A Link in the Chain of Liberty

Being Catholic

2008-11-28T19:18:00.003-05:00

The esteemed economist Dr. Thomas Sowell states there are two types of questions in life, objective and subjective. He illustrates his point using the building of a football stadium. There is absolutely no question as to the dimensions of the field, how it is to be laid out, and marked. Those are objective questions for which 100% positively correct answers can be found in the NFL rule book. The question as to where to build the stadium, how it will be paid for, and who should benefit financially, those are subjective questions. Subjective questions are questions for which no definitive answer exists. Objective questions are based upon science, empirical evidence and cold hard facts. Subjective questions are based upon emotional appeal. One should be very careful to identify a question as objective or subjective prior to proceeding.
Does God exist? It can not be proved nor disproved. There is no way to know for sure, at least not in this world. It is a subjective question. The ancient Greek stoic philosophers figured that out some time ago. Their simple solution was since there is no definitive answer, its a waste of time to ponder the question. So they closed the door on the subject and went on to other issues. For some of us though, it's not that simple. For some of us, the question can not be closed like a door. For some of us, we feel compelled to try to open that door up. I'm one of those people. Ancient theologians have struggled with the question for centuries. One train of thought yields that the mere fact that humans can ponder such a thought, in itself proves something. Think of it as the old philosophical thought 'I think, therefore I am.' Other theologians opined this ability to ask the question is a residue or an echo of the divine. Before you laugh, that's what scientist have been doing for decades to prove the Big Bang theory, scanning the solar system and beyond for an echo or residue it. Ancient Hebrews declared this "echo" of God was so pure and so holy, that even attempting to discuss it in human terms sullies it. That's why they didn't even have a word God. In the Torah they mention the presence of God by using a string of constants that translate in English to YHWH, so it could not be promounced. When the Greeks translated the Torah to their language, they thought Hebrews were nuts and misspelled it. So they added some vowels and it changed to Yehwah. When it was translated again to Latin and then to English, the Greek and Latin letter "Y" makes a "J" sound, so they changed it to Jehovah. But I digress. I've done a lot of research into the origins of the Bible and religion in general, so yes, I'm showing off. I was raised in an extended Catholic family, who's particular branch wasn't overly religious, so we attended Church mostly because cousins, aunts and Grandma did. When I was in fifth grade we moved out of walking distance, so I was off the hook! I never gave Church much thought after that, proudly illustrating my superiority by stating I believed in God, just not organized religion. I was so smug. I did later rejoin the Church in order to become my niece's Godfather. The sum total of effort included cutting my Dad a check for six months worth of collection envelopes, which he would take care of, twice a year.
Fast forward about five years, and I was a father, who's fiance wanted a big church wedding. I decided I was only going to go through this once, so if she wanted it, then lets go for it. I learned the Church takes the vow 'till death do you part' quite seriously. So in order to be married in the Church, we had to attend a pre-marriage counseling session called Pre-Cana, after the site of Jesus' first miracle, turning water into wine at a wedding in Cana. I was quite nervous, but it turned to be a pretty fun day long session. The second to the last item on the agenda was a stern talking to by the Parish Priest. Basically he laid it all out. We were not simply putting on a
fancy dress up party. We were committing to marriage, and doing so not just in front of family and friends, we committing to marriage in front of God. Then came the knock out punch. Most people who wed do so planning to have children. (I had a 3 year old daughter.) And then the
Priest said that if we do have children, the only way they would know anything about God or the Church is if we taught them. No amount of Sunday school could fill the void. They would be missing something, an awareness of a relationship with religion and God. They may or may not
even realize it. Some adults pick up religion later in life, most don't, so if we, as parents, didn't make an effort, it would not happen. Pow, right between the eyes. I had a duty to my child. Head slapping moment. I know there's no way I can force my daughter to believe in God. That will be her decision. But what I could do is make sure she was educated in religion, the Church and God. I reasoned I could ensure her decision would be an educated one. So off to Church we went to learn about religion! I was surprised how much of my early experiences came back. When to sit, when to stand, when to kneel. I even remembered the Nicene Creed by heart. Then, after a few weeks, something very surprising happened. I started paying attention to what was going on. I started listening. I started learning. My pastor was a kindly old gentlemen who Baptized my daughter and married my wife and I. From time to time he would start a Homily with the line "One theologian has pondered...." and then he would launch into the most thought provoking ideas. It blew my mind. Just a short example, in the Gospel reading about the miracle of loaves and fishes, no where does it say Jesus waved his arms, spoke some magical words and the food suddenly appeared. It says Jesus told the Apostles to take what food they had, put it in the baskets and pass them around. And when it was done every one had eaten and there twelve baskets left over. Where exactly did that food come from? One theologian has pondered that among all the followers that day (5,000 men plus women and children), some of them had brought food with them. And when they saw Jesus giving away everything they had, they were inspired to do the same. Remember, this was the Middle East. Now that's a miracle I can believe in!
Over the years I came to realize that I was learning a lot more than just religion. I was also learning how to be a father, a husband, a man, a parishioner, a member of the community, as well as learning about God, the Church and religion. Basically the Church's mission is to help
us hairless monkeys live peaceful, productive, happy lives. They have an entire curriculum built into their worship and traditions. From birth through penance, redemption, communion, confirmation, marriage, illness and finally death. Then it starts over again with your
children. You can pretty much break it down to a list of ten or so thing you should or should not do. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't covet other people's stuff, honor your parents. Now where have I heard that one before?
The Catholic Church is set up as a mirror to the nuclear family. God is the Father, the Church is the Mother, and we are all the children. They rightly believe the basic family unit is the first building block of western civilization and society. So you can see where a lot of their beliefs stem from. From there I moved into the history of the Bible and the Catholic Church. I reasoned, this may be the word of God, but some one decided what was the word of God and therefore what wasn't. I wanted to know who and why. I also learned about the history of the Church, and let me tell you, most conventional wisdom on the Church is flat out wrong. I've read the reason the Dark Ages lasted so long was because that's how long it took the Church to teach the Germanic barbarians to wait in line, fill out forms, and basically behave. They invented the university system that trained most of the great scientists of the renaissance period. They invented the public health system and hospitals. Among the ranks of the Jesuits are some of the greatest
mathematicians in history. They invented the solar calendar, they created the academic disciplines of archeology and seismology. And far too many things to mention here. The Church basically built western civilization. Too bad so many people only know about the bad things and
have no idea on all the wonderful things the Church helped create. All in all, they have a lot more check marks in the positive side than the negative. No question about it in my mind. There are aspects of the Catholic Church that I disagree with, some times strongly. There are aspects I find down right silly and mostly ignore. If that's enough to get me excommunicated, then so be it. But I doubt it would. The Church is not some organization tasked with enforcing a strict set of rules, ready to rap your knuckles with a wooden ruler every time you slightly stray. That's not the correct mind set to approach religion or God. It's not an adversarial relationship, it's symbiotic. It's easy to approach religion and the concept of God with the mind set to prove it invalid, anyone can do that. It's a subjective idea, not objective, it's impossible to prove. The hard way
is to approach it is from the other direction. What can we both benefit from this relationship? I learn from Catholicism, and Catholicism (at the Parish level) learns from me. And together we try to make the community, and the world, a little better. And I think we do. I don't see a down side.
Its been said that morals are the guard rails of life. If you work at it, morals show you in detail, what is right and what is wrong. Occasionally we get to near to them, they help nudge us back on to the road. Occasionally we ram through them and plunge off the cliff. But that doesn't mean they are wrong, it means we are wrong. The Church helps us define what those guard rails are. The Church teaches us, it guides us, it leads us, occasionally it disastrously heads in the wrong
direction. It's there to help props us up in times of need. And at times, it needs us to prop it up. And when we screw up, it teaches us how to ask forgiveness, but even more importantly, it teaches us to forgive. And that is the most important virtue of all. Saying you forgive some one who's wronged you, and then, just let it go. We could all use many more lessons in that. This is what I've learned about and from the Catholic Church. How to survive in this world to the best of my moral abilities. That is by sacrificing my time, my wealth, my energies, and myself in service of our fellow humans. One can find great joy and relief in the service of others in greater need than we are. When we have no rules or guidelines, the possibilities are endless. There's a certain fear associated with the unknown, its part of human nature. However there is also great freedom to be found in narrowing down the possibilities to fit within moral guidelines. One of the great ironies I learned through the Church, complete freedom can be an extremely heavy burden, while submission to a higher authority provides great freedom. I don't have to worry about what to do, I already know the answer. Help those in need of help. It's my responsibility to come up with my own definition of God. I find the Catholic Church's definition, a pretty darn good
starting point. It's not the ultimate answer, but it's a very well researched place to start looking for the answer. What would I do if I were Pope for a year? That's easy. I believe the Pope has one of the most difficult jobs in the world. He's charged with staying true to the original teachings handed down from Jesus to the Apostles, from the first Pope St. Peter, down through the ages.
It's called Apostolic Succession. Protestants believe possessing the Word (i.e. the Bible) is enough to make ones way in the world. The Catholic Church's position is the Word is not enough, its true meaning is as important, if not more so. They are the keepers of the original truths. The Pope's job is to make sure that stays in place. But also, he's tasked with keeping the Church relevant in modern society. He is the leader of the world wide Church. He is a moral example to the
world. His job is to use the Church as the anchor in today's fast paced society. Every thing changes, except their 2,000 year old message. The only tougher job I can think of is to lead troops into battle, where lives are on the line. Of course, being a member of the Church is
putting your life on the line is many parts of the world even today. If I was the Pope for one year, I'd tell all the vice Pope's who spend all day escorting me around, that I needed to use the little Pope's room. I'd tell them I had fourteen wiener schnitzels for lunch, I'd be a while, so good ahead and I'd catch up with them in a later. Then I'd go to the rest room. I'd ditch the hat, the robes, the Pallium, toss them all in the corner. I might keep the ring as a souvenir, after all each Pope gets their own. Then I'd slip out the window and run as fast and as far as I can to get the heck out of there. I would never want to have that kind of responsibility. I would never want that many people around the world watching every thing I do, depending on me to lead them. I wouldn't wish that kind of pressure on an enemy. Maybe I'd take a shot at farming. That seems like a nice, quiet, peaceful life. Then I could get back to learning about the Bible.

Laughing at the wolves before they come to eat you

2008-08-25T16:21:00.003-05:00

At this point of a presidential campaign, it no longer matters if the Obama/Farrakhan connection even exists, much less is significant. The multi-billion dollar PR machines are cranked up to overdrive on both sides. We are now in full-scale political theater mode. Everything you hear from anyone in the Political/Media industrial complex is geared towards worshiping their guy and demonizing the other. The time for reasonable discussion is over. It's war.

Now is the time to watch what they do and ignore what's coming out of their mouths. [Editor's note: Why just now?] Why these people say what they do is much more interesting than joining in the giant chorus of "You Suck, We're Great!!!!!" I mean that about Democrats and Republicans alike. People who are dedicated to a party are no longer reasonable.

I predict the main attacks will come from non-affiliated 507(c), so the campaigns have plausible deniability. They will be mean, brutal, mostly false, but occasionally contain enough of a thread of truth to something that might be worth following up. But it doesn't matter because the other side (at this point the terms Democratic party and Republican party are pretty much interchangeable) will always be wrong, mean, rotten, racist, sexist, fascist, and any other insult they can find on Wikipedia.

Last week was a perfect example of what I mean. Obama basically gave the convention to the Clintons. They get prime-time two nights, she gets a nomination call, and I've read somewhere her people got a plank reworded to slightly suggest the "glass ceiling" is what kept her from the nomination.

Obama supposedly has the nomination clinched, which mean he owns the democratic party. He's even moved the DNC to Chicago so his people can take over. If he's in control, forget about listening to his proclamations of how proud he is to give all these perks to Clinton, the
interesting question is why? Because I certainly don't think its his soul-searing respect, love and respect for the Clintons.

To figure it out, stop listening to the PR machine, and watch them in action.

Rush Limbuagh: Congratulations on Twenty Years of Broadcast Excellence!

2008-08-01T12:38:00.003-05:00

One of my greatest joys in life these days is pointing out to my liberal relatives, friends, and acquaintances just how right Rush Limbaugh is. Nothing gets under a liberal's skin better than El-Rushbo. Today Rush celebrates 20 years of excellence in broadcasting, with loads of fun, frivolity, analysis of societal evolution, and talent on load from God (half of that talent tied behind his back just to make it fair).

My editor thinks I'm a bit overboard, so he's asked for an explanation on why it means so much to me. Allow me to explain why I think it's such a big deal. So here it goes. Why do I enjoy Rush Limbaugh?

First and foremost, he's funny. Call him a talking head, a political pundit, a party hack, whatever you want, but first and foremost, above all else, he's a top rate comedian. The first time I
heard him play the EIB Gospel Singers belting out "Thank the Lord Rush is on the EIB" I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. He understands humor, he dissects jokes; whereas Sean Hannity is like a bludgeon, Rush is a scalpel, deftly inserting wit and humor wherever and whenever he can. As an amateur comedian myself, I fully appreciate his sense of humor. If he wasn't funny, I'd never have kept on listening. Rush understands to succeed in his profession, he has to be primarily entertaining. Rush gets an 'A+' from me on this one.

Second, take a look at his career. Anyone who's listened to his program long enough has heard his litany of career missteps and downright failures. I think he's been fired from 13 or so jobs. At one point he was reduced to selling vacuums door to door, to keep a roof over his family's head. And today he's the undisputed king of AM radio. That is success. That's more than success, that's proof to me that not only does the American dream still exist, it's possible, not just for a few, but for everyone. Today's program started with an on-the-air phone call from George H.W. Bush, George Bush, and Jeb Bush. All this week he's been airing audio congratulations from the Vice
President, a Supreme Court Justice, and two of the most intelligent people in America today, esteemed economists Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter E. Williams. Now that is impressive. As Rush likes to say, he wishes his parents were still alive so they could see all this. They would be stunned that their college drop-out son, who terrorized their community with his practical jokes as a kid (and he's pulled some great ones), is rubbing elbows with the highest elites in American politics and academics. Not too shabby for a door-to-door salesman.

Thirdly, he's leading the fight to destroy the old time, liberally biased mainstream media. Over the years I've come to despise the MSM. They sit in their corner offices, in skyscrapers, deciding for us, the unwashed masses, not only what we should know but how we should
interpret it. That burns my ass. What's the news? What the MSM says is the news. If they're wrong, doesn't matter to them, tomorrow's always another day, another paper, another show. I was stunned when I started hearing the stories the MSM dropped and Rush picked up, jaw on the floor stunned. The old-line MSM works from the point that the natural order of life in America is liberal democratic control. Anything that deviates from that position must be
suppressed. I can't wait till they've been laid low, nothing but smoldering cinders. Then We The People will be able to determine what is news and what is not, what is right and what is wrong. The Media is Dead! Long Live the New Media! And as I stated, Rush is leading the charge for freedom of information.

And lastly, and most importantly to me, Rush Limbaugh has won his success, and he did it the hard way, he did it his way. The reason the Rush Limbaugh Show and the EIB network even exist is because Rush couldn't keep a job. He kept pissing off his bosses. One anecdote he related, he was called on the carpet by the news director of a station he worked at. They wanted to know what the hell he was doing on the air. He said commenting on the news. He asked what the problem was, Tom Brokaw did the exact same thing. Shortly after, he was out on
his ass. In this respect, I admire Rush as I do the Grateful Dead. When they couldn't get a record deal, rather than buckle under and play by other people's rules, they formed their own label and did what they wanted to do anyway. I have great admiration for people who refuse to
play by the rules, and instead, make the rules change to suit them. Many do try, and the vast majority of them fail. But once in a while, you see someone win. It reminds me why I have faith in America.

So there you have it in a nutshell. Its not that I'm smitten by Rush, or any kind of adoring fan. He's a great comic, provides a wonderful service, and all I have to do is put up with the
commercials. He's got the old mainstream media on the run. He broadcasts information that 20 years ago would never have seen the light of day. He's got the democratic party quaking in their shoes - the democratic senate has even tried to take him out, and they failed miserably. In other words, he's a thorn in the side of the powerful establishment, and in the course of his career, he's rewritten the rules for talk radio.

Congratulations Rush Limbaugh on 20 years of excellence, and I look forward to 20 more!

Patriotism is not black or white (or red all over)

2008-07-03T09:59:00.003-05:00

There's been an awful lot of trees (and brain cells) killed recently on newspaper stories covering Senator Barack Obama's big speech the other day on patriotism. Naturally Obama clearly, and unequivocally, pronounced that he would never question another's patriotism (of course not, he's got Wesley Clark for that), and he would accept no criticism of his own. One wonders if that proclamation is enough to stem the famed and fabled Republican Attack Machine (as if the Democrats don't do the exact same thing, see above reference to Wesley Clark).

I've read several analysis and opinion pieces recently, not only on the speech, but also on the concept of patriotism itself. The American Left has had issues for decades concerning their patriotism. After all, what's burning a few flags, spitting on a few returning Vietnam vets, and meeting with America's enemies to discuss how rotten America is, between revolutionary friends? I mean, come on, how could any one consider the Weather Underground to be unpatriotic? After all it does require a few broken eggs to make an omelet.

And believe me, I understand the confusion. Having been born, bred, and raised to be a true blue liberal, I can remember the lessons of the radical counter-culture wars of the 1960's, even if I was a tad too young to do much more than get the stuffing beaten out of me during grade school gym class dodge ball. Ah, those were the days.

Even though I no longer can remember the rational or logic that stitched their philosophy together, I do have faint vibes on the subject that were beaten into my brain as a child and teenager. I also believe the main reason I don't remember the rational and logic was because there wasn't any. Rather than detailing their reasoning, the left was more apt to use slang, or codewords to define the finer points of their ideology. Terms like "Distrust the man" and "Down for the struggle" seemed sufficient. Phrases like "Don't trust anyone over 30" don't seem to make as much sense when you're 45 as they did when you were on the upside of that long march. And to be quite frank, other than my nieces who've I've known all their lives, I'm not sure how many people under 30 I would actually trust. Read the police beat in your local newspaper. They don't seem all that bright. If life has taught me anything, it's that just because the state says you can vote at 18, it doesn't mean at 18 you're an adult, capable of reasonable, logical thought. That's why the drinking age is 21.

And yet the left, for all their actions, programs, pogroms, projects, movements, teach-ins, die-ins, protests and and marches, still is bewildered by the great American Center's inability to see they are the true patriots, still fighting to fulfill the dreams of the Founding Fathers (even though the radical Left now considers them racist, murderous thieves. Note to the Left, this isn't helping). So this presents me with a quandary. I was once a card-carrying liberal, and in the midst of all that churning and caterwauling, I certainly didn't feel like I was unpatriotic, even while I was reading the Essential Works of Marxism and plotting the overthrow of my government from the confines of my Beatles poster-filled teenage bedroom. Rest assured dear readers, I never got closer to actually doing anything other than wearing John Lennon buttons and insisting how much I was against "the man".

So where does this sense of patriotism come from for a political ideology that thinks the most American thing to do it to replace America's self rule government with a half-assed copy of the USSR?

Here's my theory: the two party system. I believe the left is completely taken in by the two party political system used in America. If the two party system is indeed the ultimate political system of all time, then it's only natural that all issues affecting everyday Americans can be addressed by the two party system. All daily struggles, injustices, and downright bad luck, all part of the human condition, can be addressed and solved by using the two party system,
even though anyone with an ounce of intelligence and wisdom could easily point out you can't outlaw personal tragedy. Or, to put it more simply, when you live within the "box" of the two party system, its harder to think outside that box.

Inside that box, the rules are simple, us versus them. Thinking outside that box causes headaches, trauma, pain, realization, etc. And that takes work, hard mental work, and liberals don't like that. Liberals like things straightforward; nice, simple, easy, in other words, inside the box. Inside the box, logic and reason don't matter. All that matters is they come down on what they consider the morally correct side of a two sided argument. Pepsi or Coke. Hamburger or hot dog. Democrat or Republican. Liberal or Conservative. Voting booth switch "A" or "B". Make your decision, stick with your people, and then stop thinking about it, and get back to the real important decisions,
Miller or Bud, American Idol or The Bachelor, and Burger King or McDonalds.

There is a downside to this kind of thinking too. When you think inside this dichotomy, then you only are able to view issues as black and white and you miss all the color.

So if there are only two sides to every issue, and you're on the right side of said issue, and it doesn't seem to be gaining traction with the American public, it doesn't mean there may be more involved than the liberal brain can handle, no siree Bob! What it means is it's time to change the rules in the box. Your opponent isn't some outside force that should unite you with your fellow American. No, not at all. It means your opponent, your enemy, is your fellow Americans, who won't let your side win the fight inside the box. 9/11? It's the other guy's fault. It's not Al Qeada, it's the American Right.

And if you can't beat the American Right at the ballot box? Then the Right has to go. And so they become the enemy. Not the people from other nations who are getting better at killing your fellow citizens, but your neighbor. And since both the left and the right think inside the box of the two party system, it's as easy to define your enemy as it is to define who's the good guy and the bad guy in the champion wrestling match.

And what's more patriotic than taking down your enemy?

A Heller good time to be had by all

2008-06-27T16:37:00.005-05:00

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Something most interesting happened yesterday. I'm quite sure what it portends will take some time to sink in, perhaps generations. But it struck me as monumental nonetheless. The Supreme Court of the United States of America officially declared that "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Predictably, the horribly biased mainstream media has its collective panties in a twist over it. I was so elated, I actually watched Katie Couric to see CBS' take on it. Their mature, reasoned, moderate opinion on the subject was a montage of people shooting pistols. That's right liberals, the Supreme Court has just ordered every one in the country to arm themselves to the teeth and begin vigilante justice on their neighbor's loitering.

The HuffPo is just as morally outraged. I managed to get all the way through one paragraph of a piece where the author declared Dick Cheney wants to turn DC into the Triangle of Death in Iraq. Moderate, contemplative, tolerant, thoughtful analysis need not apply.

The ruling itself isn't all that grand. It basically says that governments can not outright ban firearms. Justice Scalia went to great lengths in instructing lower federal courts that this does not mean there can be no reasonable regulation of guns - thank God. I believe the thought of Charlie Manson getting paroled and stopping by Walt's World of Guns on his way home is enough to rankle even the most fervent gun rights supporter.

What it does do is tell local and state governments that they cannot simply ignore the constitution. And for that I'm ready to set off fireworks. Of course, as a resident of New York, that would be illegal. Interesting enough, Founding Father John Adams preached that the Fourth of July should be celebrated with cannons, firearms, bonfires, and all manners of loud, boisterous hoopla. But what the heck does he know? He was only there.

I see two important issues in this ruling. One good, one not so much. Let's start with the bad news.

Re-read my second paragraph above. The Supreme Court had to actually rule that the meaning of one sentence, 27 words in all, simply means nothing more than what it actually says. Is it just me, or does it seem absolutely ludicrous that this question rises to the level of anything more than a kindergarten recess argument? "Does too! Does not!" How on earth did our society sink to the level where the Supreme Court of the land has to specifically rule on the meaning of a clear, concise sentence? That is nothing but sad in my opinion.

On to the good news! The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that yes, a clear concise sentence means exactly what it says. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! I may not have a flintlock or a blunderbuss, but I do have a pitchfork somewhere in the basement!

Here is what I find so optimistic in this ruling. I've read the analysis of Roe v Wade in the past, and I'm not going to surf the web for specifics now, its late Friday afternoon, but as I understand it, the Supreme Court basically took 2 or 3 or 4 Amendments from the Bill of Rights and created a kind of realm, where 'rights' can be created out of thin air, based upon nothing more than a majority of Justices. Even though the Constitution specifically states that is not to happen (it's all through the document, just read it and see).

[Editor's note: Here's where I have a slight disagreement with the author. The Constitution outlines specific powers that the federal government has; everything else is reserved for the States (to regulate) and/or the People (to enjoy in freedom). So in my mind it's not so much that there isn't a Constitutionally-protected right to privacy, as that the federal government has no legitimate authority to ban abortion (or prevent States from banning it), since that is an act not under their specified umbrella of powers. Likewise, there isn't a Constitutionally-protected right to alcohol, it's just that they do not have the power to ban it (without an amendment). Same for marijuana (although somehow they forgot the need for an amendment...sorry, different topic).]

[Author's response: While I agree with the editor's thoughts on aspects of federalism involved with this issue, I must admit, I don't have a solid or satisfying response to this proposition. From what I've learned about the Revolutionary times and the Founding Fathers, the lines between the states and the federal government were left blurry on purpose. As I understand the concept, the idea was to keep the boundaries fluid and murky, allowing for future generations to of American politicians at the various levels to basically argue it out during the issues of their times. They understood power would change hands back and forth, some generations having stronger state rights, and others having stronger federal rights. The idea being that times change, issues change, generations change, and so the relationship between state and federal authority would be flexible to change with them, and most importantly, change back as the issues and the people change. What I see in this ruling is, that ebb and flow of power heading back towards the states and the people, and away from the federal government. Some states will agree that strict gun regulation is appropriate, while others will agree otherwise. In other words, just the way it's supposed to. ]

This Supreme Court ruling says "no" to that. It says no, what the document says it what it says. I know there will be future rulings that will infuriate the hell out of me, I have no doubt of that. And I know governments at every level will do whatever they can to legislate around this ruling. That's the way politics work. But still, the Supreme Court firmly, beyond any doubt, no exceptions (thank God for reasonable restrictions), the Constitution of the United States of America, in this case, means exactly what it says!

Happy Fourth of July America!

Change you really can count on: The race to the center is on!

2008-06-25T15:57:00.003-05:00

There's an interesting phenomena in modern American presidential campaigns which I first heard about with respect to the Nixon campaigns. And that is during party primaries, candidates, on both the right and left, make a mad dash to the lunatic fringes of their respective
parties in order to capture as much as possible of those of the devoted base (those most likely to believe volunteering for campaign grunt work will actually save the world). Once a candidate secures their party's nomination, the second phase is a mad dash as far and as fast as possible away from those very same voters, to the center, in order to try and convince the vast majority of American voters that they really aren't as crazy as they've been insisting they were since before the Iowa caucuses.

This sordid tango of disentanglement produces some of the most hilarious situations of both comic and tragic theater, that we Americans refer to as Politics.

Who can forget the sight of John McCain, back in the 2000 election, on stage with presumptive Republican nominee George W. Bush, repeating over and over "I support George Bush, I support George Bush, I support Bush...." in a vain attempt to shame the press who kept demanding a public recitation of concession speech. I could almost envision him leaping off the stage and throttling one of the reporters "I said it okay, are you happy you rat bastard!"

Or John Kerry proudly proclaiming himself as the 'anti war candidate' when losing the primaries to Howard Dean, and then 'storming the beaches' at Boston Harbor when officially arriving at the 2004 Democratic Convention, in an absolute farce salute to his service in the Navy during Vietnam. How about the salute and "Reporting for duty" line? I still wonder how much his campaign paid the team that came up with that one.

In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama and the left are already making their move. I've noticed two items in the last few days that tells my superior sense of political analysis, the race to the center has begun on the left.

This little nugget from the L.A. Times.

"Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence vs. knowingly propagating falsehoods."

When the United States Congress granted the President the authority to use force against Iraq back in 2002, I'm convinced they did it entirely based upon Bush's astronomical poll ratings following 9/11. Senators and Congressmen were falling over each other to get on the
record as being on the President's side. When polls on support for the war sank in the run up to the 2004 Presidential elections, Democrats sought to distance themselves from the war. But this brought a special dilemma all its own. How to dance away from their own words? And some of their speeches in favor of military action were quite enthralling. How do they now attempt to insist that never happened? My guess is they went back to the PR team that thought up Kerry's 'storming the beach' in Boston Harbor. Because the best they came up with was 'We was lied to.'

That might have been a plausible political strategy but, unfortunately, it was based on the premise that democratic voters would forget - or forgive - the fact their 2000 Presidential campaign was based on the concept that George Bush was an idiot. Think about that for a moment. They decided the best strategy was the person they declared the most stupid, idiotic person this side of the Americans with
Disabilities Act tricked them. Now that's ballsy.

I told you this was entertaining.

What was even more entertaining, and frustrating, was with the help of the hopelessly biased media, they essential pulled it off. George Bush was re-framed as a puppet, manipulated by the evil neocons who actually controlled the administration, and if we didn't all vote Democrat, we would all be doomed to a fascist hell. I still can't believe it worked. Ballsy and entertaining, if not entirely
satisfying. After all, I still have to live with whatever ridiculous laws these people come up if/when they do regain power.

This line of thinking worked fine when the democrats were more interested in control of Congress than they were in control of the White House. Now their interest is in the White House. And while this train of thinking worked fine with the far left Democratic fringe during the primary campaigns, it will not fly with the center, which is where general elections are won and lost. Hence, the grand race to the center.

For the last five years or so, the Democrats main campaign theme is not only was the war in Iraq the worst foreign policy endeavor since America conquered all of Asia, Europe and large parts of Africa on a dare at a cocaine-fueled frat party, but it was a lost cause, losing good money after bad. Once again, a small problem when you move this argument from the far left to the center.

The Surge worked.

So, the question as I see it for Barack Obama and the Democratic power brokers is, how do they move their campaign rhetoric from the last 5 years of 'Iraq is a complete failure' to the American center that obviously can see that's not true?

I see this as step one. Slowly dismantling the program of the last five years, 'Bush Lied People Died.' I don't see any other way for Obama to move to the center on Iraq, unless this great and glorious platform of the democratic party from 2003 till, say, about 2 weeks ago, becomes history. And this is how it starts.

Earlier I mentioned two things that caught my attention. This is the second.

"The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . .
. Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will
not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's
response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all
that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising
a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic
administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden
decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your
stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made
through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military
commanders in the field." Certainly, it makes sense to consult with
those who, like Mr. Zebari, have put their lives on the line for an Iraq
that would be a democratic U.S. ally. Mr. Obama ought to listen
carefully to what they are saying."

The race to the center is on.....

The Audacity of Socialism

2008-06-04T11:04:00.004-05:00

And so Barack Obama has declared himself the democratic nominee for the president of the US. Personally, I wouldn't count out Hillary Clinton until they're throwing the dirt on her grave, but this is the story the media is going to run with until the convention. So let's start with this one.

Barack Obama, the audacity of hope for transparent change. A new kind of politician, kind of like the "anti-politician." Or so the story goes. He will bring the country together with his soaring rhetoric and glorious smile. We will unite, and the world's problems will all suddenly become solvable, because of him. Is any one there buying this load? I'm certainly not.

For starters, there is no way any politician can unite Americans together. By definition the most he can do is unite one political party against the other. There's no way his warmed over socialist/Marxist, cavalier attitude toward economics and constitutional rights are going to unite anyone on the right.

Which is why I predict it won't be very long until we see all this talk of unity, new kind of politics, etc. will simply fade away, much like the "Dennis Kucinich for President" bumper stickers have. The only question for me is when, where, why and how. Will the new kind of campaign head straight for the swamp? Or will they dance around the edge for a while first? Or will the McCain or the GOP or some right-wing whacko land a solid punch right to the jaw of audacious change so resoundingly that Obama attacks full-bore out of reflex?

Perhaps his wife will finally blow her cork and that starts the mud. (Personally I'm rooting for this one. I can't stand rich people making several figures, ensconced in the lap of luxury lecturing me on how tough they have it.) Or perhaps, when the starstruck and biased media realizes that if they don't start asking real questions of him they will lose their last shred of dignity (along with their cushy jobs), they will begin to zero in on his numerous gaffes, stumbles and outright lies. Of course he and his campaign will accuse the media of being in McCain's pocket, racist or just plain not up to the level of the "new" political landscape.

Either way, the gloves will come off, we will see what kind of politician Obama really is. And then we'll find out if Hillary Clinton was right, and the Democrats should have chosen her. I think she was. But I don't think she would do much better against Senator McCain in November.

Broken as designed

2008-05-12T17:01:00.003-05:00

If I hear one more politician promise us citizens that they will unite the country to solve America's problems, I'm going to have to go out and buy a kitten just so I can kick it. Unite America? That's the most absurd thought I've ever heard. A united America is practically a
myth. I say practically a myth because a good argument can be made that the Japanese invitation to join WWII by bombing Pearl Harbor did in fact unite America. My response to that statement would be, great, so the vast majority of Americans united and thought it was a good idea to round up Japanese-Americans and stuff them into concentration camps. That's just the kind of uniting we need these days.

No. Americans are not united. Never really have been, probably never will, and it's probably a good thing. A united people can rally around a dumb idea as easily as they can around a good idea. If it ever happens, experience tells me we're much more likely to get stuck with
the former rather than the latter.

Even looking back to America's founding, the colonials weren't anymore united than we are today. As a matter of fact, more citizens were for remaining part of England than were for the revolution. America's first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, was a failure from get-go for the very reason the people weren't united. That's because weak central government naturally devolves into regionalism. That was James Madison's argument for the Constitutional
Convention that gave us our current constitution. He started his speech at the convention with a dreadfully long report of the fate of every nation in the history of the world that had a weak confederacy. Guess what that was? Here's a hint, you don't see the Greek City States on the map these days, now do you?

I've read several accounts of the Constitutional Convention and one thing for sure, they couldn't unite together around anything other than the Articles had to go. But what to replace it with? Throughout the Convention another thing became obvious to the founding fathers - they
couldn't agree on anything, no matter what. They discovered the debates never ended. They just went on and on and on. Madison finally got the right idea when he figured out, a democratic-republican form of government provides for a government that can't settle issues. Why not? Ask any individual how they would solve national issues, and most have their firmly held opinions ready to whip out like a preprogrammed cell phone. But what happens when you ask two people? They may agree on some things, but not on others. That's politics.

Suppose, just suppose, the moon is in the seventh house, and Mars and Jupiter are aligned. And every issue on the table is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. What about the next issue that comes up? See? It never ends. That's what Madison figured out. So the issue was resolved in an entirely different idea. Instead of a government that solves everyone's problems, they created a framework where the important issues of the day, whatever they may be, have a place to be
aired in public. That's what Congress is. Its the institution where the public's issues are endlessly debated. Proposed laws are presented, bashed around, written, rewritten, rewritten again, amended, voted up or down. And after all that work is done, to no one's satisfaction, the
process starts all over again in the Senate. And by the time the tortured document gets over to the White House, its own mother wouldn't recognize it. And that's a good thing too. Whenever all of Congress and the White House agree on something, it usually means it benefits the
ruling class at the expense of We The People. See the fine print in the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance reform. They get to hide more money in 501(c)'s, they get to campaign for as long as they want, but if we pay $5 for an ad for a candidate in the local Penny Saver, we've committed a federal offense.

It only makes sense in America that we wouldn't unite. What seems like a good idea in Florida, might be thought of as not too smart in Texas, downright dangerous in Ohio, while New Yorkers might want to pass a law against it. (New York likes to pass laws against all kinds of things. Better living through legislation.)

So when you come right down to it, when politicians are screaming at each other, making all kinds of scurrilous charges, and generally attacking each other like badgers high on crystal meth locked in a garbage can together, that doesn't mean the government is broken and
needs to be fixed. Perish the thought. That means everything is working just the way the founding fathers intended. So excuse me if some sappy politician comes along and says they're the ones to put an end to disunity and fix the government. I know, not only are they wrong, in my opinion they're dangerous.

Letter to the Editor (with a note from the Editor)

2008-05-07T11:54:00.004-05:00

[Editor's note: The author of this blog decided last year to just give up on this site. Like those effeminate liberals who want to run away from the glorious future victory that is Iraq, the blog author turned his back on a difficult - but rewarding - mission. In any case, yesterday out of the blue he sends this on and says it would make a good blog post. With little expectation that he's going to make this a regular thing - and certainly no expectation that anyone has stuck around to read this comatose blog - I dutifully present this to you, dear reader.]

Click here for news story.

How nice of Binghamton's "progressive" politicians to provide us with a wonderful example of how to destroy housing units!

First the progressives got elected. Then they decided to quadruple the number of the mayor's personal assistants. When the City Council wouldn't pay them as much as the mayor wanted, he just waited a year than snuck in 40% pay raises for them. (It ain't cheap being progressive!)

And now we get a front row seat to watch them gut the Binghamton housing stock.

The old economics axiom, when honest people can no longer make an honest living doing honest work, they get out of that business and find another honest way to make a living. How ever, dishonest people have no problem continuing it.

This is step one. The politicians find someone who they think they can squeeze a few more bucks out of. Then they declare that its not really a tax increase, because these people have been cheating every one else all along, so the politicians are just "making things right."

"Teri Rennia, D-4th District, said the change would provide tax relief for homeowners and would ensure everyone was 'paying their fair share.'"

Step 2 is to see how much money politicians think they can squeeze out of these officially classified "dead beats."

"Some landlords are facing an 80 percent increase in property taxes"

Now, does anyone know what happens when an honest business person is going to do when their tax bill goes up 80% in one year? Those that can afford to pay it, might, for a while, or they may decided to chuck the business altogether. Those that can't afford it will have to sell. And what type of person is likely to buy these rental units that come with this huge tax bill? Enter the slum lords. And if the tax bill is so high that even slum lords won't pay it, the houses will stand vacant, crumble and decay, and then be abandoned altogether and turned over to the city/county, and be taken off the tax rolls, so every other tax payer in Binghamton will have to pony up to cover the difference.

On the upside we get to watch a crystal clear example of the simple, repeatable, 100% guaranteed laws of economics in action. On the down side we also watch Binghamton taxpayers, landlords and renters get royally fucked. On the up side, I don't live in Binghamton. On the down side, every one in Broom County is going to feel the pain to some extent. On the upside, unless this gets derailed somehow, what the progressives are doing to Binghamton will ensure they are run out off office for years to come.

I wonder what the progressives will fix next?

A new take on global warming - really!

2007-03-18T17:52:00.000-05:00

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius
Age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius!

Will Rogers is credited with saying something along the line that he doesn't belong to any organized political party, he's a democrat.

Rush Limbaugh opined for years that the Democratic party does not represent a cohesive organization held together by a shared, common, ideology, but rather a loose collection of movements who are willing to hold their noses and band together long enough to obtain political power at the voting booth. Having grown up in a solidly liberal, democratic family, I can attest they are both correct.

If you think about it, just how can groups that support abortion rights so easily coexist in a party that also abhors capital punishment? It's illogical. Yet they do. Big Labor wants to open the Alaskan oil fields to increased drilling for the union jobs it will create, yet this is considered a mortal sin by the environmental wing of the same party. There are an almost limitless number of other examples. I suppose it's a good thing that all these various groups must compete with each other within the party, which keeps democrats - despite their numerical superiority - from gaining too much power in government at all levels. In other words, they'll band together long enough to defeat their opponents, but when left to their own desires, they will start to squabble and fight amongst themselves. Watch the House debate on the next step for ending the war in Iraq. One third think the proposals on the table go too far, another third thinks it doesn't go far enough, while the other third thinks it's just about right.

Which brings me to my topic - Global Warming!

What on earth does all my babbling about the Democratic party have to do with global warming? I myself wasn't sure how to approach this topic, because there's so many people, with so many view points, from all aspects of society who believe human effects on the planet have caused the Earth to begin warming at an accelerated rate, putting us on a collision course with annihilation. Where to start? With the Democrats? With the scientists? With the UN? With the media? There's just way too many voices out there, stating far too many positions for any person to address each and all in an attempt to refute them all. Trying to debate with global warming fanatics is like trying to debate with a brick wall. Nothing gets past their firmly held beliefs. And that's what I found so strange. What an anomaly, all these various and varied organizations, speaking on many different topics, yet all with a sort of cosmic cohesion. Something is just not right. And that's when it hit me. All the different warring factions of the democratic coalition, have, for lack of a better phrase, entered the Age of Aquarius.

Something that I didn't believe could ever happen, seems to be happening right before my very eyes. The democrats and liberals have found the one common hook to hang all their agendas on: global warming. Modern liberalism's cornerstone has been victimhood for as long as I can remember. They divide the population up into groups, they choose one side and proudly proclaim them as the "victims" of something or other, then pledge to use the power of government to right whatever wrong they've decided to use as a wedge.

Take reparations for slavery for example. Many African-Americans alive today are the descendants of slaves, which means they have been harmed by the majority of Americans (always root for the underdog!), and therefore it's the liberal's duty to "fight" for reparations. I'm not debating the topic of reparations here, only using it as an example. Here's where democrats usually fall apart: while most African-Americans are democratic liberals, not all democratic liberals are African-American, so democrats can't get enough of a coalition to push for anything practical or substantial. Liberals may believe African-Americans have suffered because of the legacy of slavery and therefore are entitled to something, but it smacks enough of a government income redistribution that widespread support for reparations has never materialized.

When it comes to global warming, the liberal democrats have created the ultimate class of victims: everyone! If the world is coming to an end, then we all have a dog in this fight. But if we're all the victims here, then what is the evil, vile group that turned us all into victims? And that is my point exactly!

The evil ideology that's inflicting all this harm on us, is whatever any individual democratic and/or liberal movement is against.

Big Labor? Evil corporate interests are behind it. Trial Lawyers? It's evil corporations and government that needs to be brought to justice using the courts. Environmentalists? Its everything and every one who doesn't heed their philosophy. Big Academics? They're still working on figuring out who's behind it, so keep the government grants rolling in so they can keep working on it. Anti-capitalist, anti-free traders, anti-US, anti-whatever, it doesn't really matter, just point out they all contribute to global warming, and that is all the moral justification necessary to demand whatever action deemed appropriate to combat this atrocity.

Too many cars on the road are causing it, push for more public transportation and force Big Auto to keep redesigning products into forms that don't sell. Too many coal burning power generation plants belching sulfur into the air, push to shut them down, and prevent new ones from being built. Too many incandescent light bulbs? Force the government to outlaw them and force every one to use compact florescent light bulbs. Whatever any individual group believe ails society, blame it on global warming, and push for government regulation and laws to correct the outrage while simultaneously furthering their own political agenda.

School districts need more money to update their bus fleets, heating and lighting systems, and to incorporate global warming studies into their curriculum. Local and state governments need more tax money to upgrade their facilities and fleets in order to save the world from global warming. And on and on and on. I could list thousands of other examples, but I'll leave it to readers to simply turn on the evening news or pick up the daily paper to see all the examples they wish. Its everywhere. And each one has exactly three (maybe more, but at least three) things in common. First: there is a need to receive more money to accomplish something. Second: there is a need to more stringently regulate (voluntarily or legislatively) people's lives. And third: global warming. Always follow the money.

Former Vice President Al Gore is currently being hailed as the Prince of Environmentalism. He's the Grand Duke of Clean Living. He's a Hollywood top-shelf ticket. Not really. See, I don't believe Al Gore or anyone else has the brains and the organization and the contacts to pull off something this huge. Remember, we're talking about Democrats here. No, Al Gore is smart, but he's not nearly that smart, I don't believe anyone is. But Al Gore is smart enough to notice this trend, and to capitalize on it. He's not leading or guiding the global warming movement. What he is leading is the method for politicians of all stripes to take advantage of it. And its not just politicians that recognize this trend, the evil corporations of the world are jumping in with both feet. Just sign on to Al Gore's ready-made environmental platform, and by greasing his palm enough, he will personally bless your transition from the group of inflicter's to the group of victims who care. Any corporate marketing team that doesn't see the beauty of this plan should be sued for malpractice.

A perfect example of this is Hollywood itself. All the fabulous wealthy and beautiful people love their millionaire lifestyles. But, that puts them in the inflicter group, so how do they get back to the afflicted group while saving face? Enter the "Carbon Credit." Simply donate a few cents to plant some trees, and then jet off to Monte Carlo, guilt free, because they care and they made a difference. Nothing really changed, and I fail to see how planting a few trees could counter the effects of a one-way, cross Atlantic jet flight. But that's not the point. The point is, they are now certifiably in the group of victims that care.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term. An axiom of the free market is that government should regulate as little as possible, because by the time government acts, the dynamics of the situation have probably morphed several times over, which is one main reason government interference is usually so ineffective. It doesn't matter if their plan solves the problem, because the problem has already changed. So, seeing government starting to stand up on its rear haunches indicates to me the situation has already changed beyond the scope that government is attempting to solve.

What comes next is anyone's guess. One thing is for sure. If the moon enters the seventh house, that means it must also posses the power to exit it.

Global Warmongering

2007-02-08T20:56:00.000-05:00

I have seen the enemy and they are us!

That's it folks, the party's over. Take down the posters, pop the balloons, sweep up the confetti. Some one help the drunks into the waiting taxis. Grab the closest drunk blond you can find, and head for the door. This gig is a done deal.

Right here, right now, in this very blog, I am officially declaring the war on global warming over, and we have lost. By we, I mean those who think science should be grounded in, well, science, you know - facts, reasoning, logic, observations, facts, deduction - we have lost. And what makes it all the more bitter is the absolutely pathetic attitude of those who won. The hippies, the greenies, the Hollywood elite, the mainstream media, and the politicians. They just handed us a shit sandwich, so it's time to belly up to the bar, and every sane person in Western Society needs to take a big bite.

Does this mean I agree global warming is happening, and I agree humans are causing it, and we need liberal democrats to save us from ourselves? Not at all. That battle will rage as long as there are independent people in this society who refuse to be lectured by Hollywood stars who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel. That's not the battle I'm talking about. That battle will never be over. But while we fought that battle, the greenies fought the battle that - as it turns out - ultimately mattered. They convinced Pop Culture to accept their cause. And Pop Culture willingly drew them into it's smelly, festering, pustule-filled bosom. But there is a price to be paid for that victory, and pay it they will. More on that in a bit.

Global Warming/Climate Change (I use that term because that's what its called, in order to help prop up their rickety house of cards, to cover any example, no matter how innate, they choose) has entered the lexicon of today's modern Pop Culture. That now means its officially accepted, recognized, and morons who know nothing about science, climate, hell - about anything - will begin to lecture us on how stupid and ignorant we are, and smugly look down their noses at us, while they thumb through People magazine. I have a good friend who's got a heart of gold, but he's definitely a few burgers short of a Happy Meal. He is now lecturing me on how little I understand science, facts, and all the rest of those big words he doesn't really understand. My friend, with a heart of gold, empties bed pans at a state institution (read: state job). I have multiple college degrees and have been working in the high tech industry for the last 20 years or so. And he's now convinced he knows more than I do. His proof of his superior ideas? Everyone else in Western Society says so.

Call it conventional wisdom, group think, what ever you like. Personally I call it Pop Culture. Pop Culture is a shadowy concept. There's no official demarcation between it and reality. But trust me it exists. Why do people care what Madonna had breakfast? Pop Culture tells them to. Why do people care what people like Michael Jackson, Brittany Spears, O.J. Simpson, Lindsey Lohan, and all other forms of weirdness do? Because Pop Culture tells them that's what's important. And while we tried to use reason, logic and facts to keep the debate in the realm of science, they worked to ingrain this pseudoscience into the brains of those most easily manipulated. And they were victorious.

Every time I pick up a news paper, a magazine, or watch TV, anytime anything that has to do with the environment, in any way, no matter how tangentially connected, all mention global warming. Last week I read a local story in the paper about students at a high school who were implementing a school-wide recycling program. Why? Global warming. In National Geographic I read about a scientists studying the design of snow flakes. Why? Looking for clues to global warming. The governor of New York announced today he's going to enlarge government, guess why? He's creating an official statewide office on Global Warming. It's everywhere. And it's here to stay. Get used to it.

Try it yourself. Next time you read, hear or watch any type of program or report that deals in any way with the environment, notice if they mention global warming. And for extra points, count how many times they repeat it. It's scary.

I'm not here to argue about facts, theories, or anything else dealing with science. As I've said, that battle is over. I'm here to make a most ugly predication.

Pop Culture has embraced global warming. Pop Culture has also embraced Michael Jackson. Look where it got him. It embraced Jim Morrison and John Belushi and Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin and Marylin Monroe and Kurt Cobain and the rest of the sorry, sordid lives that have been ruined and/or cut short. Pop Culture invited them in, celebrated them, then grew tired of them, and tossed them like scraps of tripe to the media wolves. And I predict the same will happen to the global warming environmentalists. They should and will enjoy the bright lights of Pop Culture. The fancy parties, the spot lights, the red carpets they will prance down before fawning "nobodies" who are thrilled to be in their presence.

And they should enjoy it while they can, because Pop Culture is a demanding Mistress. And when she's done with them, they will be ripped through the media's shredder.

And when that happens, the environmental movement will have lost its reputation, and that they will not be able to repair. Idiot people may enjoy getting quick peeks at Britney Spears' meat curtain, but they don't take her, or her vagina, seriously. And when this is all over, they will not take the environmental movement seriously either.

Enjoy your victory while those of us who really and truly care about the environment mourn.

Update:

As if you needed more evidence, I present you with Ellen Goodman.

And I quote: "By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is 'unequivocal.' The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get."
"I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

If I drop a rock I'm much more than "90 percent" certain it will fall. If I walk far enough, I'm much more than "90 percent" sure I will not fall off the earth. This is the mentality that we face. And now anyone who refuses to swallow this crap is the modern day equivalent of "Holocaust deniers"? Some day, far in the future, when all this is revealed, we'll all have a good laugh. But until then.....

Editor Update: Check out this for more on the same theme.

Merry Christmas

2006-12-23T00:05:00.000-05:00

With the approach of the Christmas Season, its time for my second annual Christmas post. Most readers would expect the Nativity story from Matthew, Mark or Luke, or the poetic opening of John's Gospel, but I'm a trend bucker. This time lets review my favorite Bible reading, Matthew, Chapter 20, verses 1 through 16. For me, this defines what it means to be a Christian.

1 "The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4 and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.'
5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise.
6 Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?'
7 They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.'
8 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.'
9 When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage.
10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.
11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner,
12 saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.'
13 He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
14 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?'
16 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."

Its a very simple parable, a farmer goes into the market place to hire workers, and continues to do so throughout the day. At the end of the day, he pays everyone the same amount regardless of how long they worked that day. Naturally, the ones who put in more time expect to be paid more than those who worked only a couple of hours, but the farmer refuses saying it's his money, he can do what he wants with it, and he is only paying what the workers agreed to be paid, so stuff it.

For me the farmer symbolizes God, the workers are us hairless monkeys, the work is living a Christian life, and the payment is eternal salvation. All day long, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, God offers us an invitation to join his followers. The invitation is always there. As Christians we don't need to ask God to accept us, but rather we must accept God. The invitation is to all of us, no one is excluded.

If we chose to accept God's invitation, there is no free ride. Believe me, it is work living as a Christian. It's not always fun to attend Mass week after week. It's not easy to be forgiving, especially to your enemies. Yet we are called on to not only forgive them, but to love them. It takes years to study all the lessons the Bible has for us. And one must put expend great effort and time. We are expected to volunteer our time and our wealth to help others. And to do so with good cheer.

And why does the farmer agree to pay all workers the same regardless of the length of the work day? Because salvation is God's gift to us. We do not deserve it, no matter how hard or how long we work. It is not by the fruit of our labors that we earn salvation, not at all. Salvation is bestowed because God chooses to do so. And God gives it to whoever God chooses, whenever God chooses. Before God we are all equal. We are expected to live a worthy life of work and effort, but those of us who choose the accept God's invitation earlier in our lives should not expect to be above anyone else in salvation. We don't deserve it, it is a gift from God. All the good deeds we do are not vane attempts to add more pluses than minus' so when we stand before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, we get our ticket stamped. No, that's completely backwards. Because we accept God' invitation, the outcome is that we do good work, not the other way around.

And lastly, the farmer admonishes the workers who demand more than they agreed to. Pure and simple libertarianism and property rights. God provides salvation at God's discretion, and no one can demand more. We've been invited, we've accepted, and we've complied with God as best we can. No one deserves salvation. A kindly old priest told us a story once during the homily years ago about St. Teresa of Avila, some times referred to as St. Teresa of the Roses. I'm sure most every one has seen an image of her at some point. A young nun in full habit, carrying a crucifix and a bouquet of roses. As the priest told it, she was laying on her deathbed, surrounded by her fellow nuns who were comforting her in her final moments. They told her not to worry, she'd lived a good and pious life, surely God would see she deserved heaven. St. Teresa replied she was a human and a sinner, and she deserved nothing from God. She didn't want what she deserved, she wanted mercy from God.

Merry Christmas!

Neopaleoliberal©

2006-12-16T16:48:00.000-05:00

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

I remember reading Romeo and Juliet in ninth grade English class. Not one of his best works, and not a particularly interesting read either. The only reason I remember it is because I have a mind like a steel trap. Whereas with most people, ideas come and go, in my head they rattle around for a while and then start setting up subdivisions. But I digress.

The cause of this little mental meandering is the term "neocon". I've been called a neocon, usually by mentally deficient liberals who think it shows how hip and suave they are. Secretly I've always thought they don't have the slightest idea what a neocon is, they just see it in Molly Ivins columns and in blogs and toss it around to show how well read they are. As I've shadow-boxed with them over the years, I've also come to believe no one really knows the definition of neocon, and I believe that is because I don't think there really is a definition. I think it's one of the words that just kind of appeared on its own, coined by someone, released into the wilds of the internet, where it has multiplied to the point that every one uses it and just assumes they know the definition.

I've asked people on both sides of the political divide and haven't heard anything that even required much thinking to come up with. I've heard "Jews" as one definition, but that's far too simplistic. I've received plenty of examples, but nothing that even begins to show the solid thinking necessary for a definition. Then I read a book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. that shows considerable forethought and effort.

Woods' definition is roughly this: The rise of the modern conservative movement in America - which probably began with the presidential aspirations of Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. Their platform was small, limited government, lower spending, lower taxes, strong national self defense, and keeping the government the hell out of people's lives. [Editor's note: Hmm, why does that remind me of something...]

The movement's greatest accomplishment has to be eight years of Ronald Reagan, and its zenith is the 1994 take over of the House of Representatives following forty plus years of liberal-democratic control. But as anyone with even a passing interest in watching politics (beats the hell out of looking at yellow-bellied sapsuckers) can tell, we may have gotten some taxes lowered, and Reagan did slow down the growth of that great leviathan called government, but overall we do not have a smaller, more limited government, and lower spending has become an oxymoron like Congressional Ethics.

So what happened? According to Woods, once the Republicans began seizing the reigns of government, they found they liked being the head honchos. Many of them abandoned their cherished principles in favor of big fat lobbyist checks, and the ability to do pretty much whatever they want. They believed larger government is acceptable, as long as they control it. They favored increased spending, as long as they could keep the taxes low enough to not piss off their party supporters. And in general, became big government liberals in conservative clothes. It is these people Woods refers to as "neocons."

Now, "neo" is Greek for "new", so neocon would be a new type of conservative, which, ironically, is pretty much the opposite of what a conservative is.

Stick with me, we're almost there.

Obviously - at least to me - I am not, nor have I ever been a neocon of any sort. I'm convinced of that. So what am I? I've been asking myself that question for some time, not because I'm into labels, but because the world is filled with labels, and I try to find my way through them. There are many liberal goals that I find worthy and I fully support. Who doesn't want world peace, good ~~public~~ education, clean air and water, etc.? Where I part ways with liberals is how to achieve these goals. The liberal viewpoint is simple; raise taxes, redistribute wealth, and take away as much freedom for people to be stupid as they can to prevent simple, uneducated, unwashed masses from hurting themselves and others. In other words, business as usual since FDR's New Deal. I can plainly see that none of that really works, and in reality usually makes things worse.

So am I a "neoliberal"? I offered that proposition to my blog editor. (Yes, I have an editor, do you?) He replied that he believes I'm more of a paleoliberal, in that my beliefs fall more closely in line with old time liberalism, back when the root word was recognized as 'liberty." But that doesn't quite fit the bill either, since I do want to accomplish new things, but I want to use the lessons from the past to determine what works and what doesn't.

So, with out further ado, I offer up to you Ladies and Gentlemen, a new political movement, for which I rightly can claim the honor of naming. I present to you "neopaleoliberalism!"

Dem Quixotic

2006-12-06T20:37:00.000-05:00

There's been talking heads on the right who have used the analogy of religion to describe the values (or lack thereof) of the left. Ann Coulter even wrote a book about it. I can take only slight, smug satisfaction knowing that my editor and I had debated the theory years before she wrote her book. Only slight because while I can claim credit, she still gets the checks.

But I've never been completely satisfied with the analogy, there's just something about it that doesn't seem quite right. Last night while I was walking through my dining room, I was struck with a bolt of inspiration. It's not religion that makes the best analogy. Religion is recognizing and accepting the existence of a higher being and/or plane of existence. For the analogy to work, this would be required of the top tier of liberals to accept something larger and more important than themselves. And I believe that's why it doesn't fit. It doesn't really describe the actions and emotions of the rank and file liberal democrats. The rank and file don't look up to the top tier liberal groups and politicians for salvation; they look up to them in awe, but hardly with the hope of eternal salvation. So no, it's not religion. It's Chivalry.

About 15 years ago my sister and I attended the Sterling Forest Renaissance Festival in upstate New York. It's quite a day trip vacation. For those who are interested in history period events, I highly recommend it. One of the first booths you encounter upon entering is the print shop. There are all kinds of drawings, etchings, prints - you name it you can probably find it there. I bought myself a nice little drawing of a dragon reclining on a burned out castle. Enough said. Later in the day my sister somehow managed to ditch me long enough to sneak back over to the printer and she bought me a print of a Code of Chivalry based upon a 13th century France document. I got it for Christmas that year, and it's hung proudly on my wall ever since.

The Code of Chivalry (France, circa 13th Century)

Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt observe all its directions.

Thou shalt defend the Church.

Thou shalt respect all Weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

Thou shalt love the Country in which thou wast born.

Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.

Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties in accordance with the law of God.

Thou shalt be generous and give largess to every one.

Thou shalt be the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

With some slight modifications, I believe we have a pretty accurate code of honor among liberals:

The Code of Liberalism (San Francisco, New York, circa 20th Century)

Thou shalt believe all the Democratic Party teaches and shalt observe all its directions.

Thou shalt defend the Democratic Party.

Thou shalt respect all Recognized Victim Classes and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

Thou shalt love the Democratic Party in which thou wast born.

Thou shalt make war against the conservative without cessation and without mercy.

Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy liberal duties in accordance with the law of the Democratic Party.

Thou shalt be generous with other's money and give largess to every recognized victim class.

Thou shalt be the champion of the Left and the Good against Injustice and Evil.

As with the dragon etching, enough said.

It's getting hot in here

2006-11-28T14:53:00.000-05:00

I was reading the local newspaper this past Sunday morning, and almost fell out of my chair laughing. My local paper employs a democratic hack for their senior editorial page writer. I can barely read his column anymore, even though I will give him credit for at least admitting his bias. Last summer he concluded a column by stating that there are some people who believe democrat equals good and republicans equal evil, and then proudly stated he was one of them. One point for honesty, one million points for political bias.

On Sunday said author began his column with the following rhetorical question:

Q: Do this country's news organizations have a greater obligation to their readers and viewers or to the federal government?
A: Are you kidding?

I reached the same rhetorical answer, but for what I'm sure are vastly different reasons. The reason I view the reply as ridiculous is the two options he offers are both wrong. The real joke lies in the obvious answer as to where a news organization's obligations lie. They lie neither with their readers and viewers nor government of any kind. Is it just me, or is the obvious answer that a reporter's obligations are to the truth - government and readers be damned?

If the truth hurts the government, or if it hurts readers, so what? After all a reporter's job is to report, isn't it? But I guess I'm asking too much from the modern mainstream media. Anyone with a brain should be completely disgusted with their unparalleled bias so blatantly displayed during the recent election season. Of course, if you're of the democratic persuasion, as many of my family and friends are, you probably view the pig-sty of campaign reporting as a fair and balanced overview of the natural order of all things. Or to put it another way, democrat good, republican evil. Not convinced? How about the doctored photos from the recent Israel/Lebanon war? Hundreds of examples. Blatant. Patent. Lies.

I could go on and on about the obvious political bias of the media at the expense of the truth, but even though I could fill volumes, I don't really have the time to type up about 30,000 pages. [Editor's note: Thank God!] So I'll just pick one off the top of my head. The great global warming hoax.

That's right, you heard me. The Great Global Warming HOAX!

Is the globe warming? Maybe yes, maybe no. No one really knows for sure, that's because science isn't even close to coming up with a definitive answer. By the way, that part isn't the hoax. That part's the truth. Take a moment to think back when was the last time you heard that reported. Personally I can't recall the last time I heard it reported that the majority of scientists either had no position or weren't yet convinced. What is printed however is Al Gore and his entourage endlessly repeating that science has concluded there is a problem, the time for science is over, and the time for politics is now.

He usually adds that all serious scientists agree; which implies only nut cases, lunatics and the such could possibly disagree with him and his proponents. He even likes to trot out the old "flat earth society" cliche to further ridicule his opponents. Not that there is anything wrong with a politician arguing politics. I would expect nothing less from Mr. Gore, just as I would expect nothing less from the right wing hacks spouting off all kinds of scientific mumbo-jumbo. My point is, no one in the media is asking Mr. Gore to back up his claim that everyone agrees with him. Not one single news source has the testicular fortitude to question what is so obviously a lie. Allow me: "Mr. Gore, why do you insist that less than 50% of the scientific community constitutes the vast majority of scientists?" I'm not holding my breath.

Reporters may or may not have an opinion on global warming. They may think that by spreading the message they are helping inform the public. They may even convince themselves they are doing their part to save the future of the world. Whatever their reasoning, one thing they are not doing is reporting the truth. In this example, reporters may believe they are obligated to their viewers at the expense of the government. But in reality, they are obliging their political affiliations and the environmental movement at the expense of their viewers. Which means, we all lose.

We all lose because shoddy science is given the benefit of the doubt at the expense of real science. The truth is not even up for consideration. Again, is global warming a reality or not is a matter of science, yet to be determined. The fact that Al Gore and the environmentalists are allowed a free pass to discredit the majority of the scientific community is awful. The real victim in this case is the truth. So I ask any and all reporters once again, where do your allegiances lie, with your views and readers or with the government, or with the truth?

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to.......

2006-11-12T17:00:00.000-05:00

So the dust begins to settle on the 2006 US Congressional elections. Democrats are in, the GOP is out, and whatever one draws from this, the obvious results are that the political ruling class wins and the everyday American loses. And loses big.

I'm hardly a fan of Republicans. But seeing as Democratic party principles can't survive even ten minutes of rational debate, I fail to see how this bodes well for We The People. Republicans - some at least - pay lip service to common sense, economics, physics and reality. Those on the left seem convinced that if we just say something long enough and loud enough, it will be so. Guess what sports fans, it don't work that way.

On the one hand, with the GOP we at least got some tax cuts - though notably absent were the spending cuts that should have gone hand in hand. And we did get what I perceive as two of the best Supreme Court Justices we've had in decades, if not centuries. With two years left of Bush, I held out hope beyond hope that Janice Rogers Brown could take a seat on that panel. Scratch that one now. All Americans are poorer and less free for this. During Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearings, some democratic dick stated he wanted to be sure the "little guy" would get a fair shake in Roberts court room. Roberts replied that if the law says the little guy should win, then the little guys would win. If the law says the big guy should win, the big guy will win. His point is, his court room would be ruled by law, not emotions. Emotions change on a whim. Laws don't. For me, the Roberts court is a solid mark in the win column for Bush, regardless of anything else. I feel safer with my fate protected and guarded by law, not on how well the media can spin it on CNN.

My analysis of the election is the Democrats didn't win so much as the Republicans lost. I don't see how you can call it a mandate from the people when their entire strategy was "Bush sucks." Plays well on HardBall, accomplishes nothing in reality.

There were some bright spots in the election for people of all political stripes. For starters, the demands of tens of thousands of democrats screaming "the election was stolen!" is deafeningly silent. I thought the only way Republicans could win (or Democrats could lose) was because the elections are rigged? Guess not. Irrefutable proof that all the whining and wailing of 2000, 2002 and 2004 was nothing more than wimps and losers unable to face the fact that reality continues regardless of their insistence it does not.

Secondly, I don't want to hear one more whiny cry-baby say America is a fascist nation. If it were there would not have been election earlier this week. Fascists tend to not care too much about the will of the people. If Bush equals Hitler, and Hitler didn't let his opponents even organize, much less field a slate of candidates for elections, much less not send the SS out to dispatch them, then does Bush still equal Hitler? Probably in the small minds of people who can't generate the mental horsepower to see past party affiliations. But then again, when one refuses to accept reality, then the constraints reality places on one, do not exist either.

Here's one thing I can say with pretty much 100% certainty. Soon, if not already, but definitely by the time the next Congress convenes, the media will treat us to a slew of stories about how good the economy is getting, and how things are looking up in Iraq and around the world. This past election cycle has proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. The mainstream media is the PR wing of the Democrats. I have never seen so much bias in reporting in my life. I did not think it were possible and wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself. But I did. The media invested a lot of its credibility in this race, and in my opinion, they lost it all.

So collect the balloons, sweep up the streamers and confetti, gather up all the empty champagne bottles. It's time to get ready for the next election. The cycle has already started!

Why Vote

2006-10-27T09:53:00.000-05:00

The other day I received a request to bloviate about why anyone in America (other than politicians) should even give a damn about voting. Seeing as I owe him, and you, a post, it's as good as any. I am to receive extra credit if I can convince him to vote GOP. I won't get that credit, because I'm not even going to try that. He, and anyone, can vote for whomever they like. But the question remains, to vote or not to vote. So let's get started.

I live in a very, Very, VERY blue state, New York. I am not a liberal, I am not a democrat, I am not a republican; I consider myself a very rare bird these days, as someone who is politically neutral with respect to the two major parties in NY, I am truly independent. My political tastes tend toward conservatism, not because it's more attractive, but rather liberal ideas and viewpoints, to quote John Maynard Keynes about early twentieth century British monetary policy, "could not survive ten minutes of rational discussion."

Knowing the political make up of ultra blue New York City, and the election process we use, I know for a fact my vote counts for virtually nothing and is, statistically speaking, trivial. So why should I bother voting myself, much less convince someone else to vote? What's the point? Everything is the point.

I could start with the flag waving, describe bombs bursting in air, Bunker Hill, the Civil War, D-Day to rouse his patriotic stirrings, but I won't do that. Mostly because I know it won't work. Let's start with an analogy.

We live in a nation with one of the most fairest, legal systems in the world. I know its a massive, tangled web of processes, procedures and bureaucracies. But if you compare it to most other nations, people living under other nation's legal systems would trade their entire goat herd for a chance to have their day in an American style court room.

And the American legal system is strange too. Highly inefficient, overly dramatic if you think about it. There are lawyers, judges, more lawyers, bailiffs, more lawyers, stenographers, and more lawyers. Did I mention the lawyers? Got them too. Now given the fact that most criminal trials are judged by a "jury of their peers", and knowing the basic, average intelligence of the common, off-the-street American, why would any suspect want to leave their fate in the hands of twelve people plucked off the street under threat of contempt of court? The judge obviously knows more about the legal system than anyone in the jury. Why not just have the lawyers file reports with the court, have the judge read them and render verdict? Would save a lot of time and money. The reason we have trials open to the public, in an open court, where everyone can hear what's said, and can later read the transcripts is because we humans are emotional creatures.

The legal system does not need the drama of a court, but we humans do. The accused needs to be there to stand up and declare his or her innocence for all to see. The victims need to be there to satisfy themselves that they had their day in court. Friends and relatives of murder victims need that day in court to say their piece for the record, to see justice done (or not). It's how humans deal with the crisis, pain and suffering that accompanies such calamities. They can not begin to heal till they see closure, and a judge rapping his gavel on the bench is part of that process. Only after everyone has had their say, gone through the process, can they begin to move on, even though some can't or won't.

And for me, it's the same with voting in elections. It's part of the uniquely American culture that campaigns are long, hard, dirty, disgusting and prohibitively expensive. It's how we as Americans become part of the great national drama. It's our chance to have our say in court, on the record. By actively participating in a campaign and election, we have our say, we try to convince others to join us, and try to dissuade others from opposing us. And it's important that all Americans see themselves and each other participating by voting, because it gives us the knowledge that ultimately We The People hold politician's futures in our hands. It's proof the American election system and government work. (Well, kind of.) When we go to the polls, we see our fellow Americans having their day at the ballot box. We see for ourselves just how dumb accusations of voting fraud really are. Should we do away with elections, and instead just read who won in the morning paper, the results wouldn't carry nearly the weight they do when we participate ourselves. We vote because it displays our faith in our system, and our country, and that faith is what binds us all as Americans. We may not agree with the election results, we may be furious over how others voted, but because it was settled by a vote, we can move on looking to the next campaign season, and begin to get over whatever hurt feelings we may have endured. We can start on new plans, ideas, policies, what have you. And I believe one of the reasons this country works is because of this process. Its not just about who won and who lost, its about the dramatic, public process that we participated in first-hand.

And make no mistake, we do hold politicians feet to the fire during elections. They would like nothing better than to avoid that fateful day. They attempt to destroy their opponent's image and character. Anything goes in political campaigns because politicians are attempting any means they can think of to change the odds in their favor. It's been said that no lawyer likes to go to trial because that places the final decision in the hands of jury. And you can never tell how a jury will decide. It's completely out of the lawyers hands once those twelve people begin deliberations. And its the same with politicians. In an election, the power is removed from their hands, and placed in ours, We The People, the voters. And We The People have to see that happen, in order to satisfy our human emotional needs so we can continue to have faith in our nation, our governments, and ourselves. So get out there and pull that lever, your fellow Americans are depending upon you.

The Human Condition

2006-09-11T14:36:00.000-05:00

"....[I]t should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer..."

Twenty some odd years ago I worked in Burlington, Vermont for a megalomaniacal corporation with an ego big enough to match its bottom line and market share. While I was there I took advantage of their educational opportunities to further my skills, and signed up to complete the regular Calculus I through IV sequence. Since my company was rolling in so much cash, they hired a professor from the University of Vermont ("Groovy UV") to come on site to teach, we got regular college credit at no personal expense, and everyone was happy. Well, that was until we started taking Calculus.

I had a very strange professor for Calc II & III. He had a quirky sense of humor. While he may have floored his colleagues at conventions of professors of higher mathematics, it was pretty much lost on us as our brains oozed out our ears trying to understand, what I have come to believe, is impossible to understand. He had one phrase that he used when he had just explained something none of us got: "[I]t should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer....". I understood the humor of the phrase, though I believe it was lost on most every one else.

I'll get back to that phrase is a little bit.

The most terrifying and gratifying day of my life was May 24, 1993. The day my child was born and I became a father. Having suffered health problems since the day I was born, I was scared shitless that I might pass on the same issues that plagued me my entire life to my child. We consulted doctors and they assured us there was almost no chance, but until the moment I saw for myself, there's no describing the agony I felt at what might befall my child for the sin of having me for a Dad. After the delivery, I went with the nurse to the clean up room where the baby is cleaned up, measured, weighed, and the like. At that moment I knew what my parents must have felt like when the doctors told them there were problems with their child. But everything came out fine, there were no health issues, and I was the proud father of a bouncing baby girl!

I bring this up because I've heard a phrase more than a few times over the last 13 years and I've come to believe it. When you become an adult, you are only half grown up. Its not until you raise a child that you fully grow up. Ain't that the truth! You have no idea the fun it can be raising a child. Christmas comes alive like you haven't experienced since you were a kid. To see their eyes light up at all the "stuff!" Easter egg hunts, Halloween, first day of school, first time swimming, words can't describe it, you need to experience it. A few years ago we bought her her first two wheel bike. I was in the kitchen and noticed her sitting on it for the first time in the back yard. She had the big, goofy, over-sized helmet we bought, and she was hunched over the handle bars. I watched wondering what she was doing when she suddenly lifted her head, made the sign of the cross and then tried riding it for the first time. It was then I realized she was praying to God to not let her die on this monstrosity. She was scared as heck, asking for God's help, but nothing was going to stop her from trying!

I would be remiss if I didn't mention all the pitfalls that come with being a new parent. Another heart stopping moment is when your brand new family checks out of the hospital. Did you know the only requirement to taking a new born baby home from the hospital is that you have an appropriate child seat? The orderly looks in the car, and if you have a place to put the baby, off you go. I don't know what happens if you don't, because we did. Then you drive home at about three miles an hour, go inside, and guess what? You have a baby! There are no tests to pass, no certifications to qualify, no nothing. It's your kid, go home. And if you have to go back to the hospital, and they see something questionable, the state steps in. Talk about a sobering moment!

Don't get me wrong, we did our homework as best we could. We took the Lamaze courses, we took the baby care classes, we read the books, I highly recommend "The First Twelve Months" to any expecting parents who may be reading this. And here is where I'm going with the baby stuff.

Babies don't know anything when they're born. It's almost safe to say they know absolutely nothing, but not completely true. Babies are born with several instincts, other than that, they are a compete blank slate. Doctors check for, if I remember correctly, seven different ones. Among them is the gag instinct, the falling backwards instinct (when you feel like your going to fall and your eyes bug out and you flop around like a moron). Another one is walking. If a new born is held up over a surface, their legs will mimic walking (though they can't actually do it, their bones are like wet noodles at this stage) but they will make the movement. They loose this instinct after a few weeks, but it comes back in a few years when they do start walking.

We were fortunate while in the new baby section of the hospital to have a day nurse who was my cousin's wife. Family! She was so kind, and so caring, and so helpful words can't explain how much she helped us. Did you know newborns don't even know how to eat? Their mouth will suck, but they haven't the slightest clue as to what to do. The baby and the mother both need to learn how to breast feed.

I'm getting closer to my point!

Humans are blessed with having the largest, most functional, most developed brains on the entire planet. I'm sure some greenie out there would scoff at me and point to dolphins or porpoises, to which I reply: Apollo moon landing baby! There is one major drawback though - birth. How does one get a brain that large through the birth canal of a female human? It doesn't fit. So what evolution has come up with is the brain is mush, the skull is elastic, and the baby's head changes shape during birth. Only up until the last hundred years or so, giving birth was a major cause of death among women and children worldwide. It still is in most of the world. Having a brain that's not much more than oatmeal solves evolution's problem of getting a big brain from the womb to the world, but it presents many other problems. Such as, you have a baby with a brain like oatmeal and a head shaped like a cone. They know absolutely nothing. Zero. Zip. NOTA. (I remember at about four months, looking at my daughter with her cone head and thinking "damn, with that head, you are ugly! Oh well, you're mine and I love you anyway." Thanks goodness it does eventually round out.)

When a human is born, they know how to sleep, they know they are hungry (though not what to do about it), they know how to crap, and they know how to cry. And that's all folks. A puppy or a kitten can be weaned from their mother between six to twelve weeks, then off they go. At twelve weeks, humans can't even see. Some animals do spend a few years teaching their young how to hunt and survive before sending them out into the world, at a few years most humans can't even speak or walk. Everything a human knows, everything a human believes, everything they are absolutely, completely, 100% sure of is taught to them. Practically nothing is instinctual. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing is "...intuitively obvious to the casual observer." Nothing. I told you I got the Calc professor's joke!

While I proudly stand on the nurture side of the 'nature vs. nurture' debate, allow me a caveat: I fully understand how genes play out in this debate. I have no doubt Michael Jordan's kids are tall, fast, and most likely excellent athletes. I also don't doubt that parents with super-sized IQ's probably have kids with high intelligence also. But in my opinion, by and large, how, when and where a human grows up has a lot more impact on their lives than who their parents are. If the smartest person in the world grows up on an remote, isolated farm, chances are all they'll probably know is the smartest way to run a farm. And as for intuition, to me, it's nothing more than having a brain that can make certain associations so quickly, even the person themselves don't realize it.

Now another twist.

For some time, I've been personally studying the origins of Christianity, the Bible - New Testament in particular. Every week during Sunday Mass, several times I repeat the words "The Word of the Lord." Being naturally curious (maybe there are some instincts we inherit?) I've been interested in learning just who decided what is the Word of the Lord and who decided what wasn't the Word of the Lord. Along the way, I've learned about a vast cast of characters. One in particular stands out, St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. At first glance he comes off as a whacko. He's the guy who decided that Original Sin (Adam, Eve, the serpent, that stuff) was passed on from generation to generation via sperm, and all we need do is look back of 1,600 hundred years of Church sponsored sexual repression to see how that worked out. I believe it was also the basis for the theology backing the virgin birth and Immaculate Conception, where as since Jesus wasn't conceived by human sperm he was therefore born without original sin. Digging deeper, he did have some (emphasis on some) reasonable logic to make his claim. If a child is born free of sin, then why were so many children born with such horrible defects? Remember this was the early 400's so there was much suffering. Missing limbs, blind, scared, already infected with diseases. How could something so innocent be plagued by such misery? His rationale was that humans must be born with the punishment of Original Sin. He has a point. A very shaky one, easily dismissed with the help of today's science, but at the time? Think about it.

In a nutshell, St. Augustine believed that the world we live in was the punishment for Original Sin, we are doomed as humans to live in this misery, in pain, with the death we all know is coming, ruled over by an imperfect government and society, and our best hope is to pray the Church leads society as best as possible to deal with our collective punishment. Not a very inspiring vision, and from that I can see how Christianity had such a gloomy image for so many thousands of years. It is a startling thought to realize that we must live every day of our lives, surrounded by death, knowing, with out a doubt, that is our fate. Crucifix any one?

Personally I believe we should take this one more step. It's not just that we must live in this imperfect world, surrounded by pain, misery, starvation, agony, death and impending death, but also with the fact that we have no inborn instincts on how to survive other than violence. That's about all humans come packaged with. If something scares you, won't feed you, won't help you, you feel this over reaching urge to choke the living shit out of it. By the way, that's one definition I've heard for stress. Other than that, we are pretty much at society's mercy. It exists, we don't understand it, but we'd better pick it up pretty damn quick or else society will deal with us as it pleases.

So how does all this add up? Is there a point to all my rambling text? Of course there is. And you though I was just trying to sell you Amway!

There are many blessings to being a human. I can't tell you the joy when my young daughter told me I was a gift from God to her. Excuse me while I get misty here. There is also great draw backs to it. For one thing, we know nothing about anything. Everything we know, everything we believe in, everything we base our entire lives on, the morals we profess, the way we treat our neighbors, our family, ourselves, is learned. Bigotry? Learned. Hatred? Learned. Thievery? Learned. Murder? Learned. Love? Learned. Compassion? Learned. Love of learning? Learned.

Now here's where it gets tricky.

The Church my family attends (yes I drag them with me pretty much every Sunday) is a beautiful old building. It was built in 1900. Last year during Christmas Mass, the lector pointed out this was the 105th Christmas Mass celebrated in this very building. For 105 years, people have been coming to this very building to worship, to pray, to hope, to Baptize their children, to bury their dead. There's a hall underneath the Church where countless new couples held their wedding receptions. One hundred and five years worth of Lenten Soup Supers. Countless children's parties. Up in the main Worship area (that's where the alter and the pews are) are three massive stained glass windows. The one on the east side is the Resurrection and it catches the morning light perfectly. The bottom reads something like "Donated by the veterans of St. James Parish in memory of their comrades in the 'Great War' who made the ultimate sacrifice for liberty."

The Great War.

For those who aren't history fanatics like me, that's the older name for what modern society now calls World War I. At the time, 1918, it was the worst man-made catastrophe ever experienced by civilization. Five million dead in four years. At that time people thought it was such a horror that humanity would never attempt such an atrocity again, and so it's also called "The War To End All Wars". Boy did they ever get that wrong. How this ties into my theme is this: the generation that fought World War I, the lost generation, those who inhabited this society we have inherited today, thought they had reached a pinnacle, a peak, a summit in human history, never again would things be the way they were, because of their trials and tribulations, society, civilization, humanity itself would be irrevocably changed. Guess again.

But then again, doesn't every generation believe the same? They are the masters of their environment, their society, living at the peak of history. We live in today's world, standing on the shoulders of every generation that came before us. We have the cumulative knowledge, wisdom and experience of all those before us. Or do we? If one generation of humans can realize the futility of fighting the 'War to End All Wars' then how come the next generation went on to fight World War II? And then Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and now repeated forays into the Middle East? I thought the lost generation solved that problem? What happened? I'll tell you what happened. Life happened.

Louis S. B. Leakey is credited with the phrase those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Catchy, but I don't see it selling a lot of t-shirts. What is this history that we need to learn so we don't make the same mistakes? Its the documented achievements and failures of all those other generations before us, who, like us, thought they were the peak, the pinnacle, the summit of humanity and civilization. And as they were wrong in their assumption, we will be wrong in our assumption. We are not the pinnacle of humanity. We are hairless monkeys who came into this world not even knowing how to eat. And just as surely we will pass, leaving nothing more than a brief watermark in history that future generations will pretend to read about in history class, while in reality waiting for the bell to ring so they can sneak out of school, act real cool, stay out all night.

Society is a concept unto itself. We are born knowing nothing, we are raised by society in general, hopefully by our parents in particular, and we must absorb the lessons of life as we grow into adults. My generation didn't build the Church I attend, others did, we just inherited it. It's up to us to make sure it's safe, sound and secure when we pass it on to the next generation that will rise up to take our place, and in turn, they will do so for the next generation. The same happens with all institutions: schools, universities, governments, charities, what have you. And the key to this long missive is, we do not shape the institutions around us - regardless of how sure we are that we do - so much as they shape us. My daughter will grow up as a Catholic. There are good aspects about religion as well as bad. I hope she picks up the good ones, and ignores the bad. She will know little or next to nothing about Islam or Judaism, other than what she picks from society in general. She won't learn racism or bigotry from me, because I am not a racist or bigot, so I don't have those traits to pass on to her. My father grew up in a different generation when there was no talk of sparing the rod. He was regularly whooped to stay in line. Yet he made the conscience choice to not pass those traits on to me and my siblings. Therefore they will not be handed down to my daughter, so she won't hand it down to her children. Proof the chain can be broken.

One last curve ball.

I'm a big Beatles fan. I grew up in the 1970's and it was so not cool to like the old hippie groups like the Beatles from the 1960's. I didn't care, I liked the music. I bought a couple of books on them and came across an interview with John Lennon, given after the band broke up. He answered a question about all the anger the fans showered on Yoko for destroying the best group in the world. His response was very insightful. He said the fans have all the old records if they want to listen to them, and then pointed out how a generation that claimed it was in favor of such radical change, howled like babies when something changed, namely the Beatles broke up. He hit that one right on the nail. Humans always claim to love change, new adventures, see new places, meet new people, but in reality, over all, most humans really don't like change much. When things change, we can't be sure how they'll turn out. Sure people want to see new fads, new foods, new shows, new games. But change one ingredient in Coke and all hell breaks loose. Could be good, could be better, but could also be much, much worse. Not all humans are like that, but experience has taught me most are. Those that don't usually end up out of the gene pool if they don't come to their senses before it's too late.

Why don't we like change? Because we like stability. We like the usual, same old, day to day things. We might bitch and gripe about it, but we like our lives to be predictable. We know how to deal with the predictable, it's the unpredictable that scares us. What happens if we don't know how to react? If we don't know what to do? What if something bad happens? What will we do? You may not be in love with your job, but it sure beats the hell out of not having a regular pay check to keep a roof over your head, and food in your fridge. But the real dichotomy is, everything changes. Nothing stays the same for long. The lost generation from World War I is almost gone. The generation that fought World War II is steadily slipping away. And some day our generation will be lost to history too.

I believe it's this strange dichotomy which accounts for much of the stress and problems in our world. Regardless of what we say, what we think, what we believe, deep down, at some level we all know there is no stability in the world. Anything could happen at any time. Floods, hurricanes, fires, storms, asteroids, heart attacks, the heart break of cirrhosis, anything at any time. Kind of unsettling isn't it? At this very moment you could have a single cell in your body go bad and cancer breaks out. A single clot in an artery breaks free and wham, a stroke. We live our lives pretending to ourselves and others that there is some type of stability in world that in reality is governed by chaos.

And it's that veneer of stability that some of us hold so dear, that we refuse to part with it for any reason at all. How can some one you know, who appears to be sane in every other aspect, appear to be completely insane in others? My theory is that person came into this world as a blank slate, grew up under particular circumstances, shaped by various institutions, and the lessons learned from those experiences shaped and molded the thin veil they use to shield themselves from the impending chaos we all know exists, but prefers to ignore. Any attempts to penetrate that personal shield causes them to question the very stability they use to protect themselves from the inevitable instability of life. And that's asking an awful lot of a person.

How can a regular sane person also be a racist? Because they grew up that way, and for them, that's the way life works, and they would rather argue and fight than come to the realization that their view of the world might be wrong. Or even that there might be a different way to view the world. Way too big a chance they might have to face the reality that they have no real control of the world around them, and that in the end, they will just be dust. Maybe if they're real lucky, they might be worthy of a few lines in a dusty old history book. Or maybe a vague, general reference on a beautiful stained glass window, showering colored sunlight down on a group of youngsters making their first Holy Communion on a Sunday morning, taking their first steps at learning how to exist within the society and the institutions they will all too soon inherit.

News Flash: Peace breaks out in the Middle East!

2006-08-18T12:17:00.000-05:00

Reminds me of the old joke "I went to a boxing match last night and a hockey game broke out."

Well, the Holy Land is at it again, all these peaceful, respectful, God-fearing people (don't believe me? Just ask them), are in the process of taking a break long enough to replenish their spit, bullets, missiles and martyrs.

It wasn't all that long ago that I was fairly ambivalent about sides in that never-ending skirmish. Then I read a book written by Natan Sharansky and my opinion changed dramatically. It was an eye opening event. For those not familiar with Mr. Sharansky, he was what we used to refer to, back in the Cold War days, as a "Peacenik." That means he had the balls to back up his ideals to when dealing with Moscow. Cost him a dozen or so years in a Siberian Gulag. In my eyes, he has street cred.

I purchased a copy of the book for my blog editor (does your blog and have an editor? Didn't think so!) because it was such an eye popping epiphany. It's based on a series of essays he wrote with one or more people, so it covers a wide range of topics. One section deals specifically with the Israeli - Palestinian issue (how's that for white-washing the word "war"?). And again, he speaks from first hand experience, he was part of the Israeli negotiating team at Wye River. For those who don't remember that event, it was the last time Yassar Arafat pretended to negotiate. He was right there at the table with him. And what he reports is important.

To sum it up, the negotiations were (and therefore most likely are) ludicrous. One issue the Israelis brought up was the stealing of Israeli automobiles and their transportation to chop-shops in Gaza and the West Bank. Arafat's reply was Israelis are doing, not Palestinians. Yeah. Right. Israelis are stealing their own cars, driving them over into hostile territory (Palestinian controlled land gives a whole new mean to the term hostile to Jews) and selling them to upright, honest used car dealers, then reporting them as stolen for the insurance money. Mr. Sharansky said it was at that point he realized negotiations with the PA (or for those of us old enough to remember - the PLO) were hopeless. They wouldn't even admit to the crime problem. Everything was the Jews fault.

He goes one step deeper into the behind the scenes action. As he states, at one point, the US State Department (Clinton Administration) had the Israeli negotiators in an arm-lock. They got Israel to agree to meet 93% of all of Arafat's demands. We're not talking about 50-50%, 48-52%, we're talking about giving into pretty much everything the Arafat wanted. And what did Arafat do? He walked away. That was his chance to actually earn the Nobel prize those drunken Swiss mistakenly gave him. He could have had the two state solution. Like George Washington, he could have gone down in history as the father of his country. The fact he bolted shouldn't be surprising, after all, if they could get along, they wouldn't still be negotiating. But "why" is an interesting question.

The answer is so simple I couldn't believe some one with my superior intelligence couldn't figure it out on my own. The Palestinians can't have peace, because it would destroy them. Let me clarify, the Palestinian leadership couldn't afford peace, because it would destroy them.

The PLO, PA, Hammas, Hezbolloh, Islamic Jihad, take your pick, are all organizations based upon violence. They need blood, carnage, chaos and conflict in order to remain in power. Should a permanent peace ever really break out, then there really isn't much of a need for these armed thugs hanging around, now would there? Also, if there were no Israeli or American bogeyman to scare the population to death, maybe they would just start to notice how crappy their lives are, how poor they are, how destroyed their land is, and just how much these crooks are stealing from them. They just might start thinking that "hey, this life sucks, I want a say in my own destiny, I want a say in my own government, heck I could do a better job than these guys myself. And just why do I have to beg Arafat for a job, and why do I have to beg Hammas for food for my kids?" When that point is reached, there will be peace. It will also be the end of the line for these armed crooks. And that, they do not wish to see.

No, a true, real, lasting peace in the Middle East will not come until these various Mafia "families" have lost their death grip on power, money and their people's future.

So don't hold your breath hoping this cease fire turns into a lasting peace, because it won't. It can't. The thugs will force their people to dance for the cameras, makes great publicity. They will continue to steal government money to make US and Israeli flags, ready to distribute and burn on a moment's notice. They will continue to crank out propaganda signs for fiery protests. And they will continue to stockpile guns, ammo, missiles and bombs. And when the time is right, they will do what they always do; provoke an action, then sit back and smile as the blood of innocents is spilled for their evil purposes. They will cry they are victims, and the wheel will continue another bloody spin.

Mr. Sharansky has a term for societies such as this, he calls them "fear based" society. And he knows one when he sees it. When you live in a fear based society, you have no idea who's on your side and who's on the ruler's side. And it's even more dangerous to try and find out. He speaks about an event when he was a teenager. One of his buddies snatched some vodka from their Dad's liquor cabinet. While the boys guzzled it down, one of them made a crack about the communists. There was a little nervous laughter, and the party moved on. A few weeks later, that friend disappeared in the night and no one ever mentioned him again.

That's the battle we (Israel, the US, western society) are up against. And until the people are free, there will be no peace.

A War the Democrats Can Win

2006-08-15T13:11:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: The author insisted I post this Scotch-soaked rant. Perhaps this is a good time to refer to this disclaimer.

News Flash: Jubilant Democrats Announce New Strategy For Winning Campaigns - Defeat Democrats!

The bells were ringing, Code Pink banners abound as democrats enjoyed their first election victory in years by defeating fellow Democrat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senatorial primary last week. Howard Dean, leader of the Democratic Party, could barely contain his enthusiasm at his party's success. Said Dean "I told you we could do it! I was sure we could take him down, after all, he's a democrat! This is huge for us, and I predict we will implement this strategy on a national basis bringing us many, many more victories in the elections to come!"

Perennial political gadfly Michael Moore managed to stop eating long enough to release a press notice informing his fan or two "This is a watershed event! We have finally found the formula for election success, and we're putting every Democrat on notice, they are vulnerable, and we're taking you down." The press conference was then called early due to an incident with Moore attempting to eat fourteen Krispy Kreme treats at once. Tragedy was narrowly averted when a team of seven of his aides were able to form a human chain to reach around Mr. Moore and perform the Heimlich Maneuver

Peace activist, and really scary-looking person Cindy Sheehan answered questions from a sidewalk cafe over lunch. "I knew my on-going fast would produce results! We've known all along that democrats are easy targets during elections, and now we're going to use this information to target democrats all over the country!" Between bites of a pastrami on rye, and an occasional picked keilbasa she declared "I've been thinking about running for the Senate against Barbara Boxer, and this could just be the time to jump in to the race, before a republican pick's her off."

Not all democrats were happy about the primary outcome, most notably Joe Liberman who quickly bolted from the party. His office released an announcement stating "While we're deeply disappointed at our loss, we intend to continue this campaign from an independent point of view. And I must tell you, being an independent sure takes a load off my shoulders. Being a democrat is like walking around with a target on your back." John F. Kerry, one time presidential nominee also was shaken by the news. "This is scary stuff. I'm happy to support any and all democratic candidates, just so long as they're not running against me. This reminds me of my tour of Vietnam......*"

*Note: The reporter covering Mr. Kerry's comments fell asleep at this point, and did not awaken for several hours, long after the press conference concluded.

Though obviously elated by the news, President Bush's comments were more subdued. "It's just like that movie about the mobsters I watched with Mr. Cheney. One kiss and they're dead. Who knew the President had such powers?" Presidential aid Karl Rove was cornered by the Washington Press Corp. while in the White House, and said between giggles "We all knew it was only a matter of time before the democrats finaly figured it out."

A flood of compassion

2006-07-28T15:36:00.000-05:00

Let it rain, let it rain, let your love rain down on me.

My editor is not going to like this [Editor's note: Not true] , in which case, you may never be granted the opportunity to read these words, but I think I can pull it off well enough to satisfy his libertarian urges.

Last month it rained in my county. And it rained some more. Then it rained some more. Then some more. And then finally Mother Nature got up on her hind legs and really whapped us with the super-soaker. One of the benefits to living in an area blessed with so many rivers and streams is the natural beauty of the area. Fishing, boating, just plain watching the rivers roll. On the downside, we have a lot of water to begin with. When nature decides to triple that amount, well, you get the idea. Flooding on a scale never before seen in this region. While it's nowhere near the devastation heaped on the south by Katrina, it was more than we could handle here.

Watching the neighborhood you grew up in underwater is a surreal feeling. So much needs to be done and as soon as possible. Yet there isn't really anything to do, other than to start collecting two of every species (I choose me and Jennifer Love Hewit!). There were mass evacuations, national guard was called out to ferry people over the water in helicopters. Governor of the state had his live press conference canceled while in progress because the rivers he was using for a dramatic background decided it didn't like being used for cheap political blather, and chased him out.

On a side note, but well related to this topic, I live in a small village in upstate New York. Maybe 15,000 - 20,000 residents. So we have village government, a town government, and a county government as well as state and federal. There's been a lot of talk over the years about dissolving some of the levels, merging with others, the common stuff. Just a week earlier a large group stormed the village meeting and demanded to have their concerns put on the record, as well as the Trustee's position on it. One of the main points they had was we have a full time, paid fire department which only made about 51 calls last year. Let me tell you, they made up for it that week. I can't imagine how much worse it would be if we didn't have them. They used the trucks to block off flooded roads, and they pumped out basements for weeks following as the water slowly receded.

The sanitation workers alone deserve congressional medals of honor. They trucked out thousands of tons of garbage and debris. It must have nearly broken their backs. The police department was everywhere they were needed, and even though I know several of them were flooded out themselves, they stayed on the job anyway.

The flooding closed a hospital on low-lying ground forcing the evacuation of 90 patients to other hospitals. I live near one of the other hospitals and heard the sirens and the medivac copters as they accomplished the feat at a clip of one patient every two minutes. The sirens and helicopters continued all day and all night for three days. These emergency service people performed an unbelievable job, they have all our gratitude.

The reason I mention all this is because I learned a lot of things that week and the following days. Government isn't just a nameless, faceless bureaucracy we all claim they are. At the local level, they are just regular citizens, like you and me. One town closer to the river (I wasn't affected, I live on high ground) was 90% underwater. The Town Supervisor lost her home, yet she worked nonstop for days on end, organizing emergency services, working with the county and the state to help her neighbors. Notice I didn't say constituents? Because when you complain about garbage not being picked up you are a constituent. When everything you own is gone, and you are desperate for help - or in a position to offer help - you are a neighbor.

The local paper began a new section in the paper called "Heroes of the flood" where the community could share stories about the good things that happened. And there was no shortage. I read one letter about a pastor at a church. A house on the other side of the river blew up, and rattled the church and it's school so badly they evacuated the school. Minutes after the explosion, he received a call from the gentleman who had just lost everything he ever owned. The gentleman called to say he was okay, and wanted to know if the children at the church needed help getting out. Now that's what I call hero.

Now here's the money line that either makes or breaks my editor's ban on pro-government blog entries: all the help, the aid, the evacuations, all the clean up, the donations, the evacuation centers, it really wasn't about government. It was about we the people helping each other in time of great need. Even if there was no government, even if Ray Nagin were my mayor instead of the mayor of New Orleans, we the people didn't need them. I have no doubt that if Eric wasn't on the police force (traffic division), I know he'd still have been out there helping those in need. If we had no fire department, I have no doubt the fireman would still have been out there doing their best. Instead of large pump trucks, they'd have gone door to door offering help with portable sump pumps. How do I know this? My brother called me as the water began to rise in his basement to see if I had a pump he could borrow, Home Depot was out. I didn't. By the time I got over to his house a few hours later, he had three that people had loaned him. And he managed to keep the water level to a few inches in his basement.

Politics is a great divider, pitting person against person, party against party, and state against state. But in the end, that divisiveness is not strong enough to pit neighbor against neighbor. Need and compassion is stronger, I know, I've seen it first hand. I'm going to remember that the next time a political debate heats up to the point where I think there is no common ground left. Because I know for a fact, there is!

And so it began

2006-07-23T15:26:00.000-05:00

Joshua 1:1-11

1 And it came about after the death of Moses the servant of Jehovah that Jehovah proceeded to say to Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses:

2 “Moses my servant is dead; and now get up, cross this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel.

3 Every place upon which the sole of YOUR foot will tread, to YOU people I shall certainly give it, just as I promised to Moses.

4 From the wilderness and this Leb´a·non to the great river, the river Eu·phra´tes, that is, all the land of the Hit´tites, and to the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun YOUR territory will prove to be.

5 Nobody will take a firm stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I proved to be with Moses I shall prove to be with you. I shall neither desert you nor leave you entirely.

6 Be courageous and strong, for you are the one who will cause this people to inherit the land that I swore to their forefathers to give to them.

7 “Only be courageous and very strong to take care to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn aside from it to the right or to the left, in order that you may act wisely everywhere you go.

8 This book of the law should not depart from your mouth, and you must in an undertone read in it day and night, in order that you may take care to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way successful and then you will act wisely.

9 Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and strong. Do not suffer shock or be terrified, for Jehovah your God is with you wherever you go.”

10 And Joshua proceeded to command the officers of the people, saying:

11 “Pass through the midst of the camp and command the people, saying, ‘Get provisions ready for yourselves, because three days from now YOU are crossing this Jordan to go in and take possession of the land that Jehovah YOUR God is giving YOU to take possession of it.’”

And so it began.

Violence has again broken out in the Middle East. Which we hear about with the same regularity as "do you want paper or plastic?" The important thing to remember is this is not a new issue. This has been going on, off and on, since Joshua led the Tribes of Israel into the Land of Milk and Honey thousands of years ago. Well, not when he lead his people into the Jordan River valley, but rather when they proceeded to clear the land of idol worshippers, namely, the ancestors of the Palestinian people, as well as many others I'm sure any one attending Church regularly could rattle off.

There's more than enough blame to go around for all parties involved. Suicide bombers, war planes, Kaatusha rockets, tanks, more suicide bombers, bulldozers, dead children, more dead children. It never seems to end. I find it kind of ironic that three of the world's five or six major religions refer to the region as the "Holy Land". In a part of the world better known for floating on a sea of oil, this one floats on a sea of blood. I wonder just how far you'd have to drill to get a scarlet stream gushing out of the ground? My guess is not too deep.

World wars, the Crusades, the rise of the Islamic empires, people have fought over this area for ages untold. I'm sure whoever was there before the people Joshua and company removed, did the same thing to whoever was there when they first showed up. It's human nature "that pretty" BONK! "pretty, mine!"

To me, what is probably the biggest issue is competing religions. Now, remember, what religion means to you and I, sitting in our technically advanced, modern-marvel-filled-world, was a much different issue for people thousands and thousands of years ago. It should be painfully obvious that it's quite different for people just part-way around the globe from us. I love attending Mass at my local Parish, and I would be royally pissed if someone blew it up. But some how I'd like to think it's not part of the American psyche to unleash a hatred that would endure for thousands upon thousands of years, causing nothing but pain, death and heartache for our descendents without end.

Americans are different breed. We're more the type to take care of the issue sooner, rather than later, no matter what it costs us. We're also the type to have enough military toys laying around so that others would take notice and think twice. And we're also not above using our military to grab some two bit thug dictator by the scruff of the neck and shaking him (have we toppled any female run dictatorships?) as an example to others in the region to say "You assholes sure you want a piece of this!?!?"

I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the times America has used its military might for self gain. Cuba may have deserved liberation from Spain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they deserved to be sold to the Mafia. But in my opinion, so far, we still come out on the plus side of St. Peter's log book. You have to admit, the concept of modern democracy, a reasonably free Europe, Russia, Japan and South Korea, the Industrial Revolution, the Information revolution, and figuring out exactly how to remove a disease from the list of things that plague most humanity is pretty impressive.

There are also other types of people in the world. People who have no care for anything other than raw brute power and strength (and Americans are well represented on that list too, I'm differentiating myself). There are people who think and plan and work in ways I couldn't even imagine. For example, some one who would engage a US Marine patrol in an ambush, and then hide behind their children to allow survivors to reap the publicity windfall they know will come from the mainstream media. How does a mind like that work? I can't even imagine. But, in a way, that's the modern day version of what Joshua met when he entered the Land of Milk and Honey. And by that I mean, two alien cultures, worlds apart on the basic building blocks of society, living next to each other. First it's throwing leaves over the fence when one rakes, because it's funny. Then it's water on the roof when it's freezing. The next thing you know, there's a museum in the Palestinian-controlled areas that glorify the idiot who strapped on a bomb belt and blew up some twenty kids at a pizza parlor.

The "Holy Land" has been a tinderbox for violence and destruction since the United Nations created it by committee (see what happens when you draw national boarders by committee?). On the one hand, the Muslims do have a dog in this fight "If you felt guilty because of the Holocaust then why don't you give them your country?" On the other hand Israel is here, and it's not going anywhere. And I don't think it should. Its a model of what civilization and humanity can create, even under the most adverse circumstances. It's also a stunning contrast to what humanity will refuse to do, under any circumstances. The Gaza Strip greenhouses being a stellar example.

How to reconcile the differences? One side says the land is theirs because God promised it to them (and I believe, technically, the current manifestation of Israel isn't even in the Jordan River valley). The other says they want to wipe their opponents off the human genome.

As anyone who's read my past writings knows (I think that list is limited to my editor and myself) this is a fight I've come to believe has long been coming. The West and Islam have never come to grips with each other. It wasn't much of an issue with America in the past, because the vast distances of the oceans. On September 11, we learned that doesn't matter any more. We're in a new, uncharted world. Might this be the time to finally settle this once and for all? Cease-fires, negotiations, and UN Sanctions don't have much of a track record. After all, how exactly does one hold cease-fire negotiants in good faith with people who throw parties to celebrate the death of their child who blew himself up in order to kill other children? Yes, a new, uncharted world.

First in War, First in Peace, First with his Foot Up Your Ass!

2006-06-28T16:07:00.000-05:00

If you couldn't already tell by the flotsam floating out of Washington DC, we're in an election season. And what self-respecting, America-loving, hot dog-eating, baby-kissing, bribe-collecting, politician wouldn't take the opportunity of the slowing news cycle - brought on by the Fourth of July holiday - to jump on the bandwagon by voting for meaningless, yet easily converted into political ad, issues? You know what that means, don't you? It's time to bring up a flag burning amendment to the US Constitution!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Beautiful, isn't it? So simple, so plain, so obvious. Its amazing what some authors can accomplish in mere sentences that others can not accomplish with volumes.

I've heard once, but never verified, that Thomas Jefferson opposed the Bill of Rights. Not because he was against freedom, but as he understood the constitution, all freedoms were permitted, and creating a list of guaranteed rights might cause harm because future generations might come to believe only those listed in the Bill of Rights are guaranteed. That is the best and only argument I've ever heard against them.

I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers ever conceived the concept that an American would actually consider burning the symbol for which they fought so hard and valiantly to establish. My money is the thought never entered their minds. If someone burned a flag in front of George Washington, I would assume they would have a lot more to worry about than a court date. They'd have to worry about Washington's foot up their ass. Literally.

But those were the old days, and today we have to deal with a never-ending assortment of kooks who see no boundaries between them and the self importance they feel society and life owes them. "I can do it, and you can't stop me, and I'm on TV because of it, see how special I am?" Special? About as special as French Special Forces, capable of deploying anywhere in the world and in position to surrender within 16 hours of notice.

On the one hand, no one* in Washington really pays attention to the Constitution any more. On the other hand, there are veterans who have really earned the right to not only proudly display their national symbol, but to cherish it's sanctity. If you doubt me, spend some time studying World War II. Trust me, they have a dog in this fight.

But on the third hand, freedom of speech (all kinds, not just spoken, but written, bought, or performance art) is a really great idea. I may not like what they say, and I have the right not to listen, but they do have a right to say it. So it seems to me, there are plenty of dogs in this fight.

Over all, I'd leave the Constitution alone, at least on this issue. I think to myself "what would the most moderate of moderates in American politics, Ben Franklin, say about this issue"? And I have to conclude that old Ben would have come up with a few pithy retorts, humiliating said flag burners. And then a little later, after the fuss was over, send a letter to some of his friends, the ones that really fought in the Revolutionary War, the ones that left blood, limbs, and friends on the killing fields, and say "Hey, do some of you guys want to come up here to my house for a few days? We'll tell some old stories, quaff a few (Sam Adams is in charge of brews!), and then I have this putrid little puke I'd like us all to meet."

Of course, by the time they got there, said putrid little puke would already be trying to figure out how to get George Washington's foot out of his ass.

Government as a bug

2006-06-12T09:37:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, I spent a few days at the shore with my small family, just my wife, our teenage daughter (13, I know, it's coming) and myself. We stayed at a beachfront hotel in Wildwood Crest, New Jersey. Wildwood is known as the party town, but if you go a few miles south to the Crest, its peaceful, quiet, and beautiful. We did go to the boardwalk for a while, more just to say we did it, than any particular urge. But something about the beach just hits my spot. The rumble of the never-ending waves, the white, glittering sands. I even love the seagulls, constantly begging for scraps.

In between walks on the beach, lazy summer reading (John Stossel's new book - which I recommend), way too much good food, and plenty of alcohol, there's plenty of time to just let your mind roam, and think.

While just staring at the ocean (we saw plenty of porpoises and or dolphins, I don't know which) it leaves me with the impression that there is a God. After all, believing all this natural beauty is just a cosmic coincidence, doesn't quite hold up when it's displayed before you in such magnitude. Everything seems so perfect, someone must have been in charge, so grand a plan, such execution. And that's when my drifting mind suddenly realized the problem with government.

Stick with me, I'll get to the point, but first, a short detour.

I went to college in 1981 because I graduated high school and didn't really know how to do anything other than go to school. Don't worry, the professors very quickly pointed out how incapable I was of doing even that. I majored in electrical engineering technology because I did like messing around with gadgets like radios and TVs and stereos. What I discovered was that Western society was on the verge of the computer revolution and I was right in the middle of it.

Over the years as I've watched the computer revolution mature I've noticed something else, as being a lab tech on the inside of it, and a consumer on the outside of it. If you've never been part of a large organization trying to do something very large and expensive, involving teams from (at the time) all over the plant, to teams all over the world (can you say globalization?) it's quite a sight to behold. Hundreds, if not thousands of tiny ants, formed into departments, teams, divisions, disciplines. And for the most part this organization structure works pretty well. But it's not perfect.

Do you have a computer? Of course you do, or you wouldn't be reading my blog. Ever have problems with your computer? No matter how simple an action you are trying to do, something, sooner or later, will go wrong. Hard drive crashes, you lose your data, power supply fires. You think you're saving data when in fact you just deleted it, even though the menu clearly says "save". Frustrating as hell, ain't it? How could some one get that wrong, you think. But the cold fact is no one single person did get it wrong. Every one on every team associated with that particular feature got it wrong. And then the teams that integrate all those features together got it wrong. And all the people that grouped those features into an application got it wrong. And the same kinds of mistakes were made by other teams doing other features, applications and what not.

In the trade we refer to these as "bugs". That's a great story all by itself. Years ago, the very first digital computer ever built, was constructed in Philadelphia. It was a huge project that used vacuum tubes instead of transistors, and as a result, those free calculators you get when you open a new checking account has infinitely more computing power. (The computer you are using now has infinitely more processing power than all the computers that managed the first moon landing.) Well any way it was busted and a couple of service techs were trying to figure out why. Eventually they discovered a moth was attracted to the heat of the tubes, shorted out a circuit and shut down the whole thing. So they pulled it out, taped the moth into the service log book and wrote next to it "system has been debugged." That log book page is now at the Smithsonian.

Now back to computers. Essentially a computer is made up of tiny switches. Trillions and trillions of them really. And every one of these switches has an input and an output. It's either turned on or it's turned off. Group those transistors and you get what's called a logic gate. And these gates behave in a manner that depending upon a group of inputs will trigger a known output. Group these together and so on and so forth and so on and you have a classic "Rube Goldberg" nightmare. Computer programs are nothing more than a collection of instructions that change the inputs on these logic gates, which change the outputs and so on and so forth. Trust me, if you think all that happens when you click the "send to printer" button is a paper comes out, you're nuts. As a matter of fact it's pretty impressive that all these parts, all these decisions, the millions upon millions of different little things that are required to get that printed paper out even work.

And that's because computers and programs are made by humans. Humans are imperfect, no matter what we'd rather believe. And the things we humans do are also imperfect, no matter how hard we try. I can guarantee the people that made a mistake that frustrates you poured over the decisions they made a hundred times, and tested it over and over and over, but still missed it. It just happens. We are not perfect, no matter how we try. Here's some free advice. In life don't try for perfect, try for better. The lack of stress will add years to your life.

Now I promised you the problems with democratic government. Well, actually, I just did. Government is a concept thought up and instituted by imperfect humans. Yet we humans demand perfection, especially from someone who takes half our paycheck in the form of taxes. We get frustrated by politicians who don't seem to be able to accomplish anything. And that's because government, is in fact, closer to a computer than what our politicians would have us believe. "Vote for me, I'll fix it" "Don't vote for my opponent, they'll only screw it up more." But politicians don't run the show, hell, it's so big and bloated that they probably don't even realize how little they really know about government. Government is like a computer. Only instead of trillions and trillions of tiny logic gates, its populated with humans. Engineers can lay out logic gates into circuits that work to accomplish specific tasks. (Some times they don't work at all, other times they have unintended consequences. I must have heard "never thought about that" a million time). Yet government is populated by humans, not logic gates, and rather imperfect humans at that. Making imperfect decisions. The only problem is, when they screw up you lose more than your email to Aunt Maud. People get hurt, people have their lives taken away from them, people die.

Our laws are nothing more than instructions from our government trying to fix an endless stream of "bugs" associated with society, but in far too many instances are nothing more than imperfect solutions that will require more fixes and so on and so forth. A perpetual motion machine of mistakes fueling itself over and over and over.

Government is not the be all to end all. It's millions of little workers, doing what they think is best, or quite possibly, not even caring what comes out of their efforts. And even some, I'm sure, who are gaming the system for their own benefit.

Government is imperfect. Always has been, always will be. No one is going to fix it or destroy it because it's too damn big to even understand. We're stuck with it. But don't waste too much time or energy worrying about that. Save your time for something better, like a trip to the beach!

Memorial Day

2006-05-27T23:10:00.000-05:00

Memorial Day is this Monday. Personally, my family and myself it will be enjoying the sun on the beach at Wildwood, NJ. That's if the weather agrees to cooperate. We hope it will, as we all enjoy the power and majesty of the ocean. Nothing like the sight of Mother Nature at it's finest to remind one just how insignificant humans are when compared to our planet.

Normally, my family and I would spend the day attending the local Memorial parade, listening to the speeches at the cemetery. Latter we would stop by the Home Depot and pick up some flowers, and spend some time planting them at cemeteries. I have two relatives that fought in the Civil War - both survived. While doing some genealogy work on my family, I discovered another relative who was attached to an Army division that did most of the US' fighting in WWI. We'd also hit some other relatives, just because it seems the proper thing to do. Then we'd have a barbecue. After all, this is America.

But this time, we decided we needed a vacation away from everything, so we're heading out. Come Monday, I will be thinking about veterans who gave everything for their country, both voluntarily and draftees. I do believe there is something special about them. From the Revolutionary War to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also have the up most respect for police and fire fighters. To me there is something special about them. True it's technically just a job. But when there is a disaster, and every atom in your body is trying to force you to run away as fast as possible, these are the people you run past while fleeing. They're the people going in the other direction. They are going to make it better. That impresses me. It's the same as soldiers.

When the battle is raging, the bullets are flying, and the bombs are exploding, they hold the ground. From the safety of our homes in the greatest nation this world has ever produced, it's easy to forget the rest of the world is not so safe. As a matter of fact, I think most of the political troubles in this country come from exactly that problem. Far too many Americans wrongly assume the rest of the world has it as good as we do, and want the same things we want. Nothing could be further from the truth. The rest of the world is violent. There are killers, murderers, rapists, thieves, vandals. As we saw on 9/11 there are those who would go to any lengths in order to destroy America and what it means.

And make no mistake, America does stand for many things. Among them, that we will not be controlled by other countries. Our population will live with more freedom and security than 90% of the world's population. And there is a reason for that.

As you read this, all over the world, there are American soldiers keeping the peace. If anyone really believes that North Korea wants peaceful coexistence with the west, then you really shouldn't be doing the mental heavy lifting necessary to be on the internet. Turn off the computer and go back to watching Jerry Springer.

All over the world, our soldiers are on duty. Keeping the peace. You can sleep well tonight because, whether or not you realize it, they are on guard, keeping you safe. That's a luxury we have in America, not a right. And we have it because of those soldiers, both current and past. Those who returned from battles scared both physically and mentally. And those who never returned, or if they did, in a box.

Enjoy your holiday weekend. Please take a moment to remember the reason we can enjoy it is because of the American soldiers out on the guard. They are watching out for us, so we don't have to worry. Find one and thank them.

George F Johnson - The Real Deal

2006-05-22T08:55:00.000-05:00

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a social and economic experiment occurred that was so successful and on such a grand scale, that we should all be riding on the ripples of the tsunami it created. But we're not. I decided to try and figure out why. First, a little background.

In the late 1800's a strapping young shoe maker with a God given talent for what we might call today "industrial engineering" (making industry more efficient) and personal skills found himself in quite a pickle. Having received a letter offering him a supervisor position at the Lester Brothers Shoe Company, he borrowed ten dollars from his older brother and made his way towards Binghamton, New York. On the trip, his collar and tie were stolen while he slept on a boat from New England. He walked the last dozen miles or so, covering him with dust. He stood in front of the factory supervisors for his interview only to be informed they were looking for an older man by the same name, his father. And to top it off, he only had eight cents in his pocket, not nearly enough to get home to his family. George F. Johnson needed this job. And he got it!

From the position of managing a "tree room" (supervisor to a crew of men making boots on shoe trees) he rose to obtain the number two job in the company. Through repeated process innovations that made his room the most productive in the factory, and the personal skills where every member of his team felt he was treated fairly and honestly, he began a meteoric rise to the very heights of the world wide shoe industry.

One day, his boss, the Lester Brothers asked if George F. had any suggestions about building a new factory to handle the demand for high quality products his teams were cranking out in ever increasing numbers. And of course he did. He suggested buying cheap farm land away from the dirt and grime of urban life. Wide open spaces, fresh air, green fields, plenty of land for the workers to buy plots and build houses. His theory, later described as the "Square Deal" was that if workers felt part of the enterprise, well respected, treated fairly, comfortable, and knowing their families were also happy and content, then they would be more productive, increasing profits, to allow his dream to grow. And it did.

The Lester Brothers followed George F.'s advice, and built the factory in what was then called Lestershire. But when it came to plots for workers houses, they were greedy, carving up tiny lots, and sold them for exhorberant fees. In fact they made so much money they neglected the shoe business and concentrated on land speculation. And as fate would have it, they lost most of their fortune in land speculation, and so George F. found himself with a new boss, the Lester Brother's largest debt holder, one Harry B. Endicott, a Boston millionaire who traded in real estate and tanning hides, for among other purposes, shoe and boot leather.

One day Endicott came to the shoe factory for a visit and was astounded by what he found. Happy workers, digging into their work with amazing proficiency. Every worker at the factory personally knew George F. And he made sure he knew every worker, not just as a manager, but as a friend, frequently stopping to discuss any matter raised by any worker. No problem or issue was too big or too small for George F. Johnson. Endicott liked what he saw and decided to put George F. in charge.

The shoes poured out at a stunning rate dropping the cost and price, which made them sell like hot cakes. More factories started sprouting up to meet the demand. George F. made sure he was aware of every aspect of the product, from buying leather, to making the shoes, to shipping, selling and marketing. Endicott asked George several times if he wanted a raise for all the extra business he was building, Johnson would simply reply that he was more than well compensated for his position as plant superintendent. Harry Endicott got suspicious. As business continued to grow, he finally asked George F. what he was up too. George F. replied if Endicott thought $150,000 was sufficient for half the shoe company. Endicott replied that was fair. The George F. asked him if he could borrow $150,000 from him. Endicott thought for a moment, then realized Johnson was the future of the shoe industry, and wanted him as an ally, not a competitor, so he agreed. There was one more thing though, the contract would require $150 in war tax stamps, so he needed to borrow that too. Endicott laughed, and agreed to pay for those. The Endicott-Johnson Shoe Company was born.

And here's where the real story begins. George F. Johnson set out to build a worker's utopia, or as close as he thought he could get to it. And what a reach he made. At it's zenith EJ's employed over 19,000 workers, cranking out over 175,000 pairs of shoes a day. Into the product price, George F. built in a two and a half cent cost that was reinvested back into the community. It was used to build parks, libraries, schools, recreation centers, athletic fields, farmer's markets - where the workers could buy directly from the farmers rather than the grocers - and a system of free medical clinics for the workers and their families.

But he wasn't done yet, heck, he'd barely begun. Remembering the land speculation of the Lester Brothers on the workers, he bought huge tracks of land and carved it up to respectful size lots, built comfortable houses and sold them to the workers at cost, through salary deductions. As Lestershire grew, and new factories were needed, he built another village, the village of Endicott, and went into the tannery business to cut out more middle men, including Harry B. Endicott - who wasn't thrilled with the idea, but figured George F. knew what he was doing, and he did. In all, he helped build three villages, Lestershire - which was renamed Johnson City in his honor, Endicott and West Endicott. He built more parks, more schools, more libraries, and now full blown hospitals, some of which were considered the best at that time, in New York state, if not the country.

His theory was simple: treat the customers, the workers and stock holders fairly and honestly. Make sure they realize how important they all are to each other's success, and every one will prosper. Sounds a lot like socialism, if not out right communism, but with one huge difference: it was all voluntary. There was no forced compliance by the government. Hell, George was ahead of the curve on social responsibility. He was the first CEO in the shoe industry to voluntarily move to the 40 hour work week, and paid the workers the same as when they worked 50+.

Then he instituted what may be the first profit sharing plan in history. After the stock holders were paid off, all remaining profits were split three ways. One third went to the customers in the form of lower prices, one third was plowed back into expanding the business, and the final third was split evenly between every worker in the business. George F. received the exact same sized check that the floor sweepers received.

But the real key was his idea of building cities. He believed the success depended primarily upon the workers and the managers, living together, going to the same parties, playing in the same parks, attending the same churches, being neighbors, their children growing up together. Summed up, when a worker sees a manager as a neighbor and a friend rather than a superior, it will show in his work. Same for when a manger sees a worker as a neighbor and a friend, and not someone to wring as much work out of as possible. And it worked!

And how it did work! Workers by thousands flowed into the communities for a piece of George F.'s Square Deal. It's been said many immigrants poured off the boats at Ellis Island knowing only a few words of English "Which way EJ?" The villages grew, the communities grew, the shoe business grew, everyone prospered.

During Franklin D. Roosevelt's bid for President he came to Johnson City to campaign. He filled the ball park (Johnson Field, George F. loved baseball) to standing room only. From reports at the time, FDR received a lukewarm response, but when George F. took the stage, he nearly brought down the roof. It seems that FDR and George F. had a cool relationship. FDR was not pleased that George F. had accomplished, in real life, what FDR's "New Deal" could only promise on paper. Imagine that for just a minute. A voluntary agreement between capitol and labor had pulled off in real life, what the likes of Marx, Engels and the New Deal brianiacs could only aspire too. He did it.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are skeptics to the above tale. To be honest, I wouldn't believe it either, except I grew up in Johnson City. I saw the huge factories, the parks, the libraries, the EJ clinics. I see the statues all around paying homage to the man who never shut his door to any worker in his company who had a gripe. They might not always have agreed with George F.'s decision, but the vast, vast majority believed they got a fair shake. And that's important to a person, it means they keep their dignity. And that's what I think the Square Deal was about, treating your fellow person, in what ever capacity you meet, with dignity. In the 1920's the workers in both Endicott and Johnson City got together and raised money to erect two large (at the time) arches across main street coming into the villages. Carved into stone on them is the phrase "Home of the Square Deal." they both still stand. It happened.

But my original quest was to find out what happened? After all, with all this success, one would think these methods and practices would have been replicated around the world? But they weren't. Why didn't the provable actions of the George F. Johnson continue on till this day? I'm not satisfied with the answers I've found so far, but they appear to be the best I can find.

George F. hated people receiving free money. They had to work for it. There was no free ride at EJ's, unless a worker met tragedy, illness, or old age. If a worker was too old, George F. would personally tell them he did not want to see them at the factory other than on pay day, when they received their full pay, every week. If a worker was sick, they had free medical, and would receive their full pay till they could return to the job. If a work died, their family would receive their full pay until the children were old enough to get work and support the family. But as for inheriting money, he thought it a sin. He refused to send his own son George W. Johnson to college, and instead put him to work at the lowest rung in the tanneries in Endicott. George W. worked his way up to president of the corporation, it was not handed to him.

I believe, over the years, as George F. Johnson's family became wealthy beyond their dreams, they might have drifted away from his primary tenet, in that workers and managers and owners, must live together in their communities. They must come to know each other as friends, neighbors, human beings. And I'm sure it the sheer size of their success has as much to do with it, after all, how can you personally know 19,000 workers? But when that connection is broken, when it's no longer "we" but rather "us and them." I believe that's when it breaks down.

In the end, it reminds me of something I've told my daughter over and over again through her childhood. At the end of the Disney cartoon, when the handsome prince and the damsel in distress ride off to live happily ever after, sure the peasants are happy. But what happens when their great-grand son becomes King, and turns out to be a real butt-hole? If you live at some one else's largess, you are doomed to their mercy.

Two colors of immigration

2006-05-01T13:16:00.000-05:00

Immigration. The word to me brings to mind memories of old, faded, black and white photographs of long since passed relatives that were gone before I was even a twinkle in my old man's eye. My family is a family of immigrants. All branches, from all over Europe. There's Great Grandfather Seymour who joined the Union Army at age 14 with his older brother and father. Survived the war, settled in my home town, and proceeded to sire my grandfather at the ripe old age of 72. His mother was off the boat from Germany and I'm happy to say they both rest peacefully beneath the Civil War monument at a local cemetery.

My father's people came from Poland and Slovakia, brought to the US by the desire for a better life. I have a picture scanned from an old company newspaper showing all twelve of them. Most all of them shoe workers, brought to town - not by a New Deal - but rather George F. Johnson's promise of "Square Deal." That is, you work hard, and we'll be fair and honest with you. And by far that Square Deal seemed to hold, at least until the Johnson family decided to get out of the shoe business. The new owners weren't quite so enamored with a positive relationship between owner and worker.

My wife's lineage has been tracked back to Scotland and England in the seventeenth century. Her aunt wanted to join the Daughter's of the American Revolution, and that was a requirement.

My point is, even though being born in America and technically not an immigrant, I feel like one. My past is tied to memories of Polish and Slovak festivals, Irish dance festivals, extended families so large I couldn't remember them all if I did it for a living. Other Americans may not feel the same way, but like it or not, we're all immigrants. We all come from somewhere else. Some Native Americans and Latinos like to claim they are the original owners of this country and we should bow to them. Hate to break the news, but they are immigrants too. Current archeological academics believe humanity started in Africa, which means they immigrated here too, most likely across the "theorized" land bridge at the Bearing Straits.

By fact of being human, we all migrate. From house to house, from city to city, from state to state, from country to country, we humans are always in search of a better way, a better life, a Square Deal, where we can have a home, a job, a place to raise a family. It's human nature. And it's a good thing.

But there is a difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. The former occurs when one follows the processes and procedures to achieve legal status to be in this country. It can be done. The fact that I'm alive to type this is proof enough. On the other hand, the fact that there are an estimated twelve million illegal immigrants in these United States is proof that you don't need to go through the proper channels.

As a Catholic, I've heard the declarations from Bishops who proclaim that everyone should be allowed in, and it's our duty as Christians to welcome strangers and those in need of help. I agree. But where do we draw the line? Unlimited opportunity and assistance will draw as many people for as long as the helping hand is extended.

As the child of immigrants, I have no problem with immigration. Personally I believe America needs them as much as they need America. After a few generations in America, people seem to get fat, dumb and happy, they start to fall into the entitlement mentality - a product of FDR's New Deal. America needs people hungry for success, thirsting for opportunity. It invigorates the rest of us. Reminds us of the promise America holds for us. Work hard, play by the rules, maybe get a little further than your parents, and pray you children make it a little further than you. After all, isn't that the American Dream?

But there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration. There's no doubt about it, no way to get around the issue. We've got twelve million of them in our country. They're our neighbors, our fellow workers, they sit next to us in the pews at Church on Sunday. There's no way Americans will stand for deporting twelve million people. The mere sight of armies of police rounding up twelve million people would cause such havoc, it just ain't going to happen. Even I can see that. The alternative is to grant amnesty to them, which only adds to the bait for more to come. As with most important issues, its far too complicated to be explained in the thirty seconds of so Bob Schieffer and the CBS Evening News will allot to it.

I don't have any answers to the above questions. But I do know this. America is an idea founded on the bedrock of individual freedom and responsibility, respect for our fellow Americans, and respect for the law. Just as some Americans cursed the arrival of my ancestors to "their" country, so do now some people curse the arrival of new immigrants, both legal and illegal. But as long as our new citizens, legal or illegal, can learn, understand, and follow the American dream, America will live on. Of that, I have no doubt.

What makes a citizen?

2006-04-01T14:51:00.000-05:00

One would have to be either an idiot, live under a rock, or be completely engrossed in reality TV to not have noticed the all the hubris lately concerning the state of illegal immigrants in these United States. Tens of thousands are protesting in the streets. Politicians of every conceivable color and stripe are glomming onto the media attention like the flesh-eating bacteria they are. And talking heads, bloggers and radio pundents have enough material to last them for years. Since there's absolutely nothing I can add to the conversation, that's exactly what I've decided to do. I'm stubborn like that. Drives my wife nuts.

But one aspect of my personality that my wife does appreciate is my ability to take a different perspective, a different twist, if you will. So here's one for all you readers, just what is an American citizen? The short answer is someone who is born in America or someone who becomes naturalized, i.e. jumps through all the hoops laid out by our well-oiled, streamlined, perfectly-functioning federal government. So how does the federal government secure the authority to bestow citizenship on certain people, while not on others? For that, let's take a little trip through this blog's favorite document - the United States Constitution.

On first glance, I must admit, there is really not much on the topic at all. The preamble begins with:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It appears to me that this is proclamation that we, the people living in the United States all those glorious decades ago, by virtue of having bothered the British enough to pack up and leave, makes us citizens of these states. However what I'm looking for is the meat and potatoes. What are the rights and, more importantly, the responsibilities required for citizenship? No doubt the Constitution by its very nature displays our rights as citizens by clearly stating (to all except the current and past few generations of socialists, communists, leftists and politicians) what the government can not do. And, in what it can not do, clearly states what our rights are. Namely, everything else. But what about the requirements? Let's dig further, shall we?

The legal status is slightly referenced again in the requirements for the office of the President, as outlined in Article II Section 1.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

The phrase "natural born citizen" leaps out, which would seem to proclaim citizenship on any one lucky enough to be born in this great country. Sucks to be you Arnold. But still, nothing definitive.

Surely the Thirteenth Amendment must hold something for us. After all, by abolishing slavery, clearly full citizenship was bestowed upon our fellow Americans so wronged by the disgusting and despicable institution of slavery. But on closer inspection, there really isn't all that much to be found.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

That just outlaws slavery, and doesn't even mention citizenship, it just codifies that freedom can not be seized without a trail by jury. The kicker I see here is this one seems to completely revoke the US authority to hold terrorists at Gitmo. After all, it is definitely under US jurisdiction. Fidel would most certainly be hosting parades, stuffing cigars in all their mouths and treating them as heroes if he had jurisdiction. But by the same thinking, since the amendment does not specifically state citizenship, did the US have the authority to hold German prisoners of war on US soil, during WWII? It would not appear not. Perhaps more than just the leftists find viewing the Constitution as a living, breathing document when it suits their needs.

So where do the rights, responsibilities and requirements of citizenship reside?

Article III, Section 3 deals with treason. But even that says nothing about revoking citizenship. I think I see where this is headed, and I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling on it. The only other place it could reside is Article I, Section 8, legislative power.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

In Highschool history class, the teacher explained this one as the "elasticity clause", but it could better be described as the overwhelming power Congress seizes on a daily basis to force their will on every single person in the United States, whenever they feel like it, simply because they are trying to compensate for early feelings of inadequacy and penis envy. I'm not sure of the exact scientific term for what Diane Fienstien, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and other Congress-persons of the fairer sex have that causes them to consider themselves God's savior to the American people, but you get the idea.

This elasticity clause basically says Congress has the authority to pass any bill they see as necessary to carry out their responsibilities under the Constitution. Nice circular logic there, huh? Of course Congress does not have Constitutional authority to even debate public education, but (and that "but" is about the a trillion times the size of Alaska's North Slope) in order to fulfill their responsibilities, which are so clearly laid out, they must. And, after all, it's for the children! How could you even think about voting against someone who only has the children's best interest at heart? (Please ignore the 38,531 pages concerning casinos, ethanol subsidies, grants, loans, and other pork attached to the "No Child Shall Be Denied the Right to Have Multicultural Education Act" Move along, nothing to see here.)

In other words, Congress has decided what the rights, responsibilities and requirements for what is an American Citizen. Apparently none has the hueveros yet to try and put statutory limits on those born in the United States. But my guess is they've regulated every possible other thing.

So where does this leave us? With one crystal clear rule and a whole bunch of muddy murky, hazy rules. If you are born in the US, you are a citizen. If you leap through Congress' flaming hoops long enough, you can become a citizen. And if you cross the border in the dead of night, float on a raft through the Florida Straits, sneak onto a cargo freighter, or whatever, you are at Congress' mercy. And may the Lord have mercy on your soul.

Rush Limbaugh - Your Nation Needs You!

2006-03-23T17:45:00.000-05:00

A few weeks, or maybe it was a few months ago, I can't keep track, Maureen Dowd released a column in advance of a new book that laid out the problem faced by all modern, progressive, liberal, democratic, happening, hip, cool, and whatever, women. Having forsaken the concept of traditional marriage and family life in search of the greater glory of fame, fortune and the brass ring, upon reaching their ultimate goal, they are unable to find suitable mates. How and why could this happen? After all, aren't they successful? Aren't they on the party "A" list? Don't they get invited to all the coolest parties? What could possibly prevent them from being "hunk magnets" and securing the ultimate prize they so richly deserve? According to Dowd, it's because their male counterparts (hip, cool, rich, well-read, etc.) prefer dumb blondes, secretaries, and service workers. I'm not sure if she actually used the term "intimidated" as I can rarely get past Dowd's first few paragraphs, but that's what I suspect she's driving at. In other words, while the progressive, feminist has gone out and conquered the modern metro world, the hunks they were expecting to be waiting at the finish line have decided "bimbos" are easier to get along with.

Let's skim past the obvious, that perhaps men prefer women who have more varied desires than the board room. Lets ignore the possibility that perhaps the hunks she feels she deserves might have met other women on the journey through life and weren't actually standing around waiting at the finish line, and in fact, they have lives. Let's get beyond what is plain to every one who's ever had a successful relationship and realizes that when it comes to significant others, life is not a buffet where one picks and chooses the traits they demand from a spouse: "he must enjoy poetry, sailing, fine cuisine and 'Sex in the City'", but rather an off-the-rack world where you don't force someone to meet your demands, but rather accept each other, warts and all, because you actually love them.

No, we'll leave that in the bit bucket for now. Instead, lets move on towards an answer to solve these problems. And the problems are many. Turn on any liberal news radio network or liberal news TV program, and you will see just how dire this situation is. Immaculately dressed women, hair perfect, visions of grace, intelligence, poise and confidence, and you will immediately see a common thread. They hate conservatives. They rip them to shreds every chance they get. They slowly roast their chestnuts over the open fire of their commentary. They belittle them, humiliate them, make fun of them, insult them, and laugh in the face of any one who doesn't immediately see the absolute correctness of their position. And, having plied the troubled waters of relationships, I know that look. I've seen it before. It's when a women on a date literally spits fire describing who they'd really rather be dating. They need "it."

The only way I can see to bring some kind of civility to the airwaves between liberal-democratic women and conservatives, is for "it" to take place. And I think I type for both sexes, when I coyly refer to "it". We know, because we all know what "it" is. We've all been there before. Be honest. Admit it. We all want "it."

I don't know about females of my age bracket (tail end of baby boomers) but I know every male geek of my day remembers the classic "Revenge of the Nerds". When the head cheer leader falls for the geek, justice was served. If only she would have shut her mouth and opened her eyes sooner, she would have entered the promised land so much earlier in her life. But no, she was restrained by peer pressure. But peer pressure does not allow for one's true desire, it only allows for the desire of the pack one runs with. And that was "no nerds." How silly labels truly are.

Not I'm not suggesting in the least that Rush Limbaugh is a nerd, no - not at all. Rather I'm just using the analogy of "Revenge of the Nerds" to make a point. And guys, I need you to back me up on this, I'm pretty darned sure I'm right. Most women want what they can't have. If you treat them nice, give them respect, they walk all over you and want something else. Be a little uppity, let them know you're still deciding, and they love the challenge. My opinion is, regardless of what Maureen Dowd and her crowd says, we know what they want, and that's what they claim to despise. That's why we need Rush.

Some man on the conservative side needs to seize the initiative, needs to stake a claim in this virgin territory. Friends, that person is Rush Limbaugh.

[Editor's note: The paragraph below makes it way too easy to come up with highly inappropriate links, so I shall be the better person and resist]

I know it won't be easy. It very well may turn out to be down right ugly. But the attempt must be made. Rush needs to be the stand up guy he is. He needs to ride forth into this heard of liberal women. He needs to lead the thrust into enemy territory. He needs to drive home the message of fiscal conservatism. Certainly they will fight back, but he needs to keep pounding these principles home. He needs to do it over, and over, and over, till the message really hits pay dirt. He will be openly mocked for his views on "small government" but he mustn't let that deter him. Rather he must stand tall by his convictions. He must over come their defenses, he must succeed in implanting his conservative ideals in unplowed fields, so the seed of liberty and freedom might grow in this new, fertile ground. And in doing so, Rush will become a symbol to all of us with similar desires and ideals, of the promise of what America should truly be. And he must continue to perform till the ranks of conservative men have the courage to follow him, over the top of the liberal trench, through no-man's land, literally bursting with optimism and ideology, to join him on this crusade. And together we can satisfy the emotional needs that prevent liberal, feminist women from seeing the truth.

Rush, we need you. Maureen Dowd needs you. You're nation needs you. Rise to the occasion!

How the West Won

2006-03-09T11:20:00.000-05:00

Why did the West rise?

I mean, if you compare Western civilization to the Far East, Muslim world, Africa, Asia, Native American Indians (both North and South America) and India, the West has really kicked ass in the development of civilization and society. The West has gone so far as to make ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome look like barbarians with Lincoln Logs or Legos. Egyptians built the great pyramids, the West walked on the Moon. The Greeks invented Euclidian geometry. The West invented calculus. Romans brought water to its empire via aqueducts. The west built the Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam. Want to talk progress? How about human flight?

Why did this happen?

For the past few years I've been studying early Christianity and the early Catholic Church. One of the books which I'm currently reading, "How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods Jr., has some interesting ideas. Now, granted, Woods is a right-wing bomb thrower, whose greatest joy in life appears to be infuriating liberals in general, and political correctness (and the forced assumptions behind it, all evil was at the hands of white, European males) in particular, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, or doesn't offer some interesting ideas, which he does.

This particular rant is not based solely on Woods' work, but also of several other books and authors I've read. Woods just happens to be on the top of my head at the moment.

Woods' theory, to sum it up in a word, is "science." His answer is that science developed in the West, but no where else, to any real extent. He places a lot of credit for that in the early debates during the formation of the Catholic Church, but more on that later. For starters, what is science? Woods' definition makes sense to me, so I'll use that. Science is the marriage of theory with empirical observations. That means, that not only does one think, but one experiments, then thinks about the results, then experiments more, then thinks some more, and so on and so forth. In other words, it's a neverending process to learn everything about any and every possible field of study.

This my analogy, I like it better than Woods'. Early humans learned that wood burns by empirical observation. Through tinkering over thousands of years, they may have discovered that certain wood burns brighter, or hotter, or others may give a better taste to food, while others just destroy roasted mastodon drum sticks. But how much more did they learn about it? Arabs and Jews in the desert learned that camel and cattle dung burns, and if you add a pinch of salt, it makes the combustion process more efficient, but not much more than that. While in the west, scientists studied it up, down, inside and out, everything about it. They studied the combustion process down to its molecular level, and have used what they learned to move the entire science to an entirely new process. Sure the Chinese discovered gunpowder. But the west moved the scientific process along to the point we now have nuclear reactors and solid rocket fuel capable of blasting a team of astronaut's asses to the moon and back. Now that's science!

Aristotle may have been the greatest mind of his time, but in retrospect, he leaves a lot to be desired. Aristotle believed that theory was sufficient. So sufficient, in fact, that empirical observations were unnecessary. One need only look at a large rock and a small rock to deduce the larger rock will fall faster. So therefore, no empirical observation was necessary, and even more so, a complete waste of his superior intellect. Yeah, right.

So the question then becomes, why did the West develop this anally retentive need to know absolutely everything about everything, and then some? And there is a reason this rant is found on a blog dedicated to promoting knowledge of the United States Constitution. It's because the answers to these very questions led to the formation of civilization that produced enough wealth to allow the rise of reason and enlightenment that helped bring forth the generation of the founding fathers who answered some of the greatest moral questions known to all humanity. Such as "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

So what set off this tidal wave of tinkerers and thinkers, makers and bakers, cynics and comics? According to Woods and other authors, it was the rantings of a crazed carpenter in Judea who just refused to stick with the status quo. Jesus, and the ancient Hebrews before him, laid out an interesting theory on the creation of the universe.

Pagans (and I've spent more time studying them as a D&D Dungeon Master than any grown adult would care to admit to) have a unique perspective on creation and the Gods. To them, the greatest creation is the universe. The gods and their minions exist within the universe, they are subordinate to it, rather than rule over it. And the gods are basically petty a**holes who portray the best and worst aspects of humanity. Why should one worry about learning and understanding the natural laws of the world, when the gods can change them at will? Monsters, dragons, demons, gods and goddess. They rule over man, so what ever they say goes.

[Editor's note: This point I don't understand. If the pagan's believe that the gods are subordinate to the universe, then how can they arbitrarily change the rules of the universe? On the other hand, if you believe that there is a God who created the universe, then that God could of course change the universe to His whim. Which view would reasonably lead to an attempt to understand the underlying rules of the universe?]

[Author's reply: The defining difference between the Pagan's view and the monotheistic view is the position of God(s) with respect to the power of the universe. Pagan gods are born, they die, they get recycled, they love, they hate, they fight, they win, they loose. And the cycle is never ending, though most pantheons have some sort of an "end of time" story. But they are subordinate to the universe in which they live, even though they are attributed with the powers to alter their universe, which they do at will, and frequently, hence: why bother studying the effects of gravity when Loki can just come along and reverse it for laughs. In the Christina/Hebrew version, there is only one God, who always was, and always will be. God created the universe, and made the natural laws that govern His creation. True, Christianity/Hebrew religion have references to miracles. But these miracles are extraordinary, as they are exceptions to the natural order of God's universe.]

How about India? Life is a never ending cycle of reincarnation. The goal isn't to improve one's life in the material, present world, but rather to prepare one's self for the next incarnation. China? The rules and order of this world are far too nuanced and sublime to be understood by the average Joe, so life needs to be spent in meditation to bring one's self closer to the real powers that control the world. Islam? Allah is all powerful. What ever he says goes. If tomorrow Allah decided the sky should be red and the oceans green, so be it. So why waste time learning what only appear to be repetitive phenomena, when Allah can change it all tomorrow?

So what set Jesus, the Hebrews and the Church up differently? Woods' theory - and I must admit, it is intriguing, is the Bible itself. In Genesis, there was nothing, until God created it. Therefore, God is above the universe, not subservient to it. God took chaos, nothing, a lack of anything and created something from it. He created order. And in a very specific manner and schedule. He knew football was coming, hence, rest on the seventh day.

As the stories of the Old Testament unfold, there are more references. God has a very specific plan, a very specific goal, and that is to bring human kind closer to God and salvation. God is unhappy with Sodom and Gomorrah because they will not heed to his rules, so God lets them and every one else know it, big time! Lesson learned. God cleansed the world of evil with the great flood, and then God shows his promise to never do it again embodied in the rainbow. God tells Moses to tell the Pharaohs "Let my people go." Then God makes it perfectly clear to Egyptians that it's in their best interest to do so while there is still an Egypt.

Whether you believe in the Bible or not, believe in God or not, there is a pattern here. And that is God has created a universe that is orderly, behaves, and who's rules can be studied, thought about, experimented with, and explained. It makes no difference that early scientists believed all powers and orderliness of the world emanated from God, they believed God had supplied them with a world that could be understood, studied, explained by mathematical and scientific principles, and then harnessed for their benefit. And that's just what they set about doing.

If some one has a better theory, or proof to the contrary, I'm more than willing to listen. After all, that's the way of my people.

Feeding the parasites

2006-02-13T16:24:00.000-05:00

I found this story in my local newspaper this past weekend. I found it quite amusing at first. The more I read though, the more outrageous I found it. Its not the substance of the article that sent my blood pressure through the roof. The idea of a government - at any level - screwing up is hardly surprising. Actually I found it rather surprising that government was able to catch the mistake as early as they did. Of course they only fixed part of the issue, but still, I envisioned this poor guy, steam coming out of his ears, hopelessly trying to convince some mid-level bureaucrat that his modest family home did not jump almost $3.9 million dollars in value over the past year. Maybe I'm dating myself here, but I'm old enough to remember the phrase "computers don't make mistakes."

I own my home. I bought it about twelve years ago. It's mine. All mine. I paid it off a couple of years ago. Even had a mortgage burning party, even though - at our lawyer's suggestion - we didn't actually burn it. She thought it might come in handy in case of lawsuits or other issues in the future. My wife and I took her advice. It really bummed out some of our guests though, they wanted to see flames. Too bad. As I said, it's my house.

But I digress. Since I own my home I know a little something about property taxes, appraised value, tax rates, and dealing with local and county governments over these issues. When I bought my modest little starter house, I probably paid a bit more than I should have, but since I was buying it from friends, we saved huge amounts of money in lawyers and processing the deal, so I believe it came out even. When I received my first property tax bill, it was clearly labeled in on the bill how much the government thought my house was worth. And it was only slightly more than half what I paid for it. Now, far be it from me to say my local government doesn't know what its doing, so I ran (okay, I drove over the speed limit, and walked very quickly through the village offices) and paid it as fast as I could. I was quite pleased with the official stamp on the bottom "PAID IN FULL."

Since then, the appraised value of my house has continued to climb while the value of my house has dropped thanks to the village government's inability to handle the most basic of services, including keeping the peace and making neighborhood business paint over graffiti on their properties. So, since I explained my problem here, I won't bother posting any pictures or directions, since I'm sure no one in their right mind would want to buy it.

But back to the story. Here's the part that really burned my ass.

"Most local officials did not learn about the mistake until Tuesday, when 18 government taxing units were asked to return a total of $3.1 million of tax money. The city of Valparaiso and the Valparaiso Community School Corp. were asked to return $2.7 million. As a result, the school system has a $200,000 budget shortfall, and the city loses $900,000."

Particularly the last sentence. So the government screwed up, thought it was getting more money than it was, and now the various branches are in agony over their "losses"? When the government over-appraised the value, it thought nothing about handing out additional cash to its various branches, but when the money isn't there, its a loss?

How exactly does one "lose" something they never had in the first place? When exactly did this homeowner's private money become the government's money? I mean, if you own something and it's taken away, then you've lost something. But this additional money does not belong to the government, it's appropriated from property owners under threat of kicking them out of their homes if it is not paid. Now that's a loss.

What gets me the most is the way government views tax money. We The People pay them, in return (hopefully) for services. The government does not view this relationship this way. To the government, it's "revenue". As if they were selling a product or service, and in return we willingly agreed to pay. No. That's the way the free market works. The relationship between the government and the taxpayers is completely backwards. That is, you pay or you lose. Be it your property, your freedom, or both. That's what the government considers its "revenue stream".

To quote the eminent economist Walter E. Williams: "Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution... Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. I'm guessing that when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, 'Thou shalt not steal,' I'm sure he didn't mean 'thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress'."

Cartoon violence in the real world

2006-02-13T09:31:00.000-05:00

A funny thing happened on the way to the Mosque.......

And so it begins. A low circulation magazine in Denmark prints some cartoons depicting Mohammed in less than, well....for that matter, simply depicting Mohammed at all, and all hell breaks loose over the Muslim world. So here we are, once again, back to the war on Islam, back to the culture war, back to "us vs. them." And all over a couple of cartoons.

What exactly seems to be the problem, according to what I've been able to learn about Islam over the years, is the depicting of Mohammed does not seem to violate any particularly, clearly spelled out rule in the Koran, but rather doctrine added to Islam over the ensuing centuries. It would appear any depiction of Mohammed is forbidden, out of fear that it will lead to idolatry. That's right, looking at a cartoon of Mohammed might lead some Muslim to suddenly drop to their knees, who would then begin worshipping said cartoon, thereby corrupting the "true religion" damning them and all of humanity to hell for all eternity. Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!

Being a practicing Roman Catholic, I know a little bit about idolatry, with respect to representations of Jesus and the saints. I've heard the jokes about Catholics worshipping idols. All one need do is look in any Catholic Church to notice all the "idols" located around the worship space. Why, if that isn't idolatry, then what is? I'll tell you what the difference is. The difference is between looking at a statue, or a stained-glass window, that was created to represent (say that word again, "represent") something, and worshipping the art work itself. The fresco of the Crucifixion that stands over the alter at my Church is not worshipped. Its a symbol that reminds us of the sacrifice Jesus made. It is not Jesus. It is a work of art, it is not an idol.

Idolatry is when one believes a representation does more than just depict a deity, it IS the deity. That a particular God has placed part of himself/herself/itself into the statue, and thereby, worshipping said idol IS worshipping said deity. There is a difference, and it seems pretty clear to me.

But then again, I don't believe these riots have much to do with depictions of Mohammed, or alleged or believed grievances at all. For my part, if Muslims feel it is wrong to depict Mohammed for fear of lapsing into idolatry, far be it for me to call them silly. (Okay, it does seem a tad silly.) But as some one who repeats the mantra every week in Church that every word in the Bible is the word of God (which includes an arc with two of each animals in the world - "hey Noah; couldn't you have skipped on the flies?" - except those pesky unicorns) I have a bit of time and effort invested in religion.

No. What we are seeing here is a lot more than your every day, garden-variety, off the shelf outrage over religious differences. In my opinion, what we're seeing is a desperate attempt by hard-line Islamic radicals to halt the long, dirty, disgusting drive to pull Islam and the Muslim world out of the seventh century and into, hopefully, at least, the fifteenth century. The world is changing, and those in charge of the Muslim world don't like it. Because they see that march of progress as having one inexorable conclusion; they won't be calling the shots - the people will.

As I watched news reports of the riots erupt across the Muslim world, I noticed a few other things, which not every one might have caught. For example, spontaneous riots broke out in Iran, Syria and Lebanon. They also broke out in south eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also in Gaza and the West Bank, but not in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Syria and Iran are totalitarian regimes. There are no spontaneous riots without prior government approval. They were staged by the government. Lebanon may have expelled Syrian troops from their country, but they haven't cleansed themselves of Syrian influence at every level of government from the street sweepers to the parliament. South eastern Afghanistan? As I recall, that's Taliban territory. Gaza and the West Bank? Can you say Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezzbolah?

Why Pakistan? Well, that's a basket case of a country anyway. Its hard to tell who's running that place, either the half that likes America or the other half that's hiding Osama bin Looser. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are walking on egg shells with the west as it is. I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish - or prevent.

I believe there a few possible reasons for state directed, state sponsored, spontaneous demonstrations. Among them could be Saudi Arabia's inability to run the Islamic required Hajj without an attending body count. "Did you see those dead pilgrims? Who cares about that did you see those cartoons?" It could also be Iran and Syria are scared dungless by finding themselves practically surrounded by American troops. It could be Iraq's inevitable march towards democracy, and the dangers that presents to it's dictatorial neighbors. It could be many things.

First, I think Syria and Iran are scared. They know they can not defeat America's military, and so they need to do something else to secure their dictatorships. One prospect is to prove to the entire west (thank you CNN) that Muslims are crazy, and it's better that we leave the task of keeping a lid on them to their fellow Muslims, regardless of the death toll involved. I also sense another thread here. Since the information given to the state-sponsored, state-approved rioters is closely regulated by the state, the only information they receive on western society, democracy, and a free press is what has been carefully filtered by their state censors. In other words, I seriously doubt they're getting the full picture of just what liberty and democracy has to offer them. Here's a perfect present from the west; if the peasants want democracy, lets show them what that means. Crank up the mullahs and the imans and show the peasants democracy is not compatible with the camel dung they've been fed since birth. If they want democracy, then they get their religion trashed in the process. That's right Punjab, we may rape your daughters, drag your sons off into mass graves, but we won't let papers publish cartoons that your state sponsored cleric tells you insults you and your religion.

Whatever the compilation of reasons for the riots, one thing is clear, dictators in Muslim countries are attempting to use it to their advantage. Living life over the last forty plus years has taught me one thing. And that is, no matter what you try to accomplish in life, chances are whatever you do to achieve those goals, you will inevitably drive yourself farther away from them. In other words, the harder you try to reach that brass ring, the more difficult you will make it to reach. You may find yourself landing close enough to find a reasonable happiness, but very few people actually obtain their desired goal. While the dictators may think this episode will help them short term in trying to save their miserable, flea bitten hides, in the end, it's one more step towards their downfall. Long live liberty! Long live democracy!

Constitutiono Respectus

2006-01-30T18:45:00.000-05:00

While reading this, please imagine the sound a cheesy American skit comedian would use while trying to sound like a rugged Australian...

Right! G'day mates, and welcome to another episode of 'Really Bizarre and Truly Frightening Animals From Around the World!' I'm your host Crackers McJumblies and you all know my really hot babe/assistant, Barbie Yabahos! (Nice rack, aye mates!)

Today we're going to do the impossible. Of course, nothing new there, heh? We're in search of one of the rarest of all breeds of animals. Some scientists doubt this critter still exists, others doubt it ever existed outside of mythology. But the impossible is our job, and if one is out there, we're gonna bag 'm!

Our quarry today, is a subset of the North American Politician, a rare bird indeed, it's the species that feels bound by the United States Constitution. I know what you're thinking, "who tossed my brains on the barbie (the barbeque, not the assistant)?" But I assure you, if this creature does in fact exist, we'll find it.

We begin our search in the swampy inlands of the Potomac River, known to the locals as Washington DC. This steamy urban landscape is home to numerous fascinating creatures, and we could easily spend all day just collecting and categorizing samples of the flora and fauna, but today we're after a specific animal, and we're not going home empty handed!

While the view here from Pennsylvania Avenue shows a multitude of species, very few are actually indigenous to the swamp, most are migratory, stopping long enough to mate, eat, drink and to bulk up for the flight back to their native lands.

Now, I've had a crew here on the ground for some number of months working with local guides to narrow down the areas we'll search today. Crimy, they've been here so long, some are starting to go native on me. Jimbo on the film crew, we caught him in a three piece suit last week, wingtips and all. And Rockers over there, even picked himself up an intern. We've got to get these boys out of here soon, or we may lose them completely!

Our first stop is a particularly nasty bit of the swamp, very slimy, very dangerous, and if Barbie wasn't such an avid hunter I'd never risk her in such a place, the Capitol Building! However, first we have to reach it. No easy feat. As you can see the entrance way is completely blocked by scores of Dodo and Coo-coo birds. Criky, I've never seen such a collection. They're all parading around, flashy colors, loudly screeching. Obviously trying to gather the attention of their mates for breeding purposes. Looky over to the left, over there, a gaggle of them have created what appears to be a giant paper-mache contraption, no doubt to display to potential mates, just how capable they are of supporting a brood.

We make our way through the throngs of wildlife and approach the entrance to this huge cave. From its looks I'd say this has been a gathering area for some time. Colorful decorations of all kinds are etched upon the walls. This is truly a magnificent example of what I call the "peacock" syndrome. That's where members of a species attempt to out-do each other in the magnificence of their nesting grounds.

We're now proceeding into one of two inner sanctums of this cave. We'll start with the one that holds the smaller group of politicians, its referred to by the locals as the "Senate."

Contrary to the loud and robust scene outside, the atmosphere is much more subdued in here, it seems almost like they're taking turns to strut up and down trying to mate. Rockers has been scoping this place out for some time, and though he hasn't been able to spot a Constitutionally-restrained Politician, he has noted some very interesting sub-species. For example, the one up there on the high ground spouting off now. Get a close-up of that one for the audience, the one with the white hair and bubulous nose. Look at the girth on that one, no danger of him starving anytime soon, heh? That one is a breed we believe is in danger of going extinct. It's the Liberal-Loon. Judging by the calls, I'd say from the Northeast of America, Massachusetts I'd bet. Now, we wanted to tag that particular one with a radio collar, just to keep tabs on him, but Rockers tells me no matter how many shots of scotch they filled him with, they just couldn't bring the beast down. He's got one hell of a resistance to it. I've never seen anything like it.

Now we're going to join Bonkers over in the other cave, the one with the greater population, known by the locals as the House of Representatives. What a loud and lively bunch they are. Because there's so much activity in this cave, we've set up microphones around the high ground where we can monitor their calls. It'll take a good ear to make much sense out of that racket, but Bonkers is the best there is!

Bonkers tells us he's taken note of one or two which may be our target. He's got a clip to play so you can hear what it might sound like.

"The nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document taught as gospel in most of our public schools must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and widely permitted amendments to the document but they correctly made the process tedious and difficult. Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results it will be difficult if not impossible to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution."

Oh Bonkers, I can feel the electricity in the air, I think you've found our game! Good work, I owe you a cooler of Foster's for this one. If that's not a Constitutionally-restrained North American Politician, then one doesn't exist. We've got to tag him with a radio collar for sure. We have to learn if there are more, and if so, where are they! Any chance to encourage their breeding and continued existence is a must! There's not a moment to lose!

Unlike the Liberal-Loon in the other chamber, this one doesn't seem to be tempted by scotch, so we're going to have to use a net on this one. We'll wait till it's done squawking and make our move. One thing I can't help noticing, while this one is squawking, no other politician of any species seems to be paying attention in the least. It's like it doesn't even exist. Crimey, no wonder they're so hard to find, no one notices them!

Okay, Bonkers, Jimbo and Barbie have the net ready, he's gathering up some papers and is starting to head this way. I've got the collar ready. While he's down we want to grab a blood sample so we can determine its health, and if possible, I'm going to pull a tooth to analyze later for age.

And ready, set, not too fast, we don't want to scare this one off, we may never have another opportunity like this. Just look at him, what a magnificent beast, so proud, so self-assured, such self-control, I've never seen anything like it before!

Okay mates, on the count of three, spring the net. One. Two. Three! Go mates, GO! And we've got the net on him, man is this one a fighter, he's not going willingly. What's that? What's that noise? I can't believe what I'm hearing! If I didn't know better, I'd swear the other animals in this chamber are applauding us! No time for that, we've got to work very carefully and very quickly. We don't want to injure what may be the last specimen of this rare breed. I've got him collared, and Barbie's tagging his ear. Bonkers is drawing blood from his buttocks, what a fighter, he's not going down easily!

I've decided not to go for the tooth, I'm not getting my fingers anywhere near those chompers, they're monstrous! And......done! Pull the net, and he's off. Not a happy bloke this one, doesn't take well to captivity, a very strong will to be free. I'd have thought with those attributes, the species would have thrived, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Just the dichotomy of this entire situation is making me dizzy. In this environment, the strong fail while the weak and the docile seem to thrive. Must be the heat and humidity of this swamp, it's making my head swim. Crimey, I need some fresh air.

Barbie, Rocker, Jimbo - pull the teams, get them out of here quick, we've accomplished our mission, we've proved the North American Constitutionally-restrained Politician does exist, we've recorded him, we've tagged him, now get my crew out before its too late.

Whew, back here out on the street, far away from that pit, that....place, it's hard to describe what that atmosphere does to a bloke. I've been bitten in the scrotum by a King Cobra, I've stared down the maw of giant croc, I've have baboons pelt my bleeding eyes with poo - but I have never experienced anything like that. But our mission has been accomplished, and doing the impossible is just another days work for us. It's been a great show and remember to join us next week when we do the impossible once again. Next time we're off in search of the fabled Libertarian Voter!

Searching For Civil Discourse

2006-01-27T14:16:00.000-05:00

What ever happened to dignity
What ever happened to integrity
What ever happened to honesty
Well I'll tell you something baby - I feel the pain just like the sea

You Nearly Did Me In - Ian hunter.

Is it just me or do you think there's absolutely no civility left in political discussion?

For as long as I can remember, one of the main gripes of older generations has been how rude, crude, abusive and generally impolite succeeding generations are becoming. It's one of those age-old adages, that the world is going to hell in a bucket. I've been of the opinion that in general, one generation is probably not that much worse, nor much better, than any previous one - it's more of an altering of one's interpretation as one's wisdom (hopefully) grows with age. As children, we're enamored with the schoolyard mate who can most spectacularly imitate flatulence using nothing more than a sweaty armpit. As we become teenagers, we are in awe of the first member of our group who dares to use the "f" word in public. By the time we reach adulthood, usually our language is quite fluently salty, and hopefully we've taught ourselves when it is and when it is not appropriate to use such language. Then, as we age, we become convinced our unique experiences give us some special insight into the human experience, which allows us to judge others, usually as inferior to ourselves. Nothing new here, just people living their lives.

No one can deny that language and actions have become more coarse in public. Just rent a movie, turn on the radio or flip on the TV. Heck, drive down to the local highschool during lunch time recess and we can hear language that would make Popeye blush. My own opinion on this phenomena is that our behavior as a civilization isn't necessarily worse, but rather just more inclusive. That is to say, there's always been people who care nothing for public decorum, we just didn't necessarily see them much. As the media in America has expanded (i.e. talk radio, the web, cable TV) it's grown to include those who otherwise might fart their way through life without ever drawing our attention.

But what about decorum in the public forum?

When did insults, vulgarity and vindictiveness become the norm? When did it replace the free exchange of ideas? I was exchanging emails with someone I don't even know (I had hit "reply to all" and he decided to reply to me). He was pointing out what a terrible, vile and disgusting excuse for a human being Judge Sam Alito is, and how he approved of strip-searching small children. I tried to point out the vast differences between a trial judge and an appeals judge, but it wasn't sinking in. In the case in question, police believed the search warrant they had received covered all occupants of the house, who the police believed they had reasonable cause to search. So they called in a female officer and had her escort the child to a private room where the strip search was conducted. And that search did in fact turn up drugs. The trial judge overruled the defense attorney's objection that the search was illegal, therefor the evidence was illegal and therefore not admissible in court. That's the trial judge in action.

On appeals, the case came before Judge Alito. His part in the case was not to determine if the convict was guilty or innocent, or if the incident was decent and appropriate. His job was to review how the trail judge acted in applying the law. There is a huge difference there. Did the trial judge err in allowing evidence to be introduced under what the defense called an illegally applied search warrant? Its the same case, but its two vastly different and separate aspects of it.

After sending out that explanation on the differences between trial judges and appellate judges, I found myself reading an email full of vulgarities and helpful suggestions such as: I should remove my head from Rush Limbaugh's crack-smoking ass. Not what I had expected from someone I assumed was at least civil. But I guess I should not have been surprised. Because that is where the political discussion in this country has gone. Instead of making reasoned, well thought-out debates on important issues, it's become a game of who can come up with the nastiest, pithiest, zingers.

My own personal opinion is that you can judge, fairly well, the depth of a person's argument by how quickly they resort to insults. If I make a point in a debate, and my opponent can't come up with a reasonable response, rather than admitting I have made a point I'm showered with hate-filled insults. Therefore, I can safely conclude my opponent has nothing reasonable to respond with, and the debate is over. (And it is over with the above stated person.)

But where does that leave us? When someone hurls an insult at you, I've found that it tells you a lot more about them, than about you. Namely, their lack of education, knowledge, and wisdom. I guess what I'm driving at here, does the lack of civil discourse on politics indicate the current crop of politicians, talking heads, media pundits and people have reached a point where they have no more ideas? Or is it a case of where we've all made our points over and over so many times, that we believe our debating opponents are so thick than nothing can possibly sink in, so we're left to amuse ourselves by how witty our insults and put-downs can be?

Whatever the reason, its getting harder and harder to communicate with anyone who doesn't already agree with us before the debate even begins. And that's not only scary, its dangerous. Everyone needs to entertain differing opinions. If we don't how could we ever be sure that our opinions and beliefs are as correct and as strong as they can be?

Here's a suggestion I have, for anyone who cares. Try listening to someone else's point of view. You may or may not agree, but at least try. If you think your opponent is wrong or mistaken, then you should try - in an appropriate and polite manner - to convince them to change their opinion. But keep it out of the slime and the mud. And when your opponent finally looses their cool (notice how quickly that occurs) simply walk away. Its not worth the aggravation or the stress. Keep your civility and realize you are the better person for doing so.

Accountability and Responsibility

2006-01-23T13:30:00.000-05:00

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

PJ O'Rourke has been credited with pointing out the United States Constitution, the rules that govern the greatest nation this earth has ever seen, is shorter than the owner's manual for a Toyota Camry. Which is a pretty witty and thought-provoking observation, if you think about it. It's very simple, very elegant, and a very wise solution to one of humanity's greatest conundrums: how do we hairless monkeys get along with each other, without killing each other, beating each other senseless, or stealing from each other.

The idea is pretty simple, severely restrict the powers and authorities of those we choose to implement this owner's manual over us. The separation of powers, where no single branch of government has absolute power, and each individual branch is policed by another. If the President gets out of line, Congress can force him to stand trial before the Supreme Court. If Congress exceeds it's authority, the Supreme Court can declare specific legislation as beyond the authority of Congress to issue. If the Supreme Court gets uppity, Congress can impeach specific Justices.

Other beautiful parts are the President's authority to veto legislation, which is counter balanced by the Congress' authority to over ride a veto. One of the most spectacular parts is the makeup of the Congress. Bicameral, two houses, one based on population, the other by state. I don't remember which Continental Congressman formally submitted that one, but credit for it's introduction into the conversation was given to Ben Franklin. At least by one of my history teachers in highschool. He used the metaphor of laying floorboards. If two won't fit, one can severely shorten one board or the other, or perhaps one can shave a little off both ends. What a guy! And he made 'coon skin caps a fashion trend in Paris. Take that Chirac!

But for all it's beauty and elegance, the US Constitution has its flaws. It must. It was created by men, and men are imperfect beings, so ergo, it is imperfect. For it to work properly requires the vigilance of not only the separate branches policing each other, but also American citizens policing their government. And for as long as I can remember, neither the government nor the people have been doing their job. Which brings us to today's topic: lobbying.

There is nothing inherently wrong with lobbying the government. Its a constitutionally guaranteed right "...to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That is, we can't make them vote the way we want, but they can't shut us up either. I don't have much sympathy for the current crop of anti-war protestors, they seem more interested in headlines and soundbytes than accomplishing anything, but I would never trade my right to petition my government for the image of Michael Moore drowning in a sea of Slim-Fast. It just ain't worth it.

So how did the right to petition my government turn into the current round of payoffs, bribes, and general sleaziness? That's simple. Follow the money. It's always about power, and in this country, money is power. Don't believe me? Ask OJ.

Amazingly, this entire sordid affair could be cleaned up completely and for all time, by a simple return to that priceless of all documents, the US Constitution. The founding father's knew all too well that power corrupts, which is why the primary goal of the US Constitution is to limit the powers of the Federal government. The less power they have over us, the less temptation to use and abuse it. The Constitution specifically spells out what the Federal government can do, then goes one more magnificent step and clearly states that is all they can do. Nothing more. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Null.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So if the Federal government is strictly prohibited by the Constitution, why do they dabble in farm subsidies, welfare, social security, and just about every other aspect of our lives? Once again, money. We the people all believe our representatives aren't too bad, it's all the others that are the problem. We like our representatives, because they bring home the bacon. Having granted themselves the right to take, at will, anything they want from us, we insist they bring as much of it as possible back home.

We can scream, cry, holler, yell and throw all the tantrums we want about how the three branches are shirking their Constitutional duty to police each other, but that part of the deal is out of our hands. The other part of the deal, however, is. We the people holding our government accountable to us at the ballot box is our job. And we haven't been doing a very good job of it. We willingly court the Federal government like a cheap whore, as long as, at the end of the day, they bring home the bacon. But in the end, the crumbs we get from them in one hand, is all that's left of the loaves of bread they've taken with the other. We have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing this to occur. It's not only our right, it's our duty. Remember that next time you go to the ballot box.

It's our duty.

Wire tapping the Constitution

2006-01-05T00:49:00.000-05:00

Did the President of the United States of America violate the Constitution by authorizing eavesdropping on international phone calls and emails, of US citizens, without a judicial warrant? Interesting question. I've been pondering it myself for the last week or so. Since there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting any kind straight answer from the media, I've decided to investigate the matter myself, using the US Constitution.

You are not reading a post that has been thought out beforehand, I have not yet arrived at a position, so think of this post as a play by play of my research on this subject.

The authority conferred to the President is outlined in Article II.

Section 1 outlines the election, installation and removal. That last part is what rabid democrats are salivating over at the moment, with the same perverted glee Republicans had while Bill Clinton held the post.

There is one small part of Section 1 that might apply to our discussion here, so I will include it now, in case we need it. It's the President's oath of office.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.'

The reason I think this might pertain to the circumstances is the part about his promise to faithfully execute the office in order to protect and defend the Constitution. That sentence alone would be enough for any left-leaning liberal Bush-hater to begin impeachment proceedings. Since what Bush is doing, in their opinion, is destroying the Constitution, not protecting it. But there is another way to interpret it. Should America become a nuclear wasteland following suitcase nukes going off in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, etc. one could argue, by not doing everything possible to prevent the destruction of America, he is not protecting the country, and thereby not protecting the Constitution.

[Editor's note: It could be argued that protecting the country is not synonymous with protecting the Constitution; if the Founders had intended that meaning, they would have said "defend the Constitution and the United States". The Constitution is the law of the land that dictates what powers the federal government has (leaving the rest to the people and/or the states), and that is what the President should be upholding and defending. That they gave Congress the responsibility to go to war, which back in the day meant war to defend the country (not engage in foreign military actions against those who did not present a direct threat to the US), seems to me they did not intend for the decision to go to one person, the head of the executive branch. Part of the reason for the 2nd amendment is to allow the people the ability to overthrow the US government if/when it reneged on its Constitutional duty - to believe that the president has a duty to protect and defend the country from direct or imagined/potential/improbable threats would mean he could suspend the 2nd amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) if he felt it was warranted. This would seem to be a clear contradiction to the intent of the Founders. But ignoring all that, the modern liberals have no leg (or any other appendage) to stand on when it comes to complaining that the government violates the Constitution, since 99.9% of their political beliefs entail violations when enacted. And many are in existence today.]

Let's continue, shall we?

[Editor's note: Yes, sorry, you can continue. I will try not to interrupt again.]

Article II Section 2 outlines the President's power.

The first paragraph appears to be the only pertinent part for this discussion.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Money line: commander in chief.

Now let's check on what Congress has to do with this mess.

Article 1 Section 8 comes into play.

It's where the constitution EXTREMELY LIMITS CONGRESS' AUTHORITY TO AN ENUMERATED LIST OF POWERS, among them:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of
the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according
to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I must admit, I'm a tad surprised. I thought Congress was strictly limited to declaring war and funding the armed services, but it does appear they have a little more game after all.

I have had the debate once or twice with my editor as to what exactly constitutes a declaration of war. Does this require that Congress actually use the phrase "declaration of war", or is a joint resolution authorizing the President to use force sufficient? Personally I don't see a difference, since, if any institution has the legal authority to settle this issue, it would be Congress itself. Seeing as Congress holds the purse strings, if they feel the President is acting beyond the scope of his authority, they can just pull the plug on the credit card. Since they haven't, I take that as proof they are comfortable (at least on record) as feeling a resolution sufficient.

[Editor's note: Just a quick interruption, but I feel there is a difference. Although perhaps not technically violating the letter of the law, Congress not explicitly declaring war but leaving the option to the President would seem to violate the intent of the law. An abrogation of their responsibility, and when it comes to declaring war, the buck should stop with them.]

But this still does not bring us an answer. So lets turn to what the Constitution says about the judiciary and warrants. Article III.

Which sheds no light what so ever on the subject at hand. So I now take my search to the Amendments.

My money is on Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now I must admit, this does appear to be pretty cut and dry. The wording is, perhaps, a bit out of whack. First it says privacy shall not be violated, then it throws in the term warrant afterwards. Which I take to mean, warrants are constitutional.

Amendment V has some interesting text too.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.

On first reading, it appears to say that no one can be held with out an indictment, except in cases concerning armed services, while the armed services are in combat, which they are, see the reference above about Congress. But it appears to refer to those in service to America, rather than foes against it. So, we can hold American soldiers in prison with out an indictment, provided they are fighting a war? I guess this is why lawyers get paid so much. They're trained to make sense of this stuff.

So next my search has taken me to the additional amendments. And what a hit I get with number XI.

Amendment XI

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

So, judicial authority does not extend to foreigners. Now that is interesting, because not only does it apply to the subject at hand, it says a truckload about Guantanomo Bay detainees. It also cuts exactly one half of the argument against this particular case in spying, that is, the federal government is not bound by the law when dealing with foreigners. To me that means the foreign persons, on the other end of the international calls, have no legal recourse.

Well, that seems to be about the extent of what the Constitution says on the matter. Let's sum up what we have.

The President must swear an oath that states he will execute his office, to the best of his ability, to protect and defend the Constitution. To me that implies he is limited to the authority of said office, and can not take action beyond the scope of his stated powers. He is also the commander and chief, of the armed services, which means he is the top general. The buck, truly stops with him during war. Congress has the authority to declare war, and apparently has done so to its own satisfaction. The judiciary doesn't seem to have much at all to do with this, from a constitutional standpoint, other than interpret what we've already covered. Americans can not be searched without a warrant, but no such immunity is extended to foreigners.

From the evidence presented so far, it appears the President does not have the authority to do so. Yet, not only has he done so, no FBI agents are raiding the White House to haul him off, so there must be more. My guess is in Supreme Court precedents.

Historically, both Congress and the Courts have given commanders in chief a wide berth during war time. In 1776, the Continental Congress pretty much made George Washington King of America. They granted him unlimited powers to do whatever he deemed necessary to keep the cause alive. George Washington is the American I admire most. He responded in a letter that Congress need not worry, he would more than happy to return the authority to Congress as soon as possible, because he didn't want it any longer than necessary. What a guy. Willingly giving up the crown, and at the soonest possible moment, which he did. They say absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not if you have enough class. Washington had that much class, and then some.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln played fast and loose with Presidential power. Among other things, he suspended the right of Habeas Corpus, which Wikipedia tells us is the right to not be arrested and held without a judicial decree. For example, the police can pick you up, but they can only hold you if a judge says so, a preliminary hearing. At that point, they must either prove something, or else let you go. Quite an important civil right to have upsurped by an elected President. He also deported an Ohio candidate for Governor whom he considered seditious, to the Confederacy (who didn't want him either, and deported him to Canada) because of statements that Lincoln was forcing the Civil War on America in order to create a dictatorship.

Probably the most famous use of extraordinary Presidential power during war has to be Franklin Delano Roosevelt's internment of Japanese (and Italian and German) Americans in concentration camps. In Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, the Supreme Court upheld the argument that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent. Justice Hugo Black argued that race-based compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, was justified by the government's assertion of wartime necessity. In other words, precedent that during war, the President is allowed extraordinary powers

In 1978 Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), signed by then President Jimmy Carter, which authorizes just these type of actions, albeit with restrictions. So, regardless of the Constitution, both Congress and the Supreme Court have sided with expanding Presidential powers when it comes to matters of national security.

So in conclusion, our little trip through the Constitution sheds almost no light on the subject matter at hand. It appears to be unconstitutional, but at the same time, it appears both Congress and the Supreme Court really don't give a rat's ass. So, unless I uncover additional information, I'd have to say, Bush has the authority. We shall see, as the issue unfolds.

[Editor's note: As an interesting (and probably depressing) exercise, pick a random law/regulation from the Codes, and see if the following sentence from the author applies: It appears to be unconstitutional, but at the same time, it appears both Congress and the Supreme Court really don't give a rat's ass.
I suppose one could have the view: What's one more grain of sand on the pile? One could even have the view: Of all the bad things that are currently being done, this doesn't make the top 1000 list. But I don't know if that really justifies it. Sorry, I think I interrupted too much.]

Author's note: I agree the entire subject is depressing. My little jaunt through the Constitution was to compare and contrast the facts of the Constitution with the realities of today's political world. I was not expecting some grand epiphany which would explain everything. As a matter of fact, I would have been surprised to find one. And I do agree with the Editor's opinion on modern politician's respect for rules. If anyone believes any politician* and/or judge has the slightest respect for the limits of the Constitution, I suggest they discuss the matter with Kelo.

Allow me one last statement: whether Bush broke the law or not, whether the Constitution allows the executive branch any of the authority it has used, or not, it really burns my ass to hear the politicians on the other side of the aisle rise up with such self righteous indignation when I know damn well, if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd be racing to do the exact same thing. God I hate hypocrites.

* - except Ron Paul (editor's addendum)

The Guilt of the Governed

2006-01-02T22:12:00.000-05:00

Would people rather feel guilty than powerless?

I finished reading a fascinating book earlier this month. It was called "Adam, Eve, the Serpent and the Garden of Eden" and was written by Elaine Pagels, a professor of early Christian history at Princeton University. It explores the effects of the evolution of the early Christian faith and Church on the sexual attitudes of Christians in particular, and thereby western society in general.

She does a lot of finger-pointing for the repressed sexual attitudes at the feet of one St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo during the late fourth and early fifth centuries, based upon his campaigning for the origins and transfer of original sin. The reason I mention this is because Pagels goes one step further and explores the question: why would a civilization allow itself to be pushed into a theology that believes sexual urges and intercourse are evil, and therefore should be repressed and avoided whenever possible? That is an interesting question.

True, by St. Augustine's time, the Roman Catholic Church was on a roll, having recently been adopted by Emperor Constantine as the Rome's official state religion. But still, you can use what ever means you want to try to control people, but it doesn't mean it will work. The very existence of the Church is more than evidence enough, having survived centuries of persecution at the hands of their benefactors in Rome and Constantinople. Why would the people allow themselves to be herded in this direction? Dr. Pagels' theory is this: because, in general, people would rather feel guilty than powerless.

Interesting concept, which is I'm typing this and why you are reading it.

Just a little more religion to finish up the theory, then we'll get down to business. According to Dr. Pagels, St. Augustine's reasoning was, original sin; Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and the accompanying sin created by it, is passed from human to human via semen. Hence, the Virginal birth by Mary allowed God to enter humanity in the form of Jesus, free from original sin. The rest of us, however, are screwed. Because humanity is burdened with this sin, we've polluted nature itself, and we can never achieve total communion with God, but instead are doomed to roam the earth, controlled by the state, which is guided by the Church. Yada yada yada. On this last part, she looses me a little bit, because if we are doomed, then we are powerless. But I probably misread some of her reasoning.

So while I may not buy Dr.Pagels' theory itself, I nevertheless believe the statement itself is sound thinking. Lets apply a few examples, shall we?

Global warming. Created by mankind's love affair with oil. We did it, and if we don't fix it - and soon - we will all die because of it. I've studied some evidence on global warming, and while I'm not convinced that it even exists, I know the data used by environmentalist is deeply flawed. I don't believe you can extrapolate 60 years worth of data, and apply it to a world, hundreds of millions of years old. So why do activist insist its happening? Because if we didn't create global warming, then we are powerless to do anything about it. Therefore, its easier to accept that it's our fault, feel guilty about it, and endure whatever costs necessary to stop it. People would rather believe they are guilty than powerless. Works on this one.

Global war on terror. The only reason there are terrorists is because we in the west, and the United States in particular, have done them some wrong in the past, and they only want to get even. If we hadn't messed with them, then there would never have been a terrorist problem. Forget the fact that the vast amount of death and destruction caused by terrorists are acts by Muslims against their fellow Muslims, its our fault. Because if it is our fault, then all we need do is to make them feel whole again, and they will stop it. But if we can't make their cheeks all rosy and glowing with happiness, the alternative is a large region of the world that will continue to produce people who believe it's their destiny to kill non-Muslims.

How about poverty? Part of the human condition and so will always be with us? Not a chance jack. We did it by allowing evil corporations to pillage the world's resources for their own gain, at the expense of the poor, exploited, unwashed masses. Since we created poverty, we can fix it by sucking all the profits out of the free market and redistributing it to the poor, from whom it was stolen.

Now if I were a complete cynic, I might say that liberal politicians, lobbyists and activists have already figured out this theory. And they use it to try to sway uneducated (on the specifics of issues) voters to grant them power, so they can fix all these evils created by us hairless monkeys.

There is another aspect I'd like to ponder as well. I have no evidence to back up the assumptions I'm about to make, other than my lifetime of experiences, but I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of liberals are either atheists, agnostics, or not truly seriously religious people. I'd also be willing to wager the opposite of conservatives. They tend to be Church-goers. Liberals tend to believe we humans are in the process of destroying the world and all its inhabitants, so they must achieve power at any cost in order to put things in order before its too late. Conservatives tend to be of the position that things aren't nearly as bad as liberals believe, and they don't need anyone to fix things for them - or telling, them what to do.

So here's my theory. People who have tendencies to be more religious - not just show off religious (i.e. the REV. Jesse Jackson), but really depend on their faith - put their faith in God, and therefore aren't as afraid of the unknown future. We're in God's hands. Those who put less faith in their faith, tend to be of the flavor who insist that only a big, all encompassing government, seeing to all our wants and needs, can save us.

Just some food for thought.

Editor's note: Not being religious, or a believer in government (much less so than the majority of those who would label themselves as religious), I perhaps serve as a counter-example to the author's claim. However, it does seem fairly uncontroversial that those who consider themselves conservative appear to regard religion as having a more important place in their life than those on the left. Based on the current administration, the religion angle is more outward than in recent memory, although they also seem to be fans of very big government. Perhaps people, regardless of what religion they hold, should have more faith in themselves, to live their life free from the dictates of others. I have a dream!

He's still pretentious

2005-12-31T16:04:00.000-05:00

In a previous post to this blog, I poked some mild fun at the singer Bono, gently chiding him for his attempts to coerce the American federal government to raise taxes and donate the money for aid to Africa's poorest regions. I pointed out in that rant that while I applauded his efforts to alleviate suffering, I also believed (and still do) that he could accomplish much more by appealing directly to the American people, the most generous in the world.

Part of the reason for my sarcastic tone in the previous rant, is I've seen celebrities turn their star power to charitable works for decades, with little or no lasting effects. And they soon lose interests once the cameras are turned off. Bob Geldof and Live Aid back in 1985 leap to mind, as does Sean Penn taking a personal photographer with him to New Orleans to document his goodness for posterity. Count me firmly in the 'teach the poor to fish so they may eat for life' camp. Buying tons of food and turning it over to dictators to use as a political tool, to me, is nothing but a waste of time, resources and hope.

This year, Time magazine named Bono one of three "Persons of the Year" (more on that in just a bit). Reluctantly I read the article, assuming it would be nothing more than a fluff piece dedicated to what a magnificent, bleeding heart he has. And while it was, there was also more. Bono and his lobbying group DATA have done much more than let their liberal hearts bleed before press conferences. They are getting results.

"'You know what my least favorite John Lennon song is?' he says. 'Imagine'. At the root of it is some rigorous thinking about the way things could be, but people have stolen the idea and made it an anthem for wishful thinking. I'm against wishful thinking. I hate it.'"

Besides arm-twisting politicians and philanthropic institutions, they also are searching for real solutions to real problems, and demanding real results. They are involved with medical and health researchers, they work with economic development experts, they are actually accomplishing more than polishing their own liberal credentials. For that, I not only apologize for my previous post making light of his work, I also offer a hardy congratulations, and wish him the best in his efforts.

Time also named two other 'Persons of the Year.' Bill and Melinda Gates. I've had a rough appraisal in the past of Bill Gates. I entered the computer industry at about the same time he was taking it apart, rearranging it to suit his own wallet. I saw the devastation, the good solid computer companies go under, one by one, at his call. On top of that, I've suffered greatly, as most computer users have, under the curse of Microsoft's Windows operating system. Does anyone remember Windows 95? How about Windows 98? I still shudder when I think of those products.

But if Time magazine is to be believed (and that's a big 'if' considering it's part of the mainstream media) Bill and Melinda Gates deserve a hardy congratulations for the efforts to help the poorest of the poor in this world. When I reached the line about how donations from their foundation for vaccinations have saved more than 700,000 lives, I was sold. That's concrete action. Those are results.

Interviews with employees of his foundation speak of it more as a business than a charitable foundation. They routinely visit the very poor, to learn first hand of the situation. They ask tough questions and expect honest answers. Money from their foundation is not given away, it's invested, and if the return on investment isn't sufficient, they pull the plug. One person interviewed said that the foundation has terminated several grants because of poor performance and the recipients were stunned. They'd never been required to actually produce in the past. You have to love that!

Bill and Melinda Gates, through their foundation, have been working extensively with Bono and his people to fund, invest, develop and produce real results that benefit the poor around the world. If this business model for charitable foundations works out, I may have to rethink my charitable donations.

To all three, Bono, Bill and Melinda Gates, I applaud. Humanity is better for their work. Thank you!

Merry Christmas

2005-12-25T01:00:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: I know it seems like I am trying to share the spotlight by prefacing every article with some remarks of my own, but this time there is a purpose. I am going on vacation and so wanted to post this Christmas entry by the Author today in case I do not have time later on. Enjoy!

The Gospel According to Luke 2:1-7
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyre'ni-us was governor of Syria.). And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the house and lineage of David,) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."

Luke 2:8-20
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them; and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

"Fear not..."

In the older King James Version (KJV) the line reads "Be not afraid...." Its one of my favorite lines from the entire Bible. Imagine being a simple shepherd boy, out in the fields, tending your flock, when "whammo" an angel appears. A real, honest to goodness angel. Wings, harp, flying around, voice sweeter than any chorus. My first instinct would probably be to run like hell while trying not to soil myself. I think that's what I like about it, because I would be terrified. The angel does not command them, does not order them, casts no spell on them, but instead simply says "Be not afraid." There is much strength in those words.

There is indeed much to fear in today's world. Violence, war, bombings, protests, death and disease. Even though I'm now a father, and its my job to ensure my wife and child are not afraid, there is much that scares me. Some times the sheer enormity of the world's problems, let alone my own, can be overwhelming. "Be not afraid." Reassuring words. There's even a hymn we used to sing at a church I once attended called "Be not afraid." Its a beautiful song. I wish my new church would put it in the rotation. Oh well. I can still remember the tune and, though I don't remember 95% of the words, it still brings me a smile.

The story of a man called Jesus, who was born some 2,001 years ago, is fascinating read. The troubled times, the Roman occupation, the Pharisees, colluding with the Romans to oppress the Jewish people. Death, disease, war everywhere. Into that world was born a simple child. He's been called King of Peace, the Son of God, God Himself. The affects of his teaching, his work, his ministry can not be denied. He may be the most influential person in the history of humanity. I don't care what your religion is, if any, the waves created by that simple carpenter resonate to this day. But at that moment in time, he was just a simple newborn child. I've held a newborn in my arms, my own child. Its an experience every person should have. There's no feeling quite like it in the world. So small, so helpless, totally dependent upon you for every thing. Quite the responsibility. "Be not afraid."

I love the fact that he was born in a manger. His crib was no doubt, a quickly cleaned up feed trough. Hardly the trappings you'd expect for the King of Heaven. Talk about humble. In those days, as they are still today, the rulers of the world are rich beyond belief. They have everything they could possibly want. And God chooses to make his entrance in the most humble of ways. I think that's the point. God is not the God of the rich alone, He is also the God of the poor and down trodden. There is no God but God.

Lord knows he caused a big stir. Preaching to the poor, the disaffected, outcasts of society. He ate dinner with tax collectors, considered the lowest of the low in those days [Editor's note: Still considered so, by some.]. He saved a prostitute from being stoned to death by saying "Let he is without sin cast the first stone." For a carpenter, he certainly had a way with words. There are more words of wisdom in his parables than I could digest in a life time. Using the parable of the Good Samaritan, he asked his disciples "Who was that man's neighbor?" Indeed, who is my neighbor?

He finally crossed the line, made too many waves, and found himself nailed to a cross - the Roman version of today's public service announcement - "Commit this act, and this is what you get." Its been said that before the Romans conquered Judea, the land was filled with trees, but most of them were cut down to build crosses. I guess the Romans had a lot of public service announcements to make.

The agony of his last days on earth were terrible. He came to earth to save mankind, to teach redemption, to show us there is a better way, and for all his efforts, he was beaten, whipped, and crucified. And when he didn't die fast enough, he was stabbed with a spear. I'm sure there was plenty of fear in Jesus. After all, he cried from the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" "Be not afraid."

But for the very first Christmas, there was none of that. There was only a family, with a newborn child, and no bed to lay Him in. I'm sure Joseph had plenty of worries. But for one night, all was calm, all was quiet.

Silent night, holy night
All is calm, all is bright
Round yon Virgin Mother and Child
Holy Infant so tender and mild
Sleep in heavenly peace
Sleep in heavenly peace

Silent night, holy night!
Shepherds quake at the sight
Glories stream from heaven afar
Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia!
Christ, the Saviour is born
Christ, the Saviour is born

Silent night, holy night
Son of God, love's pure light
Radiant beams from Thy holy face
With the dawn of redeeming grace
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth.

Merry Christmas, Happy New Year. I hope every one has the ability to give all the gifts they want this year, because that's the true spirit of Christmas, to give. As God gave of himself, so that sins may be forgiven, give to others, even if its just a smile, or holding open a door.

Hark! The herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King;
Peace on earth, and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled!”
Joyful, all ye nations rise,
Join the triumph of the skies;
With th’angelic host proclaim,
“Christ is born in Bethlehem!”

Waking up in a new world: Conclusion!!!

2005-12-21T21:12:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: This is it, the capstone to the author's history lesson and justification in his mind for the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. I will not distract readers with many links. Enjoy!
P.S. Check this article for the initial laying of the foundation. And forgive my lame building analogies.

A couple of weeks ago, my editor and myself were having a heated debate on what lead America to its showdown with Saddam Hussein. He suggested that I take up the issue for a blog entry. I originally assumed it would be at most, perhaps, three parts. As I began writing, it quickly became apparent three essays would not be sufficient for all the aspects I thought important in order to fully present my point of view. I then estimated eight parts. Here today is the conclusion, part ten.

What I've attempted to do is to put down the facts as best I remember them. From the first Gulf War in 1991 to the invasion in 2003, to the continued occupation. Little did I realize my meanderings would take me back as far as 570 AD. Since 9/11, I have learned much about Islam, the Middle East and America's uneasy relationship with the region. I've included much of it here.

What I've also tried to accomplish is to present as many facts as possible. Facts that were once common knowledge and today are in question. I firmly believe that academically honest people, of differing political persuasions, can have an honest debate in the arena of free ideas on the history and the future of America and Iraq. But that debate can only take place when the facts are clearly presented. There is no academic honesty in a debate if one side insists facts are fiction.

I hope readers have felt their time well spent reading these essays. And I would like to thank my editor for both prodding me to write, as well as for his efforts at editing and posting. I must admit, some of his links (I email the editor flat text, he formats, links, and adds smart ass remarks) have irked me more than I care to admit. But that is what honest debate is all about. Facts, whether you like them or not, are facts. And we should never forget that.

The Second Iraq War

In the previous nine essays, I've covered a myriad of points. Saddam himself, his brutality, his WMDs - and proven willingness to use them. I've also covered some of the history of Islam, as I've learned about it, and Wabahism in particular. I spent a particularly uncomfortable afternoon spilling my thoughts on terrorism and war. But what does all that mean with respect to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq?

What it has to do with the Iraq war, is to point out the complete and utter lack of stability in not only the Middle East, but of the entire Muslim world. The world of Islam is huge. It stretches from Morocco to Malaysia, from Kosovo to Mozambique. Its a vast civilization of people from many differing back grounds, and many different ethnicities. They do have one thing in common, they are Muslim and the rest of the world is not.

Islam has been at war with itself, and western society for over a thousand years. In 1803 the Muslim pirates of Tripoli began seizing the ships of the newly minted United States of America, and selling the sailors into slavery. President Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter demanding they cease and desist, and recognize America's right to the use high seas. The pirates replied that not only was it their right, it was their duty under Islamic law to fight the infidel where ever encountered. Thomas Jefferson responded by creating the US Marines. "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli."

We have been at war with these people, just as most of the western world has, for all that time. In the year 711 AD, Muslims conquered a large part of Spain. As a matter of fact, that's one of bin Looser's demands, that western society return it to the Muslims. Muslims nearly reached the gates of Vienna in 1683. You can thank Polish King Jan Sobieski for saving Europe back then. For most of the west, it was not even worth noticing. The only people concerned should the ones stupid enough to enter their part of the world, for that was their decision. The Muslims, with their limited resources, and ancient weapons, had no chance of dragging us into anything. That has changed.

For most of history, large scale invasions were not that difficult to notice. Massing of troops and ships. You could see them coming. You had time to prepare, at least to some extent. With the marriage of Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, there is no notice. There is no prevention, only reaction. It is a war on their terms, fought when they decide, where they decide, and the type of battle is entirely of their choosing. I recently read an article, analyzing the effects of a relatively small nuclear device detonating in down town Manhattan. The results aren't pretty. 1,600,000 Dead and dying Americans, and arguably America's most important city, a radioactive waste land. The study suggests so many wounded, there would be not be enough emergency service members alive to help them. They would lie in the streets by the hundreds of thousands, praying in agony for death to take them. This is no science fiction movie or novel.

When I was a kid, we used to perform air raid drills at school. We'd grab our coats, file into the hall way, lean towards the wall, cover our heads with our arms, and wait out nuclear Armageddon. That was just pure foolishness. I watched the World Trade Centers fall on TV. This is real. Its as real as New York City, Washington DC, Madrid, London, Moscow, Bali, Paris, Baghdad, Amman and thousands of other cities around the world were this war rages in the streets.

Islamic fundamentalism plus weapons of mass destruction, plus the ease of world travel thanks to globalism, equal the very real possibility of the destruction of America. New York City is the financial capitol of the world. Its mind boggling to even try to conceive the effects on the global world economy should it suddenly cease to exist. The world would be thrown into an economic recession from which it might never recover.

But then again, that's the terrorist agenda. They don't want to see a thriving western society. They want to see death and destruction. That way its easier for them to plunge those left alive into slavish nightmare of what they call paradise. They make the rules, we obey or die. And they get to watch, all snug and comfortable in their piety, that they are the hand of God.

What once would have required the largest armed forces in the world, can now be accomplished by a relatively small group of dedicated men. And make no mistake they are dedicated. One would have to be in order to think it an act worthy of God, to kill children gathering to receive candy.

But again, what does that have to do with Saddam, Iraq and America?

As I've noted in previous essays, I believe there are as many reasons for terrorists, as there are terrorists. But I believe the primary reason is lack of hope. Total despair. The inability to even dream of a better life. And one sure way to create that despair is the relentless and never ending oppression of the people of the Muslim world. And that's what the world of Islam is. Crushed under repression, beaten down, driven into the mud and the blood, from which they see no exit. Stir in some religion, promising a better world in the afterlife, arm them with a vial so small it could fit in a pen, and turn them loose on a society which they despise. I hope that scares you, because it scares the hell out of me. It's not fiction. Its fact. That is the reality of today's world.

In 1991 Bush the Coward went into Iraq, for what I now consider dubious reasons. Dubious because of what he claimed he wanted to accomplish, as opposed to the reality of Iraq on the eve of the second Gulf War, are worlds apart. Bush the Coward used the US military to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. But he did not plan, did not foresee, did not worry about the results of his actions. And those results were catastrophic. Bush the Coward and his allies broke Iraq, wrapped it in duct tape, and left it for the pathetic United Nations to worry about.

Consider that for a moment. As if life in Iraq under Saddam, wasn't bad enough, the United States and the UN made it even worse. First the Coward's attempts to encourage the Iraqi's to rebel in 1991, where he promptly fed them to the dogs. Estimates of 300,000 dead Shiites and Kurds. Is it any wonder the US is having such a hard time during the current occupation? Would you trust a nation that suggested you rise up, only to find your entire family and town wiped off the face of the earth? I would find the opportunity for payback very tempting.

The Vatican estimated 50,000 dead Iraqis every year from the UN sanctions alone. Think about that number. Not only did America turn its back on the Iraqi people in their hour of greatest need, now the entire world was set to crush them in the vice of sanctions. Not that Saddam would be all that inconvenienced. He still had his WMDs, his army and his billions. But to the common Iraqi citizen, nothing but despair. Complete and total despair. And at our hands, no less.

Following 9/11, many Americans finally realized we are, in fact, at war with Islamic fundamentalists We realized just how vulnerable we truly are. We realized just how easy it is for them to murder thousands with out even using WMDs, just simple box cutters. We also realized just how truly dangerous Saddam was, with his WMDs. Its not outrageous to believe Saddam would be more than willing to deal with anyone necessary in order to exact his revenge on America, after all the United States humiliated him before the entire world. That was the main cause for the invasion. Americans, in 2002 and early 2003 agreed not to wait for him to link up with bin Looser or any terrorist groups for that matter. The threat needed to be dealt with before the attack occurred.

Many words have been spoken detailing the case for pre-emptive war. The second Iraq war was not for pre-emption, it was a preventive war, waged to prevent an even larger war. Some time in the 1930's, Adolf Hitler decided to break the treaty of Versailles and remilitarize the Rhineland, Germany's industrial heart land. At the time, France had an army 60 miles away that out numbered the Germans some 30 to one. Had France acted in a timely manor, perhaps the entire European theater of World War II might have been avoided. Millions of lives saved, many millions more, left unscarred by the horrors of war. What if? What might have been? What could have been? Who knows.

I believe the second Gulf War is justified because we need to fix what Bush the Coward and America did in 1991. We broke Iraq, and refused to fix it. The world is far too dangerous today to have a nation of 25 million people languishing as Iraq was. And if we do not, now, finish what we started in 1991, then America will be back in Iraq in the future, assuming America is still around.

A nation should never enter into war lightly. People's lives are at stake. But, if a nation decides that war is necessary, then it must be fought to its conclusion. Half efforts are only leaving the nightmare to another generation. And that's what America did in 1991. We left the open wounds to fester and boil. We should never have done that. Today, American soldiers are paying the price for that short sighted endeavor.

I pray to God that we have the courage to see it through, to rebuild what we have destroyed. I fear its the only chance the Muslim world and western society have left. Ignore the problem, and we will all suffer greatly. Do what we must to solve our own misdeeds, and maybe, just maybe, both the Muslim world and America have a chance for a future.

Editor's note: This was a labour of love for the author, and I certainly didn't pay him for this work. If you enjoyed - or hated - the series, please leave a comment.

Waking up in a new world: Part IX

2005-12-20T18:30:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: Is that a light I see at the end of the tunnel? We are almost done, but if this is all new to you, your long - but worthwhile - journey starts here. Also, the Author wanted me to make it clear that all links were my idea. Sometimes I can be a dolore nell'asino.

Terrorism

I don't need no stinkin' Wikipedia.com to tell me what terrorism is. And, unlike the US Supreme Court's opinion on pornography, I don't need to see it in order to know it.

Terrorism, simply put, is the practice to inflict as much horror, death and destruction on a people, so that they will give the perpetrator whatever they want, in order to halt future acts.

Its very similar to war, but not quite. War attempts to destroy the opposing nation's will to fight by destroying their means of defense (or retaliation), thereby rendering the opposition government impotent. Wars are usually fought hot and fast, as in World War II, or Iraq. Sometimes they are fought excruciatingly slow, as in the Cold War. Terrorism is neither. It's like war in slow motion, like a simmering pot. Instead of a fleet of bombers dispensing death en'mass, the bombs go off, one at a time, over weeks, months, years, decades.

Despite claims to the contrary, terror is not the tool of the powerful, but rather the tool of the weak. Its used by groups and organizations who know they can't stand up to a real army, so they don't. Instead, they hide in the shadows, they blend in with the citizens, they look for vulnerability among the populations, then they strike with great ferociousness and they strike everyday people, just living their lives. Their goal is horrific headlines of blood and body parts everywhere, people screaming in terror. Dead children. Don't like it? Then give them what they want.

I know the first question leaping to a liberal's mind at the above statements: what's the difference between the US' actions in Iraq and al Qeada's actions? After all, the actions of both sides result in the deaths of innocent civilians. But there is a difference. When the US accidentally kills innocent civilians, its not because they are the target, but rather because that's where the targets hide, among the innocent. When terrorists kill, its because innocent civilians are the targets. There is a difference, and I will not budge on this point. There is a difference.

While the overall odds are in favor of powerful nations defeating terrorists, in reality, they have the upper hand. They choose the targets, the timing, the weapons. There is no warning, just gunfire, explosions, and the body count. And let us not forget the headlines. Any terrorist worth his weight knows the modern terrorist battle is fought in the media. They know that very well. And the modern media is only too willing to help them out for the sake of ratings.

The reasons for employing terror tactics are, in my opinion, as varied as the number of terrorists. That is, each terrorist has his or her own reasons for deciding to kill civilians. Perhaps vengeance, hatred, insanity, love of carnage, or maybe its just some sick bastard's method for achieving fame. Politicians will tell you we need to learn the "root causes" of terrorism, so we can help stop them. In my opinion, the biggest root cause is an utter lack of hope for the future, complete despair. But in reality, it's what ever an individual feels is appropriate to strap on a bomb and kill.

I would be academically dishonest if I did not address the issue of 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' but that's a deceptively difficult question to answer, as it means looking at each case individually. What are the terrorists attempting to achieve as opposed to their opponents? For example, let us look at the bloody struggle in North Ireland. Back when I was in highschool, I had a friend who's family was a host for a foreign exchange student. She was a Protestant from Northern Ireland, quite cute, and I'm a sucker for a sexy accent. I cornered her in a bar one time (drinking age was 18 back then) and I asked her, I wanted to know the real story from some one who really knows. I asked her, what was going on and why. First off she assured me it wasn't nearly as bad as the American Press made it out. She worked in a government office (she was an exchange student several years earlier, and by this point she was on vacation in America and made sure to stop by and visit her friends) and had one or two bomb scares, but that was the extent of it. She explained that while she was Irish, she considered herself a British citizen. That one sentence summed it up pretty good. Both sides were fighting for the same thing, their right to their own country. See what I mean about a difficult question to answer? The northern Irish who were Protestants considered Northern Ireland to be their country, and they wanted to remain part of Great Britain. The Catholic Irish considered the British to be invaders, they wanted their country back.

See what I mean?

Since the thrust of this series of writings is America and Iraq, I will not even attempt to cover all terrorist organizations, and will instead concentrate on the ones in the Middle East.

What Al Qeada claims it wants is easy to discern, they've posted their demands many times. Among them are demands that the US sign the Kyoto Accords and the return of Spain to the Muslims. (I wonder if they'd negotiate over France instead?). The whole thing reminds me of the movie Air Heads, or maybe Die Hard. Make outrageous demands to create a diversion for your enemy.

What bin Looser and al Qeada really want, is fairly obvious. World domination, but for now, they'll settle for rulership of the entire Muslim world. They want to use terror to scare western civilization out of the Middle East, thereby stripping Muslim dictators of their powerful supporters and weapon suppliers. Then they can begin knocking off moderate Islamic nations, via revolution, one by one. The eventual, short term goal, is to overthrow the Saudi family and conquer Arabia. Once in control of Islam's holiest sites, they become the standard bearers for Islam. What Islam is, is what they say it is. Knocking off the Pope does not make the killer the Pope. Controlling Mecca and Medina does - more or less - control the voice of Islam.

From the throne of Islam, they can continue to foster terrorism and revolution throughout the Muslim world, until bin Looser can be crowned as the Caliphate, or true successor of Mohammed. Remember previously when I mentioned the reasons for a terrorist to kill? Remember the part about some sick bastard wanting fame?

As the Caliphate of a reborn Muslim empire, bin Looser not only controls the message of Islam, he controls the world's oil supply, as well as the trillions of dollars the Saudis, the Kuwaitis and the Iraqis already have from the past sale of oil. A significant portion of the world's economy.

I believe bin Looser was also counting on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, as a bargaining chip with the rest of the world, but it appears Saddam out foxed him on that one.

But their long term goal is also obvious, world domination. That may sound a bit far fetched, until you dig a little deeper in Wahhabism. It's a very strict form of Islam, in that, any one who doesn't believe in what they do - completely, without question - are infidels, beneath a dog, and worthy only of death. They believe Islam is the only true religion (in particular, their flavor of it), and therefore is destined to control the entire world. Look it up, its in your Quran. That means Shiites, as well as any Muslim who won't tow their line on conformity. Every one in the entire world who differs from them on any issue or point, deservers death. Think about that. A terrorist organization who's declared if you don't accept them as the ultimate authority in the world, you are their enemy.

And to achieve their goal, everyone and anyone must die. Preferably, horribly.

What does that mean for the innocent civilians of the Middle East caught in the middle, as well as the rest of us, should they achieve any manor of success? Take a look at the Taliban in Afghanistan, you'll get a very good idea of their paradise on earth. And it ain't pretty.

Waking up in a new world: Part VIII

2005-12-19T17:12:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: Yes, this is part 8. I'm told the ending is on the horizon. All we can do is pray...

If this is your first time here, start at the beginning. Which is usually good advice.

The Middle East

Some eighteen months ago I was reading an opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer in Time magazine about the US coming ashore in the Middle East. He opined that for years, the US was more than willing to sit on their great navy vessels in the Persian Gulf and watch the various countries bash away with each other. His argument was that America could no longer afford to watch, but must become involved with boots on the ground.
[Editor's note: It is quite the claim to state that the US has not been involved in the region.]
[Author's note: Seeing as Europe has been meddling in the Middle East for hundreds, if not thousands of years, I find it rather refreshing that America has managed to keep its hands to itself for so long.]
[Editor's note: If the author is saying that the US looks standoffish in comparison to the worst meddling of the British empire (among others), that is perhaps true - although one could say that the US is trying to make up for that, and that emulating an empire is not becoming a free democracy. But for the sake of continuing on, let's pretend that Mr. Krauthammer's point has some validity, and that the US had turned a blind eye to and tread lightly on the Middle East until now.]

The reason I mention this writing is because he made one outstanding point (among many outstanding points) and that is the Arab League consists of 22 nation members, not one of them freely elected. Monarchs, military dictators, theocrats, thugs and other assorted oppressors. Can you imagine that? An entire region of the world, and not one single government is freely elected by their citizens.

That was back in February of 2003. Today the Arab League looks like this:

• The Hashemite Kingdom Of Jordan
• United Arab Emirates
• Kingdom Of Bahrain
• Republic Of Tunisia
• Democratic And Popular Republic Of Algeria
• Republic Of Djibouti
• Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia
• Rebuplic Of Sudan*
• Arab Rebuplic Of Syria
• Republic Of Somalia
• Republic Of Iraq
• Sultanate Of Oman
• State Of Palestine
• State Of Qatar
• Federal Islamic Republic Of Comoros
• State Of Kuwait
• Republic Of Lebanon
• Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
• Arab Republic Of Egypt
• Kingdom Of Morocco
• Islamic Republic Of Mauritania
• Republic Of Yemen

*That's actually the way it's spelled on the website. Sounds like a real republic to me.

First off I must admit, I find the humor in non-democratic countries naming themselves in a way that would make George Orwell shake his head. "Democratic And Popular Republic Of Algeria." That's a good one! Not only are they "democratic", but they are also "popular". Just read the name. Still don't believe it? Just ask any citizen, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to gush about what a wonderful democracy they have. Please ignore that guy with the AK-47 standing just off camera. He's a representative from the democratic and popular government.

Today, that list no longer contains 22 undemocratic governments, it contains only 21. The Republic of Iraq, will become, on Thursday, a true Republic. It's a start.

(Please note, I sincerely hope that in a relatively short and peaceful amount of time, Lebanon can be considered free and democratic, which moves the tally to 20 - 2.)

Many who openly oppose and protest the war in Iraq would read the above statements and shrug, saying something like, why should we care? What does it mean to us how those people choose to live their lives? It's no sweat off our brow. Wrong, it is sweat off our brow, we desperately and earnestly need to be concerned.

A while back I saw an interview on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I don't remember the gentleman's name, but he was hawking a new book called "No God but God". His take on 9/11 was Islam has been in the midst of a civil war for hundreds of years, and its still going on. Seeing as he's from the Middle East (Iran) I assumed he knew what he was talking about. There are many different forms of Islam, but there are two main factions. One side wants to get along with the rest of the world, become part of the international community, live their lives they way they want, to be religious or not, their own choice. The other is a darker form of Islam.

The darker form of Islam takes a much more literal view of the Quran. That is to say, when God created man, God put certain restrictions on man, such as the need to eat, the need to sleep, etc. Those actions are beyond anyone's control, so they must be anointed from God. Everything else is covered by Islam. When to eat, what to eat, how to eat, which foot to enter a room with first. It's a pretty crushing theology. But even more than that, it's the cleric who translates and interprets the Quran for the commoners. Because they supposedly have studied the Quran sufficiently, they have been granted obscene powers over civilization, by God no less. There is no rigid hierarchy of Islam, there's no Pope or Cardinals or Bishops to openly state a cleric is in violation of Islam by his teachings, and he must be corrected. No, when an Iman, a Mullah, or whatever they call themselves makes a declaration, it is not open to interpretation. Its Sharia, the law.

Bin Looser found a cleric, one Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, to issue a religious decree, in a cave in Afghanistan, that declared Islam at war with the United States and the west. The result was September 11, 2001.

But if this is a civil war inside Islam, how did the US and the West get pulled in? The author's opinion was simply because bin Looser could do it. Western civilization, in general, is an open society. Sure there are laws, some travel hassles, commitments to be met, but for the most part, we're an easy going group of people who just want to live our lives. In other words, we're sitting ducks. September 11, 2001 happened because we weren't paying enough attention to the Middle East. We made it too easy for them to resist.

I've been told by many people that democracy will never flourish in the Middle East because the people aren't civilized enough to make it work. The only way to keep the peace is by the iron fist rule of blood-thirsty dictators. But for me, therein lies the problem. Seeing 21 members of the Arab league are not democratically elected, they are the blood-thirsty strongmen crushing the people of the Middle East. All media outlets are controlled by the state. Just because their news organizations do not show footage of people being dragged from their beds in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again, does not mean it does not happen. The absence of violence does not equal peace.

Remember the post about Saddam? That river blood flowed not only in Iraq, but it flows throughout the entire region. The citizens are crushed beneath the boots of vicious dictators. There is little to no hope that the people can rise up and over throw their leaders, the modern police state has seen to that. Remember the Shiite and Kurd uprising in 1991 against Saddam? 21 Out of 23 provinces rebelled? The vast majority of the country? How'd that work out? Not very well.

When one lives under a vicious dictator, one owns nothing. The government does. Want to build an addition on your house? Take care not to make it to nice, or you just may loose the entire home. I remember watching an interview in post-Saddam Baghdad. The reporter was talking to an entrepreneur who was doubling the size of his restaurant, hiring, buying new equipment. He said that he could never have done that with Saddam in power. If business looked too good, one of Saddam's sons was sure to learn about it and then demand the entire business at the end of a gun.

That's a tremendous amount of power to hold over a person, over a people, over a nation. You can take their homes, their business' and their families on a whim. I read another article in Time after the invasion. It covered just a small example of the brutality. A father was celebrating the marriage of his oldest daughter. One of Saddam's sons showed up uninvited. He demanded to see the father. He said he found the father's younger daughter (14 years old) quite attractive and wanted her delivered to his home. The father pleaded no, after all she was just a child. The baathist said either deliver the girl or else they would kill his entire family, and take the child anyway. The father relented and sent his child to be raped, in order to save the rest of his family. Later the father committed suicide, unable to live with his actions.

And pretty much the entire Middle East is run that way. On the one hand, it keeps a lid on the real crazies, on the other hand it crushes the very life out of the population of an entire region.

My opinion is that this is the major, root cause of Middle East terrorism. The lack of hope, the lack of a future, the lack of any other way. Do nothing, and it will continue. Desperate men do desperate things.

Now this is nothing new. The Middle East has been ruled this way for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There is a difference now, though. That difference is called Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Waking up in a new world: Part VII

2005-12-15T22:33:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: There is no editor's note this time. Except to say, if you don't understand why there is a 'VII' in the title, you should probably start here.

Islamic Fundamentalism

In the movie Scarface, Al Pacino says the line "First you get the money. Then you get the power. Then you get the women." While the last part may or may not have relevance to this topic, without a doubt, the first two do. Power and money. Money is power, and therefore, power is money. Don't believe me? Ask OJ.

In the name of full disclosure, I am a practicing Roman Catholic. And as an inquisitive practitioner I've researched the early Catholic Church, warts and all. And let me tell you, there are plenty of warts. Crusades leap to mind. The Spanish Inquisition. The countless wars to enlarge the greater glory of the Church. How about the concept of "original sin"? Personally, from what I've learned about history, the Church, and human nature, I tend to believe it's a lot more about people in pursuit of power, wrapping themselves in religion, than the religion leading the way to war. When Constantine made Christianity (more specifically "Catholic" "Orthodox" - Greek for "universal" "right-thinking") the official religion of the Roman Empire, I believe he repeated another line from another famous Al Pacino film: "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer."

As I mentioned earlier, I've studied the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The Crusades? Sure, they were on a mission from God to protect the Holy Land from the evil infidels. They also occurred as Europe was emerging from the Dark Ages and becoming a much more stable region. This brought to the forefront a serious flaw in European tradition. Daughters were married off for political reasons and to solidify relationships. The eldest son inherited everything, all other sons either joined the Church, joined the army, became a mercenary, or a peasant. Not a very promising future for a large number of well equipped, well trained soldiers, that was rapidly accumulating as the incessant invasions from the Norsemen declined. Coincidence?

The Spanish Inquisition? Sure that was a way to purify Spain of infidels who were polluting the Church. It was also a handy way for the Spanish crown to ethnically cleanse the population of political enemies and undesirables. Declare Roman Catholicism the national religion, keep sending those taxes to Rome, and the Pope will bless just about anything you want.

Its not about religion, its about power. It's always about power. Who has it, who wants it, and what they're willing to do to get it.

Religion in the hands of good people, tends to produce good. Religion in the hands of evil people, tends to produce evil. When it comes to judging those claiming to be religious, I hold the same advice I use for politicians: don't waste your time listening to what's coming out of their mouths, watch what they do. Pat Robertson can recite the Lord's Prayer till he's blue in the face, but when he starts advocating the US whack undesirable leaders of foreign countries, you know where his heart is.

That's why when it comes to the idea of Islamic fundamentalism, I believe religion is only a cover for much more sinister deeds. bin Looser and company can claim to high heaven they are the most devout followers of the one and only true way, but in reality, they are nothing but murderous scum. They can pretend they are the way to salvation, the protectors of God's people, the savior of humanity, but in reality, they kill people. Men, women, children. They blow up people going to work, people taking their parents to the hospital, little kids going to school. [Annoying Editor's note: These women and children were on their way to work and school too...] They claim, that in the end, it doesn't matter. If they were infidels, they deserved death. If they were devout Muslims, they're going to paradise anyways. Nice dogma. And I get laughed at for eating fish on Fridays during Lent.

My research has also lead me to conclude that Islam is more than just a religion to Muslims, it's a very significant portion of the culture that binds the Muslim world together. Whereas we in the west great each other with handshakes, and hellos, in the Muslim world they end just about every sentence with "God willing." It's tradition. For Christians, God manifested Himself in the resurrection of Jesus. There is no Muslim equivalent. Which is why the Quran is so important to them. The words of the Prophet are the manifestation of God. So whereas the Bible is a book to be read, the Quran for Muslims is proof of God, and therefore to be worshipped. Common themes, different traditions.

So I don't hold much weight in the grandiose religious claims of Islamic fundamentalists. They can claim what ever they want, but in the end, they are still killing people all over the world.

Bill Whittle is one of the best authors I've read to emerge from the blogsphere. His book "Silent America: Essays From A Democracy At War" would do far more good if it were required reading in public schools, rather than "Heather has Two Mommies". In one essay, Whittle relates a lesson his father taught him. I don't remember the exact words, but it went something like this: if three or more people in your life think you're a complete, total bastard, it just might be you. Advice worth noting.

Islamic fundamentalists are currently at war in Iraq, India, Kashmir, The Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, America, Great Britain, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Israel, Chechnya, Russia, Australia and Jews everywhere.

Its not about religion, its about power. It's always about power. Who's got it, who wants it, and what they're willing to do to get it.

[Author's note: By the time this gets posted, I fully expect to see a rebuttal from my editor asserting that religion has far too much blood on its hands to be declared innocent. And he does have a valid point. I accept that religion can be used to make good people do evil things. The wave of suicide bombings around the world are more than proof enough. Uneducated, under-educated, and people of low intelligence can be brainwashed to believe they are doing good by driving a car bomb into a crowd of civilians, that they are doing God's work and that they will achieve a place in paradise for their efforts. But also notice, the ones doing the teaching never seem to go along for the ride?]

[Editor's note: What does 'by the time this gets posted' mean? I'm on vacation! (sort of)]

Next: The Middle East

Waking up in a new world: Part VI

2005-12-15T01:06:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: No, I will not do a table of contents. If you don't know how to scroll down to find the relevant section that you haven't read yet, you don't deserve to read this blog. Elitism? Maybe.

This post can either be considered a sign of laziness (Editor's view) or a sign of Wikipedia's usefulness (Author's view). It also provides a condundrum to the Editor, as the action of basically copy/pasting from another source brings up issues of copyright and fair use. Although Wikipedia is covered by a very generous license, they do provide a bit of disclaimer when it comes to a verbatim copy. Reading through the lawyerspeak, it does seem kosher to show the article as the Author intended, but I have my hand over the delete key just in case. I was going to suggest just providing the link to the source article, and nothing else, but the Author isn't one to pass up on a chance to bloviate, even with someone else's material. Without further ado....

[Author's note: I can empathize with the editor's reservations on this one. I, for one, do not enjoy posting other people's work in what I claim to be my own thoughts. But while researching Wahhabism, I came across the post at Wikipedia.com. The material was exactly what I wanted to write, I thought it summed up every point I wanted to make. Had I attempted to write my own version, I know I would simply be plagiarizing it, which I refused to do. I also know that Wikipedia.com is an evolving database. While simply linking to the text would have conveyed my message, that doesn't mean a month from now the entire entry won't be completely rewritten. I wanted it in the same form as when I read it.

Final Author's note: I spell checked this email before sending it to the editor for posting. While doing so I fixed his spelling error on the word condundrum. Good help can be hard to find.]

Final Editor's note: As someone becoming increasingly interested in the principles of economics, I believe this truism holds: You get what you pay for. And now, without ANY OTHER ado...

I was doing some research on the web for part six of my rant and came across this from Wikipedia.com. It explains it better than I ever could. See you in part seven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Beliefs

Wahhabism accepts the Qur'an and hadith as basic texts. It also accepts various commentaries including Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's Kitab
al-Tawhid ("Book of Monotheism"), and the works of the earlier scholar Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328).

Wahhabis do not follow any specific maddhab (method or school of jurisprudence), but claim to interpret the words of the prophet
Muhammad directly, using the four maddhab for reference. However, they are often associated with the Hanbali maddhab. Wahhabis
hold that some Muslim groups such as Sufism and Shia Islam follow novel (and thus non-Islamic) practices.

Wahhabi theology advocates a puritanical and legalistic stance in matters of faith and religious practice.

Wahhabists see their role as a movement to restore Islam from what they perceive to be innovations, superstitions, deviances, heresies
and idolatries. There are many practices that they believe are contrary to Islam, such as:

The invoking of any prophet, saint or angel in prayer, other than God alone (Wahhabists believe these practices are polytheistic in
nature)
Supplications at graves, whether saints' graves, or the prophet's grave
Celebrating annual feasts for dead saints
Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
Practicing magic, or going to sorcerers or witches seeking healing
Innovation in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
Erecting elaborate monuments over any grave

Wahhabis ban pictures, some ban photographs (others do not), and celebrating Muhammad's birthday, among many other things, based
on their interpretation of the hadith. Many Wahhabi men grow their beards and wear their traditional dresses above their ankles.
Wahhabis in South Asia are called "Ahl ul Hadith".

Early history of Wahhabism

Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia began with Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, an Arabian cleric who had come to believe that Sunni Islam
had been corrupted by innovations (bidah) such as Sufism. He discovered the works of the early Muslim thinker Ibn Taymiyya and
started preaching a reformation of Islam based on Ibn Taymiyya's ideas. He was repudiated by his father and brother, who were both
clerics, and expelled from his home village in Najd, in central Arabia.

He then moved to the Najdi town of Diriya and formed an alliance with the Saudi chieftain Muhammad bin Saud. Bin Saud made
Wahhabism the official religion in the First Saudi State. Al Wahhab gave religious legitimacy to Ibn Saud's career of conquest. Ibn
Taymiyya had been controversial in his time because he held that some self-declared Muslims (such as the Mongol conquerors of the
Abbasid caliphate) were in fact unbelievers and that orthodox Muslims could conduct violent jihad against them. Bin Saud believed that
his campaign to restore a pristine Islam justified the conquest of the rest of Arabia.

In 1801, the Saudis attacked the Iraqi city of Kerbala and sacked the Shi'a shrine there. In 1803, Saudis conquered Mecca and Medina
and sacked or demolished various shrines and mosques. The Saudis held the two cities until 1817, until they were retaken by
Mohammed Ali Pasha, acting on behalf of the Ottomans. In 1818, the Ottoman forces invaded Najd, captured the Saudi capital of
Diriya and the Saudi emir Abdullah bin Saud. He and his chief lieutenants were taken to Istanbul and beheaded. However, this did not
destroy Wahhabism in Najd.

The House of Saud returned to power in the Second Saudi State in 1824. The state lasted until 1899, when it was overthrown by the
Emir of Hayel, Mohammed Ibn Rasheed. However, Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud reconquered Riyadh in 1902 and after a number of other
conquests, founded the modern Saudi state, Saudi Arabia in 1932.

Modern spread of Wahhabism

In 1924 the Wahhabi al-Saud dynasty, conquered Mecca and Medina, the Muslim holy cities. This gave them control of the Hajj, the
annual pilgrimage, and the opportunity to preach their version of Islam to the assembled pilgrims. However, Wahhabism was a minor
current within Islam until the discovery of oil in Arabia, in 1938. Vast oil revenues gave an immense impetus to the spread of
Wahhabism. Saudi laypeople, government officials and clerics have donated many tens of millions of dollars to create Wahhabi-oriented
religious schools, newspapers and outreach organizations.

Some Muslims believe that Saudi funding and Wahhabi proselytization have had a strong effect on world-wide Sunni Islam (they may
differ as to whether this is a good thing, or a bad one). Other Muslims say that while the Wahhabis have bought publicity and visibility, it
is not clear that they have convinced even a sizable minority of Muslims outside Saudi Arabia to adopt Wahhabi norms.

Waking up in a new world: Part V

2005-12-12T20:00:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: I think we may run out of Roman numerals. Anyway, as another worker drone once said, I'm not even supposed to be here today. But here I am, and here is another post in the possibly never-ending series that could have been called: Why I (the writer) think the invasion of Iraq was a necessary and justifiable action. I have another title for it, but decorum prevents me from typing it out. And if you think this expanding table of contents is fun, I've got a few choice words for you too:

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

Back to your regularly scheduled programming....

[Author's note: Perhaps this will help the editor]

Islamic Fundamentalism.

I know I promised Islamic Fundamentalism, but in order to cover the most extreme whacko parts, we need to learn something about Islam first.

Back in my younger days, I never thought much about Islam. not sure when exactly I first even heard of it. I do remember studying it somewhat in ninth grade social studies class. In the golden days of educational reform (the 1970's) the subjects of history, geography and civics were all jumbled together into one class called social studies. My teacher, Mr. Case, said we were going to spend a few weeks studying religion. Since we students were mostly Christian - if any religion - he said we'd skip over that and concentrate on Islam, Hindu and Buddhists. Made sense at the time. Since I don't remember anything I learned on the subject in that class, I assume it was pretty bland and uninformative.

Islam continued to bore me for years afterwards, and it wasn't until September 12, 2001 that I took a real hard look at it. To begin with, from newspaper and magazines articles. I bought a National Geographic book in the winter of 2002, "The World of Islam" which was a collection of articles published by the magazine over the last 100 years. I learned a good deal more about western civilization's bias' towards Islam than I learned about Islam itself. And I don't mean that sarcastically, the West had some pretty big stereotypes about Arabs. I've continued to read about it since. Sun Tzu, who wrote a masterpiece called "The Art Of War", which is still required reading at some military academies, once opined "know your enemy". I was determined to do just that.

Islam comes down from the Prophet Mohammed, who is said to be a direct descendent of the father of monotheism. Abraham is considered the father of three modern religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Now I must say, there is interesting reading on Abraham in the book of Genesis. It's almost too funny. Can you imagine being a stable hand in Abe's house, when this crazed, old, 99 year old guy comes rushing into your room - brandishing a knife - and screaming God himself declared that Abe must circumcise every male in his house before dawn? I don't know about you, but I would be both skeptical and scared as all hell.

Abraham had a wife, Sarah, and a concubine,named Hagar. They both gave him sons. Sarah was the mother of Isaac, Hagar the mother of Ishmael. The Old Testament tells us that God told Abraham to take his son, climb a mountain, build an alter, and sacrifice his son as proof of his devotion to God. The Old Testament states that Abraham did just that, and at the moment he was about to slice his son's throat (an awful lot of that over in the Middle East, isn't there?), an angel stayed his hand. The son went down the mountain, never to return home, Abraham went back to Sarah. The story has an underlying parable about how when kids grow up, they really need to get the hell out of the house at some point. But on the subject at hand, what's important is which son was chosen to be sacrificed. Jews and Christians believe it was Sarah's son Isaac. Muslims believe it was the Hagar's son Ishmael.

Isaac descended the mountain and went on to father the twelve tribes of Israel (which is in fact, the name of one of the twelve tribes, the largest). Later, Joseph would lead them into Egypt, for what he thought was at the time, gainful employment, only to turn into slavery. Ishmael went on to father the tribes of Arabia. There's the kicker. Both Christianity/Jewish and Islam claim to be the rightful heirs of Abraham, and thereby the one true God. On a side note, the Hebrews languished in slavery till Moses came along and helped convince the Pharaoh that it wasn't such a cool idea. After parting the Red Sea, and hiking off to Mount Sinai where he received the 10 Commandments, Moses came down and found the tribes of Israel really partying it up - and not in a good way. Moses broke the stone tablets, condemning the non-believers to hell. I mention this because some Muslim scholars believe that even if Isaac was the chosen son, Hebrews gave up any claim to be the chosen people of God when they sinned in shadow of the mountain, in front of God.

After wondering around the desert for 40 years (geeze, can't anyone ask directions?) the Hebrews entered the "land of milk and honey", the chosen land, the land promised by God, the River Jordan valley. They promptly made war against the inhabitants, the tribes of Ishmael, and the two groups have been at each other's throats ever since. Some people think all this trouble with Israel and Palestinians can be solved with a few treaties and swapping some land around. History, good people, look to history!

This story has always made me wonder. It's apparent that all three religions have the same roots, they believe many of the same things, so why can't we all just get along? Islam venerates the Virgin Mary and believes Jesus was a prophet who just got carried away. Some times it's almost surreal. So close, yet so far apart.

Being a Roman Catholic, I know about the Latin Rite (Roman Catholic), and the Eastern Rite. I also know of the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches, orthodox being the Greek word for "right-thinking." I couldn't even begin to list all the various flavors of Protestant religions. Lutheran, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Evangelical, Church of Latter-Day Saints, those people who dance with rattlesnakes, and let's not forget every one's favorite, Jehovah Witnesses. (On a side note, I do enjoy when they come knocking on the door questioning if I go to church, and if so what scriptures were read, because I go to Church and I remember what I read. It leaves them speechless. And there's nothing like the sight of a Jehovah Witness, slack-jawed, stunned into silence. Not that there's anything wrong with being a Jehovah Witness.)

Since Christians can't seem to agree on the correct method of worship, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Islam also comes in various flavors. I believe the largest sect is Sunni, followed by Shiite.

When Mohammed finally expired, not surprisingly, there was a power struggle. One group of Muslims thought the companions of Mohammed knew him best, and therefore were most capable of continuing his teaching and work. Another group believed the position of leader of the religion should be hereditary, so there was a split. Imagine that, humans not agreeing on religion? The group that held the companions best capable eventually evolved into the Sunnas, which means "way" or "custom" as in the way of the prophet. Their chosen leader was referred to as the Caliphate (remember this word, we will come back to it), or "successor", as in successor to the prophet. The other sect evolved into the Shiite, which means Shia of Ali, or followers of Ali, the original, closest living relative of Mohammed at the time of his death.

So there was this uneasy state between the two groups, riled up by different interpretations of the Quran. Well it finally hit the rotating oscillator when the third Caliphate decided that Shiites were not true Muslims, but rather "kafirs" (nonbelievers, that category would include everyone on the planet who is not a Sunni) and needed to be dispatched (remember that too). A war erupted (I thought Islam was a religion of peace?) which climaxed with the death of the leaders of Shiites in Najaf. In modern Iraq, there is a huge Mosque in Najaf to memorialize the death of the leaders of Shiites, it's currently the Mosque of Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussein al-Sistani, considered the religious leader of the Iraqi Shiites. It was also the Mosque that Muqtada as-Sadar's army hid in when attacked by the US Marines a year or two ago. They hid behind their holy walls and dared the Marines to attack, hoping to ignite a civil war. Hiding in the sanctuary of a holy Mosque while taking pot shots at American soldiers. I'll save the righteous indignation for when we get to modern Iraq.

In case you might have missed it, Shiites show up at least once a year on the news, in a large procession, beating themselves with chains, whips, cutting themselves to draw blood. This is done during the festival to memorialize the Shiite deaths at the hands of the Sunnis. One of the few recorded incidents I've come across where Muslims did, in fact, fight to the death. Its considered one of, if not the, holiest aspect of Shiites. It may seem strange to me, but I can only imagine what Shiites think when my Church proclaims every Sunday that the Eucharist, is in fact, the "body and blood" of the Christ.

Under Saddam, the march was outlawed. Can't say as I blame him much. If I was the head of 20% of a nation oppressing 60% of the population, I wouldn't want to see them all armed and working themselves into a bloody hysteria.

Next, Wahhabism.

Waking up in a new world: Part IV

2005-12-10T11:49:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: Don't be one of those people who reads the last page of a book first:
Part I then Part II then Part III then this one, in that order, thank you very much.
Once again, I must apologize for the lack of links and the unedited post. I'm on vacation, dammit!

Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Kind of strange term if you think about it. As compared to what, weapons of minimum destruction? I don't remember exactly when it entered the popular lexicon, but it basically covers weapons that can kill vast numbers of people, with a minimal amount of effort or cost. Probably the first WMD's were the atom bombs dropped by the US on Japan. I still have debates about whether or not that was a necessary evil, or war crime. I'm of the persuasion that it saved the lives of some 3,000,000 American soldiers. Judging by Japan's history of refusing to surrender, and refusal to surrender in battles leading up to the bombings, I see no indication they would not fight to the death for their homeland.

Since that time, weapons that have been called WMDs tend to be of the flavor of nuclear, chemical or biological warheads, easily dispersed with the push of a button. Nukes blow up, big time, and cause the rubble to be radioactive. Chemical weapons usually kill you by searing any number of different parts of the human body, lungs, central nervous system, burn the skin off your body, etc. Biological weapons are usually diseases, viruses, or another type of agent found in nature that can be easily controlled by the attacker but not those on the receiving end. For example, one side has a vaccination for a disease the other side lacks.

Saddam had these weapons. I know it for a fact. I have seen the pictures on the news of the Iranian veterans with their broken and burned bodies. I've seen footage of the dead Kurds and Shiites from the 1991 uprising. They existed, guaranteed 100% true. I watched Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, reporting from a WMD warehouse in Iraq, interviewing Scott Ridder, then head of the UN inspection team. He was explaining to Rather why it was taking so long to dispose of all those weapons. Its because there were so many of them. The warehouse was huge, packed to the rafters. The weapons were found, stored, cataloged, and the destruction process was taking place. See, with WMDs, you can't just throw them into the garbage, or burry them in a land fill. They need to be handled very carefully, and the process was taking place.

But it wasn't over. As the memory of the first Gulf War faded from American pop culture, so did news on the progress of the destruction. Scott Ridder was constantly arguing to the American press that President Clinton was not giving the inspectors the backing they needed to complete the mission. The fewer people paid attention, the bolder Saddam got. Finally, the team had had enough and they pulled out, leaving behind some 20,000+ tons of the stuff that had not yet been destroyed. That's not even counting any that hadn't been found yet, or any news ones that might have been produced in clandestine operations.

By the time the UN pulled inspectors out of Iraq for good on December 16, 1998 the inspectors had discovered and destroyed some 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons, 48 missiles and 817 of 819 Russian supplied long range missiles. Also tons and tons of gear used in making, weponizing and launching them. The secret chemical weapon plant at al-Hakim had produced 500,000 liters of biological agents alone, which means there was at a minimum 20,000 liters floating around Iraq.

(gift to editor: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack )

In the run up to the second Gulf War, Scott Ridder campaigned relentlessly to halt the invasion. Being one of the UN inspectors, he knew what was found and still floating around. He knew the capabilities of Iraq. He knew the efforts to which Iraq went to keep their WMD operation active. He knew there were weapons, because he saw them.

There is no doubt that no conclusive WMD evidence has been found since the fall of Saddam. Now one person might be able to deduce that there were no WMDs. From there its only a small stretch to say there never were. But its a lie, Saddam had them, Saddam used them, the UN had found many of them. The weapons existed. The question to me, is not did they exist, but where are they now?

Let's play a little game I like to use as a debating tool. Its called "what is more likely", shall we? When the US began occupying Iraq, the push was on to find the weapons and neutralize them as soon as possible. Our ever lovable CBS Evening News was back on the scene. They were interviewing one of the top scientists from Saddam's WMD program. The Dr., a woman, stated all those weapons left over by the UN had been destroyed years ago. Perish the thought, they were destroyed so long ago, she couldn't even remember when.

What makes more sense:
A) Saddam, out of the goodness of his own heart, and his compassion for humanity, destroyed all those evil weapons, but didn't want to bother the UN, so he kept the destruction quiet, and continued to suffer under the crippling restrictions of UN sanctions.

or:
B) Saddam kept his weapons, moved them underground, continued to make them as best he could under UN sanctions. When it became obvious that the US was preparing for war a second time (it took about 14 months just to get the US Army in position for the invasion), he either hid them in Iraq, sent them to allies abroad, or both.

Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Howard Dean tend to agree with option A. My money is on option B.

Now about Islamic Fundamentalism.

Waking up in a new world: Part III

2005-12-07T21:13:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: Notice that 'Part III' above? Good. Make sure you read parts I and II first. The writer is in a frenzy, churning out this magnum opus at a breathtaking pace. I'd like to take some credit for that as I frequently challenge his defense of the Iraq invasion, thus leading him to formalize his understanding of Middle East history and how he came to form his beliefs with regard to Iraq. Unfortunately I feel hoisted by my own petard, as I can no longer keep up with his Faulknerian output. Specifically, it takes some time, dear reader, to come up with relevant/interesting/funny/smart links to enhance these blog entries. Add to that the fact that I have a real job and can only work on this when I get a break, and you can see how three long posts in as many days (with another one at least on its way) can break the camel's back. I will leave unasked the question of how the writer finds the time to write all these posts. In any case, this excuse is meant to explain the lack of links and the more 'raw' look to this post. I realize now I could have probably found more than a few good links to use in the post below in the time it has taken to write this disclaimer. Oh well. If the writer promises to slow down after this extended essay, I promise to add in links later on.

Saddam after the First Gulf War.

When America finished winning one of the most incredible victories in history, forcing Saddam and Iraq to flee Kuwait in hours, everything was coming up roses for the US. Most of the troops were coming home alive and in one piece. The world-wide coalition held. President Bush was seen as a leader for a new world and a new age. Accolades were every where. Troops were marching in parades around the country. In Washington DC, injured troops were fighting the top brass for the right to march in uniform, rather than the traditional pajamas. America was on top, living large and in charge. The New World Order was in place and working. The rest of the world, led by America - always the reluctant hero - would see that no dictator could ever wage unjust war against a smaller nation again. Flowers, candy, fireworks, happy days were indeed here again.

But not in Iraq.

Iraq had accepted the terms for surrender. They included UN Resolution 687 which stated Saddam would prove to the world that all his weapons of mass destruction would be destroyed. The UN formed a group of inspectors, lead by the United States, to verify compliance. President George H. W. Bush encouraged the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam, throw him out, and become a member of the international community. And they tried. 21 out of 23 Iraqi provinces took up arms and started open rebellion. Saddam's army was beaten, humiliated, depleted, but not finished. Saddam may have professed that he expected to win the war against the US, but his actions say otherwise. His most fearsome forces, the Republican Guard, had never participated in the battle. I guess he figured it the war actually did come, he would loose, and he would need those troops to maintain control of his state. They were ready for battle. And battle they did. Estimates range up to 300,000 dead Shiites and Kurds, who heeded the great President Bush's encouragement to rebel. Bush - henceforth known by me as 'Bush the coward' - did nothing.

Saddam unleashed his Guards, and they slaughtered the ill-equipped, under-trained, out-matched and out-numbered rebels. And his fury was great. His Air Force strafed villages, his troops slaughtered civilians, and once again, he used chemical and biological weapons that are now said to never have existed. Ask the few lucky Iraqis who managed to get far enough away to only be scared for life by their use. It happened. Pictures of the massacres flooded the air waves. Tales of torture, slaughter, death and destruction were every where. The world was out raged. And with good reason too. Apparently, what ever terms the 'world-wide coalition' offered Saddam, failed to include that he could not slaughter a significant portion of his countries population.

The world wide outrage was so great that Bush the Coward decreed that Saddam's air force could not fly. The Iraqis countered that government officials needed air travel to get around the country and see where all these outrageous lies were coming from. Bush backed off and said no flying in the northern part of Iraq (Kurds) or the southern part (Shiites), but helicopters could fly in those regions. Now granted, Bush the Coward is from the WWII era, pre-helicopter, but you would think being head of the CIA, he would have known about helicopter gunships. Apparently not. The carnage continued.

After a while, the wild fire of war died down a bit, but it did not go out. The world moved on to other stories, other issues, other parties, things to occupy our attention. But the killing never stopped. How many people reading this know that the United States has controlled the northern and southern no fly zones since the first Gulf War? We've had troops fighting in Iraq, every day, since 1991. And to their credit, they've never lost a single flight. Every one of those soldiers came home alive. Though I doubt Iraq could make the same claim.

With the official end of the first Gulf War came other messy situations for Iraq. I don't know much about Arab culture, having never experienced it. But from what I have read, the second most humiliating thing you can do to an Arab is to defeat him. The most embarrassing thing you can do is to rub his face in it. One of the terms of surrender Saddam agreed to was to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, before the entire world, that he would destroy all his weapons of mass destruction, he would destroy all means of producing them, and the United Nations would have inspectors verifying it. If that wasn't enough, Saddam would be forced to put into place a system proving that nothing anyone in Iraq did could possibly be confused with the planning, creation, storage or use of WMDs. Them's some tough pills to swallow. Seen on world wide media, Saddam and Iraq would have to take orders from a relatively small UN team of weapons inspectors (I don't know, 15 maybe 20). It's really tough to march at the head of the Annual Gulf War Victory Parade in Baghdad when Scott Ridder's on the phone saying "Yo, we want to see your dairy plant in Najaf, and we want to see it now."

Suffice to say, there was no love lost between Saddam and the UN weapons inspectors. On the day they arrived for their first inspection, they were greeted by Iraqi soldiers shooting weapons over their heads. In order to maintain his illusion of superiority, Saddam had to both scoff at the UN, and abide by them. Let's just say cooperation between the two parties was questionable at best. As I remember they reached a couple of points where inspectors were pulled because of lack of cooperation. There were threats to pull the inspectors. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. And there was also the real destruction of real weapons of mass destruction that Saddam actually had, and had used.

Another part of the terms of surrender stated that until Saddam bent over and took it up the butt from the UN, on world wide TV, Iraq was restricted by severe import/export restrictions, more affectionately known as "sanctions." Not really much of a problem if you're a dictator leading 20% of the population that is brutally repressing the other 80%, but it did put a crimp in his style. Fortunately, the majority of the nations that are members of the United Nations, think and act like he does. Grease a few palms here, slide some oil credits there, things get done.

Now about those weapons.

Waking up in a new world: Part II

2005-12-06T23:48:00.000-05:00

Editor's note: If you haven't already, please check part one.

Saddam Hussein.

The sight of Saddam, bellowing, yelling and screaming on trial in Iraq, is quite different than it was on September 12, 2001. Now, all vestiges of his power are gone. Guns that would have been pointed at his enemies, are now pointed at him. How the mighty have fallen.

Back during World War I (or what was ironically referred to at the time as the 'War To End All Wars'), a huge chunk of the modern Middle East was ruled by what was called the Ottoman Empire, or more specifically, the ancestors of modern Turkey. The Ottoman Turks sided with Germany in WWI, which turned out to be not such a great idea. The ancient, grand, Ottoman Empire - the "sick man of Europe", the Muslim world, which in the past had nearly conquered Vienna and Spain, surrendered to the victors. Their punishment for this umbrage was to have their nation cut up and ruled by foreign powers, namely France and Britain. The national boundaries of these new nations were obviously set in order to prevent the citizens from gathering enough power to challenge their new rulers. Hence why you see Kurds in both Turkey and northern Iraq, neither population large enough to gain independence. Shiites spread between Iraq and Iran. Arabs in the Persian Gulf and Baghdad. These new countries were called "protectorates." As if, they needed the French and the English to protect them from danger. Its been said that you can tell which countries were under French control and which ones were under English control. The French, being a republic, set up presidencies, the English, being a constitutional monarchy, installed royal families. Revolutions, military coups and what have you have muddied this practice, but its still interesting. Saudi royal family? English. President of Syria? France.

America's first foray into Middle Eastern politics, as near as I can tell, was the CIA engineering the overthrow of a democratically elected* president in Iran and installing the Shah, some time in the 1950's, I believe. So Iran has never had any love lost for America. When their blood finally boiled and the Shah was overthrown, it was no surprise to see anti-Americanism flowing forth like a river. It culminated in the raiding and occupation of the US Embassy in Teheran.

I mention this because this is where Saddam enters the picture. Saddam, the bloodthirsty strongman who'd murdered his way to the top of the Baathist party, and then to the top of Iraq itself, had visions of greatness. He intended to preside over the greatest country in the Middle East. His vision was for a 'Greater Iraq' consisting of Iraq proper, Jordan, Kuwait, and a large chunk of western Iran. One of the things I like best about American foreign policy is our leaders always have such a long range view, and thereby minimize any problems occurring from their policy. I'm kidding of course [Editor's note: He had me worried for a moment]. American politicians never look further than the next election or the next poll. Saddam wanted part of Iran, and he was willing to kill millions to get it. Americans didn't appreciate Iran, and who can really blame them after the Embassy episode? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Yeah right. Saddam and America had become allies.

That war raged for eight years. When the killing was done, I believe 1,500,000 humans died. Some 10,000 from Saddam's use of chemical weapons. They existed. He had them. He used them. While there is no readily available evidence, I find it hard to believe Saddam acquired these weapons without the US' blessing. The important point here is, Saddam had WMDs, and he used them. I don't care what anyone says, he had them, he used them.

Following the Iran - Iraq war, Saddam's army was badly beaten, greatly reduced, and his treasure vaults depleted. He needed cash, and he needed it quick. And there's poor little Kuwait, sitting on all those gold bars from oil revenue. Now, to be fair, Saddam and Iraq have always considered Kuwait to be part of Iraq proper. And with good reason; it was, until the British decided they didn't want Iraq to have that much access to the gulf and cut it off, establishing a new royal family.

Here's where it gets tricky. Saddam's government made general overtures to the staff at the US Embassy as to whether or not Washington would have any problems with an invasion into Kuwait. The US Embassy staff* was either drunk or not paying attention, because they did not reply that it would be unacceptable, which Saddam took to mean 'go get 'em boys!' And Saddam plunged the Middle East and Iraq into his second war. There was one small problem though. The Iron Lady.

(* I would like to point out that one of the Sr. staff members at the US' Iraq Embassy, during this time, was none other than the left's current favorite playboy Joe Wilson. Its been said that George H. W. Bush referred to Wilson as "truly inspiring" and "courageous." From what I see, its nothing more than both trying to cover their respective asses for dropping the ball on Saddam's overture before the invasion. Neither of them look particularly respectable on this point.)

Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, took notice of the invasion, and was not pleased. She believed it was the foreshadowing of dark times, one country, ruled by an insane despot, controlling not only the world's oil supply, but also the trillions in wealth accumulated from that sale. She moved into action. She immediately denounced the invasion, demanded the Saddam retreat, and then set off on a world tour to promote her calls. Many people mistakenly believe George H. W. Bush was the force behind the first Gulf War, but no, it was Thatcher.

Maggie even traveled to the US to bend Bush the elder's ear. During a conference in Colorado, Bush met Thatcher and she urged him "not to go wobbly" with regard to consideration of using force to repel Saddam. Before his meeting with her, Bush's position was the invasion was terrible, Iraq should restore the Kuwaiti royal family, but other than that, there were a few rounds of golf to be played. Afterwards, they held a joint press conference, demanding the complete and immediate withdrawal of all forces from Iraq, and pledging to take this cause to every nation in the world.

And Bush the Elder did lead that charge, side by side with Maggie. They went to the UN, they got their world wide coalition. They got money, troops, logistics support, France even sent an air craft carrier - which broke down half way there and had to head back to port. Feel free to insert favorite French joke here. And so it would appear the world was united against Saddam. But things aren't always as they seem.

True there were many nations in the world-wide coalition. But its also true most did nothing. There's an old saying that nothing attracts followers like success. And with America and Britain on the move, every country wanted in on the deal. The various countries of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Jordan) were rightly scared shitless of Saddam and his army. They paid through the nose for the US to come and slap him down. Most other countries either coughed up cash, or sent token troops, a dozen here, a dozen there. Czechoslovakia sent a team of highly trained chemical weapon specialists. But, by and large, it was American soldiers and American muscle that bore the brunt of the war. One important thing to note at this point, Bush got his UN resolution backing his use of force. But that resolution only extended to the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait. It said nothing about the US moving into Iraq itself.

With all the bravado of despot, Saddam brazenly declared he would destroy America's army, he would destroy America, and he would rule the Middle East. Anyone remember the "Mother of All Battles"? Then the battles started, and almost before it began, it was over. Kuwait was burning from oil well fires, the nation in ruins. And Saddam's army in tatters, on the highway of death.

There's one main highway running between Kuwait City and Baghdad. A nice, straight line. That was the road the Iraqi army chose to use as it ran back towards Baghdad. A video game couldn't have set up the targets any better. The US Air Force spent a day or two on strafing runs. I believe the casualties numbered well over 100,000. Then-General Colin Powell, a lifelong military man, couldn't even stomach the carnage and called it off.

Before the war had ended though, Saddam had launched his Scud missiles at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel. Every one of them feared to contained the chemical and biological weapons that Saddam possessed, and had used during the Iraq - Iran war. Fortunately, the fears were not realized. Editor's note: Perhaps...

And I remember seeing the Iraqi General bowing as low as he could while remaining on his feet, as he offered an unconditional surrender to General Stormin' Norman Schwartzkopf.

It appeared the US had finally finished their bloody relationship with Saddam. But it was not so.

* - Editor's note: The author later felt it important to note that although democratically elected, the government was Soviet-friendly. He said this was important to add to make clear that the CIA was following Cold War policy. I personally don't see why that matters. A free society should not be engaging in such action. However, he is the writer, so I am presenting the addendum as requested.
Author's note: What the editor must not be able to see, is that by pointing out the CIA toppled a Soviet-leaning, democratically elected Iranian president, it re-enforces the author's earlier point about the myopic view of US foreign policy. The CIA apparently wasn't overly concerned about the long term effects of the operation in the middle east, and instead concentrated only on the short term gains in the Cold War.
Editor's note: Fine.

Waking up in a new world: Part I

2005-12-06T10:41:00.000-05:00

George Weigel is a theologian and political analyst who I find writes rather thought-provoking opinion columns. In one, several months ago, he opines that America is divided into two groups. Those who believe that America can return to the world of September 10, 2001, and those who realize we can't. Count me in the latter group.

September 11, 2001 was a watershed moment in my life. In the world of September 10, 2001, my world consisted of trying to keep my sucky-ass job, working for a crappy manager, hoping I could hang on long enough for him to get promoted, fired, moved, hit by a bus, or maybe just piss of someone with a little less self-restraint than I possessed. The world that emerged the morning of September 11, 2001 changed all that. Gone were my petty moanings about how tough life was, how unfair it was to me, how I deserved better. It was replaced with images of burning and falling buildings, people jumping one hundred plus stories in a vain hope that God would catch them. Though I've never been an overly narcissistic person, on September 12, 2001, that was all gone. America was at war with something. I might not have been completely sure with what, but someone was going to get the shit kicked out of them. That much I knew for sure.

I've been following the current political debate concerning "lies", "false hoods", "manipulated intelligence", "mismanagement" and such, since it's impossible to avoid it. So I've taken finger-to-keyboard to remind some of us just what the world was like back in 2001, 2002 and 2003, when the decision - and vote - to invade Iraq took place. I'm planning on going back considerably further than that, so if you need to grab another beer, now is the time. Don't worry, I'll wait. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
Back now? Good. Let's begin.

I'm going to begin with the morning of September 12, 2001, since I believe most of 9/11 was consumed by complete lack of coherence. Too many images, too much information, too much emotion. I don't blame George Bush for sitting in the elementary school for five or ten minutes digesting the news that the American homeland had been attacked on his watch and New York was burning. I must say, I was dazed for a lot longer than ten minutes. John Kerry stated in an interview that he and some of his colleagues were stunned into silence by the news of the attacks on New York City, and remained so until they were roused from their thoughts by the explosion at the Pentagon. I believe that was approximately 45 minutes. I do not begrudge him that period of contemplation, but I do think it's bad taste to use Bush's stunned minutes as a campaign issue considering Kerry's admitted lack of action.

As the clean up commenced, as the fires were doused, as the body parts began to be collected, identified and buried, America was in an entirely different mood than the one that permeates today's political world. In the dark days following 9/11, America was concerned with three things: the clean up, rebuilding and the burying of the dead; making sure we could plug whatever security holes these human scum (I was going to say 'dogs', but dogs deserve better than the comparison) used to enter America and pull this act off; and finding out who did it, and how we were going to crush them. Hence the Patriot Act was passed with huge bipartisan support. I mention that because the left believes the Patriot Act is a worthy club to beat Bush over the head with. But Bush did not write the Patriot Act, Congress did. Congress also passed it. That means Democrats and Republicans alike.

Correctly, America concluded bin Loser and Al Qaeda were the brains behind the operation. America demanded Afghanistan turn him over - or else. Afghanistan responded by stating that if America had any proof, they'd be glad to look at it, but unless they were overwhelmingly convinced, no one was getting turned over to any one. You know, the word Taliban translates, roughly to 'student.' I guess they didn't study American history.

Once America was in control of Afghanistan, the question turned to 'what next?' Could America build a democracy in Afghanistan, one of the least democratic countries in the history of the world? If I'm not mistaken, Afghans had never held a democratic election before. But America bent itself to the task at hand. Now, I'm only speaking for myself, I can't say what the powers that be in Washington were thinking, but it occurred to me, foreign nations do not have an impressive track record of occupying Afghanistan. Check with the Brits and the Ruskies on that issue. I could practically hear the retired mujahadeen breaking out their old AK-47's and RPG's while finalizing travel plans on Yahoo!. America had just created the world's largest terrorist magnet - and in a land of their choosing. Not a good proposition. So the questions then moves to: what next?

The facts were so real, so huge, so plain, laid out on the table for all to see. The violent, seamy, under-belly of Islamic fundamentalism had shown its ugly head, and America was their target. They had proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, they had the will, they had the means, and they had the guts to attack, and they promised to continue until every non-muslim in America was dead and crushed into the dirt. They proclaimed we stood no chance, since they love death more than we love life. They stated, we would die, they would rule, and they would win. So, we waited for the other shoe to fall.

And the question remained. What to do next. If America concentrated only on Afghanistan, what would we do about the rest of the Muslim world? Remember, on 9/11, Muslims were dancing in the streets in Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and I'm sure many other places. Dancing at the river of American blood spilled because, we - not being Muslims - were destined to die horribly in the perverted name of their God. But it's not their God. There is no God, but God. It is our God too.

So America looked around and assessed the state of the Muslim world. When I say America, I don't mean all of us united, America is seldom united in anything - though on 9/12 we were united. The question then became, who's most likely to lead, follow, assist, help, or cover-up the next terrorist attack on our country. Throughout the entire middle east, one name continued to pop up.

Saddam Hussein.

More to Come....

Politics as Sport

2005-12-01T00:06:00.000-05:00

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when Bill Clinton occupied the Oval Office (and he apparently occupied a tad more than just the office).
Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction when George Bush occupies the Oval Office.

John Kerry voted for the $87 billion, before he voted against it.

Ted Kennedy preaches morality from the floor of the US Senate.
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

The Bush administration not only promotes torture, they revel in it.
Extraordinary Rendition, the program of carting off uncooperative prisoners to third world countries was initiated under the Clinton administration.

Saddam was a threat to the stability of the Middle East (talk about your oxymoronic phrases).
Saddam kept the trains running on time.

John Kerry ran for the Presidency in 2004 loudly claiming the inexcusably high unemployment rate was proof that Bush was incompetent as the President.
Unemployment rates were higher when Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996 on a platform that included low unemployment rates.

If it sounds like I'm picking on democrats, its because I am. I'll pick on the republicans later, there's plenty of material there too.

What can we learn from the above statements? Well, obviously, it's that politicians lie. But that's a forgone conclusion. Look deeper, what's there? It's that facts mean nothing. Proof means nothing. Evidence means nothing. Nothing means anything, when it comes to politicians. That's because, at its core, at its basest level, politics in America isn't about issues. It ain't about truth. It isn't even about what's best for America and humanity. (And let me state for the record, I believe America's existence and growth benefits all of humanity. Not always, but comparing the state of western society to the third world, hell, even the first world - France leaps to mind - there can be no doubt that the wealth America generates benefits all people, through the inventions and medical and scientific breakthroughs that would not be possible without America's wealth.) Politics is all about the fight.

My editor (that's right, I have an editor - do you?) once compared the state of partisan politics in modern America to that of the Yankees and the Red Sox. It's really irrelevant which ball team you root for, you choose one for what ever reason, and they are the team, and every one else sucks. Why? Well, it's sports, and that's how sports work. Pick a team, watch the game, yell, cheer, boo, get drunk, and in general, have a great time. But that's sports, it's not politics.

Politics is all about the fight. It's deceptively cloaked in the appearance that the politicians and parties we support, are up-right citizens of good standing who care only for the well being of the poor and downtrodden (or if they are your enemy, only care about the rich and well off). But how can anyone with even a semblance of a brain cell (I grew up in the 1970's, I know there are a few out there with nothing left) buy into this kind of misinformation?

How could a reasonable, rational, adult believe that Saddam didn't have WMDs, when the Reagan/Bush administrations either gave them to him, sold them to him, or at the very least, looked the other way while Saddam got them on his own, now believe, that since a Republican is in the White House, that it never happened? How does one so easily loose touch with reality? Think about that. When Saddam was using WMDs on his fellow Iraqis, they existed and it was the Republican's fault. Now that a Republican President pointed that out, they never existed. How can that be reconciled?

Easy, the fight. We're good, you're bad. We rule, you drool. We're awesome, you suck.

Looking back, I believe the flippant remark from my editor was spot on right. Politics is nothing more than one team cheering for their own people, while the other team cheers for their own. You know where that takes you? It gives you elected leaders who are no better than Terrell Owens. Ask the residents of Brooklyn what they think of the Los Angles (Trolley) Dodgers. Ask the footballs fans in Los Angles what they think of the St. Louis Rams. Are there really any Cardinals in Phoenix besides on the playing field?

It gives you the type of politicians that we currently refer to as leaders. Wake up and smell the coffee people. Pay attention.