The Pioneering Spirit

I originally found this article on the online version of the Pantagraph, but they seem to have left it up for a grand total of an hour or so. After a little digging I found the story posted at the Rocky Mountain News. File this under, "another reason I love the Midwest." It's an AP story and it's headlined with the quote, "We're resilient as hell." It's part of a statement from the mayor of a small town in MO that has been hit hard by the flooding Mississippi.

"There's one thing about Midwesterners," said Don Giltner, mayor of Louisiana, Mo., a picturesque river town north of St. Louis where 40 square blocks were under water Wednesday, three days before the Mississippi's expected crest. "We're resilient as hell. We're all worn out. We've put in a lot of long days."

As I read this article I could not help but contrast the attitudes and actions of the folks in Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri with the attitudes and actions we saw in New Orleans during Katrina. I want to be careful to point out here that I don't want to characterize ALL people from LA as one way and ALL people from the Midwest as another, but there are some generalizations that are glaringly plain to see.

When Barack Obama or George Bush (maybe McCain has come by, but I hadn't read about it) or 'ol Rod Blagovitch show up to these little towns they are met with... irritation. Not because they haven't done enough or haven't handed out enough money or were too slow to get there. No, it's because they're in the way. Their very presence suggests that maybe we can't handle our own problems and we need a politician's help. A quick perusal of the article suggests that perhaps these people are willing to fight on their own, not only for their homes, but for those of their neighbors. They didn't ask for permission from the federal government to do so.

As the rivers rise, these modest towns survive because neighbors look after each other, and the people reinforcing the levees are business owners, farmers and fellow church members who have lived there for years.

"My house is past help. So we're trying to save everybody else's," said Bethany Frank as she helped fill sandbags in a church parking lot in Oakville. Her home on the outskirts of town was flooded up to the roof.

These people aren't waiting for "some else" to come and shore up the levees. They aren't sitting on the roof hoping for a helicopter, they aren't complaining that the government hasn't done enough. They're not looking for a FEMA trailer or a cruise ship. They're looking around, seeing what needs to be done, and doing it. People like the Gabeline's:

Oakville sits at the bottom of a hairpin turn the Iowa River makes on its course to the Mississippi. When it became clear the levee would fail, trucking company owners Trina and Ward Gabeline scrambled to help friends save whatever they could.

They gathered about three dozen truck trailers and dropped them off at houses so families could load them with furniture and heirlooms. Then the company retrieved them and carried the cargo to higher ground.

"We didn't do it expecting to get paid," Trina Gabeline said, her eyes bloodshot from crying. "We did it to help the people.

It is people and attitudes like this that built this country. The American dream of self sufficiency tempered with compassion on display in the midst of adversity. Living free of the government in bad times as well as good is an American ideal. It is one we have slowly lost track of over the years.
I believe we saw the results of the abandonment of this principle in New Orleans. The response of the people and government of that city will be forever associated with the picture of the school buses underwater. We will always remember many of the people of New Orleans a year and more after the hurricane complaining that the free ride from FEMA was going to end. We remember the whining and blame shifting and accusing coming from local and state officials.
I believe the response of the midwestern communities to the current flooding can give us hope and encouragement that this idea of helping yourself and helping your neighbor sans government still exists. We've seen it recently in this community when a local farmer tragically lost his life last year and his neighbors brought in his crops at harvest time, making sure his widow was cared for. We've seen it thoughout the history of this area as settlers spread out to make their own way, but came together to fight prarie fires, to clean up after tornados, to play, and to worship. It's been called the "pioneering spirit," "Yankee ingenuity," "rugged individualism;" or, in the words of Don Guiltner, "we're resiliant as hell." It's who we are, it's who we all used to be.

~ Gabriel

Haditha Rembered

In the most recent developments related to the infamous Haditha incidient, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani has had all charges dropped. Michelle Malkin has posted an excellent article on this subject at National Review Online. My question is, when will Senator Murtha be charged with slander, libel, defamation of character... whatever will stick?

There is no need for me to rewrite her article, however, the idea that a U.S. Senator would accuse troops of "murdering civilians in cold blood" without a shred of proof, speaks volumes of the character of said senator. With every case dropped, with every verdict of "not guilty," his subsequent silence rings louder and louder. Senator Murtha apparently believes that if you don't have anything slanderous to say, you shouldn't say anything at all. He certainly doesn't see the need to apologize to the very people that are securing his freedom to hold high office in the most powerful nation on earth. It is getting old seeing congressman after congressman find ways to cast a negative light on our troops. Whether it's Dick Durbin comparing them to Nazi's and worse, or John Murtha outright calling them cold blooded murderers, I, for one, have had quite enough.

I do not serve in the military. I have never served in the military. I do not even own a gun (of course, this is due to finances rather than principle...). I am, however, keenly aware that the freedoms I currently enjoy are secured, in large part, by men in uniforms with guns, tanks, ships, and planes. These people have volunteered for this job. They were not drafted, they were not kidnapped and impressed into service. They knew that joining the military would probably mean fighting door to door with terrorists, and they signed on the dotted line. I'm sure some of them are dishonest scumbags (what profession doesn't have its share?), but for the most part our troops are honorable soldiers fighting a difficult and brutal war. It is because of their willingness to do so that others are free to live in peace and security. It would be nice to see senators Murtha and Durbin remember that. Congratulations to Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani.

~ Gabriel

Of Love and Companionship

Apologies for the long time between posts. My delightful wife and I celebrated our 9th anniversary this week. I took a couple days off work and we spent at least one very enjoyable evening eating here and staying here. I highly recommend them both. We also managed to fit in the new "Indiana Jones" movie and a bit of fishing. All in all a weekend tailored exactly for us, adventure movies, fishing, a quiet bed and breakfast, and fantastic food.

I plan on posting (late) about Father's day and any events I missed over our long weekend. Until then, I thank God for our marriage. I realize 9 years is not that long in the grand scheme of things, but we have packed a lot of living in our time together so far. Together we have seen hard times and good, fun times and dark. Through it all we have been constant companions, friends, and lovers; partners in ministry, and more recently, parents. I thank God for it all and look forward to many more years of life shared together.

Happy Anniversary Sweetheart.

~ Gabriel

For Love of Life

One more fascinating story of amazing medical advances and the tenacity of the human spirit.
It's the story of Leah Bowlen. At approximately 18 weeks in the womb doctors discovered that she was suffering from Amniotic Band Syndrome. If nothing was done she risked losing her feet, and possibly her life. At 22 weeks the doctors made medical history by successfully surgically repairing one of her feet while in the womb. At 30 weeks she was born and underwent surgery to repair her other foot. Three weeks later, Leah contracted meningitis. Thanks to the love and commitment of her parents, and the skill and dedication of the doctors Leah is now about 4 1/2 months old. All indications are that, with a little extra care, she will grow up to lead a fairly normal, healthy life.

This story highlights several things for me. Two I have already mentioned. The advancements in medical technology never cease to amaze me, even things we sometimes take for granted, cesarean section births, pacemakers, etc. How many people that would be either severely handicapped or deceased 100 years ago lead normal healthy lives today? Thanks to modern medical advances.
I also mentioned the tenacity of the human spirit. The tenacity of a baby to cling to life despite repeated sickness and injury, despite surgery, despite being born prematurely. She persevered and held on to her will to live. The tenacity of her parents to not accept the situation, but to pursue all options available to save their child, even a child only 18 weeks in the womb.

The third item, and the one I haven't mentioned yet, is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of society as evidenced by the reporting of this story. This story was reported in many outlets; a few examples can be found here, here, and here. What do they have in common? They all refer to Leah throughout the story either by her name, "Leah," as "a baby," or "an unborn baby." For some reason she is not referred to exclusively as a fetus, or "a mass of cells" or a morally ambiguous "choice." Are we really to believe that the desires of the parents literally change the definition of the child inside the mother? It appears the only difference between an "unborn baby" and "a mass of cells" is whether the parents decide to pursue the health and well being of the baby, or its death. How we feel about a thing doesn't change what it is. How can we both praise a doctor for going into the womb to save a baby's life, and fail to condemn a doctor that goes into the womb to take a baby's life?

That is exactly what our culture would have us do. Our culture would have us accept both situations as perfectly legitimate "options." We are not meant to live with such a fractured view of morality and reality. In our souls we know that it can't be both ways, it has to be either a baby, or inert tissue to be disposed of at a whim. We cannot live with ourselves if we try to believe both, as our culture would have us do. Something will eventually have to give.

~Gabriel

Operation Neptune

SUPREME HEADQUARTERS ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!

Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Such was the speech of Dwight Eisenhower the night before the Allied invasion of Normandy; of Hitler's "Fortress Europe." Never before had any nation been assaulted by such a force. Soldiers from primarily the USA, Great Britian, Canada, and the Free French Forces boarded ships, planes and gliders and embarked on what is probably the defining military event of our time.

The details of that day, the night before, and the months leading up June 6th 1944 would fill a book. I'll save all that for another time. However, on the 64th anniversary of that event, it is good to remember what transpired those many years ago. The courage, determination, bravery and conviction of those men was so great that is serves us still today. These were men, perhaps, not necessarily trying to do something great, noble, and heroic. They were men doing what was necessary, because it had to be done, and they were the more heroic for that fact.

It is one thing to go out and seek to do great things as an end in itself. For glory or recognition or whatnot. It is quite another to stare into the teeth of hell and know that someone has to go in there and push it back. That is what these men did. The saw the turrets, the guns, the barricades, the cliffs, the surf... and they ran towards it all. Someone had to it, and if not them, who? They were our grandfathers, our fathers, and for a remaining few, our husbands and brothers. Many of them never left those beaches, they are buried there still. A silent reminder of the cost of freedom and security; and the willingness of men to pay it.

~ Gabriel

A Happy Ending?

It appears that perhaps common sense has broken out in Texas. Judge Barbara Walthers has ordered the children taken from their parents at the Yearning for Zion ranch returned. In in a somewhat convoluted (at least from a non-lawyer's perspective) decision, the court had earlier ruled that the seizure of 430 children from the Texas ranch was unconstitutional. However, they did not order that the children be returned to their parents. It appeared that government wasn't too concerned with how they got the children, as long as they had them.
Let me say right off the bat that I believe polygamy to be wrong. Obviously forced sex and childbearing are wrong as well, all the more abusive when framed as the "will of God." Where sexual abuse is evident, society has the responsibility to step in to protect those that cannot protect themselves for whatever reason. (Yes, I did mean to say "society", not necessarily "government")
The situation in Texas, however, does not appear to warrant this type of response. There are a few key points that should be proven before we have armed government agents forcibly remove children from their homes.
Are the children in imminent danger?
Are the children better off in the hands of the State?
I have said from the beginning of this episode, that these two items appear to be missing. The whole episode began with an anonymous phone call. In response to the call armed state and federal agents showed up at the compound and removed approx. 430 children, accompanied by their mothers. As time and court proceedings dragged on, it was decided that the children would indefinitely be guests of the state. The children were then forcibly separated from their parents and siblings. The parents were forced to sue for custody of their own children, eventually the Texas supreme court ruled the kidnapping of the children unconstitutional, but did not return them. This brings us to today, two months later.
Perhaps I should have mentioned, the person who placed the initial call does not appear to exist. Prosecutors now say that perhaps as many as five teenage girls may have been abused. Pick 430 children at random from any government-run child care program (foster homes, etc.) and tell me how many have been abused while in the system. Can anyone say with a strait face that it would be less than five? Forgive me for being unconvinced that all the children were in imminent danger, or that the government has shown in any way that they could better care for the children than their parents.

Do we want to live in a society that allows the government to come and take children from their parents because the parents have religious beliefs outside of the mainstream? A society in which an anonymous phone call can mobilize the national guard and result in the displacement of hundreds of children? A society in which lack of evidence is no reason not to pursue all the above actions?
Now, in this instance, the courts have eventually seen fit to reverse course and return the children to the parents. The investigations will go on, as perhaps they should, but the children will be out of the hands of the state. All evidence points to the fact that the cult in question promotes polygamy, which is against the law. Enforce that law, but don't force the children at gunpoint to live with strangers in, what to them, is a strange and foreign culture.

Who will they decide is "too different" next?

~Gabriel