THE CHRONICLE tried. It really did. But our local editorial board is simply incapable of celebrating Memorial Day for what it is -- a time of remembrance, of honor and respect -- for those who died in our nation's military service. Instead . . .
Instead we got the Chronicle's typical two-step. The editorial started out on the subject of Memorial Day (one odd paragraph), then twirled away and spent the next six paragraphs dancing around another topic more congenial to the liberal soul.
There's mounting evidence [living troops and veterans] are not receiving the care they deserve -- either during or after their time of national service. This is particularly so in the mental health area.
That's a legitimate subject for comment. Let's agree for purposes of argument that the Chronicle is right about this important issue. But it's an issue for another day, not for Memorial Day.
Here it was used as a proxy to avoid doing the thing that makes clever people uneasy almost beyond measure -- giving unqualified honor and respect to our nation's warriors, living or dead.
The editorial luxuriated, instead, in a lovingly detailed account of an army sergeant who is said to have shot and killed five other American soldiers at a counseling center.
Simple folks may have parades on Memorial Day, but the Chronicle will feast on bile and bitterness.
The same thing happened in March of last year when the Chronicle clinched its teeth and tried to say something nice about Spc. Monica Lin Brown, a local recipient of the Silver Star. The snotty lede demeaned Ms. Brown's heroism in an almost unthinkable way.
Valor, the 17th century Spanish writer Miguel de Cervantes observed in Don Quixote, "lies just halfway between rashness and cowardice."
She may be brave, but what's bravery? Half rashness. Half cowardice. Nothing, really.
The last sentence was as bad as the first. It denied all nobility to her heroism as a medic under fire. Her actions were not something good in themselves; they were valuable only because they were instrumental in making the awful cause in which she and her comrades were engaged less awful. That's all. Nothing more.
Were it not for the courage, clearheadedness and dedication of soldiers such as Brown, the toll in Iraq and Afghanistan would be much higher.
When it's not ignoring them, the Chronicle treats American civic holidays the same way, never celebrating them, always turning them against themselves. Last Thanksgiving, for instance, we were treated to a list of America's shortcomings in its treatment of women, minorities, and Japanese internees. Buried deep were a few things to be thankful for, beginning -- best I can recall -- with the election of Barack of Obama and the coming appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
The Chronicle simply does not share the intense love of country and respect for our military that most Americans feel. Patriotism exists in vestigial form at the Chronicle, but it is always expressed in qualified and conditional ways, with the head turned away, without direct eye contact. One imagines their saying to a beloved on an anniversary, "This is the day for expressing affection, and that's fine, but you could afford to lose a few pounds."
"This is the day" is how the Chronicle started today's editorial and how the editors attempted to appear to celebrate Memorial Day while, in truth, they distanced itself from the spirit and meaning of the holiday.
This day is intended for respectful remembrance of those who died in wars defending this country, and that is as it should be.
This sounds fine until you notice that the Chronicle is describing the purpose of Memorial Day ("intended for respectful remembrance"), not engaging in respectful remembrance ("on this day we respectfully remember"). "That's fine" should have said, "and we do." The editors hold Memorial Day at journalistic arm's length. The next sentence is utterly dismissive of the ceremonies of the day.
Let parades proceed and patriotic hymns fill the air. Let the green plots where veterans lie in respose be embraced in prayers and swathed in garlands.
But . . . .
That "but" is the pivot point. Let these other things occur, if they must. The Chronicle will not participate, though it's "fine" for simple folks. "But" the real meaning of the day is to be found elsewhere.
What's saddest of all is that this is how the clever people show affection toward any group -- by casting them as victims. Victimage is authentic. It's real. It's something understandable.
Military courage, heroism, love, sacrifice -- not so much.
* * *
UPDATE: Thanks from the link from unblogHouston.
* * *
UPDATE: Monday's editorial, bad though it was, improved on much that has gone before. (The purges have had good effect.) Last year's editorial about Ms. Brown was almost spiteful. The Thanksgiving editorial was bizarre. This one was just sad. The Chronicle didn't say anything hateful this time, but it didn't say anyting loving either. And that's the point.
* * *
UPDATE: What the Chronicle can't do, President Obama can:
What is this thing, this sense of duty? What tugs at a person until he or she says, "Send me?" [Unca D: This response is from Isaiah 6.] Why, in an age when so many have acted only in pursuit of the narrowest self-interest, have soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines of this generation volunteered all that they have on behalf of others? Why have they been willing to bear the heaviest burden?
Whatever it is, they felt some tug; they answered a call; they said, "I'll go." That is why they are the best of America, and that is what separates them from those of us who have not served in uniform -- their extraordinary willinginess to risk their lives for people they never met.
Not bad, though the bit about not understanding the motive for military service ("whatever it is") is telling. Many on the left, including our president, truly do not understand.
Ronald Resgan did. From his 1982 Memorial Day speech:
Well, they didn't volunteer to die. They volunteered to defend values for which men have always been willing to die if need be -- the values that make up what we call civilization.
* * *
Oh, and for what it's worth, President Reagan said "I," "me," or "my" once every 123 words. President Obama referred to himself almost twice as often -- once every 68 words. His narcissism is worthy of an entry in the Guiness Book.
Comments