Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (57454)	4/11/2007 7:20:39 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Honoring Warriors Some parents in Colorado object to a sculpture honoring a fallen hero. by William Kristol The Weekly Standard 04/10/2007 ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2006, Navy Secretary Donald Winter presented the Navy Cross, the nation's second-highest military award for valor, to the widows of two Navy SEALs killed in Afghanistan. Petty Officers Danny Dietz of Littleton, Colorado, and Matthew Axelson of Cupertino, California, had been part of a four-man team inserted behind enemy lines on June 27, 2005, east of Asadabad. Their position was discovered, and the team fought valiantly against "the numerically superior and positionally advantaged enemy force," according to the citation that accompanied the awards. Dietz and Axelson were wounded but fought on, providing cover for one SEAL to escape. Dietz's citation concluded , "By his undaunted courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and absolute devotion to his teammates, Petty Officer Dietz will long be remembered . . . ." His family and his community sought to ensure that he would be. They raised funds to commission a memorial statue, and in January, the Littleton City Council approved its placement in a park near the school Dietz had attended. Sculptor Robert Henderson is now putting the final touches on the sculpture (a clay model can be seen at the link below, and its unveiling is scheduled for a ceremony on July 4. Not so fast! Last week, a group of Littleton parents circulated a flier opposing the statue. They objected to its design--it is modeled after a photo of the young serviceman in full field gear, crouching, automatic rifle in hand (though at rest). And they objected to its location--within a few blocks of several schools. The parents explained, "While our hearts go out to the family of this brave young man, we have serious concerns regarding the graphic and violent detail the statue portrays. As a community, we cannot allow the many young children in this area to be exposed to a larger than life-size grenade launching machine gun. . . . In light of our community's experience with the Columbine tragedy, and the clear message of non-violence that we teach in Littleton schools, what is our city thinking?" What these parents are thinking is clear: "I don't think young children should be exposed to that in that way--unsupervised by their parents or any adults," said Emily Cassidy. Another parent, Linda Cuesta, who had a child at Columbine High School during the deadly April 1999 events, cited the school shootings as a reason not to have the statue "in this particular place." Dietz's father objected strongly to the linking of a murderous rampage with his son's military service: "She put my son in the same category as Columbine. How does she have the audacity to do that?" And Dietz's widow commented that parents surely could "teach their children the difference between two thugs who murder their classmates and a soldier who died fighting for freedom." As you might expect, the Dietz family will prevail in this particular argument. The community of Littleton seems unmoved by the protests of the anti-violence parents, and the memorial is going ahead as planned. What most Littleton residents are thinking seems to be something pretty simple--that it is appropriate, the Columbine murders notwithstanding, to honor the heroism of a local son, and if the hero is a soldier, to depict him as one. This isn't the 1960s. The military is popular and respected. Politicians on all sides fall over each other to proclaim their support for the troops. It is revealing, though, that often the troops are supported more as victims than as warriors. And so while traditionalists are going to win the fight in Littleton, the fact remains that we are the heirs of a century--maybe more--of denigration of the concept of honor, of debunking of the worth of patriotism, of promises of the end of war and a concomitant downgrading of the qualities needed to prevail in it. After years of being schooled in relativism and multiculturalism, it's by no means clear whether even those of us inclined to want to honor soldiers can give an adequate account of why a decent society must respect military valor; why a civilized society should hold up for emulation those who fight and die--and kill--in the cause of freedom; why those who display extraordinary courage in battle deserve honor beyond almost all others who display other virtues. In this respect, September 11 has not "changed everything." There are those who would say--like the protesting parents in Littleton--that it should not. Others of us do think that the challenges we face suggest that it is past time for a revaluation of some of our oh-so-modern values. In the meantime, we build--as we should--memorials to honor those whom we can't fully explain why we honor. William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard. weeklystandard.com denverpost.com