Children's Book Writers and Speech Writers

According to Sarah M. Pickert's 1978 article Repetitive Sentence Patterns in Children's Books [Language Arts, 55, 1, 16-8, Jan 78], using sentences and phrases over and over again helps children develop language skills. By having a base pattern upon which the author builds into different ideas, children to whom the book is read begin to follow along--expanding their vocabularies.


Such a technique has also been known to help adolescent hockey players come from behind to beat their larger, stronger Icelandic rivals. Many of you remember the scene where Emilio Estevez, the teacher, the old guy who sharpens blades and the team all take turns describing their fears. Each of their negative scenarios is followed by: "Ducks fly together!"


The complete opposite of this technique was used by Thomas Paine as he wrote Common Sense. I don't bring that up to discredit repetitive sentence structure in teaching children, but rather to illustrate the differences between the audiences of children's books and that of Thomas Paine. Common Sense was a brilliant pamphlet designed to help American Colonials realize that neither the Crown nor Parliament had America's interests in mind as they passed legislation that essentially tied the hands of the American settlers in governing themselves.


Common Sense was filled with logical arguments that were substantive and compelling. The publication and proliferation of Paine's pamphlet has rightfully been considered one of the major factors in America declaring her independence from Britain. One of the main justifications for this claim is that the pamphlet was written in a way that stirred the hearts and minds of both the educated and less-than-educated citizens in America.


One of my favorite books ever (besides Common Sense) is George Orwell's 1984. It is eerie and exciting to me. In this book, "the party" has taken over government, which it uses to control the thoughts and actions of its citizenry. Every room has a screen in it that can see and hear everything. Within the government are three ministries: The Ministry of Peace (which wages war), The Ministry of Plenty (which determines the minimal amount of rations to give out to the people) and The Ministry of Truth (which was the Party's propaganda machine). The Ministry of Truth--or in newspeak, minitrue--controls the news, language and history of the country. In an effort to weaken the already destroyed minds of the party members, Minitrue will occasionally switch historical documents in an attempt to rid the people of their memory. One month the country will be at war with Eurasia and the next, the same war will rage on against Eastasia.


Now in an attempt to tie these things all together, I reference Joe Biden's speech at the Democratic National Convention this evening. This is not the first time that I've seen a Democrat rally reduced to repetitive group chanting. As Joe spoke of his kindred relationship with John McCain and followed it with all the ways they disagree with each other, the masses brought out their props--red signs that read: "McCain: More of the Same". This pattern went on for quite sometime before I was called upstairs by my wife to say our family prayer with the children. As far as I know, they're still in the arena in Denver simulating a public school's kindergarten.


For years I have heard that Democrats and Socialists alike exercise power over their electorate to ensure dependency, which leads to more power and control for them. I've also heard that they think people are stupid. That has been confirmed tonight. They think that we are idiots. Grown men and women being reduced to the intellectual equivalent of kindergartners and first graders. It sickens me. They really believe that they are superior to anyone else. No wonder Joe Biden chose not to answer a challenging question from a reporter and instead responded with:

I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect! I went to law school on a full academic scholarship, the only one in my -- in my class, uh, to have a full academic scholarship. And the first year in law school I decided I didn't want to be in law school and ended up in the bottom two-thirds of my class and then decided I wanted to stay, went back to law school and in fact ended up in the top half of my class. I won the international moot court competition. I was the outstanding student in the political science department at the end of my year. I graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school and 165 credits -- I only needed 123 credits -- and I'd be delighted to sit down and compare my IQ to yours, if you'd like, Frank. (None of which is actually true.)


Later on in that same Q&A session, Biden declared: "It seems to me that if you can speak you're a liability in the Democratic Party anymore." So, tying these things all together, I bring up one more point he made in his speech tonight. He told everyone at that convention that "No one is better than you. You are everyone's equal, and everyone is equal to you." Which sounds like the epitome of America: equality. Put into context with everything else he and his party represent, it sounds a lot more like 1984. The party becomes the government and everyone whose IQ does not match Joe's becomes equal to everyone else. No one is better than anyone else. This means: sports, math, science, professions--no variation. We all need the government to help us. Here is another zinger from this speech:


"But today that American dream feels as if it's slowly slipping away. I don't need to tell you that. You feel it every single day in your own lives. I've never seen a time when Washington has watched so many people get knocked down without doing anything to help them get back up."


Again, it's the doom and gloom scenario followed by "Ducks fly together!" Democrats have no faith in Americans or in America. They only have faith in themselves, their agenda and their ability to control your life better than you can. They treat you like you're a child. They speak in nuances. They offer no substance. Their political correctness is the same as newspeak.


After seeing the delegates get so excited about being spoken down to, I worry that if any one of them were to pick up Common Sense they wouldn't be able to get through it without pictures and without rhymes. I hope it isn't too late for them--I know it isn't too late for America!

Setting the Record Straight

Today, I came across the blog of one of my long-time friends. I wasn't terribly surprised by the content of his posts, but nonetheless, as I read his thoughts, I found myself "correcting" most of his political points in my head. His political views were the easiest to break apart, but his thoughts on religion and the examples he used were harder to negate. From the context, I couldn't tell if his indictment of the Church is aimed at the doctrine of the Gospel, or at the way church members interact with one another, and with outsiders. If his beef is with the people, I completely understand where he is coming from, but I also find that his generalizations about the judgmental nature of church members is also fairly judgmental.

The difficulty in arguing about religion is that religion is personal. Sure, as members of a common church attend meetings, they do it as a group. But a church meeting is only going to be sacred for individuals who are prepared for it to be sacred. My friend's views on how things are at one church versus another are his views... opinions and personal exchanges are not empirical. All I can say is that my personal experiences are different.

But the one place where I can correct him, and without much difficulty, is on his analysis of the Iraq war and the period of time leading up to it. His view is a commonly held view among left-wingers, the historically ignorant and children who were not old enough to be aware of the political scene prior to '01. He posits the hype of "Bush lied, people died" as fact. One thing common sense tells us is that basing our political stances on the picket signs and chants of protesters is seldom a sound practice. There is no factual evidence that President George W. Bush lied to get us into Iraq. None. A lie, by definition, is to propagate a false statement with intent to deceive. I will now show why the statement "Bush lied, people died" is dangerously incorrect.

Even in the 1960's, different groups of Islamic militants began surfacing in various parts of the world. One of the first, which is still operating today in Egypt, is known as the Muslim Brotherhood. This group was a political party in Egypt that was outlawed because of its violent responses to people, places and entities with which the group had disagreements. Disagreements used to justify attacks by the Brotherhood, were often unknown to the victims of such attacks. This was the start of modern-day Islamic terrorism. Random attacks on groups of people continued on through the next several decades with little retaliation or deterrence. Groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah, al-Qaeda and others are now ubiquitous--and this is not a result of U.S. foreign policy.

Although I remember mention of Libyans attacking a nightclub in Germany and killing a significant number of Americans, the first attack I actually remember was in 1993--the first attack on the World Trade Center. Then from that point on, two American embassies were hit in Africa and one of our Navy ships, the USS Cole, was attacked by militants in a Yemeni port as it attempted a routine fuel stop. All of these things happened before most Americans even knew George W. Bush existed.

Mixed in with all of this generic Islamic militant radicalism, various states exhibited evidence of terrorism. Iraq was one of those. By visiting http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline.htm, it is surprising to see how many documented incidents there were regarding Iraq, the UN and Coalition countries. Iraq violated UN Security Council resolutions one right after another. An on-again-off-again war had been taking place between Coalition forces and Iraq since Desert Storm in the early 90's. Throughout the entire decade, U.S., British, French, German, Israeli and UN intelligence had determined beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam Hussein sought, obtained and utilized weapons of mass destruction and biological chemicals for use in warfare. Politicians and diplomats across the globe condemned Iraq for this behavior (just as they are regarding Iran and its nuclear program).

The thought that George Bush lied by simply repeating the facts that existed through years of intelligence reports, both public and classified, is absolutely ludicrous. To believe such a notion, one must either have no grasp of recent history, or no grasp on reality. Similarly, to blame George W. Bush for a war in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else in the world because he happened to be the United States president at the time the Islamic fundamentalists' most severely escalated their war on the infidels and the West is also mind-boggling. This is the very point I made last night about blind faith. Why would someone blindly believe and repeat the psycho-babble of the 1960's anti-war throwbacks? Merely saying "Bush lied, people died" in any serious manner shows a complete inability to think logically.

What is going on with Barack in the Polls?

I would like to take a minute to stand up and voice my disgust for the intellectually degenerate among us. The individuals to whom I allude should be obvious. Their narrow-minded, my-way-or-the-highway mob mentality is both sickening and worrying. They are so enveloped in their blind faith that reasoned evidence standing in logical opposition to practically all of their views are simply ignored. Facts discredit their dogmatic truths. They are bigots, propagandists and evangelists...evangelists for the demise of America, Freedom and Liberty. The group I have described is known as the American Left.

It is the end of August, Anno Domini Two Thousand Eight. The United States of America stands alone as the beacon of strength for freedom-loving people all around the world. It was the United States' revolutionary success that inspired the French Revolution. The United States' Founding Fathers took the best bits and pieces of antiquity, along with historical, political ideals of self-governance, Liberty and accountability, and assembled them in the most perfect manner. They realized the form of government that the great minds of Aristotle, Locke, Montesquieu and Rousseau could only imagine. And since the birth of this new pillar of light among the nations of the world, America has been led and governed by the best of the best.

Names such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan come to mind as people think of leaders who have inspired the country. Less known presidents also inspired and guided America down the path of ensuring freedom and opportunity for the individual, such as Calvin Coolidge. With his notion of Americans working less for a swelling government and more for themselves and their families, Calvin Coolidge advocated the epitome of equality--equality of opportunity.

The problem today is clear. An overly intrusive federal government has created the entitlement mentality. Politicians, academics and journalists seem to be pushing an agenda that equality of opportunity isn't enough. To be fair, there is a need for equality of outcome. Calvin Coolidge's prescription that we work less for the government's social burdens and more for ourselves requires, first of all, that we work. If effort equals results and results are measured in compensation, then those who put forth less effort will have less compensation. For the weak-minded left, this is unfair. A company needs a custodian as well as a CEO is what most socialists would say. So, there should not be such a large disparity in pay scales.

Speaking of equal opportunity versus equal results and pay scales: Barack Obama is now statistically tied with John McCain in most polls. American journalists today are shocked by this. With the doom and gloom economy, dissatisfaction with the Republicans in office, an unpopular war and countless other issues, left-wing analysts (this includes most journalists) cannot see why Barack Obama isn't ahead by 15-20 points. So in their limited, elitist, narrow-minded, derogatory view of this country and the people that make up its citizenry, the Left immediately assumes that Barack's downfall is the racial tendencies of the American people. The high-minded Left looks at Barack Obama and sees a clean, articulate black man and nothing else. Ironically, they accuse the rest of Americans of the very thing of which they are guilty: not being able to see past the color of the man's skin.

What the Left doesn't grasp is that Obama has no substance, at least none that would appeal to anyone but a soviet. The Left, and in this case particularly: the media, is beyond gullible, they are delusional. This man comes in talking about "it's not black or white, male or female, old or young, Democrat or Republican... it's about hope and change and a new type of politics" and they believe it. They believe it so much that Chris Matthews gets a tingle up his leg when he hears it. In reality, Obama has just as much baggage as the worst politicians out there: racist preachers, terrorist friends (Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground), questionable real estate involvement, (ex-)employees that have been lobbyists for several out-of-the-mainstream groups, and some that have been publicly associated with illegal mortgage deals for politicians.

These blind followers in recent days have proposed that Obama's poll numbers are so terrible, because he is black. I propose that black is the only thing he has going for him. To illustrate what I mean, I go to the polls themselves. When no one knew anything about Barack Obama--before he claimed that children are a punishment for promiscuous youth, before he declared that he had been to 57 of the 60 states in America, before he referred to a series of Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor as "the bomb", and before he showed how presumptive and ill informed he is on both foreign and domestic policy--Americans knew he was black. When the color of his skin was all anyone knew, his numbers were considerably higher. Gallup, Zogby, Pew, CBS News/NY Times, Rasmussen, LA Times or any other pollster you look at, you can see an aggregate decline in Obama support. When black was it, he lead by sizable margins. Now that people have seen more and more of Obama and heard more and more of his gaffes, enthusiasm and support are dwindling.

If you have a minute, please pop over to Real Clear Politics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

As you look at the numbers, from about Super Tuesday on, Barack Obama has a significant edge over John McCain. The numbers that the media employ to indict the American people, in all actuality, disprove their sole claim. Americans are not racist, all ethnic groups in America can succeed if they work at it, and Barack Obama's shortcomings cannot logically be blamed on Americans or on society, but on the emptiness of his character--and on that alone. Shame on the professors, journalists and left-wingers in this country. The facts, once again, prove you wrong. Try to grasp this. That would be a change you can believe in!

So Many Things I Want to Say...

There are far too many issues and events taking place in my fields of interest right now that to write about it all I would have to retire from actual work and make blogging my full-time job. Some days, such a proposal would sound very tempting, actually. I can easily picture myself as one of those bloggers or political commentators who contribute to the media's show prep everyday. But unfortunately, I don't believe there would be many people who care about what I have to say.

Last week, I had been reading one of George Washington's speeches (his first annual address to Congress, to be exact) when I came across the following line: "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace"1. This is the very theory that Reagan employed to help defeat the Soviet Union--or rather, the Soviet oppression of its people along with its oppression of the people of other nations. Washington's statement also exposes the duplicity of a majority of left-wing politicians and activists at home and abroad. The most effectual means of preserving peace means that a well-trained, well-equipped standing military is a better practical, diplomatic option to ensure peace than any other method.

These liberal politicians and the activists that influence them declare their affection for this country as they belittle it. Revisions of history are common among these groups, and the history they fabricate is that the United States are oppressive, while governments like those in China, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela are progressive, open-minded, and the ideal end of all political development. They are wrong.

Beyond the violent, inexcusable molestation of a sovereign nation, Russia's aggression in Georgia does little more than provide evidence that what most adherents of the ideology of democracy have been saying regarding Russia is true. The leadership at the Kremlin consists of Soviet militants, spies, and enforcers set on regaining complete domination in their region and beyond. To think that all the world needs for peace to reign is diplomacy is the thought of a naive child or a delusional adult. Neville Chamberlain and one of the first Kennedy's our country knew--not the president, but the ambassador--found an up-and-coming German leader to be charming and hospitable after hard talks. That little man went on to use non-sensical "science" to advance an agenda that resulted in the oppression and death of millions of people across the globe--just after Neville Chamberlain made his (in)famous declaration: "Peace in our time!"

Simply sitting down and talking to a leader or regime that is willing to kill civilians, damage private homes and businesses, and/or occupy a region merely because the inhabitants of that region look differently, speak differently or believe differently has never resulted in peace. The Russians need to be dealt with firmly via action, not through ineffective U.N. resolutions. Such resolutions, historically, have been even less effective than diplomatic talks.

When the Cold War ended "without a bullet being fired" it wasn't Reagan's enjoyable chats with Gorbachev that brought the USSR to its knees, but the preparation of our national defense the Soviets couldn't match that got the job done.

As I ponder all that is going on worldwide, it has occurred to me that the same people who want peace, but abhor the best means for preserving it are the people who have it backward on energy. Russia has had an economic resurgence because of the oil they secure domestically. The Middle East, Russia, China and Venezuela are mostly all antagonistic of America and all have uninhibited access to their natural resources, such as oil. The one consistent string tying left-wing individuals and organizations together around the world is their disdain for the ideals of America. They seek power for their ideology by forcing everyone else to the level of the lowest common denominator.

Looking at the world with the lowest common denominator mindset, the US and its allies should be brought down to the same economic and living conditions as third-world nations (i.e. the Kyoto Treaty), conservative principles founded in the ideal of freedom give birth to unilateral arrogance (it is unilateral when more than 20 nations enter Iraq after 12 years of U.N. resolutions failing), but the high-minded Russians entering Georgia is noble, as they are protecting Russian nationals (i.e. Soviets). It also can be seen in such places as the public school system. I will explain that in a later post. I love education, but I don't really care for a system that would rather an advanced student slow down to the pace of a not-so-advanced student--again, the lowest common denominator equals equality.

The American Crisis

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

--The American Crisis, Thomas Paine

The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot are phrases that provide brilliant imagery. These are the folks who love their country and the freedoms that its constitutional framework provide, but when difficulties arise, they "shrink from the service of their country". Picture the "sunshine patriot". He is what the present day vernacular would refer to as a fair weather fan or a Sunday Christian. As long as the birds are singing with a gentle breeze in the air, these types of individuals love their country. They love the opportunities of upward mobility--until the upward climb brings the slightest sign of a challenge. Once times get tough, the Sunshine Patriot begins to blame his or her own country for the ills and troubles across the globe. As gloom sets in, innumerable instances of good and compassion that their country has done for the international community seems to fade away from their memories. It is quite ridiculous how narrow-minded and forgetful open-minded and informed people can be.

Another great quote from Thomas Paine's The American Crisis talks about the tendencies of people to panic.

'Tis surprising to see how rapidly a panic will sometimes run through a country. All nations and ages have been subject to them. Britain has trembled like an ague at the report of a French fleet of flat-bottomed boats; and in the fourteenth [fifteenth] century the whole English army, after ravaging the kingdom of France, was driven back like men petrified with fear; and this brave exploit was performed by a few broken forces collected and headed by a woman, Joan of Arc. Would that heaven might inspire some Jersey maid to spirit up her countrymen, and save her fair fellow sufferers from ravage and ravishment! Yet panics, in some cases, have their uses; they produce as much good as hurt. Their duration is always short; the mind soon grows through them, and acquires a firmer habit than before. But their peculiar advantage is, that they are the touchstones of sincerity and hypocrisy, and bring things and men to light, which might otherwise have lain forever undiscovered. In fact, they have the same effect on secret traitors, which an imaginary apparition would have upon a private murderer. They sift out the hidden thoughts of man, and hold them up in public to the world.

We have these panics and crises all the time. Oil is through the roof, Islamic radicals are coming to get us, the seas are going to rise and swallow our coastal regions, light bulbs are ruining the environment, etc., etc. There are countless examples of catastrophic events and trends that we hear about each day. This is nothing new. Thomas Paine was writing about this phenomenon in the 1700's. The intellectual minds of our day seem to think that things are different now than they've ever been before. For the first time in Earth's history, the average temperature is fluctuating. This example is only one of the more obvious logical fallacies out there--yet it still has governments, corporations, educators and private citizens in one of these panics.

Just as Thomas Paine desired for a Jersey girl to stimulate the populous to act to protect their liberty and freedom, we too are seeking after such a character. The bad news is that the American people are looking for an image instead of a character. They are putting their faith in a politician to make the right decisions for this country. They are gravely missing the point. They each can and should fill the role of the Jersey Girl. No government is deserving of any one's faith. The presence of government indicates a lack of morals among a nation. If all citizens were fair to one another and protected each others' rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there would be no need for a government. Government is only here to minimize the impact of individuals' vices on their fellow citizens and to protect the nation from outside attacks.

The current presidential election is fairly disappointing as both remaining serious candidates are running on panics. McCain is pushing the Global Warming agenda, which is 10% factual and 90% fluff. Obama, similarly, is running a campaign on very little more than BS. In an hundred speeches, he is yet to make one coherent point that he hasn't had to explain away in subsequent interviews. The "black and white, male and female, gay and straight" nothingness was old the first time he tried it. America is a country of over 300 million people. To imagine that all have the same needs, wants and ideas is beyond naive--it is insane. The panic the Obama is running on is a combination of small fears and fictional stereotypes. Change is only good when it is good change. Change, when it happens to cause economic, political and cultural damage is bad change. Very few people who lived in Central Europe would describe that region's change toward the Soviet style of socialism as good change. Similarly, an American government that is already too big will do very little good by expanding even more.

The type of change that I seek is a return to personal accountability, a nation that is self-sufficient consisting of citizens that are self-sufficient, and true bottom-up governance. Although certain candidates for the U.S. presidency claim that government is most equitable when decisions are made from the ground-level up, the type of change I hope to see is that very idea actually being realized instead of just repeated. Let's all be Joans of Arc or Jersey Girls. Neither Obama nor McCain have the capability of saving this country, or even allowing it to continue on as well as it has. The responsibility and capability lie not in the Executive, nor the Legislative and certainly not in the Judicial branches, but in WE THE PEOPLE.

I feel like George Costanza...

A significant amount of time has passed since the previous post. Part of that can be blamed on a busy work schedule, mingled with the holidays. Another part has been that I haven't been able to fine enough time and inspiration to build this blog into what I'd like it to be.

Now, to the part about George...

I have a lot of interests and dreams, but currently, not one of them strikes me as simple enough to pursue diligently. I have thought about writing on academics, community, politics, wireless internet supplies, non-profit organizations, sports... on everything. My favorite part of that episode of Seinfeld is when George proposes that he become a sportscaster. He mentions it, seriously, and pauses. Jerry, also pausing and somewhat hesitant, suggests that sportscasters tend to be former athletes or they hold a degree in sports broadcasting.

I would now like to invite friends, family and strangers play the role of Jerry by counseling me and pointing me in the right direction. Please feel free to suggest topics, themes, subjects, studies, etc. upon which to base this blog.

Under Construction

This blog is in the midst of being transformed into a community meeting place for the people in and around Syracuse, Utah. Check back soon and things will be different.

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