Ivory Dome

Ah, sweet vindication!

Here are my DD214 and a CERCOM from my service in Iraq. Obviously I have removed all personal data.

DD214:

CERCOM:

Click both for a larger picture.

I called the reseve center today and got in touch with some folks to verify what medals I have. As you can see on my DD214 there isn’t anything about the GWOT. Because I have been to Iraq and all of that I was curious why that stuff wasn’t on there. Of course it is because they didn’t have time to update my records before I ended my active duty, but I just wanted to make sure. The CSR I talked to said I do have the Global War on Terror medal and I rate either the GWOT Expiditionary medal or the Iraqi Campaign Medal. I only get to pick one and because I have the GWOT medal already I am going to pick the Iraqi Campaign medal.

We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The second inalienable right listed by the Founding Fathers is the right to liberty. The very word itself epitomizes the American ideal. From the Statute of Liberty, to America, the Beautiful (“My country, ‘tis of thee, sweet land of liberty…), to the Pledge of Allegiance (“…with liberty and justice for all.”), to the inscription on every American coin, we’re reminded of liberty wherever we look.

In popular usage, the words liberty and freedom are pretty much interchangeable. As a linguist, I could go on at length about the subtle differences between the two, but for the purposes of this essay, I’ll concentrate on the meaning of liberty.

Liberty comprises a mechanism of social interaction that is consciously determined and consistent, as opposed to an arbitrary system based on the whims of a tyrant. The characteristics of conscious determination and consistency echo back to the source of inalienable rights, the Creator. Whether or not you believe that there is an intelligent design behind the laws of nature, it is undeniable that these laws are not arbitrary; we can always count on things like gravity and speed of light remaining constant. A country’s laws should strive for that kind of consistency.

In order for liberty to thrive, our laws should allow for as much freedom as an orderly society can bear. It reminds me of a simple axiom I once heard for good parenting: say yes when you can, and no when you must. Arbitrary laws that serve no other purpose than to perpetuate the bureaucracy that enforces them should be avoided.

But with the right to liberty comes the responsibility of self-discipline. Citizens of a totalitarian or authoritarian society don’t have that same responsibility, because their societies are so restrictive that license (i.e. freedom run amok) is not an option. Because of the many freedoms afforded Americans, there are more choices available, and with those choices, the possibility of making bad choices.

It’s been said that freedom is the power to do as you please as long as you’re willing to face the consequences. For instance, in a society in which the purchase and consumption of alcohol is unrestricted for adults, it’s that adult’s responsibility not to drink himself into a stupor and destroy his health. Where adultery or fornication is not illegal, the individual has to bear the personal responsibility to be sexually discrete; short of rape, he or she has no one else to blame for contracting venereal diseases or facing unwanted pregnancies. In an educational system that doesn’t assign a career track to its students, each student has to make his or her own decisions about what career course to take, and either live with the consequences or go back to school and rectify earlier decisions.

Liberty gives us equality of opportunity; self-discipline determines our outcomes. No society can or should guarantee equal outcomes; to do so would reward the unmotivated and punish the achiever.

We hold these Truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In defining inalienable rights, the Founding Fathers saw fit to list three, presumably from among many more. The 18th Century language is so much more graceful than today’s legalese. If a 21st Century lawyer had drafted the Declaration of Independence, it probably would have read: “… certain inalienable rights including, but not limited to, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

It is no accident that the first inalienable right if the right to life; this right is fundamental. Once your life has been taken, liberty and the pursuit of happiness become moot. As an old girlfriend of mine quipped in a homemade get well card she once sent me: “When you are sick, you can always get better/But when you are dead, you can’t get any deader.”

Most of the responsibility for protecting the right to life falls on two groups: the military and the police. Because both groups hold the power of life and death in their hands, those who choose either profession must be held to a high standard of conduct, lest they abuse the trust vested in them. Conversely, because they are often faced with split-second, life-and-death decisions that could cost them their own lives, we should give them the benefit of the doubt and avoid second guessing their actions. There should be no calling them cold blooded murderers or baby killers until most of the facts are in, at the very least.

Although the Right to Life dates back to the earliest time in our nation’s history, about three decades ago, a new right was discovered in the “shadows and penumbra” of the Constitution. This new right is euphemistically called “The Right to Choose.” To choose being a transitive verb, the phrase begs the question, “Choose what?” Chevy over Ford, Nike over Reebok, Coke over Pepsi? No, the implied choice is death over life, or as the pro-choice movement puts it, “terminating the pregnancy” over “taking the pregnancy to full term.” It all sounds so sterile, like canceling an insurance policy.

If you are comfortable with the idea that this right to choose is no different than any other inalienable right, let me pose this question: Can you name another right about which a sitting president has said that it should be “safe, legal … and rare”? [emphasis added] Should a free press be rare? What about free speech? How about the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? The right to vote? The right to free assembly?

Yet despite its primacy, there are some limits to the right to life. If you are convicted of a heinous crime, such as treason or murder, you may forfeit your right to life after a jury trial. If your actions pose an imminent threat of death to others, your life may be taken in self-defense. But being an inconvenience to others should never be grounds for denying the right to life.

Rest in Peace.