« to america, with love | Main | proof positive »

Joe Zarro responds

Joe Zarro of the Daily Aztec responds to my post on his article.

I will begin by saying I haven't read all of the responses posted to this rebuttal to my column, but I will try to find the time.

I sense a little hositility, but hopefully we can all be civil about this.

"He says nothing of the freedom that allows him to write this garbage without fear of being arrested for treason. He says nothing of the lives that were lost securing that freedom for him."

What this quote fails to realize is that the premise for my argument is that military conflicts are not securing my freedom, but rather securing finances. Afghanistan, Desert Storm, Kosovo and impending war on Iraq have done nothing to secure my freedom of speech. In fact, legislation passed during these periods has hindered freedom of press and speech. Desert Storm blocked the media from combat, learning from its "mistake" in Vietnam. I suspect many of you are in favor of the homeland security bill, which has added provision that limit the Freedom of Information Act, allowing government to be even more secretive than it already is. My ability, as a journalist, to keep an eye on government is significantly hindered thanks to these actions. Also, your duty as citizens to follow your government and maintain your republic is also affected.

For some reason I don't have the credibility to talk about the social effects of the military because I have never been "on the front lines." You don't have to be a part of something to know about it, or have an opinion on their actions. It is that attitude that limits free thought, and allows people to cast aside an opinion of somebody because you don't agree. You will never see me on the front lines -- I am in complete moral opposition to war, and would rather serve time in prison than spend time with a rifle. This isn't cowardice, a lack of sense for duty or hatred this country. Contrary to what many of you think, I do not hate America.

Although I feel like this is falling on deaf ears, I urge all of you to question the consequences of being a soldier. Try to realize that innocent civilians are driven from their homes, often stripped of their lives over complex issues that most of you obviously fail to grasp.

I never said it was all about oil. War cannot be reduced to "oil" or "freedom." They are geo-political struggles that have their roots in resources, politics, international power struggles, economic and physical security. What I try to point out is that today's conflicts are testimony to our imperialism.

If you want to write an appropriate response to this, you should argue that America is not imperialist.

Well this is all I have time for right now. Maybe I'll drop by for another visit. This is only the surface of my opinion.

The floor is yours, dear readers.

Comments

Based upon his response, I believe my earlier comments still apply.

One question though, why did we give up our "colonies" in Panama and the Philippines and reduce our forces in Europe? We must be the dumbest imperialists ever!

"... over complex issues that most of you obviously fail to grasp..."

Yes, obviously anyone who disagrees with you must be intellectually challenged, and couldn't possibly grasp complex issues while reaching a different opinion than yours. Hmmm.

"...If you want to write an appropriate response to this, you should argue that America is not imperialist."

Thank you for your guidance, since in our previously established cognitive inferiority, we could never glean the meaning of your words, nor therefore, an appropriate response.

Completely independent of any of your opinions, with which I couldn't disagree more strongly, you are an arrogant ass.

"...This is only the surface of my opinion."

Likewise.

Zarro:

I have to ask this question--are you aware that the military members who serve and have served in the past do so under the guidance and control of civilian authority? Your argument makes it sound like the military is an autonomous entity, working alone, with no regard to national policies. Our armed forces, and the people who serve in them, do so because they have agreed to submit to this authority. But before all else, they agree to defend the constitution of the United States.

The Constitution. The same one that allows you to sling ink saying whatever the hell you want to say, getting paid or not by whomever will pay for it.

If you want to argue about how the military is being used, your target should be the elected officials who dictate policy. You should be working on the senate appropriations committee that has to submit a budget to pay our military members and buy the weapon systems.

But your attack on the members of our armed forces is nothing short of cowardice. I can only assume that you feel too frightened to attack those who make our national policy, therefore you chose to attack the men and women who stand daily on the front line to protect your sorry ass.

If you feel that current policy makes it harder for you to do your job, vote someone else in, write directly to your representatives and senators, use the power of the fourth estate to attack the policymakers.

In case you care, I not only served proudly, but was wounded in the line. And I would still do it again today. I have my father's flag as well as my grandfather's flag in shadow boxes on my wall. My son will have mine eventually. I hope he choses to serve as we did. My IQ is over 160, I have a Master's degree, I am quite capable of tying my own shoes even. Your assertion that miltary members are too stupid to do anything else is at best a small mind trying to defame them in order to support your argument, a charge not provable nor defensible, but emotionally charged in an attempt to sway your readers.

Your assertion you would rather serve in jail than hold a gun in defense of the very country that makes your profession possible sickens me. I urge you instead to pack up all of your belongings and move to South America or perhaps Saudi Arabia. The friendly folks there will gladly teach you all about the importance of protecting yourself on a personal level. This is not a case of 'love it or leave it', I just think you need a little finishing school for your obviously lacking education. When and if you return, perhaps a newfound respect will have taken root.

So how long will you take a punch in the face before you "defend" yourself.If someone were to threaten your loved ones,would you refuse to defend them because fighting is "wrong"?Go hide while those of us with some moral backbone defend ourselves in a fight that ,quite frankly,we did not start and tries like hell to avoid.We'll let you know when its safe to come out.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and will never be free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill

Joe Zarro, you are a coward, and a fool. There is no group more devoted to maintaining the peace than the military who will have to fight if it fails. However, those men are smart enough to realize that there are some things that cannot be tolerated, even if the only alternative is war. This is, apparently, something that you are too foolish to recognize.

If your argument is with US government policy, than I suggest that you address it to the government, not the military that defends your right to help choose that government. Meanwhile, the men and women in the US Armed Forces will go back to exerting themselves to keep you free, just as their forefathers exerted themselves to make you free.

You know, the original diatribe at least stated an opinion. It was a bullshit opinion, but at least it said something.

This is just a bunch of meaningless blather. Noise, really.

He may as well of just replied with "It's a lefty elitist thing. You wouldn't understand."

I urge Joe Zarro to question the consequences of being a dumbass.

"If you want to write an appropriate response to this, you should argue that America is not imperialist."

Okay Joe, I'm game. First, it's difficult to argue if you don't know how someone defines a word. What do you mean by imperialist?
If you mean the classical definition in terms of territorial conquest, that's ludicrous on it's face. If we were really imperialist's Syria, Lebanon and the Sinai would be part of Israel. We wouldn't be worried about Iraq right now because we wouldn't have stopped in '91 and we probably could have rolled right through Iran and paid them back too. Germany wouldn't have been able to thumb their nose at us on Iraq because they'd be the 51st state. If we were really imperialists we'd be running Afghanistan not trying to build a free country.
If you mean imperialism in terms of influence (I hate 'hegemony', it's such an unwieldy word) then you have a partial point but you're looking at it wrong. The US is arguably the most powerful economic and military force in the world today. Does this give us influence? Of course it does. So what? Do we try to convince the rest of the world that democracy is a good thing? You bet, because it is. If we are attacked do we fight back? You bet, because we believe what we have is worth protecting. The point is not that we have influence, it's what we do with it, intentions matter. On the whole we've done pretty good. Have we made mistakes? More than we like to think about. Are we perfect? Far from it. If we were really an imperial power we would use our influence to force the rest of the world to do things our way. No, the Security Council resolution on Iraq was not forced on anyone. That's what we call diplomacy.
Look, the bottom line is that you disagree with the government's policies, have at it. That's what this country is all about.
You're a pacifist, good for you. That too is what this country is all about.
You've got your opinion about the military, fine. I don't care whether you've served or not, you're entitled to your opinion.
But when your opinions are based on statements that are patently ridiculous expect to hear about it, that's my right. Your opinions on the military are gross generalizations that are just plain wrong. 99% of the enlisted people in the AF have at least a high school diploma when they enlist, the other services are not quite as high but in general it's above 90%. I know people with GEDs that have been turned down. The military is not a last resort, it's a career choice. Beau Geste we ain't.
Your comments imply that we, in the military, have no idea what death and destruction is and have never thought about it. That's insulting. In my 25 plus years in the military I've never met anyone that's enthusiastic about war. A lot of military members know first hand what it's like, many have died doing it, many have killed others. Innocents have died by mistake, there's no getting around it, but again, intentions matter. We think about war constantly, it's our job. We don't do it because we like it, we do it because it has to be done. Are we good at it? Damn right, because that's what being a professional is, in any endeavor. We study the Laws of Armed Combat, we know the Geneva Conventions, we're not fools. During the cold war I sat alert in B-52's. My wife and three children lived a few miles from the base. You bet your ass I thought about what my job meant, but I did it because I thought it was right, I thought it was important. I still do.
You want to be a professional writer Joe? Do your research, talk to the people you're going to write about, get your facts straight. Do your job well. You can bet we'll be doing ours well.

Sorry about the rant folks.

Dragon - Well said.
Dave - Nice job on the Mill quote, I was thinking the same thing.

And to our little friend Joe (two or twenty can play the condescending game, pal):

"It is better to seem a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Or as we uneducated types might say: Never pass up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut. You are at the bottom of a rhetorical hole and you need to stop digging. Or you can continue so the rest of us can get some enjoyment out of putting your vapid, inane arguments through the shredder. The choice is yours, although I recommend staying away from complete nonsense like "I urge all of you to question the consequences of being a soldier" and "complex issues that most of you obviously fail to grasp." It will only make the shitstorm that is building over your head much worse.

Joe, your ignorance is staggering, but I am all outta sympathy, and you are taxing my ability to remain somewhat polite.

"I urge all of you to question the consequences of being a soldier."

My husband served 6 years in the Marine Corps (1992-1998). During that time, he participated in operation Eager Mace twice helping Kuwaiti soldiers learn to defend themselves. (This is the same operation the two Marines who were killed several weeks ago were participating in, BTW.)

During that time, because of pressure from his command, he started donating blood on a regular basis. This is something he's continued since completing his enlistment.

He was in Southern California in January 1994. His unit helped clear debris from the Northridge earthquake in the communities that surrounded them.

My husband's job was Aviation Electronics. This is something the Marine Corps spent the time and money to teach him and is a skill that is in high demand. So, now that he's a civilian, he's a productive member of society.

The consequences of my husband having been a soldier? Helping people defend themselves, becoming a blood donor, providing help during a natural disaster and learning a skill so that he won't be a drain on society.

I can understand if this young man has chosen not to take up arms to defend his country. It's something that takes faith and courage. It's not something everyone can do. However, he might want to reconsider criticizing those who do. You don't bite the hand that feeds you and don't piss on the one that protects you.

fabulous finale ms misty

After reading what this spoiled brat has to say, I have all that much more respect for the students fighting real oppression in Iran.

Ya know, Joe, I have a son who just started college this year and I hear the same psuedointellectual spew from him. All the same code words are there - it's all about killing brown people and taking their land. No it isn't. Here's what it's about Joe - and I'll explain it in real small words so you'll be sure to understand. Remember September 11, 2001 ? Brown, Muslim sons of bitches hijacked four airliners and killed themselves and some three thousand our brothers and sisters. In doing this they demonstrated a depravity and capacity for evil beyond our previous imagination. It is now crystal clear to us that they wish to do us great harm, over and over again until we become a Muslim nation. That is their stated goal We will never, ever become a Muslim nation, so what we must do is to stop them from harming us. First we take away the places they gather and train and hide. This we have done in Afghanistan. Next we remove possible sources of the weapons of mass destruction that these bastards would so dearly love to unleash on us. This we will shortly be doing in Iraq. Finally, we need to stamp out the poisonous ideology that fills the hearts of these people and makes them want to kill us. It will be good for them if they wake up and change their tune before we have to kill them all. But history teaches us that that is often the fate of the technologically inferior who attempt to wage war on those whose warmaking technology is vastly superior. This isn't about land or oil, Joe. It's about self defense. These Islamofacist scum would do well to ask Japan and Germany what happened the last time the USA felt seriously threatened. By the way, Joe, you need to read and respond to the response to your article over at sgtstryker.com. If you dare.

Wait a minute--his premise was "military conflicts are not securing my freedom, but rather securing finances. "?

Funny, I don't remember him challenging those who employ the military: the civilians in charge. I remember him saying that soldiers were too stupid to know what they were doing. "Simpletons" was one word he used, I think. How does that argue for his premise?

Hey there, zarro, look for the real culprit. By your argument, if you use your hammer to saw a 2×4 in half, then it's the hammer's fault. Stupid hammer!

The tool is not stupid, those who employ it are. You're the dumbass for using the hammer to saw wood.

-JakeA

News Flash!!
I pulled this off of the comments generated by Sgt Stryker's blog on this bozo, and it may serve as ammo for others with the time to respond appropriately:

Excellent fisking, Sarge. I thoroughly enjoyed the read. But as the buzzword count began to rise, I couldn't help but wonder if this Zarro fella isn't the campus op-ed page version of a Usenet Troll. The phrases are almost TOO trite.

So I read a few of his past editorials, and now I'm really confused. Check out this from almost exactly a year ago:

"I hope that one day man can find a better way to solve these problems than through warfare, but right now there is no other answer, and we don't have the luxury to wait around for solutions. We have to send in ground troops."
The Daily Aztec 11-28-01

"There is no reasoning with terrorists; the only way to deal with them is violence"
The Daily Aztec 11-14-01

"This war is an important necessity. There is a time for peace, negotiation and frolicking in meadows while singing the songs of John Denver. But there is also a time for deliberate and relentless violence."
The Daily Aztec 10-24-01

In my quick search, I didn't find anything he's written in '02, but I do wonder if he didn't pen his most recent piece just as a poke in the eye of the resident campus liberals... Dunno

GCSande
November 25, 2002 12:02 AM

The original comment has the hyperlinks to zorro's articles.

-JakeA

Ah, what the hey, I'll have at it...

…What this quote fails to realize is that the premise for my argument is that military conflicts are not securing my freedom, but rather securing finances.
*The premise of your original "argument" was that military personal are all stupid. Don't try to change the subject after the fact.

…I suspect many of you are in favor of the homeland security bill, which has added provision that limit the Freedom of Information Act, allowing government to be even more secretive than it already is.
* Au contraire. In fact, I'll wager that many of "us" are worried as hell about Poindexter's Total Information Awareness program. And, if you were any kind of journalist at all, you'd be on the horn to Senators Boxer and Feinstein to see why they are not screaming bloody murder about the fact that Poindexter is once again working for the federal government.

…For some reason I don't have the credibility to talk about the social effects of the military because I have never been "on the front lines."
*No, that's not it. You don't "have the credibility" simply because you are totally lacking in credibility. Period.

…You don't have to be a part of something to know about it, or have an opinion on their actions. It is that attitude that limits free thought, and allows people to cast aside an opinion of somebody because you don't agree.
*Your opinion wasn't "cast aside"; it was soundly derided, which is all part and parcel of the free exchange of ideas. Get used to it.

…You will never see me on the front lines -- I am in complete moral opposition to war, and would rather serve time in prison than spend time with a rifle. This isn't cowardice, a lack of sense for duty or hatred this country. Contrary to what many of you think, I do not hate America.
*But you won't fight for its continued existence as a free nation. I see. Tell us Joe, how would you feel about living under Islamic law?

…Try to realize that innocent civilians are driven from their homes, often stripped of their lives over complex issues that most of you obviously fail to grasp.
*Indeed, many innocent civilians were driven from their homes and stripped of their lives on September 11th, 2001. In this case, the issue isn't really too terribly complex. A certain deluded segment of the world hates us and wants us to convert to Islam or die, but they would really prefer that we all just die.

…I never said it was all about oil. War cannot be reduced to "oil" or "freedom." They are geo-political struggles that have their roots in resources, politics, international power struggles, economic and physical security. What I try to point out is that today's conflicts are testimony to our imperialism.
* What about Saddam Hussein's imperialism?

…If you want to write an appropriate response to this, you should argue that America is not imperialist.
* As I see it, we are not imperialists. We have, however, played a prominent role in ending the imperialism of several other nations, most notably Germany, Japan and Russia.

Well, Joe, I don't know how much or who's paying for your education, but that person (or me the taxpayer) is not getting what was paid for.

Imperialism? You need to take a history class.

Oh, and while you're at it, read the latest and greatest from Osama. You might want to live under Islam, but I don't. And the president had better use all resources that my tax $ have paid for all these years to make sure this country doesn't. Which includes saving your sorry rear, naive child. So hide under your bed while the blood runs and come out when it's safe to spew your ignorance.

There comes a point when you realize you cannot argue with certain people, because they are immune to fact, immune to logic, immune to common sense, and deeplky ignorant.

What can you do but say they're wrong, and move on?

Damn.....I was all set to lay into ol' Joe...but all of you have already done a fine (collective) job. I will add this: I've been both a university student and a soldier, and, by far, soldiers are (as a group) smarter, more capable, focused, and proficient than ANY student or professor outside of the hard sciences. I'm actually quite pleased that Joe has a low opinion of soldiers...hopefully that will keep him away from military service, and we can all sleep better at night knowing that he's merely going to school and writing crappy op-eds. This chapeaued boy has no business being behind a rifle, missile, or the controls of a plane or ship, such things would be to "simple" for him...I'd worry that he'd try to use Lacanian analysis on the bullets, apply Foucault-inspired "queer theory" to leadership principles, or bring a copy of "Empire" by Hardt and Negri to the troop information meetings.

The writer says he is morally opposed to the impending war and would prefer to spend time in prison rather than serve his country by carrying a gun.

Somebody needs to pinch the writer in hopes he'll wake up soon. Since there is no draft to skirt or avoid it's unlikely he'll be called upon to serve his country. In short, the writer won't be asked to make a choice between prison or service to his country.

Since such a choice isn't even on the table, his "moral" position seems rather weak to me.

I'm reminded of those fellows who, during the '60's, said they wouldn't go to fight in Nam but WOULD be willing to fight if the USA was attacked. I often thought these fellows couldn't be relied upon even in the event the USA was attacked. I think the writer is this type of moral coward.

What this quote fails to realize is that the premise for my argument is that military conflicts are not securing my freedom, but rather securing finances. Afghanistan, Desert Storm, Kosovo and impending war on Iraq have done nothing to secure my freedom of speech.

Oh yes, conflicts don't secure your freedom.

First, it's not the job of the military to protect the interests of just Joe Zarro. There are other people around who could use the protection. I was unaware that Zarro here funded the military by his lonesome. In other words, my freedoms are being protected, so this cancels out his whining. Next!

And second...these little conflicts, if left alone and ignored and appeased, would grow into larger conflicts that could threaten his little college life in a more direct manner. Sudden violent terrorist death, I think, infringes more on personal freedoms (you cannot write poorly thought out opinions in the school newspaper if you are blown to bits on a bus) than what the military does.

You will never see me on the front lines -- I am in complete moral opposition to war, and would rather serve time in prison than spend time with a rifle. This isn't cowardice, a lack of sense for duty or hatred this country.

It does, however, make you a pussy. Your moral opposition does not translate to the larger context, visions of the Great American Hegemon aside. When you grow up, you'll figure this out on your own.

"What this quote fails to realize is that the premise for my argument is that military conflicts are not securing my freedom, but rather securing finances."

I have a hard time reconciling this statement with the statement you issue later on in this missive about never saying that it was all about oil. Securing finances is one of the basic tenets of any society, no matter how it's structured. On the other hand, I have a tough time understanding how exactly any of the conflicts you mentioned other than Iraq (and even that one is tenuous, at best) has anything to do with the economy. Every war in our history has immediately preceeded a recession, so while in the near term there will be a boost to the economy from the increased government spending, the short term outlook is much bleaker. We were told by the anti-war people regarding Afghanistan that we were really only going there to secure an oil pipeline deal with some other *stan country. I've been scouring the news reports waiting for the announcement of construction of this pipeline; nothing yet. Kosovo might be a better example of us intervening because of a potential economic cause -- which was the desire to prevent the conflict from spreading and consuming parts of the EU one of our major trading partners since they didn't have the wherewithal to do so on their own. Iraq has something that we can easily exploit, so it is feared that by extension, we naturally will. The only problem with that argument is that we are already in de facto control of the Iraqi oil supply. Saying that we should never go prosecute a conflict because it dovetails promoting democracy with the scourge of making a buck trumps all the humanitarian reasoning behind the removal of tyranny anywhere.

"Afghanistan, Desert Storm, Kosovo and impending war on Iraq have done nothing to secure my freedom of speech. In fact, legislation passed during these periods has hindered freedom of press and speech. Desert Storm blocked the media from combat, learning from its "mistake" in Vietnam."

I noticed that you only mentioned conflicts that have arisen since the advent of television, and omitted Somalia. I'm personally all for allowing television crews to let themselves be blown to bits, but the Department of Defense, believe it or not, has an obligation to these peoples safety. The people that saw the most action in the first part of Somalia were the camera crews from CNN. If anything, the restrictions on news crews only really came into full effect in Afghanistan. Even then, they certainly are not restricted more now then in any conflict that occurred before the widespread acceptance of television.

"I suspect many of you are in favor of the homeland security bill, which has added provision that limit the Freedom of Information Act, allowing government to be even more secretive than it already is. My ability, as a journalist, to keep an eye on government is significantly hindered thanks to these actions. Also, your duty as citizens to follow your government and maintain your republic is also affected."

An American government with a restricted FoIA is still far more open than an American cold war-era government. For those of us that remember the bad old days, this is really a non-issue. We came through nearly fifty years of the cold war without the FoIA at all, we can easily make do with the new restrictions on it.

"For some reason I don't have the credibility to talk about the social effects of the military because I have never been "on the front lines." You don't have to be a part of something to know about it, or have an opinion on their actions. It is that attitude that limits free thought, and allows people to cast aside an opinion of somebody because you don't agree. You will never see me on the front lines -- I am in complete moral opposition to war, and would rather serve time in prison than spend time with a rifle. This isn't cowardice, a lack of sense for duty or hatred this country. Contrary to what many of you think, I do not hate America."

I must disagree. It is cowardice to say that you are in complete moral opposition to war and would rather spend time in prison than with a rifle. If there was a hypothetical military threat that threatened to come ashore and attack San Diego and you failed to do anything in it's defense, that is a lack of resolve on your part, and a lack of resolve is cowardice.

"Although I feel like this is falling on deaf ears, I urge all of you to question the consequences of being a soldier. Try to realize that innocent civilians are driven from their homes, often stripped of their lives over complex issues that most of you obviously fail to grasp."

I will question the consequences of being a soldier if you and your ilk ever question the consequences of being blindly pacifist. There is far more blood on the hands of one that would do nothing with them to impede tyrrany than will ever stain mine. The "think of the people" argument is particularly rancid, as it ignores those same people when we're not involved. It's easier to ignore them when no one sees their own leaders killing them, I guess. Saddam Hussein has killed over a million of his own citizens. That breaks down to one in twenty. If we leave him in power, there is no reason to even think that he should stop. At what point does it become socially acceptable to intervene on their behalf? One in ten? One in five? One in two? The biggest butcher of his own citizens is attributed to being Josef Stalin, who by conservative estimates was directly responsible for the deaths of one of every nine citizens of the USSR during his rule. Do we really need another Stalin?

"I never said it was all about oil. War cannot be reduced to "oil" or "freedom." They are geo-political struggles that have their roots in resources, politics, international power struggles, economic and physical security. What I try to point out is that today's conflicts are testimony to our imperialism."

I beg to differ. Today's conflicts have much more to do with yesterday's imperialism than anything America has done. You're still in college, do yourself a favor and take a history course that focuses on the period at the end of the first world war when the European empires started to collapse. All of the entities we are fighting today came out of this deimperialistic cataclysm. Exclusively blaming America for it is insipid, at best.

"If you want to write an appropriate response to this, you should argue that America is not imperialist."

I'm sorry, I'm not going to oblige. Every country (and as some people would note, a few religions as well) is imperialist to some extent. We're just much more successful at it than anyone else.

"Well this is all I have time for right now. Maybe I'll drop by for another visit. This is only the surface of my opinion."

Please do. Bring some original material next time.

Joe's comments truly show an impertinent streak when he says,"(sic) I would rather spend time in prison than with a gun" He has obviously done neither and yet says "(sic)one needn';t be a part of something to have an opinion (about it) try spending some time in jail and then say you won't enlist IF given the chance; don't worry, the military only want the best of our society, you wouldn't fit in.
As a vetran and someone who was jailed for preserving our Constitution, I appreciate your feeling,but just can't reach.

My letter to the paper:

More thoughts, about a soldier:

Hmmmm... he would rather be in prison... has he been watching those prison p0rn movies and hoping to get in on some of that hot monkey love?

A final thought on this discussion. I just sent this to Mr Zarro. Read the article, it's great.

Joe,

As one of those involved in the discussion over at 'a small victory' I thought you'd be interested in this article from the Washington Post, check it out if you get the chance. Mr Schaeffer is a lot more eloquent than I am.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39213-2002Nov25.html

Cheers,

Dragon

When I read Joe Zarro's column, my first reaction was that he needed to be "kneecapped" for starters, but I guess that's the 'baby killer' instinct in me... At least in this country, fatwas' aren't issued like they are elsewhere on this little planet for an opinion published in a newspaper ie: Nigeria.
See; http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/international/africa/27NIGE.html

Just in case you've missed it, a Ms. Jennifer Weaver also has written an op-ed piece for The Daily Aztec as a reply;
http://dailyaztec.com/Archive/Fall-2002/11-25-02/opinion/opinion02.html

Applause! applause!

You should all realize, by now, that someone misspelled little Joey's name somewhere along the line - it's obvious that it's not "Zarro", it's really "Zero" - equalling the level of thought, insight and intellectual attainment apparent in his little screed, as well as the apparent benefit he is currently deriving from his attendance at an institution of higher education.

Another small bit of Kipling (a man who understood well the soldier's condition): "Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' Tommy 'ows yer soul; But it's thin red line of 'eroes when the drums begin to roll; Yes, it's thin red line of 'eroes when the drums begin to roll."

From an ex-college student (B.S., 1966; M.S., 1969) who, unlike Joe Zero, served his country and would do it again in a minute.