I’m juggling family and work right now, so cannot blog at length (something that plagued me yesterday as well). Still, I have four articles I think you might like to read.
One: I’ve ruminated often here about the nature of heroism. I’m not talking about the Leftist version of heroism, which is to stand up in a room full of Leftists and say “George Bush is stupid.” I’m talking about real heroism, of the type displayed on the battlefield by Medal of Honor winners (and many who aren’t so honored), or in daily life, when one hears about the incredible risks people take to rescue strangers. I’m physically cowardly, and I’m plagued by chronic analysis paralysis. The Anchoress, who is not a coward, nevertheless writes about her moment with analysis paralysis. I think she’s too hard on herself, since she was analyzing a possible threat, rather than dealing with a real one. Even more interestingly, the Anchoress writes from a Christian perspective, which adds another layer to her ruminations.
Two: All I can say is that this is one woman who must have a very peculiar sex life if her mind works this way. (H/t: Sadie)
Three: It’s shocking that Dakota Meyer’s translator at the Battle of Ganjgal, in Afghanistan, cannot get a visa to the U.S. Here’s a view from a Military Times blog, and here’s the write-up I did at Mr. Conservative. As you read about this, you’ll probably think of the Pakistani doctor who helped us catch bin Laden, but who is languishing in a Pakistani prison. The rule in America under Obama is that the American government (especially the State Department) will abandon you if you serve us with your life: we’ll abandon you in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan, and in Benghazi. There are no limits to how badly we will treat our friends.
Four: I mentioned in an earlier post Dennis Prager’s article about the fact that several self-righteous Leftist publications have announced that, regardless of what the Redskins’ management, players, and fans want, these magazines will never again sully their paper or electronic pages with the evil “R” word. I was especially struck by the way Prager, attacking The Atlantic’s explanation for supporting this stand, honed in on the perverse moralizing that characterizes the Left:
Argument Four is the key argument, offered by The Atlantic, in its support of Slate:
“Whether people ‘should’ be offended by it or not doesn’t matter; the fact that some people are offended by it does.”
Response: This is classic modern liberalism. It is why I have dubbed our age “The Age of Feelings.”
In a fashion typical of progressives, the Atlantic writer commits two important errors.
First, it does matter “whether people ‘should’ feel offended.” If we ceased using all arguments or descriptions because “some people” feel offended, we would cease using any arguments or descriptions. We should use the “reasonable person” test to determine what is offensive, not the “some people are offended” criterion.
Teaching people to take offense is one of the Left’s black arts. Outside of sex and drugs, the Left is pretty much joyless and it kills joy constantly. The war on the “Redskins” name is just the latest example.
Second, it is the Left that specializes in offending: labeling the Tea Party racist, public cursing, displaying crucifixes in urine, and regularly calling Republicans evil (Paul Krugman, in his New York Times column last month, wrote that the Republican mindset “takes positive glee in inflicting further suffering on the already miserable.”) For such people to find the name “Redskins” offensive is a hoot. (Emphasis mine.)
Please read the whole thing.