have a flame burning non-stop at theirs. Much less costly. I appreciate the idea of commemorating the countless, nameless, and faceless soldiers who sacrificed their lives for a higher cause (though, admittedly, quite often because of the dirty politics of corrupt leaders who have everything other than freedom and justice at heart, like the rhesus monkey who took us to war with Iraq, and who has the blood of thousands of American soldiers, not to mention Iraqi civilians, on his hands). However, a memorial alone would do the job. That's how it's done in most countries. I don't see the point or necessity of armed soldiers standing motionless in front of a tomb when a simple security guard could do the same job. They're supposed to be "protecting" something. They're performing a "service". What service is that? What exactly are the protecting? Is someone planning to steal the bones of the unknown soldier? And suppose they really were standing in the middle of a hurricane. What would that prove? If they're endangering their own lives by standing motionless in a life-threatening hurricane, wouldn't that just sort of defeat the point (whatever that's supposed to be)? More importantly, why can't ask questions about these apparently pointless traditions without some hysterical reaction by fake patriots overflowing with emotion but bankrupt of rationality? Posted by: Jackson Lovinstein | October 30, 2012, 2:25 am 2:25 am Matt above writes: "Hey Mr. President, look very closely. Those are bayonets." Were you awake during the third