The brilliance of our men in the press...

A report has been posted on Philly.com by a man named Stu Bykofsky. His main point--that the U.S. is bitterly divided by political nuances and sideshows--is a good one, but his article, for several obvious reasons, is mildly objectionable. The first problem is found in the title of the article: To save America, we need another 9/11. He purports that to reunify our country, we need to be attacked on our own soil. Apparently Stu feels that unification is salvation. To save America we must be unified... we can't bicker about petty details in the political process, I guess. From what I gather, he would rather 3,000 of our fellow citizens, who are civilians working hard to support their families, become victims of barbaric murderers than have to hear political debate.

The second problem is a logical fallacy most high school sophomores learn to avoid in their writing: omitting obvious facts that might weaken one's point. The strongest argument addresses the opposition's points and refutes them. Mr. Bykofsky does not do this, and as a result, puts forth a C- op-ed. The most prominent example of this is when Mr. Bykofsky alludes to British forces finally being pulled from England, after (he italicizes) 40 years. This is not the American way, according to Mr. Bykofsky. Americans, he claims, want to be in and out of war. This may be true, but in and out isn't the American way... the American way is winning.

There are very well documented events prior to the U.S. entering WWII that occurred because Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered them. The U.S. was in WWII for several years before the attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR send merchant ships and passenger ships to "disrupt" German submarine activity on many occasions. He struck preemptively (and covertly) in an attempt to 1) strengthen our ideological allies, and 2) provoke Germany to attack. His theory was clear--the American people wanted to restore the isolationist mentality that existed prior to World War I. Poll after poll showed the Americans largely viewed the conflicts in Europe and Asia as their problems. Having not fully brought the nation out of the Great Depression, FDR hoped that a German attack would strengthen and unify the nation behind the war--then, in turn, industry would pick up, the economy would turn around, and the Depression would be over... at long last. All in all, the U.S. military waged military assaults on enemy interests for over 6 years.

Other battles ensued that took time and lives. We still have military personnel stationed in Korea and Germany to this day. We have had men in both places, providing a secure presence for nearly 60 years. Whether or not we still need to be there is an issue to debate. But one thing is certain, we are there now because remaining in the field was crucial to the sustained success of the military endeavors we had undertaken.

There are several differences between the preemptive actions of FDR and the "take the fight to the enemy" policy of President Bush. One of them is motive. FDR knew that Nazi dominion over Europe was not sane. He also knew that eventually, Hitler's expansion and greed would spill over across the Atlantic. The third thing he knew was that he could solve the United States' domestic problems by solving the world's international problems. George Bush, on the other hand, pledged to the American people and to all "freedom loving people" throughout the world that he would hunt Islamic terrorists down wherever they might be. This pledge was a direct result of the culmination of decade's worth of attacks and bombings by terrorists topped off by the events of September 11.

I ought to mention that I understand the can of worms one might open when discussing Iraq and President Bush's motives, but it is important to clarify some theories are more sound than others. It is pretty certain that President Bush didn't just go for oil. If this were the case, we would only be paying $1.57 per gallon of regular unleaded. Also, the "Bush lied, people died" crowd do not have enough brain power to realize that Bush only said what Bill Clinton had been saying throughout his administration. It was the same line on Saddam Hussein that Al Gore used in writings and interviews discussing the Iraq issue. Members of Congress from both parties publicized intelligence reports they had read reviewing the weapons Iraq had already used and the weapons they were developing.

Without going any further into the presidential psychology of why presidents go to war and without even touching on the casualty count from this war compared to all past wars, I would sum up my assessment of Stu Bykofsky's article by pointing out his beginning and his ending. Again the title of his article was: To save America, we need another 9/11 and the last thought of his article is as follows:

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater. What would sew us back together? Another 9/11 attack. The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda. Is there any doubt they are planning to hit us again? If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail. The unity brought by such an attack sadly won't last forever. The first 9/11 proved that.

In addition to being disgusted by his nonchalant attitude toward an attack on America, and even more by his list of possible targets, he negates the whole point of his article; the title and the last two sentences of the article are complete opposites. (Unless that was the point--showing that, at this point, our nation's future is not worth worrying about.) If America is to be saved, that is final. A temporary rescue or a passing bipartisan resolution is not being saved. Bykofsky's proposition is that America can only be saved by another attack to remind us to be unified. Then within one sentence he points out that the saving unification of America will not last. We will get right back to where we are now. All Bykofsky's proposal gets accomplished is the death of thousands of American civilians.

To me, the whole article is absurd. The omissions, the exaggerations, the morbid suggestions that Wrigley Field (among other places) should be attacked, and some of the absolutist language (mainly from the "Bush I did everything right, Bush II did everything wrong" thought) all came together to cloud up any articulate point the author might have wanted to get across. I'm sure I am guilty of this, as well. But you won't see any of my writing in the Philadelphia Daily News.

The real way to save America is to remind ourselves of our history, take a look at the big picture and find out what is really happening in this conflict. It would certainly help to have our media painting an accurate picture of what is going on. And it is crucial to realize what is at stake. Are we a nation of defeat? Or are we willing to put aside political correctness and partisanship to bring our boys home victoriously instead of prematurely? The big issue in this whole thing can be condensed into one word, character. Do we, as Americans, have any or have we lost our character? Are we grateful for our freedom and are we willing to defend it? Or are we worried that someone might be offended if we force them to stop killing innocent people? We are no longer children, we can no longer be naive. The world is a frightening place where bad people will not hesitate to crush the weakest thing they find.

It is my hope and prayer that we do not go the way of the Athenians, who so proudly opened the doors to their country to citizens of all lands to acquire educations, military training, cultural enlightenment--all to have those people they let in find their weaknesses and turn on them.
God Bless America! And God Bless our brave men and women who fight for the freedom of even those who ridicule them and cheer for their demise.

Not my favorite Congressman, but...

I try to avoid posting about actual politics. I would much rather write about principles and ideas, but I have to comment on a statement Congressman Roy Blunt made on the House floor.

Some of the events that have transpired in the U.S. House of Representatives over the last seven months have been astonishing. Things haven't been much better in the other half of the legislative branch, either. The process of making laws has become a circus. The Senate holds slumber parties that accomplish little more than giving pundits material to discuss. The House has started to resemble a schoolyard scuffle. Generally, I would be disappointed in a political party for walking out of the House Chambers, seeing it as petty and childish, but this time it seemed the only appropriate response to a committee chair's decision to violate congressional precedent by stopping the vote prematurely once he realized he was about to lose.

It reminds me a lot of a first season episode of "The Office." The Congressman's stunt in the House was reminiscent of the poor sportsmanship Michael Scott displayed when he fakes being the victim of non-foul and ends an interdepartmental basketball game, just after he finds out that his team was finally ahead of the warehouse crew. Michael was unjustifiably convinced that the sales team would handily defeat the warehouse crew. But when it turned out that he didn't gather quite the amount of talent he had anticipated, he rode on a lucky streak from Jim Halpert and called the game before the warehouse team could come back.

One major difference between Michael Scott and Michael McNulty (Democrat, NY) is that Michael Scott's team actually had more points when he called the game and Michael McNulty's did not. Another one is that after the game had ended, Michael Scott did not try to erase the fact that the game had actually happened... Michael McNulty's group did, however, try to erase the final tally and the records/documents that provided the final tally.

Roy Blunt is right on target when he discusses his embarrassment in the House. We as Americans currently have a Congress to make all other Congresses look good.

Stop to think about what's important to you...

There are certain moments, days, weeks and months that tend to leave the human spirit empty. I wouldn't say that I am experiencing one of those time periods, but I feel that something is amiss. Throughout my life, I have been the optimist in every group of which I have been a part. I have always been able to find positives in individuals when others could not. I had always prided myself on treating everyone consistently and with respect.

Unfortunately, in recent months, I find that I am too tired and exhausted to do anything beyond drag myself from one place to the next. For many small business owners this is a common feeling, I am sure. However, I do not own my own business. I am just a common guy who works long and hard to sustain my family. I know that there are countless others out there who feel similarly to the way I feel. So does that mean that I should just accept it?

Last Sunday when I was at church, a lady from a few rows behind me in Sunday School mentioned that her newly adopted motto is: "Learn to accept, don't expect!" For some reason, this set me off. Now, of course, I understand that she meant it is better to give service to others and respect them regardless of their social, religious, political, behavioral and mental isms than to be closed-off and judgmental. But the statement goes far beyond that.

In college, I belonged to a fraternity. We were known as the "gentlemen on campus." Perhaps some of you have heard of my fraternity: Sigma Chi. Our chapter's motto was: Mediocrity is of the Adversary. Although we weren't all religious guys (note: The Adversary in this case is a reference to the Devil), we did all believe that stagnation is just as bad as digression. If we just accept everything as it is, there will be no reason for us to improve ourselves--because if we disregard all our expectations, we will (necessarily) have to let go of our personal goals. How can we meet and break expectations if we have none? If all we do is accept, we will be facilitating mediocrity, in essence.

I am a firm believer in one's ability to make a difference in the world by making a difference in the lives around one's self. Certain factions of society view large sweeping social programs as the answer. Through study and observation, I have arrived at the conclusion that these factions are made up of idealistic persons with great intentions, but with the wrong tools for the job. Opting to help strangers in some distant locale by sending money and supplies is nice, but it is never as effective as getting out and improving the communities in which we live. Sending millions and millions of dollars to African aids relief is a good thing to do, but it isn't enough. Too many of us, who are warm-hearted and busy, donate money to groups and organizations that are so overly bureaucratized that only 10 cents of every dollar donated gets to Africa. Once it arrives, the totalitarian governments end up keeping it for their own use. The inefficiency is astounding.

The problem, then, is that we convince ourselves that we are good, decent people because we care. We care enough to give donations to aids relief in Africa. Our U.S. government does the same thing; if we give more money to fight for increased standards of living throughout the world, we will prove to ourselves and the world how nice and loving we are. One major draw back to this practice is that we don't actually end up accomplishing anything useful. We just convince ourselves, again, how special we are for caring.

This takes me back to my original thought. I want to be optimistic and caring, but I get drained too quickly from all the rushing back and forth I do from week to week. I don't feel like I have much of a chance to make a difference in my community. I feel like there is only enough time to sign a check and move on to my next appointment. But I know that doing so is ineffective and wasteful.

I love people. I respect everyone out there (with a few exceptions--I won't lie) and I want to make the world a better place. But the only way I can do that is to make a difference in the world around me--not by writing a check and writing my responsibility off to someone else. Beyond that, the only thing left to do is hope. Hope that there are at least one or two people in each community throughout the world who are willing to actually help those around them and not wait for others to do it for them.

Taking just a few minutes to write this has helped me realize that there is hope. Regardless of one's ideology, if we all forget about ourselves and strengthen our communities one act at a time, soon many of the problems that we face as communities, states, nations and a planet will begin turning back.

Please email me with ideas you may have for making a difference in the world around you at: hh_p13@yahoo.com