By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/28/07

What would you say to someone who placed themselves in peril to save your life? Are there any words adequate to express the deepest, heartfelt gratitude and appreciation for someone willing to sacrifice their life so that yours could be preserved? These are undoubtedly some of the introspective questions Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell ponders these days.

Petty Officer First Class Luttrell was the lone survivor of SEAL Special Forces Team 10 which was on a covert mission two years ago looking for a terrorist leader in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan. They crossed paths with three locals, and, exemplifying the morality and decency of those who serve wearing the American military uniform, allowed the three civilians to leave, even though by so doing their mission and their lives may be compromised.

Within an hour the four SEALs were surrounded by a hundred Taliban fighters. In the ensuing battle, all four soldiers, Luttrell, Michael Murphy, Danny Dietz, and Matthew Axelson, were badly injured. Unable to secure a signal to radio in their location for reinforcements, Lt. Michael Murphy moved to higher ground, exposing himself to the lethal barrage of bullets being hurled at them by the terrorists. Murphy was able to get a radio signal and successfully called in their location, but was hit by several bullets while doing so. He even ended his call with a “thank you,” before he terminated the call and began moving to shelter from the hail of bullets. That was the last time his team members saw him alive.

Regrettably, the chopper sent to rescue the surviving team members was shot down, killing all sixteen on board. The enemy then overwhelmed the remaining SEALs, killing all but Marcus Luttrell, who, in spite of dehydration, a bullet wound to one leg, shrapnel embedded in both legs, and several cracked vertebrae, was able to amble seven miles on foot where a friendly village fed him, cleaned his wounds, and protected him. With the assistance of one villager, Luttrell was able to get a message to a Marine outpost which successfully extracted him from the midst of enemy territory. The protection afforded by the friendly village led Luttrell to later tell The Washington Post, “In the middle of everything evil, in an evil place, you can find goodness. Goodness. I’d even call it godliness.” Luttrell recounts his experience in a recently published book, “Lone Survivor.”

For his heroic efforts to save his fellow SEALs, Lt. Michael Murphy was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor, the highest military honor afforded our living and fallen heroes. At a ceremony this week where President Bush presented the award to his surviving parents declaring, “With this medal, we acknowledge a debt that will not diminish with time and can never be repaid.” Accepting the medal for his son, Dan Murphy declared, “While I’m crying inside and my heart’s breaking, my chest is puffed out and I’m saying, my son, this is what he did and I hope the country appreciates it and realizes it.”

We all should appreciate and realize the inexplicable personal sacrifice and commitment made by these brave souls who place themselves in harms way to reduce the possibility that we will be. Whether or not we object ideologically to the conflict they are or have been engaged in, all the way from World War I through Vietnam and contemporary Iraq, we are the beneficiaries of their commitment to preserve our way of life, our freedoms, and our security. Those who fight the terrorists who have vowed to convert or destroy us make the same, if not greater commitment since they volunteer, as those who fought the Nazis of World War II, or those who fought the communists in Vietnam. The enemies are no less real today than they were then.

These men and women who serve in the military exemplify the standard by which our culture and society should ascribe the appellation of “hero.” Are there exceptions to this standard? Of course, but “exception” is the operative term. They all volunteer for this duty which is all-too-often a thankless job; maligned by some, disrespected by others, not sufficiently appreciated by many of us.

Some of us either couldn’t or didn’t serve in the military yet are sometimes criticized as being “chicken hawks” when we praise our soldiers for their efforts in our behalf. Such logic is specious at best, for almost all of us support education and law enforcement, and are beneficiaries of the service and commitment of teachers and policemen who competently and capably perform their duties. Can one only be an avid advocate of education or law enforcement if we are teachers or policemen ourselves? The concept is ludicrous. For as Cicero said, “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all the others.” All of us should be ardent supporters of those who commit to protect and serve us, praying for their successful completion of their mission and safe return home.

Famous athletes’ fame is fleeting, and their actions off the field of competition rarely match their prowess on the field. Actors and musicians can act, sing, and dance, but all too frequently, their antics in their private lives prove a dearth of true character making them hardly worthy of emulation. Our military personnel, however, volunteer to serve their nation, protect our liberties, and vanquish those who seek our overthrow or destruction. Where better to look for contemporary heroes, men and women deserving of elevating to hero emulation status, than in the ranks of our military. Not just for our young people, but for all of us.

Their sacrifices, sometimes including the ultimate sacrifice, are made for all of us who are Americans. Regardless of race, creed, or political affiliation, they serve us all willingly, capably, and nobly. For such they warrant our admiration, respect, support, and utmost gratitude.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/21/07

            Our current Speaker of the House in Washington, and her comrades, are treading increasingly on the thin ice of treason against the United States. Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution states that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

            Obviously frustrated by the fact that she hasn’t been able to muster the contrarian leadership to simply discontinue funding our efforts in Iraq, Pelosi attempted a scrupulous end-run by alienating one of our key allies in the Iraq conflict. By pushing through the House Foreign Affairs Committee a vote to condemn Turkey’s Ottoman Empire for “genocide” against the Armenians in 1915, Pelosi threatens further destabilization of the region, alienating a key Islamic ally, and curtailing current military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

            What other motivation could there be for the resolution at this time? It’s not like there is a timeline for identifying global atrocities that must be met. There can only be one possible motive: angering Turkey and circumventing our operations in the Middle East.

            Pelosi’s actions have at least partially met her objectives. Turkey reacted immediately and vociferously on Thursday by recalling its ambassador from Washington and threatening to withdraw its support for U.S. operations running through Turkey in supplying and supporting troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

            The President of Turkey, Abdullah Gul, vehemently condemned Pelosi’s efforts. “Unfortunately, some politicians in the United States have once more dismissed calls for common sense, and made an attempt to sacrifice big issues for minor domestic political games,” the President said. All I can say to the President is, welcome to American politics, where the modus operandi of the Congress, as led by Speaker Pelosi, is indeed playing political games regardless of consequences to our national security. No wonder they languish with an 11% approval rating.

            The Turkish Parliament has also acted quickly in the wake of Pelosi’s last string of blunders, by authorizing their military to cross the border into northern Iraq to strike at Kurdish separatists seeking independence from Turkey. They have not done so as of yet, but the repercussions from Pelosi’s political games risk significantly escalating turmoil in what is already a raucous region.

            Other than disabling our military in the region, the only other reason Pelosi might be pushing this right now would be the propensity for those of her political persuasion to engage in symbolic rather than substantive measures for the “feel good” effect. If this is the case, the costs of such meaningless symbolism could be significant, and attests to the detachment from reality that she and her comrades suffer from.

The Speaker maintains that now is the time to address this because “Genocide still exists, and we saw it in Rwanda; we see it now in Darfur.” She’s been in Congress since 1987, and the Rwandan genocide was in 1994. Why didn’t she try to do something about that then? And the Darfur genocide has been going on since 2003. Why hasn’t she attempted to do something about that? Apparently because that may actually require doing something instead of “feel good” symbolism that gives George Bush a black eye and threatens the national security of America by placing our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq at risk with no support.

            If Turkey moves ahead with incursions into Iraq broadening the violence there and Turkey disallows us continued use of bases and airspace for supplying our troops, Ms. Pelosi may end up with a lot of blood on her hands. Whether the measure, which is only symbolic and is non-binding, passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee moves on to the full House or not, the damage has been done. Gratefully, some of her fellow Congressmen are seeing the light (albeit belatedly, testifying to their collective ignorance and duplicity) and sponsors of the legislation are dropping like flies. In her inanity, Pelosi has vowed to bring the measure before the full House, oblivious to the potential consequences.

            At the very least, Pelosi’s actions are treacherous, but I have a hard time not concluding that it is indeed treasonous. She has already visited Syria, a state sponsor of terrorism, and granted them “aid and comfort.” The possibility of crippling relations with Turkey placing our troops in peril must be greeted with glee by our enemies in the region. What more evidence is needed for us to ascertain whose side she is on? She certainly is not living up to her oath to “support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…” and seems to be doing everything in her power to “aid and abet the enemy.” She embraces and fawns over our enemies while to intentionally alienating our allies. That is treason in my book!

            Like my father used to say, “With friends like that, who needs enemies?”

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/14/07

The Nobel Foundation has proven yet again how disengaged from reality it is when it comes to bestowing the Nobel Peace Prize by granting it to Al Gore this week. While the award has often been granted to clearly deserving recipients like Mother Theresa, Norman Borlaug, Albert Schweitzer and Andrei Sakharov, they have of late stumbled badly, tripping over the political axes they feel compelled to grind. Al Gore thus joins the likes of the terrorist Yasser Arafat, former leader of the PLO, the now disgraced Kofi Annan whose rein at the UN was characterized by numerous scandals and ineptness at handling crises, and Mikhail Gorbachev (instead of Ronald Reagan who famously told him, “Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”) This is to say nothing of failed president turned political gadfly Jimmy Carter, whose spinelessness led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and much of today’s terrorist threats.

Granted, the Nobel organization can award the prizes to whomever they choose, and for whatever purpose. But it’s difficult to see how production of a propagandistic movie filled with errors and proposing that Western Africa should be denied access to the energy that can lift them out of poverty can be even remotely viewed as advancing the international cause of peace.

Just last week the High Court of the United Kingdom declared that if teachers are going to show Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” that it must be done with the disclosure that it is propagandistic and factually inaccurate. The ruling highlighted 11 factual errors in the movie that when extricated from the movie, make it an empty, inconclusive and unpersuasive polemic. The truth seems to be inconvenient to Al Gore, for his movie contains little of it, while it’s replete with propaganda and hyperbole.

According to the UK Guardian, the following factual errors were cited in the film. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years.

The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming.

The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching.

The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7 meters causing the displacement of millions of people. The film claims that rising sea levels have caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. And finally, the film suggests that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting.

In each of these instances, factual evidence was provided to the court proving these claims as scientifically untruthful. Judge Michael Burton said in his ruling, “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film, but that it is a political film.”

Timothy Ball, a climatologist who leads the National Resources Stewardship Project, says he agrees that “An Inconvenient Truth” is a “wonderful piece of propaganda, but that's all it is.” Calling the film's scientific errors “huge,” Ball said that the movie “would fail as a grade 10 science project,” because it depends on “visual imagery and gimmickry” to make its point and not scientific fact.

Ball also said it's a “travesty” that Gore would be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize since “you can spin the lies but you can't spin the truth. I hope that one day soon, we'll be able to have a calm and rational debate about climate change.”

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute is also bothered by the fact that the former vice president has refused to debate skeptics of manmade global warming. “If your science is solid, there should be no reluctance to debate with those of opposing views,” he said.

“Deniers” of natural global warming would undoubtedly assert that in spite of the factual errors in the film, that Gore still deserves the accolades because he’s bringing to light a grave concern for the future of mankind, hence, the ends justify the means. I find that a very unsettling and untenable proposition, for if the “evidence” upon which the premise of manmade global warming is based is false, all subsequent conclusions drawn from those claims are likewise going to be fallacious.

When I was growing up on a potato farm west of Blackfoot, my father used to always tell me that the quality of our decisions is directly connected with the quality of the facts upon which the decisions are based. He’d be sorely disappointed in the gullibility of the masses in light of the dearth of factual evidence supporting the claims of manmade global warming proponents.

As I mentioned here a few weeks ago, the global warming alarmists lost two of their strongest arguments for their cause. NASA has correctly revised their global temperature data which erroneously showed the last 9 years as among the hottest on record. And the now infamous “hockey-stick” chart, and the program that generated it, by paleoclimatologist Michael Mann from the University of Massachusetts has been proven fraudulent by statisticians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Couple those scientific failures with the intellectual prostitution of NASA’s James Hansen, one of the most ardent proponents of manmade global warming, with his “grant” from George Soros, an anti-capitalist anti-American billionaire, and you have the proposition of man “causing” this natural climatic cycle crumbling like a deck of cards.

We are stewards of the environment, and as such, should make wise decisions to not pollute, intentionally damage our environment, and manage and utilize our resources prudently. If we are wrong on manmade global warming, it will be proven with science, not by the alarmist hysteria and illogic of the politically and pecuniary driven proselytizers like Al Gore and his fallacious movie, neither of which are deserving of a Nobel Prize, unless they awarded one for acting and works of fiction. Well, at least for works of fiction.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 10/01/07

 

            Emotion versus logic. The dichotomy of the two is inescapable in many aspects of our lives, yet rarely as conspicuously obvious as it was this week when President Bush vetoed the expansion of the SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) bill. The faceoff between the President and Congress over the expanded funding for the program also aptly illustrates the falsehood of President Bill Clinton’s comment in 1996 when he stated that “The era of big government is over.” He really needs to talk with his wife about that!

            Originally established by the Republican Congress in 1997, SCHIP was intended to insure children of families who do not qualify for Medicaid but hadn’t the resources to buy their own health insurance. The legislation vetoed by the President this week was intended to significantly alter the role of the program, and was correctly vetoed.

            When initiated in 1997, the incomes of eligible families generally did not exceed 200 percent of the poverty level. It was designed to help those with low incomes provide the health coverage for their children that they cannot otherwise afford. And it’s been effective in doing so.

The proposed expansion of the program would have increased spending by $35 billion over 5 years, allowing for families making more than 400 percent above the poverty line eligible for the program. For example, in the state of New York, a family of four earning $83,000 per year would have qualified for the program. I would suspect that even in New York a family with that income level could afford some health insurance. It’s all a matter of priorities: is another car payment worth more to a family than insuring the family’s health? It shouldn’t be, but regardless, it’s not the role of government to make tax payers foot the bill for middle-income families, paying for their health insurance so they can buy another car. Further, implementation in some states includes adult coverage, which was never intended by SCHIP, hence the term “Children” in its title.

In other words, in just ten years the program has gone from filling it’s intended purpose as a safety net for children of low-income families, to being a middle-class entitlement. The last thing we need from a government spending perspective is more entitlements, increasing the control and role of government and increasing demand for tax revenue, while diluting what is arguably the best health care system in the world.

Also, the proposed expansion would have significantly shifted the insurance coverage from private insurers to tax-payer supported coverage for those who qualify under the expanded parameters of SCHIP. That is a surefire way to increase inefficiency and decrease quality.

It reminds me of when Senator Robert F. Kennedy was running for President in 1968, he was asked by some medical students in Indiana “Who is going to pay for your socialized medical plan?” Famously, the Senator responded, “You will!” That should serve as a not-so-gentle reminder as we observe some of the comments by the current crop of Presidential candidates who think it should be the government’s role to control health care in America, which constitutes about 17% of our Gross Domestic Product.

            Government is rarely the answer to market based components within our economy, although it’s been proven that government can provide an environment that is conducive to more universal access to our top-ranked health care system. The Medicare Prescription Drug program, so heavily criticized by conservatives because it cost too much and by liberals because President Bush proposed it, has apparently struck a good balance between efficiency and universality. The program has actually cost $180 billion less than anticipated just four years into the program because of the efficiencies and competitiveness induced by government’s proactive role in the program. However, the efficiency comes from the private sector’s involvement and competitiveness in the industry, not because government operations. You can bet that if the government had simply established the program and run it, it would probably be about as efficient as FEMA has proven to be.

            It appears that the intention behind expanding the program beyond the purview and intentions of SCHIP as originally established was to move incrementally closer to a universal health care system, a la “Hillarycare.” Gratefully the President saw that effort for what it was. Even Representative Steve Rothman (D-NJ) concedes as much, calling the plan, “The next step toward universal health care for all Americans.”

            The program is efficacious in providing the needed health care insurance for disadvantaged children. But it shouldn’t be expanded to cover adults, or provide another government entitlement, especially into the middle class as a step toward governmental universal health care.

            The tugs on our emotions provided by expanded SCHIP Congressional proponents parading children in front of the news cameras must be tempered by the facts associated with the bill. Don’t fall for the “it’s for the children” line so frequently employed. The disadvantaged are covered well by the program and deserves to be funded, but not with the expansion of benefits as passed by the Congress. Logic prevails over emotion yet again.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 09/30/07

 

The appearance of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University raises a couple of ancillary questions regarding free speech. First, although we can speak freely, is everyone warranted an audience for their speech, and second, what constitutes tolerance at America’s universities. The first is a question of propriety and wisdom, while the second has to do with evidence of how “tolerance” is practiced on university campuses nationwide.

Regardless of how the event actually transpired, Ahmadinajad’s purpose was fulfilled by his very appearance as he was granted a bully pulpit from a prestigious American university from which to spew his propaganda and create his sound bites for the Islamic masses around the world. And sure enough, the next day’s coverage by Al Jezeera provided heavily edited footage to make the Iranian totalitarian the hero du jour of Islamic extremists. Clips of the President’s comments layered with video of the cheering audience of American students and professors was all they needed to perpetuate their propaganda war against the U.S. Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University, proved true the ancient aphorism “When they are learned, they think they are wise.” Regrettably, the symptom is not exclusive to Columbia.

As smart as the University president undoubtedly is, how can he be so naïve as to not realize that he was simply being used by Iran for propaganda purposes? Even in his questions, he asked the Iranian president “Can you tell us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi’a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?” So the academic has some understanding of the reality of the evil perpetrated by the Iranian state. So why grant an enemy of America the courtesy of a propaganda stage. Would he grant such an audience to Adolf Hitler? He says he would. How about Osama Bin Laden? He hasn’t answered that one that I know of, but probably so. I cherish the fact that I live in a country where one can speak his mind. But that still begs the question of “Should he have been given an audience?” Prudence and wisdom would rule “no” in context with current events.

Frankly, even with our ardent belief in freedom of speech, not every voice is entitled to be heard. The Ku Klux Klan may speak freely on the street corner, but they shouldn’t be invited to a university to grant them an exclusive audience.

Bollinger claimed the reason Ahmadinejad was invited to Columbia was for free speech, diversity, and academic freedom. “I want to say as forcefully as I can that this is the right thing to do and, indeed, it is required by existing norms of free speech, the American university and Columbia itself,” he said.

Yet where is the evidence of percipient diversity when Columbia refuses to allow the ROTC or military recruiters on his campus? Where was that commitment to free speech when the Minutemen (civilian border monitors) were physically and verbally assaulted on his campus last year, forcing them from the stage and not allowed to speak?

This ties directly into the second issue: that of tolerance. For Columbia is not alone in its dogmatic interpretation of tolerance. Examples of selective free speech and selective “diversity” abound to the extent that intolerance of anyone or anything from the right of the political spectrum seems endemic to the university environment.

Larry Summers, a former Secretary of Treasury in the Clinton Administration, was forced from his post as President of Harvard University last year for comments that were academically plausible yet politically incorrect. He was removed from a list of guest speakers at a symposium just last week at Cal State Davis because of pressure due to those politically incorrect statements.

Tom Tancredo, a conservative congressman and Presidential candidate was assaulted at Michigan State University and not allowed to finish his presentation.

Ann Coulter, conservative columnist and political pundit was assaulted at the University of Arizona and pelted with pies.

Andrew Card, former Chief of Staff for President Bush was booed when granted an honorary degree at the University of Massachusetts. And it wasn’t just students. Faculty joined in the fray.

In April, Harvard University students, faculty and staff booed down former FBI Director Robert Mueller. A melee ensued resulting in the arrest of several students for their roles in the disruption.

Stanford University faculty members are protesting the Hoover Institution's appointment of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as a visiting fellow.

 David Horowitz, once an accepted radical darling on university campuses, a 1960’s radical-turned-conservative, can hardly appear on campus anywhere now without having to face demonstrations, hate speech, and intolerance.

The student newspaper at Colorado State University this week in lieu of an editorial, ran in large type, “Tazer this. F*** You Bush!” What if they had said that about President Clinton, or Martin Luther King, Jr.? Would that still have been propriety in journalism?

On virtually any university campus, student groups organized for the purpose of preserving traditional marriage, preserving our national borders, or recognizing Christ are harassed, sued, and labeled as homophobes, racists, and bigots.

Yet the likes of the fraudulent Ward Churchill have run the university talk circuit very profitably spouting anti-American invectives and maledictions all over the country.

Academic tolerance and diversity, as presently constituted, are dogmatic, strident, narrowly defined, and conformist to a radical leftist ideology. It is very reminiscent of the thuggish peer pressure imposed by the Nazi youth of Hitler’s time. It is selective tolerance and diversity at its worst.

Academic tolerance is allowed as long as the propaganda fits a predefined polemic of anti-Americanism, anti-Bushism, anti-military, and anti-anything-conservative. If universities are to be true instruments of education, their definition of tolerance must be dramatically broadened. And, as we learned in the Columbia University situation this week, “tolerance” must be tempered with wisdom and judicial restraint. Fortunately, Idaho State University escapes this pattern so common elsewhere.

Further, our academic institutions should be forums of free expression and true intellectual diversity, tempered with wisdom and judgment to recognize when an audience is warranted.