LETTER FROM A POW
Following is the transcript of a letter that the father of our company president wrote to his mother, after she had been informed that he was "missing in action." The letter is dated "November 22, 1944."
I don't know how much of the letter was coerced, but it sure is a lot different than the kind of thing you hear from a lot of teenagers, today. Check out this story.
Following is the transcript of a letter that the father of our company president wrote to his mother, after she had been informed that he was "missing in action." The letter is dated "November 22, 1944."
Dear Mom,
This is the first chance I have had to write since being a POW. I suppose you were quite worried when you received word from the govt. that I was missing in action, well now your worries are over for the duration. I am find and in good health. The Germans treateded us fine. I guess the good lord has been with me all right and taken care of me or else I have the luck of a cat. The red cross really does a grand job for the POW. They supply us with new clothes and all the toilet articles you can use and best of all are the food parcels. They really hit the spot. About sending me parcels I believe you can send me all yo uwant (5 lb), but you better contact the red cross and fined [sic] out for sure. Things I want are: fruit cakes, candy, gum, pancake mix, pudding mix, ect. [sic] and plenty of ciggeretts [sic] they are use for money over here. Be writting [sic] next week. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Love to all,
Phil
I don't know how much of the letter was coerced, but it sure is a lot different than the kind of thing you hear from a lot of teenagers, today. Check out this story.
posted by Madeline | 4:58 PM
11 Comments:
Why would he want tp gp tp the rpom, I am sure that no decent person would ask him to dance.
I don't get that last comment...
Anyway, good post Maddie.
GO Navy
Madeline - let me field this one pleeeeaaaaasssseeeee.
Kugruaby: The most important issue for Kevin Logan is whether or not he can wear a dress to the prom. Phil, on the other hand, is risking his life for God and country. Ironically, had Kevin been trying to pull his antics (which is exactly what they are - a teenage version of a tantrum)in Nazi Germany he would have ended up in a concentration camp if he's lucky, a gas oven if he's not. Phil, on the other hand, is fighting with his life to give people like Kevin the right to express their opinions, however idiotic they are.
And your statement - "if Phil was gay, transgender student" - com'n - have some respect for a US soldier.
Kugruabay;
No, I don't suppose you would understand the comparison. But, I'll try to make it clearer. My contrast is between the attitude reflected in a letter from a young man who is captured and held in a POW camp (no picnic), wherein he doesn't whine or pout about his misfortunes; and an obviosly disturbed young man, who does whine about how much money he spent, and not being allowed to go to the prom (something slightly less inconvenient than being held as a POW). I admire the first young man, and pity the second.
OH boy! I totally missed the link.
Kugruabay said: "But back to the point that I believe is relevant here, it’s all relative."
I think the problem with our culture today is we try to make everything 'relative'. No more right and wrong, just relative.
Then we try to explain peculiar behavior such as young men wearing dresses to a high school proms in relative terms.
Allow me to put some right wing conservative values into the picture...
The POW was in his position because of selfless valor, plain and simple.
The young man in a dress was in his situation because of an overwhelming desire for self gratification.
The first is right, the second is wrong. Why?
Because the freedom we enjoy has specific boundaries for our good, just as a fence around a backyard swimming pool provides a young child boundaries for his good.
The Godly morals and principles this country was founded on provide the necessary boundaries to protect us and our freedom. But when we live outside of those boundaries, not only can we hurt ourselves, but as adults, our actions frequently affect the freedom of others around us.
There is an absolute right, and an absolute wrong. And it’s not relative.
In Maddie’s post, the selfless valor of the P.O.W. is an example of absolute right, while the selfish, self centered behavior of the young man in a dress is an example of absolute wrong.
Go Navy
Well said, Gawfer. Let me second - Go Navy!!
Kugruaby:
I have a few questions - first, why do you sign your comments "your amigo"? Friendship to me as an absolute definition and I do not count all those that interact with as my friends.
Secondly (which is more of a statement), I disagree with your supposition that there exists "pure good and pure evil and we operate somewhere in between these two." Wouldn't it be more correct to say that there is pure good and then the corruption of that good?
Thirdly, you should note that the preamble to the constitution reads "All men are created equal, endowed by their creator..." etc. etc. etc. While it took some time for lawmakers to best define the words "men", eventually to broaden the definition to non-white men and women, isn't it true that those words are still relevant, and that the government's job is to better define, understand and implement the truths encompassed therein?
My point being that this country was not based on relativism, but on absolutes that we are striving to protect as society and our laws mature. I would assert that we have not finished properly defining "all men" in regards to the constitution since the unborn does not fall under its protection.
Which brings me to my next point - our goal is to mature in these understandings, and not throw in the towel by saying "we can't understand them, things are constantly changing - everything is relative". Once you place the "relative" stamp on everything progress, discussion and understanding cease. In this case, not only are all things not equal, but they are not even comparable. Hence, a POW's situation becomes equal to a boy not knowing what to wear to the prom. Do you see the incommensurability here?
In this context also, it is not surprising that you ask "who defines what is good". Well, if we don't agree that a good exists, how could we possible have this discussion?
Whew!
You guys took this to another level.
I was merely saying I believe in God, and the principles He laid out for me to live by. He set those boundaries for my well being. I am not equal to God, yet I strive to be more like Him every day.
I see God as absolute good. He is the measuring stick by which I judge what is right and what is wrong. His Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Kugruabay said...
"But back to where this all started; by denying Kevin the right to wear a dress to the prom you undermine Phil’s sacrifice".
I agree that we as individuals have a God given right to choose to live within the boundaries He gave us, or move to a different neighborhood and be on our own.
Phil fought for that right (so did I, BTW), and I agree that to suppress Kevin's choices is as morally wrong as Kevin's choices themselves.
But being able to choose doesn't mean we will always choose correctly (I.E. the right thing). And when we choose poorly, it not only affects us as individuals, but us collectively.
To label everything as relative means we ultimately have nothing to discuss because there is no yard stick to measure with.
oh yeah,
Go Navy :)
Thanks, Gawfer and Jess for carrying on. There is really nothing more for me to say, to Kugruabay except this:
I don't deny (and I don't think anyone else denied) Kevin's right to wear a dress, do his hair, and/or paint his nails.
However, please note, that this is not Kevin's complaint. no one did preventing Kevin from doing these things. What Kevin is lamenting is that he was denied a forum for exhibition. This is just another example of the liberal twist on the "right to free speech." It does not necessarily translate into a "right to be heard." Sorry.
Kugruaby:
Let me just start by saying that I appreciate this discussion. Yet, I think that either I haven't been clear, or your just not understanding what I'm trying to point out.
1. My point in bringing up you signing off with "your amigo" is that friendship is something sort of sacred. Having studied literature I guess I put a greater emphasis on what words actually mean - and preserving the true meanings of those words. If we start using looser and looser definitions, things like friendship start to mean less and less. Those that I call my friends are people that are integral to my life, make sacrifices for me - and I for them, want the best for me - and I for them, pray for me, etc. etc. etc. I guess you would say that 'friendship' can be relative, but that is exactly where I disagree with you. Sure, some things have greater values to some than they do to others... but if we as a society, or a community, or a culture don't start agreeing on these definitions, then everything will lose its meaning. In that case, discussions cease because people are using the same words but mean different things by them. There's always those corny scenes in sitcoms where a boy tells a girl he loves her, and the girl responds, oh - I love you too... when she's talking about friendship and he's talking about marriage.
Back to my point on the constitution: I don't mean to be saying that since the definition of "man" in the preamble changes with the age, but hopefully it is maturing so that we can achieve the highest and best definition. I think that we would agree that the founder's use of "man" should include men and women regardless of age or color. At those times in history when it didn't, those times were tragic and sad.
No one disagrees with Kevin's ability to wear a dress, but I hope that our freedoms, won by the blood of brave men, would inspire not to just do what we can do - but to do the best that we can do. I'm sure that Kevin is in many ways a leader that others look up to. Perhaps he could better use his leadership skills to help less fortunate young men to fill their potential in their personal and professional relationships.
You see, American freedom, to me, isn't about doing whatever you want - but wanting to be and do the best things. That's what makes America great. We don't settle for what can be done, but in many ways for what no one else has the courage to do.
And, that goes to my point about the two spectrums of goodness and the corruption of that goodness. Sure, you can call corruption evil, but the point is that you're destroying, not-using or misusing potential for good.
Post a Comment
<< Home