Memorial Day 2007

On Memorial Day we should honor the memory of men who did their duty, and we should thank them for their part in protecting our group. We should also condemn the men like Truman and Johnson who started unnecessary wars that took the lives of these brave men.

This Memorial Day weekend we will hear the many usual platitudes to military men and women who served our country. We will hear how they fought for our freedoms. This is the usual technique of using guilt to collect a debt. They say, "I fought for your right to free speech, now shut up and support the war."

President Bush in his radio address on May 26, 2007 continued the praise of fighting for freedom. "In Iraq and Afghanistan, millions have shown their desire to be free." He also said, "We are determined to help them secure their liberty". And this, "From Valley Forge to Vietnam, from Kuwait to Kandahar, from Berlin to Baghdad, brave men and women have given up their own futures so that others might have a future of freedom."

And more for freedom from President Bush. "Because of their sacrifice, millions here and around the world enjoy the blessings of liberty. And wherever these patriots rest, we offer them the respect and gratitude of our nation." And last, "On Memorial Day, we rededicate ourselves to freedom's cause."

Throughout history men have fought who were not free. They fought for God, King, Queen, Pope, Caliph, etc. They were bribed, blackmailed, coerced, shanghaied, or shamed into fighting. Combat veterans have said their biggest reason for fighting was the fear they would let their comrades down if they did not fight. (Self Preservation) The Germans, Russians, Japanese, North Koreans, Chinese, and North Vietnamese fought hard, and they were not free. Why? Because they were fighting for the same reasons men have always fought. Only a small percentage of men in recent history have been told they were/are fighting for freedom.

Men are always given some external excuse for fighting. The reasons are internal; pride, desire, glory, and self preservation.

I knew many men in my unit who were drafted. They hated the idea of going to Korea to fight. We were as they say, cannon fodder, told over and over we were expendable. I think 64% of the men in WW II were drafted. They fought for the same reasons men have fought. The lives lost in Korea and Vietnam had nothing to do with fighting for my freedom to speak out. The North Koreans and the Vietnamese did not, and have not threatened my freedoms.

Since so much blood has been shed for our right to speak out, should we become reticent and aloof? As Victor Hanson said in his recent article, and I strongly agree, "That brings us to the United States' greatest strength: radical self-critique". Some seem to resent those who exercise that strength to speak against war, and praise those who exercise that strength to speak in support of war.

I remember the freedoms we had as a kid. I could drive around in my dad's truck with my rifle inside. No gun license. We had more freedoms then. The more blood we spill it seems we lose more freedoms. If a man, one of those who fought for freedom in a far off land, yells at his wife today, he can end up in jail! Men who fought for freedom constantly have their children taken from them by the government in divorces. President Bush tried to stiff arm the justice department into wiretapping without a search warrant.

Why don't we have a Memorial Day for all those who died: producing food, building our homes, hauling away our garbage, timber workers, and other fields that built this country? Because they are all private individuals. Memorial Day is for dead government employees. It is designed for them and to promote more statist enablers.

Appended below is an exercpt from an Associated Press story of May 26, 2007 that gives an example of more laws we are forced to live under the Nanny State.

Men who go to far off lands to fight for freedom should be aware, freedom back home is an unfaithful mistress.

Charles Tolleson

Dig N.J. beaches? Better know the rules
By WAYNE PARRY, Associated Press Writer
Welcome to the Jersey Shore! Have a great time, but please don't dig too deeply in the sand in Surf City (you could get blown up), feed the seagulls in Ocean City (you could catch a disease), or draw dirty pictures in the sand in Belmar (it's rude).

If you have tummy trouble, don't even think of going to Sea Bright, and if you come to Spring Lake, leave your spear gun at home. Other beaches won't let you eat, pick flowers, fly a kite, gamble or ride a camel.

"I used to take pictures of signs at the entrance to beaches that had long lists of all the things you couldn't do," said Dery Bennett, head of the American Littoral Society's Sandy Hook chapter. "There was one with a big word `NO' in red letters at the top and all these things listed underneath it, and at the bottom, someone put tape on it and wrote in `fun allowed.'"

Many of the beach towns on Long Beach Island, one of New Jersey's most popular summer vacation spots, have laws prohibiting people from digging deeper than 12 inches in the sand. They stem from an accident several years ago in which a teenager died when a deep hole he was digging collapsed, burying him.

Belmar, for example, prohibits smoking, gambling, cursing or changing clothes on its beach. It also says no one may "model, draw or depict any obscene or rude figures upon the beachfront."

In Wildwood, don't even think about riding a camel on the beach. That law came about after a vendor in 2000 proposed charging people a few dollars to ride on a camel's back for the quarter-to-half mile it takes to get from the boardwalk to the water's edge.

"We said no," Mayor Ernie Troiano said. "Our beaches are as wide as a desert, but you won't find any camels on our sand."

Other no-nos in Wildwood: standing under the boardwalk and looking up through slits between the boards as people walk above your head.

Elsewhere on the Jersey shore, it is illegal to possess a spear gun on the beach in Spring Lake. In Brigantine, you can't impersonate a member of the beach patrol, or "revel, disport or behave in an annoying, boisterous manner, emitting loud cries."

Meanwhile, the borough of Sea Bright appears to be very interested in your innards. A sign posted at the entrance to the beach commands: "Do not enter the water if you are experiencing or recovering from diarrhea, or have had any signs of symptoms of a gastrointestinal disease in the past seven days."

Bill Mack, the borough's water safety director, acknowledges that's something his badge checkers and lifeguards aren't likely to keep tabs on.

Take Long Branch's prohibition on parking a baby carriage on the sand within 15 feet of a beach entrance. "I can't fathom what the thought process was behind that one," said Mayor Adam Schneider, who did not know the law existed until a reporter questioned him on it. "We can do a pretty good job of looking foolish when we enforce `real' ordinances, let alone something like this. I just hope I don't get embarrassed and find out I voted for it in the past."