“Defeat” is Not an Option
I am not trying to keep up a running commentary of the day’s events, but there are some things that run so deep that they must be accounted for in real time.
I saw this tweet from H.R. McMaster:
Bari Weiss is right. “Statements of sorrow from the leaders of the free world are insufficient. The message to terrorists and those who support them should be that the defenders of civilization will defeat them. No matter the cost.”
I like Bari, but I am not a big fan of McMaster — too interagency for me — but my first reaction was “Heck yeah!” and then I realized what he was saying was in reality what he was condemning, cheap sentiment that is insufficient.
Let’s start off by saying that we use the term “defeat” for all sorts of things like cancer or the urge to eat too much ultraprocessed foods. It has lost its punch. Also I think that just about everyone in the world, especially after our performance the past 20+ years, doubts our will power to defeat anyone.
An American overseas was kidnapped, held for nearly a year, probably tortured in ways I cannot describe on a family blog, used as a human shield against the laws of war, and then murdered. When I travel abroad, I’m always aware of two things; the first is that on my passport is the message from the Secretary of State:
The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection.
The second is when I cross back into the US and go through Immigration, the official at the desk hands back my passport and says “Welcome home.”
Hersh Goldberg-Polin was never rendered all lawful aid and protection and he never came home. That means something on a very emotional level.
We look after our own. I didn’t care for Britteny Griner before she got picked up and railroaded by the Russians, but I’m glad we got her back. Cost us a lot on trade, but we can settle the Russians’ hash some other ways. We look after our own and to her credit Ms. Griner has shown her gratitude.
There needs to be something very personal and visceral to balance the scales with the murder of Mr. Goldberg-Polin, for and on the behalf of all Americans.
You Don’t Hate the Media Enough (1)
I had something longer to drop for tomorrow but I saw some stories that left me spitting Chiclets both about the Biden-Harris Administration and the media that works for them.
First, Arlington Cemetery Controversy Deepens as Trump and Harris Trade Attacks
This is a headline that doesn’t match the article. Kamala and Trump didn’t trade barbs. Kamala accused Trump of using Arlington as a campaign prop and in general impugned his character. Trump did not “trade attacks” but merely posted messages from the various Gold Star families who attended the ceremony. Those families stated that not only had they invited Trump, but they asked his team to take pictures and video. They also slammed Kamala and her administration for having no one there.
So what about the other nail that the Democrats are hanging their Arlington narrative on? That Trump’s use of pictures and video for campaign purposes was inappropriate? That’s what Army Secretary Christine Wormuth had said earlier. To CNN’s credit they quoted Sen. Tom Cotton saying that “neither the families nor President Trump violated cemetery regulations or policies.”
Of course they added the qualifier that Cotton was “…not present during Trump’s trip to the cemetery.” Neither CNN nor Wormuth were present, so Cotton had just as much right to comment as they did. CNN also failed to mention that Cotton wasn’t just an “Army veteran,” but had served in the Old Guard which is responsible for memorial affairs at Arlington; he also wrote a book about it. Seems like a critical factor.
Goethe, the Original Gretchen, and the Hackers of 1764 (rerun)
When Goethe was 15, he was already recognized by friends as an exceptional writer. One of these friends, “Pylades,” told Goethe that he had recently read some of his verses aloud to “some pleasant companions…and not one of them will believe that you have made them.” Goethe said he didn’t much care whether they believed it or not, but just then one of the “pleasant companions” showed up, and Pylades proposed a way of convincing the fellow of Goethe’s abilities: “Give him any theme, and he will make you a poem on the spot.”
The disbeliever asked Goethe if he “would venture to compose a pretty love-letter in rhyme, which a modest young woman might be supposed to write to a young man, to declare her inclination.”
“Nothing easier,” said Goethe, and after thinking for a few minutes commenced to write. The now-former disbeliever was very impressed, said he hoped to see more of Goethe soon, and proposed an expedition into the country. For this expedition, they were joined by several more young men “of the same rank”…intelligent and knowledgeable, but from the lower and middle classes, earning their livings by copying for lawyers, tutoring children, etc.
These guys told Goethe that they had copied his letter in a mock-feminine hand and had sent it to “a conceited young man, who was now firmly persuaded that a lady to whom he had paid distant court was excessively enamored of him, and sought an opportunity for closer acquaintance.” The young man had completely fallen for it, and desired to respond to the woman also in verse…but did not believe he had the talent to write such verse.
Believing it was all in good fun, Goethe agreed to also write the reply. Soon, he met the would-be lover, who was “certainly not very bright” and who was thrilled with “his” response to his inamorata.
While Goethe was with this group, “a girl of uncommon…of incredible beauty” came into the room. Her name was Gretchen, and she was a relative of one of the tricksters present. Goethe was quite smitten:
“The form of that girl followed me from that moment on every path; it was the first durable impression which a female being had made upon me: and  as I could find no pretext to see her at home, and would not seek one, I went to church for love of her, and had soon traced out where she sat. Thus, during the long Protestant service, I gazed my fill at her.”
The tricksters soon prevailed upon Goethe to write another letter, this one from the lady to the sucker. “I immediately set to work, and thought of every thing that would be in the highest degree pleasing if Gretchen were writing it to me.” When finished, he read it to one of the tricksters, with Gretchen sitting by the window and spinning. After the trickster left, Gretchen told Goethe that he should not be participating in this affair: “The thing seems an innocent jest: it is a jest, but it is not innocent”…and asked why “you, a young man man of good family, rich, independent” would allow himself to be used as a tool in this deception, when she herself, although a dependent relative, had refused to become involved by copying the letters.
Gretchen then read the epistle, commenting that “That is very pretty, but it is a pity that it is not destined for a real purpose.” Goethe said how exciting it would be for a young man to really receive such a letter from a girl he cared about, and…greatly daring…asked: “if any one who knew, prized, honored, and adored you, laid such a paper before you, what would you do”…and pushed the paper, which she had previously pushed back toward him, nearer to Gretchen.
“She smiled, reflected for a moment, took the pen, and subscribed her name.”
A Profile of a Killer, Part 1: Thomas Matthew Crooks (Updated)
It’s hard to believe that it’s been less than seven weeks since an assassin came within the proverbial whisker of killing Donald Trump.
Every story, every incident has multiple dimensions. Something may happen in the present but its causes are rooted in the past and its effects are felt in the future. Then there are the different actors, all with their own stories and trajectories; however, all are united in that one incident for that one moment, like a real-life version of Rashomon. So it was on July 13 in Butler, PA.
Some of the actors have drawn public attention and are in the process of being fleshed out. There was the target, Trump, who came within a hair’s breadth of being killed. That iconic photograph of him, with blood streaming down his face, fist raised high, yelling “fight.” Then there is the stunning incompetence of the Secret Service that day; revelations of dangerously sloped roofs, unsecured buildings, and just the general disarray and poor execution of what was once held to be an elite organization.
Oh and then there was the revelation that the Secret Service had actually RAMPED up security given evidence of an Iranian plot against Trump. I wonder what security for Trump looked like before then.
The third and perhaps most important story is one that has been hardly told at all, in fact has disappeared from view and quite literally has reached a dead end. If Trump is the direct object of the sentence, the one who was acted upon, then why does no one speak of the man who is the subject, who not only performed the action of firing the rifle, but was the presumptive Creator of that day?
I speak of Thomas Matthew Crooks.