In my last blog I listed a few of what I considered to be the less important matters the Student Senators had debated and resolved this session, including this one:

A Resolution In Support Of Cake A Resolution in Support of Cake WHEREAS anthropologists have concluded that agriculture is the single most important human technology ever developed, and; WHEREAS agriculture allowed the production of refined flours which are vital ingredients for delicious cake, and; WHEREAS cake is by all means considered a tasty dessert and treat, and; WHEREAS Marie Antoinette is frequently referenced to have said, �Let them eat cake!� and; WHEREAS all must acquiesce to the irresistible power of cake, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: THAT the ASUW wholly supports and consumes cake in all its forms and formally requests the presence of a scrumptious cake at the final meeting of the Student Senate�s twelfth session to be provided by the beloved SAO advisor.

All in fun, and quite yummy sounding. But did you know that cake will cost the taxpayers money? To be exact, $13,745.00 That's because the four officers of the UW Student Senate draw a stipend each year.

SENATE CHAIR $4,403. SENATE VICE-CHAIR $3,273. SENATE SECRETARY $2,890. MEMBERSHIP COORDINATOR $3,179.

Now I assume that they have classes so they must only do this what, 10 hours a week or so? If so, since the stipend is not for the summer session, that averages about 8 or 9 bucks an hour or so. Not too bad really. Just thought you might wanna know who pays for them to tell us they love cake.... (Note- By the way....Yes, I know the "Cake" resolution is used for training purposes.... From the Minutes....

Alex Kim noted that R-12-1 A resolution in Support of Cake was entirely scripted and intended as instructional for new senators. The resolution was presented using a pre-written script that was provided to members of senate. Please reference the script for detailed information regarding the resolution.

But honestly, it was there so I had to use it.)

This is not meant to disrespect Miss Edwards. If anything it is an opportunity for her side of the story to be shown. In surfing around other Boyington stories, I came upon a link to her after session notes that she posts as a part of her representation of the Honors Croquet League...No I am not making that up...I could never have made that up. Oh come on, it isn't that bad. Moving on..... As I was saying, in honest fairness, I think it is important to see how she felt about the fray. I am going to post, unedited, her notes from 2-7-2006 (the day of the initial debate and her notes from 2-21-2006. In fairness, suspend judgment till you read them all. I have only one comment, which I will save until the end.

I mean just the thought of it is incredible enough. The LA Times has earned it's reputation as one of the more liberally slanting newspapers, but in a recent series of editorials, it has nicely skewered the left's criticism of the Dubai Ports World issue, including a few very choice comments for California's own US Sen Barbara Boxer(d). The issue should have died out, as the truth of the proposal became clear. Indeed, as noted by Sister Toldjah, many conservatives have begun changing what was a nervous and skeptical mindset into growing support as the facts begin to be made clear. No, the Arabs have not taken over the mightiest ports in America. Swarthy men are not unloading our ships and planting suitcase bombs in our imported toasters. The Teamsters and Longshoremen still control the loading, the Company only over sees logistics. Customs and the Coast Guard still maintain security. The Democrats however, seeing this as a pollsters cash cow have tightened their gripe on the misinformation machine and have jumped on their band wagon with all gun's firing. And people are buying their fear tactics. Barbara is one of the many fear slongers seeing this as a Golden Ticket. The facts are simple, this is a non story. Even the UAE has respectfully asked for a delay and review just to appease nervous xenophobes. (See here for a good collection of informative links on the disinformation:

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/02/27/disinformation-campaign-on-the-uae-port-deal) Now, on to the LA Times:

The Boyington Memorial flap was largely based on the minutes of the Senate session dates 2-7-2006. Those meetings were displayed on the UW Senate site at: http://senate.asuw.org/secretary/senminutes.shtml At some point however the file for the meeting in question was renamed to 02-07-2006-draft, and an apparently approved copy was added. The changes were fairly subtle, but I always wondered why there was a draft copy at all, since that was the only draft edition of a set of minutes, dating back to 2002. So I looked around and found the answer. There is a second minutes site, the minutes for the Senate Steering Committee, and they are kept here: http://senate.asuw.org/secretary/strminutes.shtml In the 2-13-2006 Steering Committee there was much discussion about those minutes, particularly the comments made by Ashley Miller (rich white men) and Jill Miller (UW does not want to produce Marines). Here is an excerpt from those minutes that concerns those comments. Question to the reader: Was the committee concerned with saving face or clarifying the comments?

I expressed my concerns previously about the UAE Dubai Ports World issue in this blog: http://guitarplayr.blogspot.com/2006/02/now-i-know-its-bad-idea.html At that point, the best reason to dislike the deal was the fact former President Jimmy Carter supported it, a point I still find compelling. But after reviewing the facts, hearing the talking points, and reading an insane number of blogs, I am beginning to believe this is not only a serious waste of time, but it may not be such a bad idea after all. See Sister Toldjah for a lot more detailed information and a ton of great links. She has done some of her best work here.. My basic reasons to support it, or at least to feel there is little reason to oppose it, are these:

I admit my last blog about this was fairly angry. I was very upset about the events that had transpired, and I decided to show it. I was, and I still am fairly disgusted with the editors of the Seattle PI for trying to make a silk purse from a sows ear. But it occurred to me today that this, like so many things is life, has all the ingredients of an opportunity to make it right. I decided to look up the details of the 5 men who earned the Medal Of Honor (MOH), and I discovered they all had unique stories worthy of telling. I remarked to Kirby Wilbur via email that I doubted any of the students had even bothered to do the 5 minutes of google searching it took me to find all five citations. While that may be true of some of them, it is not true of all, because I found that the new resolution introduced to the Senate contains the details of all five men. The resolution, R-12-26 - A Resolution Calling a Memorial for UW Alumni awarded the Medal of Honor can be read here: http://senate.asuw.org/legislation/12/R/R-12-26.html I will post it below in a moment. I am blogging this tonight to say that while I think the original resolution had merit, this one can be just as good, if a few things are done to ensure it doesn't fall prey to correctness. The new resolution was written by the same person as the original, so I am fairly confident he has the intention of making this a sober, respectful and comprehensive memorial. I am also, however, cynical enough that I do not trust that his peers will not try to "PC" it, and dumb it down to make it more generic, as they did his original resolution. This must not be allowed to happen. If these men are to be honored they should be honored in the full context of their achievement and valor, which to me requires nothing less then the full citation that accompanied their award, and a brief historical bio and context for each one, in separate steles. In the case of one soldier, this to me is particularly important: PFC William K Nakamura, the only non graduate, and the only enlisted person as well, as fate would have it. The PI noted that he had his studies interrupted by the interment camps in 1942. What they glossed over was that he enlisted in the army and became a member of what would become one of the most highly decorated regiments in U.S. history, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, 34th "Red Bull" Division, U.S. 5th Army. He was the first Army volunteer from Minidoka Relocation Center to be killed in action. And he was the only one of the 5 whose medal was not awarded until June 21, 2000 because his original recommendation for the MOH had been downgraded to the Distinguished Cross, arguably due to his being Japanese. Additionally, on September 19, 2000, the King County Council passed a resolution urging Congress to name a planned new Federal Courthouse in Seattle after Nakamura. The Seattle City Council passed a similar resolution. Congress responded in November 2000 by renaming the existing courthouse (at Madison Street and 5th Avenue) in his honor. (source: http://www.historylink.org/output.cfm?file_id=2767) Is his tale not one that should be told, and be told in it's full context? And can less truly be said about any of the others? If the Senate makes this a simple 5 names on a plaque with a pretty ribbon, lacking any details and context, who will tell the full story of these men, why they are honored and what their sacrifice represents? Please join me in encouraging all parties to put aside agendas and ideologies and do the right thing. It's ironic that the PI was right, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, the debate can lead to a greater more meaningful monument, but only if the students, with our encouragement and support do the right thing. Here is the link to their contact information: http://senate.asuw.org/membership/membershipdb.cgi Write them and ask for their support in making this a memorial all can be proud of. It's time to get this right. A Resolution Calling a Memorial for UW Alumni awarded the Medal of Honor WHEREAS the Medal of Honor is the highest award an American can receive, which is awarded for "for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life, above and beyond the call of duty, in actual combat against an armed enemy force.", and, WHEREAS the University of Washington has produced five men who have been awarded the Medal of Honor, two of those awards being at cost of their lives, these men are: - Col. (then Maj.) Gregory Boyington, USMC (Class of 1934) who during the period 12 September 1943 to 3 January 1944 as commander of Marine Fighting Squadron-214 in the Central Solomons area, the highest scoring Marine fighter ace of World War II, did consistently outnumbered throughout successive hazardous flights over heavily defended hostile territory, Maj. Boyington struck at the enemy with daring and courageous persistence, leading his squadron into combat with devastating results to Japanese shipping, shore installations, and aerial forces and, by his forceful leadership, developed the combat readiness in his command which was a distinctive factor in the Allied aerial achievements in this vitally strategic area. - 1LT Deming Bronson, USA (Class of 1914) - who during the period 26-27 September 1918 near Eclisfontaine, France, while repeatedly wounded, refused treatment and evacuation multiple times, and while so doing affected the capture of many enemy prisoners in capturing an entrenched position, engaged in the capture of Eclisfontaine, France, and After the capture he remained with Company E and participated with it in the capture of an enemy machinegun, he himself killing the enemy gunner. Shortly after this encounter the company was compelled to retire due to the heavy enemy artillery barrage. During this retirement 1st Lt. Bronson, who was the last man to leave the advanced position, was again wounded in both arms by an enemy high-explosive shell. He was then assisted to cover by another officer who applied first aid. Although bleeding profusely and faint from the loss of blood, 1st Lt. Bronson remained with the survivors of the company throughout the night of the second day, refusing to go to the rear for treatment. His conspicuous gallantry and spirit of self-sacrifice were a source of great inspiration to the members of the entire command. - Brig. Gen (then Maj.) Robert Galer, USMC (Class of 1935) who from May 1942 to March 1943 as commander of Marine Fighting Squadron-224 in the Central Solomons area, did demonstrate conspicuous heroism and courage above and beyond the call of duty as leader of a marine fighter squadron in aerial combat with enemy Japanese forces in the Solomon Islands area. Leading his squadron repeatedly in daring and aggressive raids against Japanese aerial forces, vastly superior in numbers, Maj. Galer availed himself of every favorable attack opportunity. His superb airmanship, his outstanding skill and personal valor reflect great credit upon Maj. Galer's gallant fighting spirit and upon the U.S. Naval Service. - 2LT Robert R. Leisy, USA (Class of 1968) who on 2 December 1969 in the Phuoc Long province, Republic of Vietnam, did demonstrate For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. 2d Lt. Leisy, Infantry, Company B, distinguished himself while serving as platoon leader during a reconnaissance mission. One of his patrols became heavily engaged by fire from a numerically superior enemy force located in a well-entrenched bunker complex. As 2d Lt. Leisy deployed the remainder of his platoon to rescue the beleaguered patrol, the platoon also came under intense enemy fire from the front and both flanks. In complete disregard for his safety, 2d Lt. Leisy moved from position to position deploying his men to effectively engage the enemy. Accompanied by his radio operator he moved to the front and spotted an enemy sniper in a tree in the act of firing a rocket-propelled grenade at them. Realizing there was neither time to escape the grenade nor shout a warning, 2d Lt. Leisy unhesitatingly, and with full knowledge of the consequences, shielded the radio operator with his body and absorbed the full impact of the explosion. This valorous act saved the life of the radio operator and protected other men of his platoon who were nearby from serious injury. Despite his mortal wounds, 2d Lt. Leisy calmly and confidently continued to direct the platoon's fire. When medical aid arrived, 2d Lt. Leisy valiantly refused attention until the other seriously wounded were treated. His display of extraordinary courage and exemplary devotion to duty provided the inspiration and leadership that enabled his platoon to successfully withdraw without further casualties. 2d Lt. Leisy's gallantry at the cost of his life are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the U.S. Army. - PFC William K. Nakamura, USA (non-graduate, left the UW in 1942) who on 4 July 1944 near Castellina, Italy, During a fierce firefight, Private First Class Nakamura's platoon became pinned down by enemy machine gun fire from a concealed position. On his own initiative, Private First Class Nakamura crawled 20 yards toward the hostile nest with fire from the enemy machine gun barely missing him. Reaching a point 15 yards from the position, he quickly raised himself to a kneeling position and threw four hand grenades, killing or wounding at least three of the enemy soldiers. The enemy weapon silenced, Private First Class Nakamura crawled back to his platoon, which was able to continue its advance as a result of his courageous action. Later, his company was ordered to withdraw from the crest of a hill so that a mortar barrage could be placed on the ridge. On his own initiative, Private First Class Nakamura remained in position to cover his comrade's withdrawal. While moving toward the safety of a wooded draw, his platoon became pinned down by deadly machine gun fire. Crawling to a point from which he could fire on the enemy position, Private First Class Nakamura quickly and accurately fired his weapon to pin down the enemy machine gunners. His platoon was then able to withdraw to safety without further casualties. Private First Class Nakamura was killed during this heroic stand. Private First Class Nakamura's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the United States Army. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: THAT we consider these men to be a prime example of the excellence that this university represents and strives to impart upon its students, and, THAT we desire for a memorial, consisting of stele, for these men be commenced by the University of Washington as quickly as funding can be secured, and the design, arrangement & placement of stele have been agreed upon, which will be publicly displayed, so that all who come here in future years will know that the University of Washington produced five of this country's bravest men, and that we as a community hold this fact in the highest esteem, and THAT for all future instances of a UW alumnus being awarded the Medal of Honor, that the addition of a stele for that person should be commenced without delay and added to the memorial.

Last night in my response to the PI's hatchet editorial of bloggers and talk radio concerning the UW memorial, I mentioned the latest bit of stupidity that was being under reported, that being when UW student Nicholas Baptiste appeared on MSNBC's Scarboough Country, and said:

The Seattle PU I mean PI has once again shown the lack of intelligence in Intelligencer. The editorial board has taken the bloggers and talk radio to task for denouncing the Student Senates trashing of a world war 2 hero. See my previous blogs: http://guitarplayr.blogspot.com/2006/02/baa-baa-humbug.html http://guitarplayr.blogspot.com/2006/02/hey-jill-you-mean-these-marines.html http://guitarplayr.blogspot.com/2006/02/pappy-boyington-memorial-idea-still.html http://guitarplayr.blogspot.com/2006/02/more-thoughts-on-pappy-boyington.html The students denied him a memorial for reasons ranging from race and class, anti war sentiments and anti military sentiments. The reaction has been understandably heated as many people are actually proud of the military and our nation's war heroes. The latest travesty is under reported however, when a student named Nicholas Baptiste appeared on television's Scarborough Country and reportedly told the host:

I could not download the video to verify it, but why should I be surprised? (FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW) So the PI weighed in on this in the same fashion that prompted me to cancel my subscription months ago: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/260303_uwed.html (my comments inline)

Of course...Because bloggers and talk radio hosts are just wacko nut cases. No stones cast there. The PI's lack of objectivity is why I no longer subscribe.

That's a bit revisionist, as the only after the vote and denial, and the subsequent outrage, did the compromise plan emerge. You conveniently forgot to mention that he isolated Pappy because of his overall popularity, but intended to have separate memorials for each, feeling they all deserved recognition. They also failed to mention the resolutions introduced afterwards supporting the USMC and demanding that Sen Jill Edwards apologize for her disparagment. A bit one sided, no?

Nice save, but it's weak especially when the guy in question was not rich and was not white, he was Native American...

Had the motion passed on it's obvious merits, it would culminated in the same results. Or said changes could have been made at the time. But what makes me the most outraged is the fact that the PI mentions the use of race and class and dismisses it without comment, or even validation. Is this acceptable now? Remove rich and white and insert poor and asian, or black...would the words have been allowed without condemnation? The minutes are very clear and the statements made indisputable. The students attempts in the media to mitigate this are disengenuous. Wither retract them or live with the consequences of them. And in supporting such statements, the PI has advocated Racism and Classism over respect and dignity. Hoorah. These foolish kids forget that their grandparents fought along side Boyington. What if one of their grandparents had been in the Pacific Theater, on a ship or on the ground, like my father in law was? The enemy planes that Pappy shot down, an achievment which they find so distressing, may have saved one of their grandparents lives by stopping an enemy attack. They might in reality owe him their existence, for all they know, but they, at least a few of them, cannot see past their anti-war agenda and bigotry. But that doesn't matter to the PI, it's just a good Civics lesson, right? UPDATE Last night in my response to the PI's hatchet editorial of bloggers and talk radio concerning the UW memorial, I mentioned the latest bit of stupidity that was being under reported, that being when UW student Nicholas Baptiste appeared on MSNBC's Scarboough Country, and said:

How about we put up instead of yet another statue of a World War II hero, how about we put up a statue of a slab of flesh, no arms, no legs, no face, like the main character in Dalton Trumbo's "Johnny Got His Gun"?

In fairness to him, here is the shows transcript directly from the Website, so his comments and those of the Boyington memorial defenders UW Sen Brent Ludeman and local talk show host Kirby Wilbur can be read in context.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11476914/ SCARBOROUGH: That was from Ba Ba Black Sheep, the TV show based on the life of World War II flying ace Pappy Boyington. The Marine plane shot down 28 enemy planes, survived 20 months in a POW camp, and won the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism in the victory over the country that started World War II by bombing Pearl Harbor. I speak, of course, of Japan. But student leaders at his alma mater refused to honor him because he was, quote, "a Marine" and he had blood on his hands. To talk about the controversy, let's bring in University of Washington student senator Brent Ludeman, who supports the memorial, and University of Washington student Nicholas Baptiste who opposes it. Nicholas, let me begin with you. Why do you oppose the memorial to this World War II hero? NICHOLAS BAPTISTE, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STUDENT: Well, I see this memorial as the right-wing, the pro-war crowd is on the defensive right now. The majority of American people have turned against the war in Iraq. I see this as a really cynical way of trying to fire up people and trying to build up nationalism again, like they did when they were building up to the Iraq war, and just trying to, like I said, go on the defensive and trying to sort of make these parallels that don't exist between World War II and the Iraq war. SCARBOROUGH: But this guy was a World War II hero. He won the Congressional Medal of Honor. He's a University of Washington alumni. This guy's a national hero. What's wrong with putting a memorial on your campus? Forget about Iraq. I mean, that war's going to be over soon enough. BAPTISTE: Let's talk about heroes. A lot of people obviously, a lot of young people nowadays don't see war as a heroic sport. It's not an adventure. It's a brutal, really inhumane thing. And... SCARBOROUGH: Well, you think the Marines... (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: ... over in Iraq right now? You think that they think it's a sport when they're getting their legs blown off? Do you think they're over there to have a thrill? BAPTISTE: No, I'm not saying that the soldiers are- I'm not saying that the soldiers think that. I'm saying people who whip up nationalism, and try to whip up support for the war, and try to convince people to sign up and go fight in wars like the Iraq war, they think- a lot of times these people think it is some sort of a sport, some sort of a rite of passage for people in our society, like I have to go fight a war because my father and my grandfather fought a war. SCARBOROUGH: You do agree with me, though... BAPTISTE: But my main point is this... SCARBOROUGH: ... that World War II was an honorable venture, right, an honorable war? BAPTISTE: It's not that black and white. There is a lot of atrocities committed on both sides. You can't say that one- that it was a completely justified war. You can't say that America was always in the right or that Britain was always in the right. I mean, America... SCARBOROUGH: OK. BAPTISTE: Go ahead. SCARBOROUGH: Well, let me show you. I want to show you a clip from World War II. This is what killing what Boyington and other people killing enemies brought an end to when World War II, obviously, the Holocaust. Here's shots from Auschwitz. I mean, 6 million Jews killed. I mean, we had to kill 50,000 civilians in Dresden alone to put an end to this to stop 12, 13 million Jews from being murdered over there. Sometimes... (CROSSTALK) BAPTISTE: I think that's quite a lie, to say that we had to kill 50,000 civilians in Dresden to stop the war. There's no evidence to support that. There's no evidence to support the fact that we had to drop the bomb in Nagasaki... SCARBOROUGH: There's no evidence that we had to actually... BAPTISTE: ... and Hiroshima. SCARBOROUGH: It's war. (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: How about this, people die in war. (CROSSTALK) BAPTISTE: Could I say something? SCARBOROUGH: Well, you were saying something. BAPTISTE: May I say this? SCARBOROUGH: Nicholas, people that- will you admit to me, Nicholas, that sometimes when we go to war, we have to drop bombs to end that war, and sometimes people like Pappy Boyington do kill people, do kill civilians, but it's done for a bigger reason, for a bigger cause? BAPTISTE: What cause is that? What cause are we fighting for in Iraq? Oil and empire. (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: No. No. Wait a second. Why are�?no, hold on a second, Nicholas. BAPTISTE: I just want to make one point before you go on. (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: You're mixing up- we're talking about World War II. You're talking about Iraq. I'm talking about what he did in World War II. BAPTISTE: Yes, you think wars just exist in a vacuum? Wars lead to more wars and to more wars. I mean, you can say he fought in World War II to stop killing... (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: So we should have just let... (CROSSTALK) BAPTISTE: There's still killing going on now, isn't there, in Iraq? SCARBOROUGH: So, Nicholas, you are saying that we should have just let Hitler and Imperial Japan roam free? Is that your argument here tonight? BAPTISTE: No, I'm saying, in the first place, U.S. industrialists and the industrialists of Europe shouldn't have supported Hitler in the first place which they did against communists in Germany, who were the majority of the government at the time. SCARBOROUGH: OK. There we go. BAPTISTE: They were afraid of their industries being collectively organized and taken over by the population of Germany. SCARBOROUGH: OK. BAPTISTE: And I don't care if you think that's ridiculous or not, but look at your history textbooks. SCARBOROUGH: Well, I do actually. You're now blaming... (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: ... the United States for launching Adolf Hitler's career. BAPTISTE: Yes, because, oh, the United States... (CROSSTALK) BAPTISTE: And you can blame the United States in part for Saddam Hussein's career, as well. SCARBOROUGH: All right. Let me bring in Brent right now. BAPTISTE: No, I just want to say one thing. SCARBOROUGH: I'm sorry. You've been wanting to say one thing for 30 minutes. Go ahead. BAPTISTE: Let me say it right here. How about we put up instead of yet another statue of a World War II hero, how about we put up a statue of a slab of flesh, no arms, no legs, no face, like the main character in Dalton Trumbo's "Johnny Got His Gun"? That would be an honest war memorial. That would go a much longer way towards establishing a more peaceful and democratic society than yet again glorifying war, and warfare, and bloodshed. SCARBOROUGH: All right. You've said what you wanted to say. BAPTISTE: I have. SCARBOROUGH: Brent, let me bring you in now. Tell me about the vote. BRENT LUDEMAN, UW STUDENT SENATOR: Well, we- Joe, we've brought the resolution up. And two of the senators said that, one, we didn't want to honor another rich white male and that this wasn't the type of person that the University of Washington wanted to produce. Mind you, this is one of the greatest aviators in our history. He's a war hero. He's somebody that won the Medal of Honor and deserves to be recognized by the university. The vote was tied, and then the Senate chair voted it down, 46-45. And I think it just really shows how completely out of touch a lot of, you know, my generation seems to be, how we seem to not understand the historical significance of World War II and war in general. I mean, unfortunately... SCARBOROUGH: Kirby, let's bring you in, Kirby Wilbur. KIRBY WILBUR, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes, Joe? SCARBOROUGH: Now, Kirby, you actually got this information out to the rest of us. It is so disturbing to me. This isn't- we're not talking about a couple of students waving signs. We're talking about 46 student senators voting down a memorial because, like Mr. Baptiste, they think that Boyington was not to be looked up to because he participated in a war. WILBUR: Well, Joe, I think this is... SCARBOROUGH: What kind of reaction have you had? WILBUR: Well, we've been over- I've been flooded with e-mails from alumni of the University of Washington, from Marines, other people who served in uniform, from widows and mothers of the people serving now, who are shocked at the historical ignorance and the leftist pabulum that passes for serious thinking on college campuses. But I've got to tell you, Joe. I'm actually optimistic, because I think 20 years ago the vote could have been 80 percent no. At least it was 50 percent yes and the tie had to be broken. That actually gives me room for optimism. But you look at the people who said, "You can't honor them because he's a rich, white male,�" when in fact Pappy was a quarter Sioux Indian, and that we shouldn't emulate Marines. I'll tell you, sometimes Marines are the only thing between some of those students and wearing burqas. And they should understand that. SCARBOROUGH: No doubt about it. And, Kirby, what do you think we do to help turn the tide in this? WILBUR: Well, Joe, the University of Washington foundation has set up a scholarship fund in the name of Pappy Boyington to give scholarships to either Marines returning to school or sons and daughters of Marines. That's at UWFoundation.org. And also, you can contact the Associated Students of the University of Washington at their Web site and urge them to approve the memorial. Right now, the proposal will be a memorial to all five Huskies who have won the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War II, and that's going to be the proposal, as I understand it. These men deserve to be emulated and remembered. They're heroes. SCARBOROUGH: Kirby, I have this information. They saved our world. They saved our world from totalitarianism. WILBUR: Yes, they did. SCARBOROUGH: I have this line here. I cannot believe. Do you have information regarding a monument on the University of Washington campus to communist soldiers? WILBUR: To the Lincoln Brigade... BAPTISTE: Abraham Lincoln Brigade. WILBUR: ... Spanish Civil War, a group of University of Washington students who volunteered to go to Spain to fight with the communists and socialists against Franco, and the Nazis, and the Italians. And there is such a memorial on campus, yes, sir. And I'm an alumni of this school, by the way. BAPTISTE: Why wasn't the United States supporting the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, you know, earlier in the war, when you could have stopped Hitler early enough so he wouldn't have perpetuated the Holocaust? WILBUR: The Abraham Lincoln Brigade could not have stopped Hitler any more than you could have. BAPTISTE: No, it could have, if it had the backing of the U.S. government. (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: All right. We'll let you all carry on in the hall. BAPTISTE: But the government decided not to battle against Franco or Nazis... (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH: I want to show you- let's show that monument one more time. Put this monument up. This is on the University of Washington campus. So if you're scoring at home, the University of Washington campus allows a monument to communist soldiers but they're offended for Marines that fought in World War II and helped defeat the Axis powers. I'll tell you what, I'm enraged because I'm an American citizen that pays taxes that in any way supports the University of Washington. But I'll tell you what. If I were a Washington alumni member or if I were a taxpayer in that state, I'd be absolutely outraged. And I'd be on my phone tomorrow morning to Washington legislators. This is a disgrace. And for those students that said Marines were not the type of people to look up to, you are so ignorant. You have no idea why you have the freedoms that you have. We appreciate our guests being with us. We'll be back with more SCARBOROUGH COUNTRY in a minute.

I have refrained till now on posting about the Bush plan to support the UAE purchase of a seaport company, effectively giving it control of 6 Eastern US seaports. As I commented at Sister Toldjah:

I think that is a fair assessment of the issue considering the overall lack of information. With the Bush Admin now swinging hard about this, and threatening a veto (also courtesy of Sister Toldjah) I am still skeptical about its merits due to the overall bipartisan opposition to it, and a bit puzzled by Bush's adamant support of it. As I also commented:

There has been plenty said already about the Pappy Boyington memorial, but a couple more items popped up that are worthy of note. The first two are courtesy of andrews-dad: First was a resolution introduced in the Senate to support Military recruitment: http://andrews-dad.blogspot.com/2006/02/uw-student-senate-supports-right-of.html

The cynic would argue this is guilt, the skeptic would say it is just appeasement. Maybe it is someone trying to do the right thing, but both agree that the resolution is unlikely to go anywhere. The second is a resolution to force Senator Jill Andrews to apologize for her disparagement of the military in general, and specifically the USMC. http://andrews-dad.blogspot.com/2006/02/jill-edwards-apologizes-from-uw.html