Sgt. Dennis Weichel, 29, gave the world a measure of the bravery and humanity of our soldiers serving abroad this week. Weichel, a father of three from Rhode Island, gave his life to save an Afghan girl from being run over by a 16-ton armored fighting vehicle this week. While Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called all Americans “Demons” , Weichel did not hesitate to give his life for a little girl in danger.
Weichel, a Rhode Island National Guardsman, was riding in the convoy in Laghman Province in eastern Afghanistan when he and his comrades saw Afghan children collecting shell casings on the road. The soldiers got out of the convoy to shoo the children away for their safety. Then, one girl suddenly ran back to grab a casing that the children collect for money. Weichel looked up and saw a MRAP, or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, heading toward the girl. He ran in front of the armored vehicle, grabbed the girl, threw her to safety, and was then run over himself.
A member of the Rhode Island National Guard since 2001, Weichel had only arrived in Afghanistan a few weeks ago. He previously served in Iraq.
I can only imagine the pain and sorrow of this family. However, if it is some small comfort, the entire nation is mourning the loss of this wonderful human being.
Source: ABC
Bron,
Spin it all you like. An appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy and in no way excuses your earlier clearly selfish statement. It’s your own Objectivist bullshit you stepped in. If you don’t like the smell, I suggest you reconsider your chosen operational principles. As to your implication that I don’t understand because I’m not a biological father? That you’d say anything at this point to salvage yourself from your self-inflicted wound does not surprise me at all. The bottom line is you minimized the actions of Sgt. Weichel while I did nothing of the sort. If you understood and practiced compassion, you’d have never thought to minimize the man’s sacrifice, the value of the life he saved, or the example he set for his family and others of good conscious simply because a selfless act is contrary to your Objectivist tenets. You can try to redeem yourself by whatever spin you’d like to try to apply, but some horse can’t be put back in the barn.
********
W=^..^
Agreed but be sure to differentiate between objectivism (small “o”, an empirical evidentiary practice to prefer quantifiable evidence) and Objectivism (big “O”, the ethically and psychologically bankrupt pseudo-philosophy of Ayn Rand that actively demonizes compassion). One is a useful tool, the other is rationalization for being a selfish prick or a sociopath.
idealist, Everything is fine.
Blouise,
My Tucson contact said it was great, especially the Palin portrait. (That is the same movie?)
But your angle of the commonality of politician characteristics is indeed intriguing.
It is perhaps much more than a pastiche capitalizing on their names and the impending campaign finale.
Thanks.
Swarthmore Mom,
Welcome. How are you?
Since you were the first to defend me from AY’s bullying, I love you for that.
.
But since you said I’d gone over the line with my alleged anti-semitism re economic dominance (disregarding all else I written previously on judaism, etc.), I am still awaiting a response to my rebuttal/reply defending myself.
Perhaps you and commoner left the field, but repeated challenges to him on other threads have gone unresponded to. Although he has not abandoned the blawg.
You answer only for you. And you I respect, that’s why I ask so bluntly, wishing a rapprochement or closure with peace between us.
How say you?
Who is Blouise17 and who is Blouise?
Because it was to me a new moniker name Blouise17 said I was an egomaniac. If it is AY behind another sockpuppet is OK with me.
Egomania is my middle name. Self-centered is what my therapist says it is.
A related condition?
At any rate, self-centeredness leads in my case to judging other peoples actions always as a result of my actions. And assuming their thoughts in an interaction are centered on you.
When in reality they are quite likely to be acting out of other reasons not at all related to you in any manner or form.
Therapy confession for the day.
Blousie, thanks for the suggestion; I’ll put “Game Change” on the list.
So much praise and advice. A shame I had to get on my knees for it.
But I am like a child and crave instant gratification.
Someday I will grow up, but then all men are not aware of their needs to do so. And I said that.
Gene H.
Beautiful stuff about objective and subjective.
But about writing. Some write with words, as I do, using the assocations, allusions, prosody, etc. Some perhaps with ideas, concepts, non-word-realized thoughts.
Shakespeare, I feel, loved his phrases so well, he often would repeat them at least in 4 different ways.
How well you evaded the core issue of lack of talent or brains as some call it.
I enjoy my writing, but then I see MM’s and Gene’s and OS, and Woosty etc and am enthralled. Glad am not Swedish. I would eat my heart out instead as they do. I share others success, for I am human as they. We all seek inspiration perhaps. Ssshhhh. Be quiet, my parrot.
The sargent performed an extremely selfless act irregardless of what one thinks of the war.
Gene H.1, March 31, 2012 at 1:28 pm
—–
yes
and, I think, the greatest danger of objectivism, the ‘denial’ of compassion.
Blouise, It is being said that Romney doesn’t want a game changer. The movie was quite good and much better than I expected. I tend to think Mcain was more detached from the process than the usual.
idealist7071, March 31, 2012 at 1:18 pm
——————————————————-
of course you were noticed, and impact obviously made. It is always hardest to be the ‘trailcutter’…. hopefully we have become more civilized and intelligent than when to kill the messenger was the only example that got result!
Gene H:
You really dont understand much do you.
I am a father, I understand exactly what that man did and what it meant to him, I also understand why he did it; as a father you would try and move heaven and earth to protect the life of a child. I also know what it means to his children because I lost my father when I was 7 years old, in 1965.
So please spare me your typical bullshit. You dont have a clue as is typical with you.
id707,
I know of no cure for that of which you speak. Writing with concision is a skill that can be learned, writing with speed is a skill that can be improved with practice but has a innate upper limit constrained by the way the writer thinks, but writing with speed and concision is something that seems to be an innate ability among the writers that I know. Consider the following parallels in music and literature: some composers and writers endlessly edit to get their final product – like Chopin or Safire – and some do all of that revision in their head before putting pen to paper and compose either final drafts or close to final drafts every time – like Mozart or Asimov.
Practice? That is my best and only suggestion.
DonS,
Have you seen “Game Change” on HBO? Talk about scary.
Substitute almost any politician you can think of for John McCain in that movie and he/she would fit.
W=^..^
Then I submit that subjective desires manifest in an objective-compatible observation. Just as there is the possibility of multiple true logical paths to an answer, there can be multiple true forms of observation underlying a true logic. A subjectively true observation can be an objectively true observation and vice versa.
id707,
Okay, okay … you’re good too.
Now stop being an ego maniac.
Men!
Gene H,
I can never expect to match you, but can inquire if there is a cure to be had.
My writing more than 3 sentences takes an eternity. In the meanwhile others have addressed the point which motivates my comment.
It feels so dumb to be saying ME TOO with 18 sentences much later..
Removing the non-essentials can ónly be done after they are written.
No time saved.
Should I move to the future to see where you all will be going, so as to be prepared with my comment in time or what other advice do you have?
(I really left myself open for anything at this point!)
Bron,
If you don’t like being called on being selfish, change your ways. Otherwise, suck it up. You made your choices in operational principles. You pay the costs. If people criticize your actions, maybe you should consider that the problem isn’t with them, but within your actions.
Used to have a boss that said many times there maybe 15 ways to do something’s, 12 of them right and three of them wrong, but you’re so stupid that you’d do the wrong things for the right reasons, but when I’m signing the damn check you’ll do it my way.
RIP Sgt Weichel, you are a good man, regardless of the Rubicons that attack you.
I disagree . . . and so do you whether you realize it or not. You agree because your statement “[t]his man was amazing to do what he did” reveals that you objectively recognize the value of his actions separately from the situation in which it occurred.
———————————————-
Not objective at all. This man reminds me of people I would jst as soon have back.
nuff said