On Saturday, October 22nd, Modesto, California resident Diane Chandler discovered the Marine flag hung outside the Chandler home, to honor her son in Iraq, had disappeared. She was very angry. Who would steal a USMC flag from the very front of an American’s home? How low can you sink? From the Modesto Bee:

Tuesday, she found the Marine Corps flag she had hung to honor her son Jeff, who is serving near Baghdad, Iraq. The banner had been missing since Saturday morning.

But Chandler no longer wants the flag back. She wants it to stay right where it is: Decorating the grave of Marine Cpl. Michael D. Anderson Jr., who was killed in action in Iraq last year.

Michael D. Anderson Sr. and his wife, Angela, discovered the flag on Michael Jr.’s grave Sunday at Lakewood Memorial Park in Hughson.

“We put fresh flowers on Michael’s grave every week,” Anderson said. “We just thought it was a nice touch.”

The 11-inch-by-14-inch flag rests in front of the Anderson headstone. Two potted flowers, a surfer Bratz doll and replica dog tags rest on top of the marker.

Chandler, the Andersons and a Marine comrade of Mike Jr.’s, Terry Van Doorn, gathered at the grave Tuesday afternoon and marveled about the coincidences that brought them together.

Angela Anderson had taken The Bee to work Tuesday and saved it to read on her morning break. A story about a Marine mother caught her attention. “I called my husband and told him I thought the flag on Michael’s grave was the one in the story that (Diane) was looking for.”

Anderson agreed but could not find Chandler’s name in the phone book. So his wife hopped in her car and drove down Bowen Avenue looking for the makeshift sign that was shown in the newspaper. It closed with a “Shame on You!” exclamation.

She found the home and knocked on the door. She explained why she was there, and Chandler invited her in.

Angela Anderson’s description was a match for Chandler’s missing flag.

Tuesday, at young Anderson’s grave, Chandler said she’ll never move the flag. “It’s right where it belongs, honoring a Marine.”

Michael Anderson Sr. isn’t sure who brought the flag to stand beside his son’s grave. He does know how he’d feel if someone had stolen any of his Marine keepsakes: “It would be just awful. I’d be out there with my rifles trying to hunt the dogs down.”

The Andersons had every intention of returning the flag, but Chandler won’t consider it. Angela Anderson, looking at the grave, said, “Good can come from something bad.”

The Andersons are unofficially adopting Jeff Chandler and are preparing to mail him care packages in Iraq.

“I know what the boys over there need and want,” Michael Anderson said.

The worst Chandler will say now about the culprit who copped her Marine banner is that it was “a misguided patriot. If they would have asked, I would have given it to them.”

In Chandler’s long view, she didn’t lose a flag. She gained some lifetime friends.

There are right things are there are wrong things. There are times to consider the greater good. Diane Chandler did the right thing. And as a result ended up honoring a fallen Marine, honoring her son and the family name, and embracing another Marine family for life.

With all else occurring in the world, it is good to read about heartening things. God Bless America.

I recently made a comment over on Revka’s Take (go take a peek right now!) and happened to mention the internet and its possible subsequent control by the United Nations — which made me want to discuss the issue here and now.

You realize, of course, there is a push to wrest “control” of the internet from the United States and turn same over to the United Nations, don’t you? Once again, it is a matter of the evil, acerbic, judgmental, uncultured US holding domain over a technology that clearly should fall under the loving, understanding and compassionate umbrella of the wise, efficient and uncorruptible United Nations. This is a long quote, from Britain’s The Guardian, but worth reading:

Breaking America’s grip on the net; after troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments (Thursday October 6, 2005).

The issue of who should control the net had proved an extremely divisive issue, and for 11 days the world’s governments traded blows. For the vast majority of people who use the internet, the only real concern is getting on it. But with the internet now essential to countries’ basic infrastructure – Brazil relies on it for 90% of its tax collection – the question of who has control has become critical.

And the unwelcome answer for many is that it is the US government. In the early days, an enlightened Department of Commerce (DoC) pushed and funded expansion of the internet. And when it became global, it created a private company, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to run it.

But the DoC retained overall control, and in June stated what many had always feared: that it would retain indefinite control of the internet’s foundation – its “root servers”, which act as the basic directory for the whole internet.

A number of countries represented in Geneva, including Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and several African states, insisted the US give up control, but it refused. The meeting “was going nowhere”, Hendon says, and so the EU took a bold step and proposed two stark changes: a new forum that would decide public policy, and a “cooperation model” comprising governments that would be in overall charge.

Much to the distress of the US, the idea proved popular. Its representative hit back, stating that it “can’t in any way allow any changes” that went against the “historic role” of the US in controlling the top level of the internet.

But the refusal to budge only strengthened opposition, and now the world’s governments are expected to agree a deal to award themselves ultimate control. It will be officially raised at a UN summit of world leaders next month and, faced with international consensus, there is little the US government can do but acquiesce.

I would submit that this should never be done. Never. Ever. It’s the oldest story in politics and bureucracies: take from the producers (the US essentially invented the internet by way of our military ARPANET) and distribute to the non-producers (what has the world done besides prosper and change as the result of this incredible invention and philosophy of the total freedom of information?).

As an aside here: one LARGE reason I like the internet? It is an incredible playing-field “leveler.” That is to say, my website can be every bit as attractive (if I had the technological capability) as that of, say, the mega-corporate GM website. It’s all ones and zeroes.

The Christian Science Monitor nails it on the head when it writes:

The free flow of ideas and commerce, so key to the Internet’s exponential growth, would not be well served if hobbled by bureaucracy or chilled by governments interested in suppressing dissident voices.

It continues:

If international demands for less US control boil over, other countries could employ a “nuclear option” – setting up a rival to ICANN and potentially creating chaos on the Internet with two divergent standards.

That need not happen. International governance of the Internet does have an inescapable logic. Better that the US engage vigorously now in shaping that institution, even as it realizes that handing off control to it is nowhere in the immediate future.

Why does the world see this as simply another example of arrogant US unilateralism? Hiawatha Bray at The Boston Globe responds:

To understand why, you need only consider that the international talks over the future of the root server network, to be held next month in Tunisia, are sponsored by the United Nations. That’s right — there’s a plan afoot to put critical Internet infrastructure under the control of the UN — the same outfit that has given us the Iraq oil-for-food scandal and a child prostitution ring in Congo. It’s hard to see why an agency so steeped in corruption should be given oversight of the computers that serve as the Internet’s chief traffic cops.

My point, as a conservative, primarily revolves around money and, more importantly: taxes. What will a controlling UN authority do with the massive tax potential of something as far-reaching as the internet? The Globe continues:

Then there’s the prospect of an international Internet tax, with money going to fund technology development in developing countries. The UN has been pushing this idea since 1999. A UN-controlled ICANN might dramatically jack up the cost of Internet addresses in affluent countries like the United States to raise money for its development fund. And Americans would have little say over how this money is spent.

Okay, so we don’t hand control of the internet to the UN? What’s the downside? Some Bush administration critics say that a refusal to turn over control will cause other countries to set up their own separate versions of the internet, in essence making two separate nets. So what? Who really cares? “If it doesn’t connect to the ”real” Internet, it’s useless. If it does connect to the ”real” Internet, who cares?”

At least the Bush Administration is making an overt attempt to keep control in the US, as it is backing Senator Norm Coleman’s (R, Minnesota) resolution to support ICANN. Coleman said “The Internet is likely to face a grave threat” at the Tunisian World Summit. “If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on.” Luckily, support appears to be bipartisan as similar support has already come from both senior Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Human rights issues. Taxation issues. Oversight and final control issues. I tend to be proprietary; but let’s put the shoe on the other foot. What if the internet were “invented” and first placed into usage by scientists and the military minds of France. And let’s say the US and Canada decided we wanted to wrest control and place it under our collective monitoring and final authority.

What would the rest of the world say about that decision?

Bottom line? No matter what the US does, it will likely be despised on any number of levels for any number of real (and primarily imagined) slights. We should, therefore, keep doing what we’re doing — to the continued benefit of all persons hooked online, no matter the country, ethnicity or religion.

BAGHDAD, Oct. 25 — Iraqi election officials announced Tuesday that voters approved a new constitution in a nationwide referendum 10 days ago, based on a final tally of votes that had been delayed for more than a week while officials recounted ballots and checked for possible irregularities.

Did you know this? To continue:

According to the vote tallies released by officials here, more than 78 percent of the voters nationwide approved the constitution. Opponents — mostly minority Sunni Arabs — were unable to defeat it by getting at least two-thirds of the voters in three provinces to vote against it, according to final preliminary results released by the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq. The results confirmed widely reported preliminary estimates shortly after the balloting.

A majority of voters in three of Iraq’s 18 provinces voted against the constitution, but one of them failed to reach the two-thirds threshold — a veto provision designed to protect Iraq’s minority communities. In Anbar province, 96 percent of those casting ballots voted against the referendum, and 81 percent rejected it in Salahaddin. But in the key swing province of Nineveh, 56 percent voted against the constitution — about 10 percentage points short of what was necessary to kill the charter.

About 63 percent of Iraq’s 15.5 million registered voters cast ballots, the commission reported.

Hello: the Iraqis just today affirmed that their constitution was approved. Here’s an amazing thought: what if America helped provide an entirely new constitution to another country, and nobody heard about it or read about it?

That’s precisely what’s occurring now. Have you heard or seen this trumpeted on CNN, MSNBC, the primary three letter outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC), the front page of your local newspaper in block letters — and not buried on page A-4?

For example, lead news story on yahoo.com at 1325 PST: “US military deaths reach 2000 in Iraq.” Same time, Drudge Report, top item: “2000.” Top news story in my Sacramento paper, The Bee (at sacbee.com): “US military deaths reach 2,000 in Iraq.” Even on WorldNetDaily.com, the constitution is 4th item down.

Quick reality check for me: isn’t this why we’re in Iraq? Don’t I hear the constant bombardment by left leaning individuals: “Where’s the progress? What are we doing? Why are we there?” I could have sworn it was to help a country set its own course, determine its own direction.

So, I ask: isn’t that a world-shaking, landmark event?

If you’re the MSM, apparently not.

There have been two steadfast supporters and commenters, to date, on my site: they would be the Big White Hat and Mahndisa Rigmaiden — for whatever bizarre, obfuscated and disconnected reasons they have to offer.

I suspect that perhaps they were primarily bored.

I have already extolled the virtues of the fabulous Big White Hat. It is at this point that I feel compelled to promote Mahndisa’s Thoughts.

Mahndisa delves into issues I couldn’t even begin to attack with the greater bulk of my cerebral cortex without a roadmap, a one-pound chunk of C4 and ten years of education — and some Stoly vodka.

One day I shall consult her on the placement of the Black American Family and its place in US history because she has a fabulous analysis on some earlier postings.

I preface this by being honest and saying: I have no children. This fact in and of itself has been a major, a huge issue between myself and the women in my life.

I would not want to bring a child up into our current American environment; all the women I’ve encountered have said “you would be a great father.” I have never seen it that way.

I’ve never seen myself as anyone’s father.

To cut through the crap, I freely admit: I’ve never wanted that massive responsibility.

I said to my first wife: “you’re born alone and you die alone.” She remembered that; it was the disembarkation point in our relationship.

She now has a satisfying relationship with a full family. I have moved for myself when push came to shove, for any number of reasons. I have only recently remarried in my 50s; it is only now that I have come to appreciate the meaning of a true union.

So the protection of children does not come naturally to me as, say, it would to a more normal male member of the human race. Despite that, the following makes me sick:

Top officials at the Department of Homeland Security recently revealed that arrests for child sex crimes during the first two years of Operation Predator have exceeded 6,000 and 85 percent of them are criminal immigrants.

How incredible is this? Are these persons who dwell within the continental United States, or are these predators who surf the internet from various external countries?

The majority of the arrests under Operation Predator – roughly 85% – have involved foreign nationals in this country whose child sex crimes make them removable from the United States. By matching immigration databases with state Megan’s law directories, ICE agents have arrested more than 1,800 registered sex offenders.

So I ask to you who read me now and think that allowing your children online is relatively harmless: how do you KNOW what your child is seeing and/or downloading or uploading?

The TRUTHFUL answer would be: you don’t know. You can’t possibly be with them minute to minute.

But, hey, if you set limits or parameters or took them off the internet entirely that would be an exercising of judgmentalism and that, in and of itself, would be wrong.

Wouldn’t it?

Because you could no longer be your kid’s best friend.

Because that’s what YOU wanted in childhood, wasn’t it?

Doesn’t that bespeak volumes?