The Lion of Fallujah

The thoughts of Major Douglas Zembiec, U.S. Marine Corps (USNA class of '95):

Be a man of principle. Fight for what you believe in. Keep your word. Live with integrity. Be brave. Believe in something bigger than yourself. Serve your country. Teach. Mentor. Give something back to society. Lead from the front. Conquer your fears.

Be a good friend. Be humble but be self-confident. Appreciate your friends and family. Be a leader and not a follower. Be valorous on the field of battle and take responsibility for your actions.

Major Zembiec was killed May 10, 2007, while leading a raid on a terrorist stronghold in Baghdad. The words above are from his journals, read by his best friend at Maj. Zembiec's funeral service at Arlington National Cemetery on May 17.

Major Zembiec was a true hero, one of that rare species of people whose enormous courage, principles, and sacrifice make it possible for the the rest of us to live safe, comfortable lives. They put their lives on the line fully knowing that their sacrifice will never be fully appreciated, indeed often denigrated by many of the very people they sacrifice to protect.

But even in the company of heroes, Doug Zembiec was something special, a leader whose dedication and amazing courage under fire was chronicled in coverage of the brutal fighting in Fallujah in 2004. Despite being seriously wounded himself, he climbed atop a tank and continued to lead his Marines in street fighting so close and furious that at times grenades were being tossed at a range of 20 feet.

Then-Captain Zembiec was awarded a Bronze Star with decoration for valor for his actions in Fallujah, the citation reading, "On two occasions, Captain Zembiec coordinated the actions of the Marines from atop a tank while rocket-propelled grenades and enemy small arms fire impacted all around him. Wherever the battle raged with intensity, Zembiec could be found inspiring Marines to aggressively repel the enemy's determined assault..."

After his promotion to Major he was assigned to a desk job statesid, but he soon volunteered to go to Afghanistan, later back to Iraq. This was a true man of action, a man who knew the danger and horror of combat but continually put himself in harm's way to protect others. As his close friend Tom Ripley put it, "It's such a loss for our country, but he was doing what he loved. Exactly what he loved to do."

I never met Major Zembiec, but I pass along the above because men like this are to be remembered and their sacrifice appreciated, not forgotten. Read more.

The "fairness" of Fair Trade coffee, and a non-apology

A popular trend in coffee shops and other "socially conscious" retailers is the prominent marketing of Fair Trade coffee. It appeals to a mostly-upscale clientele who fear they're savoring the toil of the exploited poor.

The Fair Trade licensed trademark is an obvious sales tactic, but it's based on a laudable goal and I'm sure the motives are pure. But does it really help the intended poor?

Well, it helps at least a few, though perhaps not all that much. And the rules of the Fair-trade Labeling Organization (the organization that markets Fair Trade coffee to retailers) do seem to explicitly exclude most of those who most need protecting. Colleen Berndt has an interesting analysis at the always-provocative TCS Daily, and Hal Weitzman at the Financial Times suggests some independent oversight may be required.

---
A non-apology to English majors: Yes, I split an infinitive. I looked at it for 10 minutes, decided I liked it. So sue me.

Robert Reich's dumb idea

In his May 9 weekly whinatorial on public radio's Marketplace, former Clinton cabinet secretary Robert Reich first complains about large loans many students have to take out to complete their educations. He then bemoans that it makes graduates take up well-paying jobs instead of being able to pursue "what they really want to do," such as taking up painting or archaeology. Reich then seriously proposes a truly silly idea:

Make repayment of government-subsidized loans depend on how much money they earn. Say everyone has to pay 10 percent of their income for the first 10 years of their fulltime work. And then the loans are considered paid off.

My student who's landed that private-equity job would pay 10 percent of his income for 10 years, which would be a hefty sum. My students who go into social work or become artists would pay 10 percent of theirs, which would be far less. The private-equity guy would, in effect, subsidize the social worker and the artist. And why not? This way all of them could follow their callings.

So let's see: We'll create an incentive for people to run up huge college loans pursuing whatever they like for as long as they like, knowing that they won't really have to pay it all back. And they'll be subsidized by those who, instead of pursuing their whimsy, opt to take up well-paying jobs.

Let's also note that Professor Reich teaches at UC Berkeley, where professor's salaries average nearly $130,000 per year, plus a very generous benefit package that likely drives his total cost of compensation over $200,000 per year. That puts him in the very rarified upper percentages of American society. He makes far more than most professionals make, probably more than most university students will ever make. And that's not counting Mr. Reich's other sources of income, such as his aforementioned weekly whinatorials on "non-profit" public radio (though it obviously profits Mr. Reich).

So how about this instead: If those students were not being forced to pay such huge university costs each semester, they wouldn't have to take out such huge loans in the first place. And since much of those huge (and rapidly rising) university costs go to pay the high salaries and lavish benefits of university professors, perhaps the solution to the problem lies with Mr. Reich himself.

So how about it, Professor? Why not address the problem of those big college loans directly at the source, by reducing the cost of a university education? You're very willing to ask taxpayers and less-whimsical students to subsidize graduates who follow their fancies; are you willing to begin by advocating, say, a 20% cut in university salaries? Charity begins at home, yes?

On the conceit of elite and the brilliant Thomas Sowell

From the always-insightful Thomas Sowell, some thoughts on the failings of elites and the wisdom of the masses:

If no one has even one percent of all the knowledge in a society, then it is crucial that the other 99 percent of knowledge -- scattered in tiny and individually unimpressive amounts among the population at large -- be allowed the freedom to be used in working out mutual accommodations among the people themselves.

These innumerable mutual interactions are what bring the other 99 percent of knowledge into play -- and generate new knowledge.

That is why free markets, judicial restraint, and reliance on decisions and traditions growing out of the experiences of the many -- rather than the groupthink of the elite few -- are so important.

Elites are all too prone to over-estimate the importance of the fact that they average more knowledge per person than the rest of the population -- and under-estimate the fact that their total knowledge is so much less than that of the rest of the population.

They over-estimate what can be known in advance in elite circles and under-estimate what is discovered in the process of mutual accommodations among millions of ordinary people.

Central planning, judicial activism, and the nanny state all presume vastly more knowledge than any elite have ever possessed.

The ignorance of people with Ph.D.s is still ignorance, the prejudices of educated elites are still prejudices, and for those with one percent of a society's knowledge to be dictating to those with the other 99 percent is still an absurdity.

The full article is worthwhile reading.

Aside: If you're not familiar with Thomas Sowell, you've missed out on one of the great analytical minds of our time, someone whose wide-ranging writings on race, economics, history, philosophy, and political science will still be studied centuries from now. He's written dozens of books (some have become standard university texts, others more for the public), is currently a Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and has received countless awards, including the National Humanities Medal. Whether one agrees with him on any given topic, any read of Sowell's writing always leaves the indelible impression of a brilliant analytical mind and a remarkable gift of clear expression.

For a sample of his popular writings, see this archive of his recent columns. For a list of some of his other works, see a list of his books and some of his most famous quips and quotes.

Coming out of the news closet

If you pick up a newspaper in the U.K., chances are you'll know beforehand where that newspaper's politics lie: the Guardian is unabashedly on the Left, the Times of London more on the political Right (or what passes for the Right in ultra-PC modern Western Europe), and the Telegraph somewhere in between. And they make no bones about it; the politics of each are clear and acknowledged.

American news media, however, refuse to acknowledge their own political biases. Instead they play a little game of "don't ask, don't tell," vociferously protesting any accusation that they have any slant to their news at all. Of course even an occasional reader of the New York Times will be all but bopped in the face by the Times' clear leftward tilt, but the Times itself bristles at any suggestion of anything but lily-white neutrality. Likewise with CBS News, AP, and our other major news media.

I think the Brits have it right -- better to acknowledge one's biases than to pretend they don't exist. So instead of trying to reform our news media to be less biased, perhaps we should just encourage them to come out of the closet and admit their political proclivities. It's worked for others, why not the American media?

On the presidential debates

My complete thoughts on the recent (18 months before the elections) president-wannabe "debates":

If a tree falls in the forest and there are no TV pundits there to comment on it, would anyone care at this point?

That's all.

Islamberg

Ever heard of the little community of Islamberg in upstate New York? Don't try to visit.

They may have visited you, though (see the national map near the end of the story).

Climate-change blog at Nature

For those looking for healthy climate-change debate by people who know what they're talking about, the august science journal Nature has launched Climate Feedback, a discussion blog on climate change. From its title banner:

Climate Feedback is a blog hosted by Nature Reports: Climate Change to facilitate lively and informative discussion on the science and wider implications of global warming. The blog aims to be an informal forum for debate and commentary on climate science in our journals and others, in the news, and in the world at large.

Very worthwhile, and even just the first few postings clearly debunk the myth that "the debate is over" about the causes of climate change, as the loudest voices in the media are trying to indoctrinate us to believe. Check it out.

The "Mission Accomplished" speech

What did Bush actually say on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln in that famous speech four years ago today?

Well, he never actually said "mission accomplished." That phrase was in the original draft of the speech, but was removed in subsequent edits and was not part of the final speech.

The idea for the "Mission Accomplished" banner came from the crew of the aircraft carrier to celebrate that their mission had been accomplished. (At the time they were approaching port in San Diego from completion of their combat tour in the Persian Gulf.) He did say that "major combat operations have ended," which is true -- it's all been smaller-unit actions since. (Which is harder, not easier, as has been clearly shown.)

Here's more of what he did say:

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country...

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

See the full text of the speech. Also see additional background from Captain's Quarters blog.