Free Republic

I graduated from Penn in 03. Now I am an enlisted Marine. In my basic School of Infantry class there were 3 other Ivy leaguers including Gavriel, and at least 20 or so who had attended other colleges. Not to mention the number of reservists who were in the process of going to school. Given the Marine target demographic is 18 year olds fresh out of high school, I don't think those numbers are too bad. That is, for anecdotal evidence, anyway.

I knew Gavriel somewhat well, as we were both Ivy grads a little older than most when we went through School of Infantry together but a few months ago. He was an excellent man and a hell of a marine, for someone seemingly so unsuited for such a life. I guess I just felt like saying I met the man, and he was all that and more. It's kind of hard when you can't share grief with immediate family and friends due to the hardship it may inflict on them, so I was glad to find FR remembering Gavriel as well. Thanks for caring.

PS that's his standard boot camp photo circa Nov-Dec 2003. Pretty good, given the circumstances (most people look really terrible).

Probably because they're looking at the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, where morale and reenlistment rates, especially of the most useful sorts of people, are relatively low. I guess the Air Force and the Coast Guard are the place to be.

Treason, or "betraying the United States", happens irrespective of the alleged motivations of the traitor or his sponsors. You sell American secrets, I don't care what the cause is, you do the time. Or, preferably, are shot, depending on the magnitude of the crime.

Or, conversely, that those other spies got so much less of a punishment. And THAT is a problem.

btw, thanks for clearing up your stance, I was a little confused as to your motivation.

Are you insinuating that a lack of means on the "Palestinian" side creates a moral equivalence by default?

If so, you just might need to glance at a mirror periodically while re-reading the above article.

As usual, the statements coming from people with gun brands as religions are barren of useful information.

I personally prefer the .45 caliber Glocks, particularly the 30, over the 9mm, but I can't recall having an issue with the brass ejection. Unless you are in fact left handed, it might well have to do with the flinching you mention as well as some angling you might be doing with your hand prior to shooting. I think the above recommendations to dry fire a great deal, as well as practicing your breathing and squeezing with your whole hand rather than just the trigger will iron out these issues with time.

Good luck with that.

Whenever I hear someone predicate an argument on "authentic" [insert race/ethnicity here] I am inclined to ignore it off the bat.

It sounds like something that should have been challenged on constitutional grounds, rather than on the much more vague standard of "what's good for the children". Nothing like criminalizing bad thoughts at an early age to indoctrinate proper behaviour.

As much as I find it likely that these allegations are true about Galloway, until I see them confirmed by anything (like, for example, prosecution by the British government for treason) I have difficulty buying the Telegraph's story. For that reason alone, I am not surprised the "mainstream" has not picked it up. Hell, Fox'll report nearly anything once, and I have yet to see a glimmer of this story.

So Galloway may be an unknown outside of the UK...but that does not make the story have less currency, as he is still an MP, and everyone can relate to that.

Like I said, I hope it is true, and that Galloway makes his next snide interview from one of those charming English prisons.

My pleasure.

Somehow I think the film will leave this part out.

I don't question that the film will glorify him, as Hollywood is so fond of the "sexual revolution". But I think Reisman has some serious credibility issues, and to include her works in a film about him would be tantamount to libel. In any case, I'll wait until the film is actually made to condemn it.

However, to date, there has been only silence from that camp.

Well, from the TV confrontation, which admittedly left something to be desired, it seemed like her claim (and O'Reilly's "IS HOLLYWOOD GLORYFING A PEDOPHILE" headline) was based entirely on the conclusions he drew from interviews with pedophiles, not with children. The "sexologist" from the Kinsey institute looked reputable in comparison, which was some achievement.

I believe the Kinsey institute actually won, in a sense, by having Reisman's defamation suit against them (when they called her a liar) dismissed with prejudice by the judge. What more do they have to do to discredit her "evidence"? Mind you, I do not think highly of Kinsey or of his research, but that is a far cry from slandering him as a pedophile.

What was so awful about James Whale?

As to the subject of the post, I saw the Factor the other day where some woman was basically trying to claim Kinsey was a pedophile himself, which I thought was pretty out of line. For once O'Reilly demonstrated a little restraint.

Kinsey was a sloppy researcher with very questionable methodology. But to translate his research into what NAMBLA and their ilk claim are legitimizations of pedophilia is absolutely ridiculous.

At any rate, all this protest is only going to engender guarantees for Academy Awards nominations and uninteresting rambles from the actors and director about how courageous they feel taking on the religious right. I say let them make their disgusting movie and pay for the publicity themselves, rather than doing it for them. Vote with your dollars, not with all this liberal-esque rabble rousing that serves no purpose unless you are logically consistent and ready to argue for censorship, which is a pretty indefensible position.

Where's sungirl when you need a good old fashioned batch of ridiculous posts? This one has her name all over it...bet you miss her now...NOT....

Oh well, I can't wait for one of her alter egos/sidekicks to show up and explain their support of PETA.

"We don't sanction torture but there are psychological and other ways that we can get most of what we need," said Senate Intelligence Committee vice chair Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.),

I kind of like the sound of that.

There hasn't been a revision of our law between Wilson's time and our own. President Bush is still sworn to uphold the Constitution. Pointing out that Bush isn't the first to violate our law doesn't excuse the violation.

The law may not have changed, but the world has, and drastically so. I appreciate your efforts to pretend that we are back in the days when strict constructionism was a practicable viewpoint in the arena of foreign policy, but it will take a lot more than Mr. Paul's historical revisionism to prove that.

And, since he brought it up, Vietnam was not only a "good" war but a plainly winnable one, well up until 1975. That it was poorly run from the strategic standpoint is indisputable; but I can guarantee you the same silence that surrounds the Korean War from the usually chattery peaceniks and socialists would exist had we won or achieved a stalemate. It's a whipping boy oft brought out just like McCarthyism; in the same spirit, its blanket condemnation reflects an ignorance of history that would be appalling if it were not so common.

1. The fundamentally simplistic analyses Paul offers of the Korean and Vietnamese wars do nothing to support his case.

2. There is a big difference between having UN resolutions as a reason for American policy, and having them as a pretext to achieve our own policy goals, consistent with the long-term security and economic interests of the United States. I have seen nothing to convince me that President Bush is not engaged in the latter course.

3. A hands off approach to foreign policy would have been wonderful...in 1916. The damage is done. We either accept the responsabilities we have since incurred, or reap far greater costs than 9/11 in the future.

Ron Paul ought to have been Woodrow Wilson's gadfly, not George Bush's.

This discussion really reminds me of the "People's Front Of Judea" scenes in Monty Python's Life Of Brian. They were ahead of their time.

I had the great privilege of seeing Mr Horowitz in person at a slavery reparations debate at my school. He was thoroughly impressive, although I do believe he weakens his case and turns off a lot of people who might otherwise listen to his points by overusing hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. Of course, I completely understand his anger.


In fact, at one point, where I questioned the moral consistency of one of his opponents, a Penn professor, by pointing to the logical contradictions he had set forth so far, the professor branded me not only a racist but an advocate of slavery (!). Horowitz had no qualms about interrupting him and telling him (since I was unable to retort due to my observance of the debate rules, not that any of Horowitz's attackers were observing them) in no uncertain terms what an intellectually and morally dishonest person he was for doing that. It was inspirational...