Truth, or Kwansequences

     The Truth is an inviolate thing, often remaining hidden from view behind a cloud of ever-changing Facts. Science is filled with examples. So is Society. Take Kwanzaa.
     In 1966, a college professor in California named Ron Everitt created Kwanzaa. He changed his name to Maulana Karenga, shaved his head, and began wearing traditional African clothing. He created seven principles, integrated the harvest celebrations practiced in Africa, and built a strong cultural identity into the celebration. Each of the seven days of Kwanzaa is dedicated to one of seven principles, which together comprise Kawaida, Karenga's name for his belief system. They are...
     1. Umoja (Unity) To strive for and to maintain unity in the family, community, nation and race.
     2. Kujichagulia (Self-Determination) To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves and speak for ourselves.
     3. Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility) To build and maintain our community together and make our brothers' and sisters' problems our problems and to solve them together.
     4. Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics) To build and maintain our own stores, shops and other businesses and to profit from them together.
     5. Nia (Purpose) To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.
     6. Kuumba (Creativity) To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
     7. Imani (Faith) To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.
     These seven principles define a cultural and community unity, and are celebrated by blacks across America.

     Those are the facts of Kwanzaa, propogated by the Old Media and Academia. The Truth of Kwanzaa has been deliberately hidden, for if it were common knowlege that Kwanzaa, as an institution, is diametrically opposed to racial integration and Capitalism, and hides a violent past behind its holiday veneer, I believe few Americans would celebrate it. Its founder, Karenga, was at the time the leader of a violent anti-American group known as the United Slaves Organization, is a convicted felon, and came up with his decidedly out-of-the-mainstream views while serving a prison sentence. His stated goal was to create an alternative to Christmas, and his words are blantantly racist: "It was chosen to give a Black alternative to the existing holiday and give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history, rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society."

     I suppose it would be easy to ignore the inherent problems of Kwanzaa's founder, were it not for its in-your-face display of the Black Nationalist flag. The red, black, and green color scheme is African in origin, but was first used as a flag in 1920, by Marcus Garvey, for the Black Nationalism movement. The red represents the necessity of bloodshed in pursuit of Black Nationalism, the black represents the color of their skin, and the green stands for land they feel they deserve. According to the The Kwanzaa Information Center, there is an ongoing 'black struggle'. "We lost our land through blood; and we cannot gain it except through blood. We must redeem our lives through the blood. Without the shedding of blood there can be no redemption of this race."

     The insidious facade of Kwanzaa doesn't end there, for Karenga's Kawaida, his seven principles, are drawn directly from Marxist Socialism. Karenga's principles are best understood if we add the qualifier 'Black' to them.
     1. To strive for and to maintain unity in the [Black] family, [Black] community, [Black] nation, and [Black] race.
     2. To define ourselves [as Black], name ourselves [as Black], create for ourselves [as Black], and speak for ourselves [as Black].
     3. To build and maintain [Black] communit[ies] together and make [Black] brothers' and sisters' problems our problems and to solve them together.
     4. To build and maintain [Black] stores, [Black] shops and other [Black] businesses and to profit from them together.
     5. To make [Black] collective vocation the building and developing of [the Black] community in order to restore [Black] people to their traditional greatness.
     6. To do always as much as [Black's] can, in the way [Black's] can, in order to leave [the Black] community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.
     7. To believe with all our heart in [Black] people, [Black] parents, [Black] teachers, [Black] leaders and the righteousness and victory of [Black] struggle.
Why can we do this? Because the seven prinicples of Kawaida correspond to Karenga's desire for all African Americans to "...think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black."

     My kindergartner came home with an art project just the other day. They had been learning about Kwanzaa, that wonderful celebration of Community and Culture. The facts had been given to her, as deemed appropriate for her age group by Academia, and the art project was indicative - a red, black, and green flag. No thought was given as to whether or not the beliefs of a pervert should be fostered upon young, impressionable minds. It infuriates me, that the rantings of a man once convicted for the imprisonment, assault, and torture of two women for two days could be found to have merit. In this bent and twisted world, a man who, as described by one of the victims, "ordered [them]to remove their clothes", "whipped [them] with an electrical cord" and "beat [them] with a karate baton" can become the founder of a holiday. Where is the sanity in teaching children about the beliefs of a man who put "a hot soldering iron" in the mouth and on the face of a woman, and "put detergent and running hoses in their mouths". No self-respecting father would allow even the word Kwanzaa to be spoken, were the truth about it's origin known.

     The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance. Thanks to our Liberal friends, so too is the price of Truth.

Happy Veterans Day

     I don't feel like a Veteran. Veterans are supposed to be heroes, at least that's how we're made to feel. I'm no hero, but I served with heroes. The Third Force Recon Company - those leathernecks are heroes. True, cut-from-Chesty-Puller's-BDUs heroes. But then, I doubt any of them would admit to it.
     Maybe that's what makes a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine a hero. Doing the job, striving in the face of danger, and overcoming fear, saving the questions and remorse for later, should they come. No bragging, no boasting, just doing the job. That is heroism.
     The Soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy, the Marines that took Tarawa, the Airborne Bastards of Bastogne, all heroes.
     The men who flew the planes on that fateful mission to end Japan's hopes of victory, and their forerunners, who flew for vengeance for Pearl Harbor. Heroes. Those who survived Mogadishu, no thanks to the then President. Heroes. Those who died on United 93. Heroes. Those who live, today, memories fading, in the twilight of their lives, bullets and bombs only nightmares now. Heroes.
     
     To those returned home from honorable service,
     We offer a moment of thanks,
     and wish them rich, long lives.
     
     To those presently engaged in the business of War,
     we offer a moment of thanks,
     and wish them safety, and a swift homecoming.
     
     To those who served to the last full measure of devotion,
     our thanks will never be enough,
     for to them, our debt can never be repaid.

Would todays MSM wish the Marines a Happy Birthday?

     Today is November 10, but most people will not celebrate this date. It is held in high regard by only a few, we few, we proud, we Marines. November 10 is the birthday of the Marine Corps, though it wasn't called that two hundred and thirty years ago.
     Back then, it was no big deal. War was at hand, and the Second Continental Congress decided to form two battalions of Continental Marines in 1775. Our first Commandant, Captain Samuel Nichols, signed up the first recruits at Tun Tavern, in Philadelphia, and a tradition that has stood America in good stead was born. Though the two battalions were never raised, contingents of Marines were placed on board ships for the express purpose of fighting. It is a testament to the truth of our motto, Semper Fidelis, that our creed has never changed, and our purpose has never wavered. Our Oath gives us a strength of purpose, a holiness of cause, that few uninitiated can understand. "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." It is interesting that we do not pledge to defend the United States alone, but its core, the Constitution. And not from enemies foreign born, but domestic as well. Ours is a responsibility deep and broad, of such weight, we must all be descendants of Atlas. The weight of our nation's security, and the defense of the foundation of its freedom, demands a dedication and commitment beyond words.
     I wonder, however, what would be said today, were such an event to take place. I can hear the MSM... "Neoconservative Hawks celebrated the creation of a new arm of the Republican war machine." Men with names like Durbin and Schumer would opine about the frightening strength of the warmonger regime in Washington, and its new Nazi-like enforcers. The public would be regaled with stories of the atrocities these barely human warriors were capable of. Anyone foolish enough to enlist would risk being called "monster" and "baby killer". The Old Press would have a heyday, exposing the viciousness of the training, and the degradation recruits had to endure.
     The President takes the Oath of Office. Doctors follow the Hippocratic Oath. But Journalists? Those so obviously desperate to be heroes, the self-proclaimed defenders of truth, take no such oath. Sadly, some journalists fall into the category of domestic enemy, as they constantly undermine the efforts of our true heroes to keep us safe. Would that we were allowed to defend our country from this particular brand of insurgent, but we can't. Instead, we pledge our safety, our lives, our sacred honor, to kill, and if need be, die, so that this fifth column of our enemy's ranks can sleep peacefully, having laid their pens to rest, having written not fact, but fiction, weaving their own versions of stories better men and women lived. Theirs is a dedication not to Truth, but to expediency. Their commitment is not to their craft, but to crafting a lie.
     I've ranted enough. Happy Birthday, Marines! Remember, no matter what is reported, ours is a history of noble endeavor, and great courage, one which those doing the reporting can never hope to match.

To Keep and To Bear

     The gauntlet has been thrown down. "[T]he right to keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment belongs to individuals and not, as some have argued, only to National Guardsmen or members of government-organized "militias." "The phrase 'the right of the people, . . . leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." "The wording . . . also indicates that the right to keep and bear arms was not created by government, but rather preserved by it." The metal is not in the whole, but in the last sentence.
     It is a sad commentary on our government that the last statement quoted from Judge Laurence Silberman, of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, rings so glaringly. One would expect the rights of the individual to have been, and to be protected, continuously, by our government. The opposite, in fact, is the case, as decisions such as Kelo make very clear. The idea behind Justice Silberman's decision, the paradigm (if a return to a previously understood concept can be called such), if you will, of Individual Right predating, and paramount to any governing bodies' will, can be construed to be true at any level, Federal, State, and Local, and is a resounding return to a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", and it will be up to the courts to uphold that position. Now, it is a question of whether the constitutionally sound decision made by Justice Silberman will be upheld in review, or whether, if overturned, it will be heard by The Supreme Court.
      The ramifications of such a shift are sweeping, but there is still far to go. The idea reflects upon free speech and personal activities in almost every possible way. We have become such a litigious society, the very possibility of causing offense sends chills down the spine, and brings lawyers out of the woodwork. And we're not talking libel or slander here, only the idea of dislike. "I don't like what you said. You've offended me, and I'm suing!" That's all it takes, anymore, to get in serious trouble. In fact, a young man was recently charged (as reported in the Chicago Tribune) with disorderly conduct by police, and forced to attend a different school, simply for writing an essay in his high school creative writing class that his teacher found to be "violently disturbing", but "not directed toward any specific person or location." Sounds like the definition of a vaguely written horror or science fiction novel. Regardless of what was written, if no threat was made, where's the crime? Since when is the right to express oneself without physical violence trumped by the right of another person to not be disturbed or offended?
     The PC pendulum seems to have reached its zenith, and we can only pray that its return will be a quick one. Until then, people who write stories, or wish to own a handgun or two, or see the need to call attention to stupidity, will all have to be careful a little while longer. 'Til then, like Puck, if we offend, we'll have to make amends.

The Curse of Abundance

     We are a blessed land. We have an abundance of resources, an abundance of technology, an abundance of information, an abundance of freedom, and an abundance of choice. Abundance is a two-sided coin, blessing, and curse. Because of our abundances, we now have an abundance of obesity, an abundance of divorce, an abundance of promiscuity, and an abundance of self-indulgance. It is no wonder that we have time on our hands to create mischief. A century ago, a days work was still a hard days work. The industrial revolution hadn't quite permeated our culture with its effects, and the electronic revolution was a dream. Farms and Factorys were the mainstay of American life. Now, it's the Internet, Laptops, PDAs, Cell Phones, Robotics, and Outsourcing. Instead of going to the office, we've brought the office home. Wireless, VPN, B2B, and Infrared. Remote Desktops and Cubicles. Downsizing and Rightsizing. Databases, Spreadsheets, and Interactive Presentations. At the end of the day, we've accomplished less, but in so much more complicated and flashy a manner.
     The simplicity of a hard day's work, of muscle ache and the satisfaction of doing things the right way, it's all going, going, gone. Soon, even the master craftsman will be controlling his tools via a cerebral link to a robotic system. Think, and it will be made. Creation by thought. Technology will bring us closer to God, and closer to godhood. Abundance is our blessing, and our curse, for to all the abundance with which we've been blessed, we have responded with an abundance of hubris, each leap forward spawning exponential growth, an ego accelerated. Some day soon, someone will say, "We can be as gods."

Thermopylea Redux

     I can't wait to see "300". As a Marine, it is the ultimate tale of the Warrior's Sacrifce. However, the recent debate on whether President Bush is Leonidas or Xerxes is ludicrous.
     The question, posed by a reporter, is indicative of two things, namely, an obvious antipathy to the truth of history and an invidious activism to the detriment of the President. The latter is indeed much more generic a propensity in the Old Media, but the former may very well contribute to the latter. A general lack of understanding (or could it be a deliberate, selective misinterpretation based on a subjective bias) has given us a media that continually judges the present against a tweaked, misconstrued, misinterpreted, and even warped historical standard. If anything, President George W. Bush is Leonidas, and this, this war in Iraq, is our Thermopylea.
     Where once a despotic nation from the East, Persia, threatened the young republics and city-states of the West, now a despotic ideology, Radical Islam, yearning for a return to the practices of it's predecessors, threatens the democracies of the world.
     Where one lone nation, Sparta, stood against the might of the Persian Empire, ideologically and militarily, as one-time allies succumbed to bribe, flattery, and terror, becoming subjects of the enslaving power of the Persian Empire, now one nation, our nation, leads a half-hearted band of allies in a war against the fanatics, as nations succumb to the economic carrot of the region's oil riches, or capitulate in terror to the demands of the fanatics, as France, Russia, Germany, and finally Spain seek to undermine the actions of the United States.
     Sparta led a half-hearted band of allies into conflict in one battle, in a stalling tactic, to allow the city-states time to form an alliance. The battle of Thermopylea, in it's horrendous climax, was succesful in turning the tide of war against the Eastern foe, and soon the Persian army was completely repelled and defeated.
     The world waits for the outcome of our battle. Iraq is our Thermopylea, for if we fail here, we fail to unite the world behind us, and if we fail to unite the world behind us, we will surely fail to defeat Radical Islam. If we hold here, if we make our stand and hold the line, here is where the tide turns. The world will see that Democracy and Freedom are stronger than slavery and oppression.
     This is what the Old Media has failed to learn or chooses not to recognize. Xerxes thought to enslave the entire world under an ever-expanding Persian Empire. Leonidas fought to preserve and regain the right of every human to live in freedom. If anything, Usama Bin Laden is a modern Xerxes, for George W. Bush is truly a Leonidas.
     Molon Labe, and Semper Fi.


     To Steven Pressfield, thanks for Gates of Fire.

What can we now say, and how?

     There are things that can't be said, like "FIRE!" in a crowded room. Apparently, one can't post songs with possibly offensive lyrics to one's My Space account to promote one's band.
     Ian Defeo had a job as a substitute teacher. He also has a band, Ian of Fire. He also has a My Space web site promoting his band. Put all this together, and somehow, it equals being fired from his teaching position.
     What can we say, and how, and where, and through what medium, that someone, somewhere, won't find offensive?
     Speeches, Lyrics, Posts, Blogs, Opinions, Letters to the Editor, Emails, where will it stop? When will someone who finds my posts here slightly offensive (and I'm sure there are many) lodge a complaint with Google, or try to find out who I am and for whom I work, and lodge a complaint with them?
     How did we get to be such a thin-skinned society? When did we stop recognizing the right to speak one's mind, to voice one's opinion, however offensive, without censorship.
     We have become a society where no offense can be tolerated, unless of course the offense is against Fundamentalist Christians, Global Warming Deniers, and Neoconservatives. No, there is no longer a right to Free Speech, no longer a right to voice one's opinion, or one's creative work, without the probability that someone, somewhere, is going to become so enraged as to file a complaint, a lawsuit, or even a threat.
     What is even sadder is the propensity for our society's establishments to take action on such complaints. DeFeo lost his job as a substitute teacher because someone didn't like the lyrics in some of his songs. I might not like the lyrics either, but I recognize his right to write, post, and perform his songs without any interference. I also have the common sense to realize that, as a teacher with a band, students may find his music attractive, while parents find it repulsive. That however, is a problem between parent and child, not parent and musician, and should be addressed so.

Success in North Korea?

     North Korea may be on the verge of standing down. Reports are out that, for a substantial amount of fuel oil, the DPRK would be willing to cease its nuclear activities.
     Question is, will President Bush get the credit he deserves for pushing the diplomatic course of action when pretty much everyone who's currently criticizing him for NOT using diplomacy in Iraq has criticized him for sticking with diplomacy in North Korea?
     The answer, of course, is probably not. In fact, look for someone on the left to float one of two ideas: that former President Clinton laid the foundation for successful negotiations, which President Bush almost ruined, or that the imminent ascension of Hillary Clinton to the Presidency, in Reaganite fashion, has prompted the DPRK to make such a shift back to sanity.
     Either way, it's going to be someone else who gets the credit from the Old Media.

Black History Month

     I'm all for learning history, and I believe the root cause of many of America's problems is the lack of historical perspective and knowledge evident in our culture today. The old adage is true; those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. However, there is a great difference in learning history and learning from history. Black History Month emphasizes the gap between the two.
     It is one thing to learn who Rosa Parks was, or George Washington Carver, Freddie Washington, Louis Armstrong, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King. It is another thing altogether to learn from what we know of them, and put it into practice. Great Americans, all, great people, each in his or her own way. But allow me one question. Are they great because they are black?
     Is Ronald Reagan a great man because he was white? Is Mother Teresa a great woman because she was white? Obviously, the answer is no. Men and women are great because of what they do, not because of their circumstances of birth. No one of us can say we were responsible for how we were born, or to whom. No one of us can say, I am responsible for the color of my skin. Why then should we constantly append the color of a person's skin to a claim to greatness?
     For decades, the black community has been led from racial segregation, thanks to Republicans, into a far more invidious slavery, thanks to its current leaders, and the American government has bought into the rhetoric wholeheartedly. Black America was freed from slavery and granted equality, only to trap itself in a self-imposed segregation of identity - African-Americanism - which has overflowed into all aspects of our daily lives. We are no longer Americans, no longer noble by virtue of living in a noble country. We must hearken back to our ancestors, we must proclaim our genetic heritage, and somehow, that makes us worthy of equality, respect, and a fair shake.
     Martin Luther King knew that this was the wrong way to go. In fact, his dream, spelled out so eloquently in his famous speech, proclaims the opposite of today's practice.
     "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' ... I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. ... And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'"
     It was asked of Coach Tom Dungy of the Indianapolis Colts what it meant to him to be the first African-American coach to win the Super Bowl. Suffice it to say that his response has prompted me to switch allegiance among Pro Football teams. Recognizing the importance of his accomplishment, Dungy turned the issue into a much more controversial one, referring to the fact that he and his assistant coach are the first Christian coaches to win the Superbowl. To him, while there was a certain amount of historical import to the racial implications of his team's win, it paled in comparison to the faith implications. What a perspective. Unlike the current leaders of the "African-American" community, it seems to me Coach Dungy is truly free, for his words echo freedom from the slavery of a mind bent on segregating itself.
     It is my belief that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, and all those who promote the slavery of identity segregation are not so free. They, like so many others, know the history of race in America, but they have failed to learn from it.

Who's to blame?

     Who is to blame for the current state of our nation? The list is long.

     The Media is to blame. Perhaps it began with Cronkite's editorializing in the news that the Vietnam War was lost. The Old Media is no longer a reporter of news, but has become a purveyor of gossip, rumor, slander, and blatant agenda-driven opinions, all masked as news. The Old Media has lost its nobility, and become the pimp of elitist pablum.

     Atheists are to blame. Men and women unwilling to accept that they are not the ultimate authority have sought and partially succeeded in removing all traces of America's religious heritage, weakening our nation, destroying the very tolerance that allows them to be what they are.

     Republicans are to blame. Republicans are to blame, for they have lost sight of the foundational tenets of their party, and have become profligate and careless. Republicans are the new Democrats.

     Democrats are to blame. Democrats have allowed themselves to be co-opted be anti-American zealots who see a powerful America as unacceptable. Communists, Socialists, and Fascists dominate the Democratic party, demanding an anti-American agenda with the rhetoric of personal destruction.

     Radical Leftists in Academics are to blame. Teaching opinion instead of fact, subjective perception instead of objective history, these radicals routinely take sledgehammers to the foundation of our nation, for in their world, a nation of right vs. wrong is unenlightened. The shades of gray must be thoroughly explored and accepted. Theirs is a Fifth Column, working tirelessly in pursuit of a Utopian society of their own making, twisted and intolerant.

     Politicians are to blame. Politics has become the mud pit of our culture, as racism, jingoism, elitism, socialism, fascism, anti-Semitism, and all the other ism's more and more often rear their ugly heads. No longer led by statesmen relying upon principle, we now follow men and women who are gold diggers, with Uncle Sam as their doddering sugar daddy. Power is their blood feast, these vampires, and they fear no longer the light of day.

     Congress is to blame. The Houses of Congress have long been hotbeds of corruption, at once the pinnacle of power and the deepest cesspool of filth. No longer do we have men and women working for our nation's best, honest stewards of a nation's trust, but thieves and two-faced liars, no longer cognizant of the grave responsibility inherent to their posts.

     Bill Clinton is to blame. America's least effective president ushered in the era of irresponsibility, and left us open to attack from all sides. He gave us the semantics of sex in the workplace, a badly weakened and demoralized military, and Al Gore.

     Jimmy Carter is to blame. With words and tone, America's worst president inspired us to believe hope was lost, and our enemies to believe we were lost. Consistent to the end in his banal ineffectiveness, he has now proved to be the best friend of some of our worst enemies, and the worst enemy of one of our best allies.

     George W. Bush is to blame. As strong as President Bush has been on the War on Terror overseas, he has been weak on protecting our nation's borders against the invasion of illegal immigration. As visionary as his economic program and his hopes for a united, democratic Iraq may be, his shortsightedness regarding our nations borders is disturbing.

     Black America is to blame. Blacks have not sought freedom and equality as Americans, but have instead sought, and found, a dismal replacement, an invidious slavery without shackles, the slavery of identity segregation. They have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by political pulpiteers into thinking that being American is not enough, they must be less, in order to be more.

     The commonplace American, like me, is to blame. I am one of a majority, silent for so long, who allowed a ballot to speak for me instead of standing up and giving voice to my anger, resentment, and disapproval. The Old Media, corrupt politicians, radical leftists, environmental wackos, socialists, fascists, atheists, communists, Republicans, and Democrats should have heard from us long ago. "NO MORE!", we should have shouted. "NO LONGER!", we should have voted. But we did not. The Silent Majority stood by, afraid to break that silence, lest we be thought radical and intemperate.

     The time for temperance is gone. Who will shout with me?

A Day Like Any Other?

     Was 9/11 really that bad? David Bell, a Johns Hopkins History professor has posed the question, and I feel obligated to answer with a resounding yes.
     In the history of America, we have yet to fight a war (and let's not forget that our Muslim enemies have consistently, even prior to 9/11, referred to their efforts against us as World War III) in which the opening salvo claimed so many lives, even military, as 9/11. The Revolutionary War, the French-Indian War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Pesian Gulf War all cost America the lives of her best and brightest. But never, ever, in the history of our country, has an enemy force set foot on our native soil and struck such a blow against our civilian population as on 9/11.
     It was Stalin who said, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of a million is a statistic." In the same vane, I would argue that the death of a soldier is to be expected, the death of a civilian is horrific. I can say this without impugnity, for I have been there. No one can Kerry me, for I have been a boot on the ground, a Jarhead, a Leatherneck, a Devil Dog. I have humped with pack in the depths of a cold, wet night, and carried one in the chamber with an eye on the horizon and an ear out for anything out of the ordinary. To die was a chance we took, and knowingly. To die is a chance those in Iraq yesterday, today, and tomorrow knowingly risk by choice. 9/11 was not such a choice.
     9/11 started off as any other day. Security lines at the airports, congestion on the freeways, cups of coffee and bagels. Mothers and fathers fixed breakfasts and lunches, men and women kissed spouses and loved ones goodbye. It was a day like any other.
     Then a group of monsters murdered almost 3,000 people.
     Was is a day like any other? Was 9/11 really that bad? You decide.
          2,819 people died.
          343 Firefighters and Paramedics died.
          60 Police Officers died.
          1,609 people lost thier spouse or partner.
          3,501 Children lost a parent.
          20% of Americans knew someone that died that day.
          115 Nations are represented in the number that died on 9/11.
     Was 9/11 really that bad? Bell compares it to what Russia experienced in its tumultous history, to military strikes like Hiroshima, to the total dead of wars past. Apples to oranges, I say. I'm not Russian or Japanese, and I'm not nuanced enough to push the emotional attachment I have for my country aside. My nation was attacked. My countrymen died. Perhaps I am not intellectual enough, but to my mind, to even pose such a question is an affront to those who died and those who lived, to the lost and their survivors.
     By my count, David Bell owes a lot of people an apology, more than 5,110.

America the Religious

     There is a fundamental misconception about America, held by both Liberals and Conservatives alike. It is that America was founded as a Christian nation. Many, if not most, Liberals hold this misconception in fear and loathing, and work tirelessly to make sure the culture of our nation never returns to such an unenlightened state. Most, if not all, Conservatives hold this misconception as an anthemic reson d'etre, holding it as the foundation of Conservative Fundamentalism.
     The truth is, America was not founded as a Christian nation, and it was never meant to be one.
     I have come to understand what the founding fathers understood, namely that a Christian nation is by default Totalitarian by nature, albeit beneficent. If our nation had been founded as a Christian nation, one would expect some evidence of preferential treatment for the religion in its founding documents. However, no such preference is shown; indeed, the prohibition against just such a preference is guaranteed in the second amendment.
     America was meant by its founding fathers to be a religious nation, not a Christian nation, for it was intended that all good religions be respected and allowed to be practiced. It makes no difference that most of the founding fathers were themselves Christians, or that they prayed to a Christian God, followed the Protestant belief system, or personally promoted Christianity. What matters to America is that they held it vitally important that religion be respected, protected, and promoted. Good religions promote morality, and morality promotes good government. Such was the stance of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington. Indeed, so many of the founding fathers set down their thoughts regarding this, that there can be no debate as to what was intended when they formed the Republic.
     Sadly, it is our own fault that so few understand, on both sides, the truth of a Religious America. Now, religious groups fight alongside atheists to remove any trace of religion from our public culture, not understanding they promote their own demise. The founding fathers knew that, for a nation to remain truly free, able to address evil, and directed by a moral compass, that nation had to be founded upon a respect for religions that promoted just such values. They knew that the involvement of men and women of faith in government was imperative to the integrity of that government. The moral compass provided by a heart-possessed faith, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Taoist, or other, was and still is the uplifting force that made America great, the lack of which now threatens to make America weak, or destroy it altogether.
     Hence the quandary many Americans find themselves in: whether to support a war against a religious ideology or not. Islam is the religion antithetical to all others. Where Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or Shintoism teach that all mankind is worthy of respect, whether member or not, Islam teaches that no one is worthy of respect other than Muslims. Where most religions promote peaceful relations with others, Islam commands war. It is the lack of religious involvement, and the increasing prohibition of such, that has created a nation of weak, snivelling, emotional, "I feel your pain" weather vanes. For a nation of religious faithful is a nation able to recognize evil for what it is, and destroy it.
     We were such a nation for quite some time, through the First World War, World War II, even into the Korean War. But no more. Our nation is split, between empathizing liberals and enraged conservatives, between an increasingly socialist elite and an increasingly conservative middle class, between those who see no reason for war at any time and those who see the need to remain ever watchful, ever defensive, and willing to take the offensive if needed.
     We are the sleeping giant still, but the giant is so confused, it may not wake up in time.