Ceremony honors fallen military veterans
ELKHART — A Memorial Day ceremony at Rice Cemetery on Monday honored the lives of military members who made the ultimate sacrifice.
'The freedoms that we currently enjoy sometimes are forgotten,' Mayor Rod Roberson said. 'Sometimes they are treated as insignificant, but it isn't.'
Roberson noted the importance of the holiday to honor the service members who have come before. The difference between Veterans Day and Memorial Day is that Veteran's Day celebrates all veterans, Roberson said.
City Councilman Aaron Mishler said the day is significant for him and many Americans. His father, who died in 2016, was a Vietnam War veteran and part of him never left the war, Mishler said. Mishler's middle name comes from his father's best friend who died in Vietnam.
'The sacrifices of our veterans is something that carries on with me for my entire life,' Mishler said. 'Memorial Day is a special and sacred holiday.'
Mishler previously served as a medic in the Indiana Army National Guard and a nurse in the Army reserves.
City Councilman Dwight Fish said he has seen the Memorial Day ceremony now from different perspectives as a council member and as the husband of a 28-year Army veteran.
'She has seen a lot in her career,' Fish said of his wife. 'But a lot of our friends are not around anymore. Our parents, some of her fellow soldiers, are down range, and they are no longer with us because of war and the elements around war, and now we have to honor their memory and the service that they gave us.'
The mayor also noted the absence of former Mayor Dick Moore, who served in the Navy. Moore died just a few weeks ago.
A parade was scheduled to followed the ceremony. The Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 88 also planned a late morning ceremony at Prairie Street Cemetery followed by a luncheon at the post.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
US Simulates Missile Strikes on Warships at China Choke Point
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The United States has conducted a simulated military operation using anti-ship weapons during a war game in the Philippines, as China expands its naval presence in nearby contested waters. Newsweek has reached out to the Chinese Defense Ministry via email for comment. Why It Matters The Philippines—Washington's mutual defense treaty ally—is part of the First Island Chain, along with Japan and Taiwan, under the U.S. containment strategy, which seeks to restrict China's naval access to the wider Pacific Ocean by leveraging America-aligned territories. According to a Pentagon assessment, the Chinese military has the largest navy in the world by hull count, with more than 370 ships and submarines in service. The Chinese navy has been operating around the Philippines, including deploying an aircraft carrier in late May. During the ongoing Exercise KAMANDAG 9, the U.S. military deployed the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) to the Philippines' Batanes Islands in the Luzon Strait—a key gateway for China to access the waters east of the First Island Chain. What To Know The U.S. Marine Corps said that it had strategically positioned the NMESIS—a ground-based launcher armed with two Naval Strike Missiles with a 115-mile range—on Sunday on one of the Batanes Islands for simulated maritime interdiction during KAMANDAG 9. Maritime interdiction is defined by NATO as a naval operation intended to "delay, disrupt, or destroy" enemy forces or supplies en route to the battle area. The simulated operation was part of a rehearsal to secure and defend key maritime terrain, the U.S. Marine Corps stated. Following insertion by a transport aircraft onto the island, the anti-ship weapon was remotely operated from the airfield into a concealed position to interdict maritime targets, the U.S. Marine Corps added, supporting the maintenance of open sea lines of communication. Meanwhile, a "kill web" was formed to conduct maritime strikes, employing intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets to "find, fix, and track" targets. According to the U.S. Marine Corps, no live-fire was conducted during each fire support rehearsal. The United States Marine Corps stages the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System to the Philippines' Batanes Islands as a part of Exercise KAMANDAG 9 on May 25, 2025. The United States Marine Corps stages the Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System to the Philippines' Batanes Islands as a part of Exercise KAMANDAG 9 on May 25, 2025. Cpl. Malia Sparks/U.S. Marine Corps This simulated Maritime Key Terrain Security Operation (MKTSO) was carried out by the Third Marine Littoral Regiment, a Hawaii-based U.S. Marine Corps unit that specializes in amphibious and littoral, or shoreline, warfare operations and deploys across the Indo-Pacific region. In late April, the U.S. conducted another MKTSO using the NMESIS on Batan Island, simulating anti-ship strikes. The event coincided with the transit of a Chinese aircraft carrier through the Luzon Strait, moving between the Philippine Sea and the South China Sea. What People Are Saying The U.S. Third Marine Division said: "The synchronization of U.S.-Philippine forces during the KAMANDAG 9 MKTSO showcased the increased ability of the partnered militaries to coordinate complex, all-domain operations and further demonstrated the ironclad U.S.-Philippine alliance." Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Schrafft, U.S. Third Marine Littoral Regiment's fire support coordinator, said: "The constructive kills executed during the KAMANDAG 9 MKTSO are yet another example of the [Third Marine Littoral Regiment]'s proven value proposition to the Combined and Joint Force." What Happens Next The U.S. is likely to continue its military exercises with the Philippines featuring anti-ship weapons to counter China's naval threat. It remains unclear whether the NMESIS will stay in the Southeast Asian nation after Exercise KAMANDAG 9 concludes on Friday.
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's book bans hurt the chances for reparations
'We are in a moment of anti-Blackness on steroids, and we refuse to be silent,' Pressley said earlier this month during a press conference at the US Capitol. 'We will not back down in our pursuit of racial justice,' she added. 'The antidote to anti-Blackness is to be pro-Black, and we will do it unapologetically. The United States government owes us a debt, and we need reparations now.' A large majority of Black Americans agree with Pressley. Nearly 3 in 4 Black adults support reparations, according to a 2024 Advertisement But the percentage of Americans of other races and ethnicities who back the idea is low. Less than half of Hispanic (47 percent) and Asian American (45 percent) respondents are in favor of reparations. And only about a third (34 percent) of white adults surveyed back the idea. Only 36 percent of Americans overall back the idea, according to The reasons for this vary. Some of it may be rooted in prejudice and bias. After all, Japanese Americans received Advertisement But some of the opposition to reparations is rooted in ignorance. As communities prepare to commemorate the ending of slavery later this month on Juneteenth, the majority of Americans finish high school knowing very little about just how atrocious slavery was. Only 8 percent of high school seniors were able to identify slavery as the central cause of the Civil War, according to a 2018 Southern Poverty Law Center And in 2017, There are long-term consequences for this knowledge gap. Just 1 in 4 adults (24 percent) strongly agree that the legacies of slavery affect the position of Black people in American society today, according to the Princeton survey. And America's ignorance about slavery is likely to become more widespread given that support for book bans has reached the federal level. In an executive order aimed at preventing students from reading books that introduce ideas about privilege and oppression and their relationship to race, President Trump accused schools that teach students books like Advertisement 'Such an environment operates as an echo chamber, in which students are forced to accept these ideologies without question or critical examination,' he It's understandable why Trump, who made white grievance a foundational part of his presidential campaign, believes his effort to silence authors is popular. His return to the White House is largely viewed as confirmation of many Americans' rightward shift — even on matters of race — since the summer of 2020, when people filled the streets across the country to protest anti-Black racism after the police killing of George Floyd. Most Americans But Trump is misguided. Americans may not be in favor of what they consider preferential treatment based on race. But they are not fans of banning books — including those that aim to make a case for the need for that preferential treatment. Two-thirds of Americans oppose efforts to restrict books in public schools, according to a 2024 Knight Foundation While former vice president Kamala Harris was unsuccessful in her attempt to keep Trump from returning to the White House, she seemed much more in line with where most Americans are when it comes to learning about this country's history. Advertisement 'We just need to speak truth about history. In spite of the fact that some people try and erase history and try and teach our children otherwise,' Harris 'We need to speak truth about it in a way that is about driving solutions,' added Harris, who as a senator cosponsored the bill that Pressley recently reintroduced. In a country where
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Can elite universities remain global?
One reason the schools have arguably been caught off guard is less so: They have misread the nation. Advertisement Large and influential swaths of America The globalization of America's universities began decades ago. When Richard Levin assumed the presidency of Yale in 1993, in his inaugural address he stated that 'as we enter the 21st century, we must aspire to educate leaders for the whole world. … We must focus even more on global issues … if we are to be a world university.' For Levin, the mission was clear. In the early 18th century, Yale's mandate was to educate leaders and citizens for the region. 'By the mid-nineteenth century, our compass had become the whole nation,' he said. Now the work would be global. And Yale was far from alone in such ambitions. Advertisement From the establishment of campuses overseas to the creation of research centers and collaborations worldwide and the embrace of international students, many universities have changed dramatically in the years since Levin made those remarks. Today, For years, this embrace of international students was largely seen as in accord with the national interest. Despite pockets of protests, globalization on campus was treated as inevitable — and desirable — in many quarters. Meanwhile, the federal government maintained expansive investment in these universities — to the tune of The assumptions driving the internationalization of America's universities, however, have now changed. Many people no longer believe globalization is good for America. That change is most obvious in the MAGA movement. But the anti-Israel protests tinged with anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-capitalist messages that some international students have helped lead have alienated other Americans as well. Advertisement As a result, many universities have been caught out over their skis. Some now see a heavy international student presence less as a virtue and more as something suspect when it comes to university leaders' motives and wisdom. On university campuses, many faculty would undoubtedly disagree and argue that globalization is still a positive force for America. But with seats scarce at exclusive universities, filling them with international students is seen through a zero-sum lens. Universities may now face a decision. Do they want internationalization or federal support? Both may no longer be an option. The compact between universities and the federal government can only continue if the work of the university is seen as being in lockstep with the national interest. This isn't to say this is the end of global universities. Or of research universities. Minerva University, where I serve on the board of trustees, is unabashedly global. Eighty-five percent of students hail from countries other than the United States. All students live outside the United States for three of their four years. But Minerva doesn't take any federal money, nor is its model built around research. On the other hand, the Highly selective universities may choose to fight to retain federal support and remain global in the hopes that they can weather the next few years. Advertisement But with alternative models and the ascendance of skepticism around the merits of globalization, it seems less clear if this will be a viable strategy.
