... that caught our eye over the past week in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
With respect to the 4 crosses at Camp Pendleton honoring 4 dead Marines, Douglas L. Inman of La Jolla writes:
The crosses were intended as memorials to four fallen Marines but have a special meaning to those who fought in World War II. None of the letters about the crosses published in the U-T on December 31st addressed that meaning.
I am a 91-year old Marine Corps Reserve officer, retired university professor, and survivor of the landing on Peleliu in 1944. The significance of the cross for battlefield casualties has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the press of war. Battlefield casualties often require rapid burial that precludes sorting out religious preferences. At Peleliu, Japanese snipers were still firing from Bloody Nose Ridge while the burial team was placing bodies in the soil. A single stake as marker would soon be lost, but a cross is simpler and easier to find in the flotsam of war. Thus it became the marker of choice for battlefield burials.
In the field, we were all supportive of each other regardless of religion. I can assure you that we did not think of my buddy Kehoe as a Jewish boy from Philadelphia who was buried under a Christian symbol, but rather that he was our comrade in arms and buried under the traditional battlefield symbol of honor, the cross.
That places the cross within an entirely different context: a battlefield symbol of honor. It is unfortunate that it bothers some people, but life is often that way.
We had not heard that specific utilitarian angle before. And thank you for your service to our country, Mr. Inman.
And here's Stephanie Jenkins of San Diego with praise for an Occupy activist:
Thank you for the article about the Occupy activist named Nicole. It is very nice to see that there are people who care about more than their paycheck and want to contribute to society. I’m certain she has taken her fair share of insults but as Mahatma Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win.” It seems clear to me that this movement isn’t going anywhere thanks to young women like this.(italics, ours)
Truer words have never been spoken for the sedentary lot that makes up Obama's Whining Squatters.
And here we provide some running paranthetical commentary to La Mesa resident, Daniel R. Sanley's contention with the U-T's assessment of the Obama presidency:
The Jan. 5 U-T editorial (The beginning of the end”) referred to “a failed Obama presidency.”
Troops home from Iraq (by agreement hammered out between previous administration and Iraqi government), flawed “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy scraped, saved us from a depression (Furious spin. We were promised unemployment would not go above 8% if Porkulus passed), plus job creation during a major recession he didn’t start (Ah, the old job creation myth. If one wants to say that Obama "saved" jobs, at $500,000 a job in many cases, then go right ahead), Social Security tax relief (Dubious achievement considering the teetering finances of Social Security as it is), extended unemployment benefits (Another dubious achievement considering the whole idea of pro-growth economic policies is to effectively get people off unemployment benefits, a concept seeming lost on Team O), aggressive use of drones and special forces to reduce enemy leaders (Re: drone strikes. The One doesn't want to be bothered with the sticky situation of detaining the bad guys - better off just whacking them. And we assume Dan is also referring to our unauthorized overseas military kinetics in Libya. Glad to see all of Bush's transgressions washed away here in his 3rd term), assisting students with higher education cost relief (... that is doing absolutely nothing to actually reduce the cost of higher education), encouraging alternative energy businesses (we're assuming that's a pretty big rock in La Mesa under which Dan is residing if he's managed to be out of ear shot of the President's hopelessy failed crony capitalist loan program run by the Department of Energy), proposed “balanced” method reducing the deficit (say it: "raise taxes". Besides, Obama had both houses of Congress for two whole years and did quite the opposite with respect reducing the deficit), increased health care coverage (via an unconstitutional mandate) and improvements in current plans for millions of Americans (which will most likely cost more than what millions of Americans will be able to afford), and added checks and balances for corporate abuses (the Dodd-Frank fin-reg bill will only preserve the status quo for Wall St. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank co-sponsored the damn thing for crying out loud).
I would call this presidency anything but a failure.
As previously stated, we would beg to differ.