventing people from circumventing their state law.

Oh, and here’s the list of the Senators who support kidnapping for abortion. I’d recommend voting against them when they come up for re-election:

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

HJG

In the first installment of this series, I described a fantasy magical device from the world of Harry Potter called a Horcrux. In short (WARNING: this is a spoiler from Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince) a Horcrux is something that keeps safe a piece of its creator’s soul, which piece is split from the whole by the creator committing murder. Also, in that same piece, I equated the Horcruxes of fantasy to the real-world soul-splitting murders for the cause of stem-cell research. I make this comparison because, like Lord Voldemort, the advocates of this real-world Horcrux don’t care about the lives they destroy for research that has yet to even yield evidence that it will work. They only want to keep trying to make Horcruxes.

Hey, Happy. You said at the beginning of this whole tirade that you’d tie it in with Chuck Schumer. Or is that going to be Part III?

Have patience, I’m getting there. This story has a lot of buildup.

The attitude of the believers in embryonic stem-cell research is summed up by Senator Schumer’s remarks on the Senate Floor on 18 July 2006. So as not to be accused of taking anything out of context, here are Senator Schumer’s remarks in that debate in toto. (all emphasis will be mine):

"Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Any one of us who has met people who have petitioned us for this act has to be moved. I have looked into the eyes of a mother who brought her beautiful 4-year-old daughter to my office and said, Senator, please allow this research to go forward because I am worried my daughter will be blind at the age of 20 without it.

"I have met families whose patriarch is suffering from ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. Again, they have pleaded with us, allow the research to go forward so maybe that person or his children, who might get the disease, will be able to be cured.

"I have met with so many people my age whose parents are suffering from Alzheimer's or Parkinson's. Again, they plead with us, allow stem cell research to move forward so that maybe my parent or other parents such as mine could be cured.

"Americans struggle with diseases every day. The confounding and amazing thing is, when scientists are on the edge of a breakthrough, the President stops them. Scientists are on the cusp of making incredible progress through stem cell research, a process that has the potential to cure diseases as widespread as diabetes and heart disease, but progress came to a grinding halt in 2001 when President Bush limited federally funded stem cell research to only 19 sources. With that Executive Order, President Bush shut the door on hope for millions of American families. With that one action, the President not only stopped current research in its tracks, he sent a message to future scientists that they should not pursue this line of work. As they see a limited funding stream for the work they do, fewer and fewer graduates are specializing in this kind of work. We need the best minds there.

"Substantively, there is no doubt this is the right thing to do. But I put it in a broader context. There is a group of people in America of deep faith. I respect that faith. I have been in enough inner-city Black churches, working-class Catholic parishes, rural Methodist houses of worship, and small Jewish synagogues, to understand that faith is a gift. The trouble with this group, which I call the theocrats, is they want that faith to dictate what our Government does. That, in a word, is un-American. It is exactly the reason the Founding Fathers put down their plows and took up muskets to fight.

"If you do not like stem cell research, don't use it for yourself or your family, but don't tell millions of Americans who may not share your faith that they cannot use it, as well.

"We have seen this repeatedly with Schiavo, or the required teaching of creationism in the schools, and now with stem cell research. Unfortunately, the President and too many in this Chamber and too many in the other Chamber have gone along and said that faith, wonderful and noble as it is, should determine what our Government does.

"This administration is not pursuing what most Americans want, but following the dictates of the narrow few. Fortunately, we live in a democracy. In a democracy these issues are debated.

"I assure everyone in this Chamber, this issue will be debated and debated strongly in November. Those who have stood in the way of scientific progress and research, those who have told that wonderful mother that her child cannot get the research she needs so she might not be blind, will be held accountable. This will be one of the largest issues that will face us in November, and it should. That is what democracy is all about. All of those, including the President, who have tried to hide their actions with false promises or bills that accomplish nothing, will be held accountable.

"Thank God we have a democracy. Thank God that a narrow band of people, few in number, deep in conviction, cannot dictate what our Government does. The fact that H.R. 810 has come to the Senate, the fact that it will get a large majority of votes here as it did in the House, and the fact that the President and some of his allies in this Chamber and others have stood in the way of saving lives and of scientific progress because they believe their faith should dictate what the rest of us do--again, they will be held accountable for that.

"I hope this measure passes. It would be a miracle, a miracle that could save lives if it got a veto-proof majority in this Senate. I doubt that will happen. But one can always hope, because the hopes, the futures, of millions of Americans, born and unborn, rest on us pursuing this research, doing what science tells us it needs to do to enhance and preserve life, and not be blocked by a small group that wishes to impose its views on everyone else." (The Congressional Record, 18 July 2006)

First and foremost you will note the constant use of “maybe”, “might”, and “could” when describing the benefits of stem-cell research. The study of embryonic stem-cells has been going on for most of a decade, and we’re still at the “maybe” stage. Also you will note where the Senator remarks that scientists are on the cusp of great discoveries. It’s the same cusp they have been on since before 2001. I should note that research has not been banned, nor has it stopped. The only thing being stopped is your tax dollars from destroying lives for pointless, Mengele-esque research.

But, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the Senator’s remarks is his denigration of the faithful among us as “theocrats” and our belief in right and wrong as “un-American.” Senator Schumer is worried about the idea that our national leaders should use some semblance of morality when making the laws, and that morality must come from God, not the party platform. And the Senator is counting on the amoral among us to make a statement in November that America supports the wholesale slaughter of innocents for a bunch of mights, maybes and coulds. When the Senator talks about the potential of stem-cell research, I am reminded of remarks about “potential” from a young athlete. When a sports commentator speaks of an athlete with “potential” that athlete is usually mediocre in ability and may, or may not actually do well. And so it goes with our real-world Horcruxes, not a tool to save lives, but another pawn for the Left to try to gain power.

“There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it.” -- The philosophy of Lord Voldemort as quoted in Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s (or Sorcerer’s) Stone, J. K. Rowling, 1997

HJG

 

“Of the Horcrux, wickedest of magical inventions, we shall not speak nor give direction.” -- Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, J. K. Rowling, 2005

A word of fair warning: The following article will contain spoilers from the novel Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince as well as references to plot devices that affect all six (so far) of the Harry Potter series of novels. Continue at your own risk.

OK, OK, wait a minute, Happy. What in the name of all that is holy is a Horcrux and what does a made-up device in a young-adult fantasy story have to do with Senator Chuck Schumer?

I was just coming to that.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Harry Potter stories, here’s a brief synopsis of what you need to know for this to work. Harry Potter is a young wizard who is attending his secondary school years at Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry. Harry was orphaned at the age of 1 by a supremely evil wizard who calls himself Lord Voldemort, and the tale that is told of Harry’s adolescent years talks about his discovery of his magical nature, his tragic history and his link to the most evil wizard ever to walk the earth.

The character of Voldemort (Born Tom Marvolo Riddle, abandoned by his muggle (non-magical) father and orphaned at birth when his mother, a witch, dies in childbirth) has grown to be a supremely evil being obsessed with sustaining his own immortality. As such, even as a teenager at Hogwarts some 50 years ago, he was asking about ways to keep himself alive forever, whereupon he learns of Horcruxes.

The quote at the beginning of the piece is supposed to come from a book entitled Magick Moste Evile. Given the title of that book and its statement about Horcruxes being unspeakably wicked, one is supposed to get the idea that a Horcrux is about as foul a thing as can be conceived. The point of a Horcrux is to make the owner immortal so long as it exists.

Well, that’s not so bad, is it? I mean, wouldn’t something like that be a good thing, especially if you could destroy it when you feel you’ve reached your time?

There’s a price, to immortality, though. To create a Horcrux you must impart a portion of your soul into an object, either mundane or magical. However, one does not simply grab a part of their soul and put it in a box. The soul must be split, and it is this that gives the wizard the ability to create the device.

It is the splitting of the soul that causes a problem. To split the soul, you must commit an act of extreme evil: you must commit murder. Immortality for you costs someone else their life.

Sound familiar?

Back to reality, now. We get yet another article on embryonic stem-cells. I will not go through the same explanation I went through in “The Specter of Stem Cells” except to note that an honest debate on the research should include the simple, inescapable fact that innocent human lives are destroyed for the theoretical – and as yet unrealized, even un-evidenced – potential for curing a variety of disabling diseases. At best we are trading thousands and thousands of human lives to attempt to cure disabilities, and at worst (and most likely, given the evidence so far) they are being traded only for political gain and no value is coming from it at all.

OK, fine. I still don’t see where Senator Schumer factors in to all of this.

I’ll get to that in Part 2 of this series. Stay Tuned.

HJG

 First: let me say that I am not a member of the President Bush fan club.  I've always felt that despite his good points, and he has them, his positions on domestic spending and immigration will relegate him to the middle of the pack on the list of presidents as ranked by ability.  While he's certainly no Ronald Reagan, he's also no Jimmy Carter, either.

This brings me to one of President Bush's most glowing positives: his absolute commitment to the sanctity of innocent human life.  Again, President Bush has promised to veto a bill that would lift the ban on Embryonic Stem Cell research. 

We hear time and again about the wonders of embryonic stem cells.  We hear from people like Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) who says of the potential benefits "It really is the right to life."  Former First Lady Nancy Reagan consistantly claims that embryonic stem cells would have cured her husband of Alzheimer's disease.  Senator Arlen Specter (R - PA) compares embryonic stem cell research to vaccinations and space travel, calling opposition to it "Foolish" and "absolutely rediculous."   Says the good Senator "There is just no sensible, logical reason why we would not make use of stem cell research."

Except, perhaps, for the simple and inescapable reason that nothing has ever been cured with embryonic stem cells.  Adult cells?  Yes.  Umbilical cord cells, which don't require massacering thousands? Again, yes.  But the research that is most controversial, and which has been taking place for some time, has yielded nothing.

OK, Happy, we see your point.  It hasn't worked AND it's controversial, so we should scrap it.  Fine.  What if it did work?  What if we found out that we could cure Parkinson's or Alzheimer's or whatever?  Then what?

One thing that you readers will find as we go along here is that I'm a Sci-Fi buff.  There are several shows and movies I've enjoyed in that genre, and I sometimes will parallel that fantasy world to the real one.  (There is a point here).  One show I really enjoyed when it ran was Babylon 5.  For those unfamiliar with it, it was about a space station situated in a relatively empty area of space between 5 interplanetary empires basically to serve as a sort of UN in space (only more effective than its real world counterpart.)  The show dealt with issues ranging from disease to warfare to threats against freedom to government corruption.  One episode in particular stands out in my mind and is very appropriate to this discussion.

The name of the episode was "Deathwalker."  It ran in the middle of the first season of the show (1994-95).  The basic premise was that a particularly violent race known as the Dilgar had been defeated in a war some years prior by the combined efforts of the major empires aboard the station.  Deathwalker was the nom de guerre of an infamous Dilgar scientist who claimed to have a major medical breakthrough and wanted assylum.  In the end it turns out that this medical miracle has the upside of granting near immortality (Immunity from disease and poison, extremely slowed aging process, rapid healing of injuries, that sort of thing).  Sounds great, doesn't it.  I mean, who wouldn't want to be free from disease and almost never age?  Well, that brings us to the downside.  The ingredients of this potion require the vital organs of the same species as the taker (so a human would need the vitals of another human), therefore, for every person who took the potion, someone else had to die.  Deathwalker was portrayed as being very confident that there would be a market for it and that people would be perfectly happy to allow someone else to die so that they might live "forever."  In science fiction, the death of one person promises (and delivers) the long and healthy life of one other person.  In real life the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people result in the hypothetical (and as yet unevidenced) treatment of a few diseases and will do nothing for the vast majority of the population.

While I agree that medical research is critical, and that cures for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and other serious illnesses and injuries will improve our world, and may even be worth taking some risks to achieve them, sacrificing thousands of innocents to the altar of science is far too high a cost.  As a Republican, Senator Specter should think about that.

HJG

First off, of course, my name is not "Happy" Jake.  That's a pseudonym I use because, often it's just as well that people don't know who I really am.  I like to write things that aren't always nice, and I try not making an effort to upset those who are around me.

I've written a number of columns, essays, articles and the like, but not a single one has ever been published.  They all sit nicely on my computer growing stale as the topics become less recent.   The common theme in any of my writings is that they are rants.  I'm particularly good at ranting.  In fact, my best material comes out because I'm incensed at something, which is often enough, that for some time I've wanted to do exactly this: Impose my view on all who dare to read it.

This one I'm going to keep tame for now, as I'm just getting started in this whole blogging thing.  Don't worry, there'll be more.

The one thing that incenses me the most is the treatment of religion by those who fear it.  I'm Catholic, born and raised.  My best friend (who will rant here from time to time) is a Jew converting to Catholicism.  The funny thing is, he's converting from a religion that most liberals dislike (see modern Europe) to a religion that liberals loathe with a passion.

I will say that I welcome your comments, and provide an e-mail address for you to send flaming messages of hatred when I tick you off (which is likely at some point.)  Please be forewarned: I reserve the right to completely ignore your e-mail as logically flawed, if that applies; I reserve the right to take the most blatant flaws and post them for all 4 of my other readers to see, with commentary.  If you write me, have a point.  If you have a point, make it.  And if you make your point, back it up.

Well, I'll have something more substantive soon, I think.  Stay tuned.

HJG