Parsing the War on Terror

I have, of late, had a number of conversations with my left-leaning friends on the progress and nature of the War on Terror. First, let me say that errors, numerous ones in fact, have been made. Second, every Presidential administration since Jimmy Carter, has failed us in the battle for our very existence. Even one of my personal heroes, Ronald Reagan, bears fault in this regard. That all said, that we are at war is not in doubt, although Kool-Aid drinkers from both sides of the political spectrum differ as to what can now be done to combat Islamic fascism. The political right apparently believes that we can contain the spread of this abhorrent evil without protracted killing, and the political left seems to think that this is a job for law enforcement, which will dissipate if we just bring the troops home. The right is populated by people who are afraid to do the killing that needs to be done for fear of seeming to be unmitigated warmongers. Meanwhile, the left has what appears to be a majority of people who are very smart, well-meaning compassionate souls who are simply unaware that there are carnivores loose in the world who cannot be assuaged with niceties of any sort.

Many people, I am sure, will take umbrage at my statement that this war has been going on for at least 30 years. As a quick refresher let us remember that the Iranian hostage crisis was undertaken by radical mullahs. The Beirut bombings of embassies and, later, a USMC barracks were ordered by militant Islamists. Five years later an Islamic insurgency group occupied the Philippine island of Mindanao, and American forces from the Rapid Deployment Force fought protracted battles to unseat them. As the nineties dawned the World Trade Center was bombed, and as it ended US embassies in Africa were leveled. This was followed by the attack on the USS Cole and, finally, and most spectacularly, the events of 9/11. This is by no means a comprehensive list. It leaves out the various airline hijackings, and, in one case, an act of piracy, that made headlines, as well as the reprehensible actions at the Munich Olympics. I listed them as I did so as to highlight direct attacks on US interests and personnel.

The administrations of Carter, Reagan and the first George Bush seemed to think that the emerging threat was something that would prove to be bothersome, but that it could be contained. By the early nineties the official policy had become one of tracking, catching and prosecuting these miscreants as if they were bank robbers. That notion effected the Clinton administration response to the multiple terrorist attacks which occurred on his watch. He ordered cruise missile attacks on sites at times that would minimize casualties, but still send a message. Most notably, he specifically turned down two or three opportunities to capture or, I would argue more reasonably, kill Osama bin Laden. The official word was that before the '98 embassy bombings there was not sufficient evidence to convict him in a court of law. This attitude apparently reached its zenith when a secret data mining operation uncovered evidence of a cell operating inside the US before 9/11. Mohammad Atta, and several other 9/11 hijackers, were raised as persons of interest by the members of Operation Able Danger, but were allegedly told to forget that because no legal right existed to investigate them. No response, not even a perfunctory one, was made to counter the attack on the Cole.

George W. Bush took office after an election that divided the nation. Save your crayon letters about the vote count. The New York Times undertook an extensive, exhaustive investigation and determined Bush won Florida by about 1,000 votes. That did not make multiple front pages, or any at all in fact, because it wouldn't sell papers. So, anyway, the Bush administration took office and proceeded to do absolutely nothing about the Cole. Word is that any response would only be seen as wagging the dog. The two sides can not seem to agree if material gathered in FBI investigations, that uncovered suspicious instances of Middle Easterners taking flying courses, was passed along to the incoming administration. The FBI dropped the ball in some form, whatever the outcome, because people wanting to learn to fly, but not land, airliners should have sounded every alarm bell we have. The most prolific, if albeit asinine statement I have heard, is that 9/11 happened when Bush was president, so it's all his fault. That's akin to saying multiple people stepped over a crime victim lying in the street, but the doctor who saw him in the ER hours later is solely responsible for his death from blood loss. I am not arguing that focus was lost by the Bush administration, it was, but they do not bear all, or even most of the responsibility for the mess we are in. They oversaw the tragic events of 9/11, botched an opportunity to deliver a knock-out blow in Afghanistan and then compounded that mistake by refusing to fight the war we are in, the way it must be fought, in Iraq.

I do not pretend to have all the answers, nor, even, a plurality of the questions. What I do know is that the finger pointing, for political advantage, must stop if we are to survive as a nation and a people. If those who vociferously avow hatred for President Bush would focus that animus at our common enemy, in more than just a yellow ribbon kind of way, we could defeat this all encompassing threat. And if those who religiously parrot the republican party line would begin holding all our elected officials responsible, not just the ones across the doctrinal aisle, we could unite. Sadly, the amount of killing which must be done is unpalatable to those in power, on either side, and the liberal apologists somehow have failed to learn history's lessons regarding appeasement. Winston Churchill famously said, "Appeasement is feeding the crocodile in the hopes that he eats you last." I can only hope that it is not too late for the loyal opposition to learn that lesson, and that the party in power accepts the heavy-lifting, much as Harry Truman did, and does what must be done.

Generals Gathered in Their Messes

In the past week, six flag officers have come forth to express the desire that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld be fired, or, failing that, forced to resign. These generals come from the Army and Marines. All served honorably, several with distinction. Between them they served for a total of more than 200 years. They number among their ranks the former commander of US Central Command, Marine General Anthony Zinni, Lt General Greg Newbold USMC, the former Director of Operations for the Joint Chiefs, Army Maj General John Riggs, formerly the Pentagon's Objective Task Force director, Army Maj General Paul Eaton 2003-2004 commander of Iraqi troop training, Maj General Charles Swannack Jr, former commander in Iraq of the storied 82nd Airborne Division and finally, Maj General John Batiste, former commander of The Big Red One in Iraq. They are all patriots, and they are all wrong.

The liberal legislators, and their attendant members of the press, touting these former servicemen have forgotten two things: first, being a general does not make you a gentleman anymore than being elected to congress makes you honorable, and second, prior service, even above average service, does not make you infallible. Of the six only Maj General Batiste has any true credibility. It has been widely reported that he turned down a third star to protest the Secretary of Defense's strategy, or lack thereof to be more precise. He told USAToday that Rumsfeld should step down because, "he ignored sound military advice about how to secure Iraq after Baghdad fell." If his words had come as he retired, and suggestive of conscience, they would have carried possibly significant worth. Coming after the words of longtime critics, his animus comes off as merely expediency towards some as yet unnamed goal.

Longtime critic General Anthony Zinni's goal is anything other than unnamed. He has been a vocal opponent of the streamlined military Secretary Rumsfeld has long proposed, and now has a book to hawk. Maj General Swannack has suggested the Secretary should resign because "Rumsfeld had micromanaged the war." Maj General Paul Eaton, echoing general Batiste, wrote in The New York Times last month that Rumsfeld was, "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." Lt. General Newbold voiced disdain for the Secretary of Defense because he considered Iraq an "unnecessary war." Maj General Riggs only suggested that "Rumsfeld and his close aides should be cleared out." Seemingly tough words from truly tough guys when first they are heard, but empty rhetoric when inspected closely. That's because these men do not exist in a vacuum, contrary to CBS News, and their ilk. Over 4,ooo other flag officers, including Colin Powell, have offered no comment, and those best able to judge, Generals Tommy Franks and Richard Meyers and Lt General Michael DeLong, have made unqualified statements of support for Secretary Rumsfeld.

The major news outlets have acted as if this small percentage of generals is unheard of in recorded history. In fact, world history, not just American history is littered with such examples. In just the last 50 years of the last century multiple high-profile cases made headlines. General Curtis LeMay feuded with JFK, while President Truman relieved Medal of Honor winner General Douglas MacArthur of command. Even the media darling Wesley Clark was removed from command by President Clinton, albeit more diplomatically than MacArthur, for voicing displeasure with his civilian bosses. The military, especially generals who are used to getting their own way understandably, always believes they can manage a war, any war, more effectively than their civilian overlords. Read 1776 by David McCullough and you will see generals and their civilian masters feuding even before we were a country. President Lincoln removed General McClellan for much the same offenses, and Custer was demoted and sent west to meet his destiny for exactly the same infraction. This is not new, nor is it, in this case, systemic or coordinated. It simply is what it appears to be: a group of disaffected men expressing displeasure that their brilliance was not better recognized. If these six generals felt so strongly that the Secretary of Defense was incompetent wouldn't their honor demand that they resign publicly? It would, but tellingly none did.

Secretary Rumsfeld has made mistakes, to be sure, but he has also done an admirable job fighting two wars simultaneously. My gripe is that he has not allowed the military to fight the war that needs to be fought, on the "no quarter asked, none given" terms by which it needs to be fought. That too, is not his fault, or rather not his alone. That is the fault of the culture of a government that does not have the stomach to suffer the attacks that would come if we were to fight a war that means killing the enemy and destroying his land until he can no longer fight, or forces his civilian leadership to surrender. Dresden and Hiroshima, or even Omaha Beach are politically unacceptable today. That is fodder for another column though. Secretary Rumsfeld's transgression, at least in the eys of the "flagged six" truly is that he rocked the proverbial boat. He took over the Department of Defense as an executive, not a legislator, and the military, which abhors change, balked. These generals are just the vocal manifestation of that. When Colonel H.R. McMasters writes his next book you can be sure he will make note of this period of time, and the "flagged six" are merely using the political acumen they acquired to seem to be on the right side of it. Time will tell, I am sure, that the Secretary of Defense was trying to fight the next war, and the "flagged six" were stuck in the last.

What Would Jose Do?

On August 4, 2001, a Saudi national, Mohamed al-Qahtani, arriving on a flight which originated in the United Arab Emirates, was referred for secondary inspection upon landing at the Orlando International Airport. He was referred to the screening because he had not correctly filled out a mandatory customs form, due to a purported inability to speak English. The Immigration and Naturalization Services inspector with whom al-Qahtani then came into contact admitted that a search of al-Qahtani's luggage turned up nothing suspicious. Likewise, a check of the relevant watch-list data bases turned up no evidence of wrong doing. The inspector, Jose Melendez-Perez, a 26 year honorable, combat veteran of the US Army also agreed that the suspect's answers to his questions were not, in and of themselves, enough to deny him entry to the US. However, after an exhaustive interview Melendez-Perez denied al-Qahtani entry, against the advice of co-workers, and escorted him to a Dubai-bound plane. As al-Qahtani stepped into the waiting plane, he paused, turned to Melendez-Perez and, in perfect English, said, "I'll be back."

Mohamed al-Qahtani is indeed back. Well, not quite. He is currently a guest of the US government at Guantanamo Bay. You see al-Qahtani was captured in Afghanistan, while fighting US ground forces. Under interrogation he has admitted that he was to be the 20th hijacker on September 11th. A review of the cell phone records of 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta seems to bear this out as he was at the Orlando Airport at the exact time al-Qahtani was being interviewed by Jose Melendez-Perez. In fact, before al-Qahtani decided to stop answering questions he told Mr Melendez-Perez that someone was there to pick him up, but refused to answer who. We now know that Jose's instincts were correct and that his actions undoubtedly saved numerous lives. The valiant, heroic passengers of United Flight 93 might not have been able to thwart the hijacker's plans if their plane, like the other three, had had 5 terrorists aboard.

We now know for a fact that the passengers of Flight 93 caused the plane to crash before it reached its intended target. Whether that target was the Capitol or the White House is still unknown, but tapes played during the sentencing stage of Zacarias Moussaoui's trial forever put to bed any doubt that the ordinary, everyday passengers of Flight 93 fought back against their hijackers. Tapes played to a packed courtroom proved that, even knowing the odds against them, they banded together, men and women from disparate backgrounds, and fought in the finest traditions of the American citizen soldier. They repeatedly rammed a drink cart against the locked cockpit door. At least one hijacker was dispatched to his date with Allah by Americans who, warned of the earlier 9/11 attacks via cell phone conversations, refused to go like sheep to the slaughter. They had to know that they had scant chance of surviving the confrontation. And yet, armed with pots of boiling water, a beverage cart and accumulated odds and ends they attacked their hijackers and fought, literally, to the death.

Zacarias Moussaoui originally asserted that he was to be the 20th hijacker on 9/11. Since then he has declared that he and "shoe-bomber" Richard Reed were to be the hijackers in another 9/11-like attack. What he was honestly here for, we will probably never know. What we do know is that after he was captured the FBI found phone numbers for 11 of the 19 hijackers in his possession. We also know that while taking fight training in Minnesota he expressed no desire to learn how to land. He has, in open court, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden and admitted being an Al-Qaeda member, with prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. It is worth noting that he has since recanted the statement regarding prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

By now you are, no doubt, wondering why I have combined the events of August 4, 2001, and April 13, 2006. The answer is simple: instead of being given a forum to smirk at the family members of 9/11 victims, Moussaoui should have been denied entry to begin with by an observant INS inspector. We need more men such as Jose Melendez-Perez guarding our points of entry. Had Jose been present when Moussaoui attempted to enter the US I have no doubt he would have been turned away. I have met Jose, twice. He is an unassuming man who, when greeted by a 600 person standing ovation at a luncheon given in his honor, said simply, "I wish my father was here to see this." Jose exhibited common sense and, due to heroic efforts of other patriots, part of a larger plan was altered. We now should exhibit common sense as a nation and alter the future plans of these miscreants who would cut our throats. Any person suspected of ties to the Islamic insurgents should be immediately sent to Guantanamo Bay. Likewise, anyone captured on the field of battle should be remanded to the custody of the military there, or some other such place. There they should stand trial before a military tribunal and, if convicted, summarily executed. No more should we treat the threat from Islamic fascists as if it were a matter to be solved by the FBI and the federal courts. War means fighting and fighting means killing, to paraphrase one of our greatest Civil War generals. You would think that a lesson so dearly learned then, would resonate now. I can only hope that the verdict of death is awarded Moussaoui, even though the appeal process will undoubtedly continue to play out in our living rooms. Instead of seeing terrorists on multiple segments of the nightly news we should see them for who, and what, they are, and send them to the afterlife they so desperately desire.

The Aforementioned Tired, Poor and Huddled Masses

I am a proud American of 100% Irish extraction. I fly the Irish Republic Tri-Color from the ramparts of my deck. I wear a kilt on St. Patrick's Day, and whenever else I can justify it. My ancestors arrived on these shores at various times. On one side my great, great, great-grandparents made it to New York, nearly starved to death from the after effects of The Famine. On the other side, my great-grandmother, who was sixteen and pregnant, nearly died on the ocean voyage. We have, without a pause in any generation, been soldiers in every conflict since The War of Northern Aggression, which some of you may know as The Civil War. We have worked at hard, thankless jobs, both before and after serving in the military. We have picked cotton and scrubbed floors. We have been victims of scurrilous discrimination, and hurtful, taunting speech. To this day, various members of my family, me included, struggle to provide for our offspring. We band together in times of need, and weather the storms apart. Through all these trials and tribulations one thing has remained constant: We have never wanted to be anything more than we wanted to be Americans. To prove that, all my ancestors shared one thing in common as they alit on these shores: they signed in. They acknowledged that they were here, and asked to become citizens.

Apparently though, times have changed. This past weekend saw demonstrations in the hundreds of thousands of, presumably, illegal aliens. They are not immigrants, no matter what the PC climate. Nor are they undocumented aliens. They are exactly what they appeared to be: illegal inhabitants of the United States of America. Many covered their faces and waved Mexican flags as they demonstrated for, demanded even, rights they have not earned and do not deserve. They are thieves in the night who have sneaked in under the cover of darkness, refusing to acknowledge our laws, and spitting on our proud combined heritage and tradition. They want to set up as Mexicans, here in the United States, while absorbing every social service imaginable. They want all the rights they can grab, while accepting none of the responsibilities. They do not, in many cases, even try to learn English, relying instead on the ACLU to sue for the right to have all manner of services provided in Spanish.

Do not get me wrong. A great many Hispanics have been a wonderful boon to this nation. I recently witnessed several hundred service men and women sworn in as citizens after completing tours of duty on the frontlines in the War on Terror. I have seen Cuban-born American men and women march in the streets for various causes, and those self same patriots have helped countless thousands of legal immigrants to register to vote. I have collaborated with an Hispanic outreach program to teach underserved members of the community; bringing literature classes to adults with elementary school reading levels. I know that there are hard-working latinos and latinas who want nothing more than to be Americans, and raise their children to have more than they had. I recognize these groups and I applaud them. These are not the people I would stuff into Greyhounds and send home.

You see that's because those I would send back to Mexico, and El Salvador and Honduras, still see those places as home. They have no desire to be citizens here; not if it takes any effort or sacrifice. Sure, a great many would take advantage of an amnesty program if it guaranteed them citizenship at the end. Few, however, would draw breath at the notion of contributing to the common good unless they were sure to be let in. Need proof? Why would they sneak across the border if their intentions were pure? Is Mexico a hostile nation? Are they on the short list of allowances? No, Mexico is an ally and a friend, and her citizens have more legal means of emigrating to the United States than do most countries. A large number, as many as TEN MILLION, have therefore decided that the laws of the United States are not worth the effort, or cannot meet the scant guidelines involved in becoming citizens. They simply do not deserve the blessings that my, and, presumably, your ancestors have afforded immigrants from every country on the planet.

What to do then? Pennsylvania's senior senator Arlen Specter has said that the problem is too big. We can't send them all back; not anymore. Yeah? Well maybe not, but we could start trying. We could also construct a fence along the entire length of the southern border for a fraction of the cost of providing the aforementioned social services collected by millions of illegal aliens. We could station more Border Patrol agents, and, in limited instances, the National Guard along the southern frontier. That would stem the tide while we started throwing back the refuse who have deemed our laws unworthy of acknowledgement. The argument to these ideas is always the same: What message does this send to the rest of the world? I'll tell you what message it sends: The United States is a nation of laws, and of kind and generous men and women who will gladly offer you a hand, provided you sign in.

Why then won't the honorable men and women in congress do something more substantial to stop this ongoing invasion? Because both see Hispanics as the new base in their voting blocks, and a politician's job is, first and foremost, to get reelected. So, will anything truly happen? Probably not. Legislation will get enacted, with much posturing and gnashing of teeth from both sides of the aisle. Speeches will get made. The flag, the American flag, will be waved, and in the end nothing much will change. In the end, the naturalized Jamaican-American with whom I work, and whom I adore, will tell her niece that unfortunately she did not make the cut and must now return to the Caribbean. The Indians who pump my gas, while proudly flying the US flag, will sadly inform their wives that they cannot come over here, not yet. The Pakistanis who run the bodega where I buy The Washington Post, will call the old country and tell their friends and families to keep trying. These good, honest, hard-working Americans will suffer for doing the right thing, but hey, you and I will have cheap lettuce, and Barbara Striesand will have inexpensive domestic help. Sounds like a case of, I've got the pistols, so I'll keep the pesos. Yeah, that seems fair.

Wanna Bet?

Resplendent in County Limerick kilt and sporran, I spent the evening hours of St. Patrick's Day, and a goodly portion of the wee hours of Saturday, in and about several casinos in Atlantic City. I am Irish 365 days a year and had no desire to surround myself with the green beer drinkers, or worse, the 'yearly Irish.' So, although my only venture into gambling is a few dollars here and there for lottery tickets, or a friendly game of Texas Hold'Em at someone's house, I spent an enjoyable time amidst the bells, whistles, lights and sirens of A.C.'s finest. The kilt generated some interesting, and some not so interesting, conversations. I saw a couple bands, drank a few non-alcoholic beverages and, fully sated, came home. I adore casinos, in limited doses. That is why it may come as quite a shock to hear me say that the slots parlors soon to dot the Philadelphia landscape are an abomination and an evil incarnate. Organized 'gaming,' outside of areas created for it, like Atlantic City, Las Vegas and maybe a few of the Native American-run resorts such as Foxwoods, are a scourge on the population from which no good can come.

I grew up in New Orleans. As a high schooler I skipped class to go to the man-made, powder white beaches of Mississippi. Summer evenings I made the hour and a half drive, with a friend or two and our scantily clad teenage consorts, to frolic in the phosphorescent surf. Long Beach, Biloxi and Gulfport were then sleepy little towns, wholly dependent on the beaches for tourist dollars. Cheesy storefronts, selling sharks teeth and tie dyed t-shirts, competed with beautiful, antebellum style homes along the beachfront. It was somewhat backward, slow, and perfect as a respite from the city; at least for me. Now though those same beaches are littered with casinos. Huge monolithic, monstrosities proliferate up and down the coast. Originally, the law was written to say that only floating "river-boat style" casinos would be allowed. Nine zeroes in a corporate bank account cured that malady though. Of course, the ususal promises were made: property taxes will be lowered, schools will benefit and seniors will reap rewards. Property taxes have not gone down, student scores are still nearly last in the nation and, last time I checked, seniors were not rushing to embrace the Gulf Coast; except for when their assisted living communities organize bus trips that is.

The same thing was promised in New Orleans when Harrah's came to town. The blueprint was the same. A few "riverboats" would be allowed to dock for a while before they would be forced to set sail for a given amount of time. The result was predictable. The corporations realized they were losing money everytime they set sail, so the nine zeroes in the bank accounts once again made their presence known. Before you knew it, a landmark in New Orleans, The Rivergate, was being demolished for a giant casino, which would forever alter the city's brief skyline. The same promises of community assistance were made, and the same outcome was had. No relief was given to anyone. Well, that's not quite true. The most popular governor in recent Louisiana history, Edwin Edwards, received bundles of cash. A practice which, when $500,000 was discovered in his freezer, eventually sent him to federal prison, from where he is scheduled to be released in 2011. One of the principle owners of a profitable water-side casino, Edward DeBartolo, is said to have paid the governor hundreds of thousands of dollars to secure a gaming license. Mr. DeBartolo escaped jail by testifying, but was forced to divest himself of his controlling interest in the San Franciso 49ers.

What the casinos do not ever promise, but always deliver, is trouble. The crime rate immediately around the properties escalates. The local police become defacto security guards for the cash cows, but the price of their overtime still comes from the same place: you and me. Our taxes pay for cops to watch over the properties at the expense of other areas of town. Infrastructure has to be improved; roads widened, fences erected, and we foot that bill too. The promised tax relief never materializes because the new costs outweigh the old notices. Taxes go up, crime goes up, public assistance goes up and the city wonders how it got there. It is a fact of life that those least able to afford it are the biggest bettors. When the end of the month comes and there isn't enough money to pay the bills, no worries we'll go the casino and win the rent. The lower levels of society plug away hour after hour, and day after day, hoping against hope to win their way out of the hole they are ever deepening.

It is not all bad though. A handful of men will become obscenely wealthy. Usually a high-profile community leader is drafted to lend credibility to the endeavor. Here it is former 76ers President Pat Croce. He is a rock solid member of the community, and, by all accounts, a good guy. He is teamed with "The Donald" and no doubt believes that good will be done with the proceeds. Nothing could be further from thr truth. The money men's pockets, and a few of their politician friend's too, will be lined, both legally and illicitly. Some will walk away wealthy and some will walk away in cuffs, but in the end they will all walk away richer than they came. Don't get me wrong. I don't pity the poor and I don't hate the rich. Nor do I think it is the government's job to protect us from ourselves. What I do believe though, is that it is the government's job to promote the general welfare, while securing the blessings of liberty, neither of which is possible when you are shackled to the overwhelming monument of greed.

Can You Define That?

"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid," so said Sgt. John Stryker, as portrayed by John Wayne in The Sands of Iwo Jima. Apparently that sentiment is in short supply everywhere in the good ole US of A, but nowhere is that more obvious than in the rarefied air of our college campi. The institutes of higher education, from the ever liberal Ivy League, to the supposed mainstream of the genteel South, have seemingly lost their dictionaries. They can no longer define simple words, much less impart any true knowledge without the prerequisite dose of indoctrination. Three events, which together generated less coverage than Vice President Cheney's hunting accident, prove that point in sobering, saddening, maddening detail.

According to the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, terrorism is defined as: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. Pretty straightforward, at least to my decidedly simplistic ego. Yale, the bastion of waspish scions and Jodie Foster, has evidently concluded otherwise. I say that because they have accepted Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, former ambassador-at-large for the Taliban, for admission into a non-degree program for special students. Let's forget for the moment that his formal fourth grade education and high-school equivalency degree preclude him from entry into one of the world's top universities. Let us remember instead that he was the public face of the Taliban, the regime that dynamited the 1,000 year old Buddhas of Bamiyan, allowed female school-children to burn to death inside a elementary school because no male relatives were present to escort them away, and, oh yeah, harbored those directly responsible for destroying the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. Why would he travel thousands of miles to audit a class titled "Terrorism: Past, Present and Future?" Could it be because he needs a primer, or did he hope to continue his recruiting amongst the intelligentsia?

Discrimination is what Yale, and a coalition of law schools, stated they were against when they filed suit to keep the United States military from recruiting on campus. They affirmed that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was just too onerous for their refined sensibilities. Banning recruiters from campus was the colleges' way of protesting this policy, and nothing more. Yeah, the fact that nearly all these hotbeds of liberalism are in opposition to any war in general, and the one we are currently engaged in, in particular, never entered into the equation. Ironic that this furor was never directed at the President who signed the policy into law. And yet we are supposed to see this as proof that the modern university is striving for an open, inviting, diverse experience; just not one that encourages pride in country, duty or honor, or the hayseeds who cherish such things. One wonders what the position of Yale will be when Ambassador Hashemi begins recruiting in the Quad. I doubt very sincerely that they will object so strenuously that the case will wind up before the justices of the US Supreme Court. Luckily for us all, even the esteemed Court's most liberal members voted against the nonsense the universities sought to avow. The Court decided that the universities could, indeed, bar military recruiters, but they must forfeit all federal funds if they do. In the case of the University of Pennsylvania this amounts to $600,000,000. Yes, you read that right. It remains to be seen if they have the strength of their convictions.

Finally, on Friday a University of North Carolina graduate was arrested for running down nine students with an SUV. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who, it will come as a huge surprise no doubt, is a Muslim originally from Iran, told investigators, numerous times, that he intentionally hit people to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world." In a 9-1-1 call immediately after the event he said he wanted "to punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world." Funny how he never attempted to protest the actions of the Taliban as they tortured and killed Muslims, by running down Ambassador Hashemi. Funny how he never attempted to ram the gates of any Iraqi diplomatic station, to protest the gassing of the Kurds. More surprising still, is the fact that a student organization had to stage a rally to protest this overt act of terror, while the university was oddly silent. I can only wonder what the university response would have been had the Chapel Hill basketball team been mowed down on the eve of "March Madness." Would that hypothetical act have risen to the level of terrorism?

I love this country, warts and all. I recognize, that as Winston Churchill once opined, "Democracy is the worse form of government; except for all the others." I cannot for the life of me though, understand what it takes for the cultural elite to understand that there are people out there who intend to destroy us, and our entire way of life. Do they not remember that their darlings of armed struggle, from Che Gueverra to Hamas, execute the teachers and poets as soon as they take over? Have they forgotten the lessons of history so soon? I can only conclude that in their rush to purge the ivied towers of academia, of all manner of white, European male oppression and discrimination, that all the books, not just the dictionaries, have been removed. I can only conclude that when the Islamic hordes once again descend upon our shores that they will accept their fates and go peacefully to the slaughter. One thing is certain, 9/11 proved that ideas have consequences, and I can only hope that the country I love awakes before the ideas of radical Islam burn us down. I can only hope that the cultural elite recognizes, before it is too late, that dissent is patriotic, but aiding and abetting the forces aligned against us is not. I can only hope that somewhere amidst the Ward Churchill's and the John Bellamy Foster's there still exists a professor or two that became teachers because they want to open minds, not close them to any ideas but their own.

the beads

Three days before my last day of school as a senior in high school I was hauled into the principal's office for an infraction involving orange wine coolers, Bacardi Dark Rum and two teenage girls, who shall remain nameless. The principal, Mr. Bordelon, scolded me for a full ten minutes before saying, "The only reason I am not expelling you right now is because I don't want you back here next year." Fast forward nearly ten years. I walk into a high school Civics class at a girl's Catholic high school where I am the teacher. The third person on my roll sheet is, you guessed it, Mr. Bordelon's daughter. Now, it should be said that I was definitely involved in more than my fair share of expellable offenses while in high school, but that does not prevent me from feeling, to this day, unreasonable vitriol for Principal Bordelon. Obviously my position of authority presented all manner of opportunity to settle the score, as it were, with Principal B. I could, well within the rules if not the spirit of the position, have made his daughter's time in my class uncomfortable, at the very least. I opted not to. I did that not out of any altruism, or even maturity, but because I took my position as a teacher seriously. To me, it meant that I would present my course materials as objectively as possible, with no proselytizing, and no bias. Apparently high school teachers are no longer constrained by such ethical chains, as is evidenced by the case of Sean Allen, and Jay Bennish's high school geography class.

By now you have no doubt heard the tape Sean made. The day after the State of the Union Address Jay Bennish subjected his 1oth grade geography class to a twenty minute screed on the evils of the Bush administration. According to my dictionary, geography is defined as: the physical characteristics, especially the surface features, of an area. I seem to recall, from my college geography class, that some attention was paid to the effects of human activity on the planet, but even that discussion did not rise to the level meted out by Mr. Bennish. He, in succession, compared coca farmers in South America to tobacco farmers in North Carolina, framed capitalism as a system at odds with human compassion and caring, argued that the war in Iraq would have been for profit even if weapons of mass destruction had been found, characterized the United States as the "most violent nation on planet Earth," compared the country of Israel, as a whole, to Hamas, and, in one meorable quote, suggested that President Bush and Adolf Hitler possess "eerie similarities."

Knowing as I do that a great many of the people who read these postings are inclined to favor these views I will not seek to argue the veracity of Bennish's positions. Do not bother to send me what would, in a different technological age, be letters written in crayon. The point of this column is not to refight these particular battles. The point is that high school geography class is not the venue for this rant, for a number of reasons. The main reason is that teachers hold a position of authority. Just as it would have been wrong for me to make the daughter of Mr. Bordelon suffer for his perceived and/or real transgressions. It was wrong for Mr. Bennish to direct his anti-American bombast to, what is in effect, a captive audience.

Tustin Amole, a spokeswoman for the Cherry Creek school district said, "After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view." That is the issue with which I, personally, take umbrage. I served, proudly, in the 7th Infantry Division (Light), in part, so that Mr. Bennish could bluster any bone-headed, outrageous point of view he wishes. The First Amendment specifically protects outrageous speech because mainstream speech needs no such protection. The error here is that suggesting Mr. Bennish's actions constitute free speech. What he did was wrong, partially because he offered no counterpoint, but mainly because he interjected his own opinions into a venue where they have no business. Education is about us finding ourselves through exposure to the facts of the world. Mr. Bennish violated the trust that comes along with the position by offering his viewpoints as the only facts. In a college setting these comments would have been odious, but in a high school setting they become indoctrinal. He became the thing he pretends to decry: a tyrant.

Sadly, all too many people will argue that the things Jay Bennish said are accurate and worthy of public debate. That may have weight, and, in a coffee shop that sells hemp products, he is welcomed to posit any dimwitted, misguided, communistic rhetoric he can cull from the Democratic Party talking points. What he should not do though, is use his position of trust to expound on these themes. What he should not do is violate the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship by offering personal opinion as classroom content. In one portion of his philippic he paused to allow note taking. Any excuse thereafter that this was all to stimulate discussion becomes nothing more than sophistry, and anyone who truly cherishes the right of free speech should recognize the difference.

I truly hope that the Cherry Creek school district fires Mr. Bennish. I do not believe, in these politically charged times, that they will, but I hope they do. He has hired the same attorney who currently defends Ward Churchill, so this will, no doubt, become an issue of political expression, and they will seek to represent Bennish as the victim. Nothing could be further from the truth. Children, and 10th graders are children, deserve the opportunity to develop their own positions and views about the world. Mr. Bennish would, no doubt, disagree because, seemingly, to him, and to all too many like him, free speech means freedom to say whatever you want, provided you agree with him. I wonder what Mr. Bordelon would think about his daughter hearing, in my classroom, twenty minutes of my thoughts on him. Shame on you Jay Bennish, and to you Mr. Bordelon I can only say, wherever you are, that I am grateful for the lesson I learned the day your daughter walked into my class.

Any Port (Operator) in a Storm

The recent flap concerning the sale of U.S. ports may have escaped your notice this past week. After all, the Vice President tried to assassinate an attorney the same week the news broke that British world port operator P&O was bought by Dubai Ports World, an entity based in the United Arab Emirates. Well, truth be told, DPW has not bought any ports, nor can they. The physical ports are owned by the Ports Authority in the various regions. What DPW has bought, with their purchase of the last British owned port operator (there are no American operators left), is the rights to terminal space at six ports in the United States: New York, Port Elizabeth NJ, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans.

Let me stress the fact that I am not in favor of the ports being operated by any Arab nation, let alone the one that laundered funds for Al Qaida, and recognized the Taliban as sovereign before U.S. military might made that a moot point. What I am in favor of though, is the end to all the posturing and rhetoric espoused by self-serving politicians from both sides of the political divide. Republicans and Democrats alike are racing for the television cameras to avow their adamant opposition to "sales of American ports." As I mentioned above, what was sold by the merger of P&O and DPW are the rights to operate dock side services, including shore electric power, cleaning, waste disposal and storage. DPW has purchased the rights to physical space, and the opportunity to charge for services, and nothing more. This is akin to any of the various big city apartment management companies operating dozens of buildings for absentee landlords, for a small percentage of the take, of course. The building in which I live is just such a residence. A maintenance man takes my trash to the curb, fixes my plumbing, and handles minor improvements. He is too, ostensibly, at my beck and call around the clock. That is what DPW is interested in becoming: a maintenance man for the world's ocean going trade here in the United States.

Romania, Germany, Djibouti, Puerto Cabello in Venezuela, Adelaide in Australia, 5 ports in China, including Shanghai, and 3 in Hong Kong are just some of the ports operated by DPW. In fact, DPW is one of the world's fastest growing port operators. It is a concern that is vying for preeminence in a world which lists Maersk-Sealand of Norway as one of the major players. What the sale of P&O effectuates is the replacement of British upper management with UAE upper management. The CEO, CFO and COO will simply start sporting kaffiyahs, instead of staid Saville Row suits. The local Ports Authority will still patrol the ports. The US Coast Guard will still ply the waterways. The US Customs Service will still inspect the pitifully inadequate 5% of containers they inspect. In other words, nothing will change except the destination of the profits.

That's what rankles me. Although Dubai has become one of the safest ports of call for the US Navy, a tourist attraction for most of the Far and Middle East and a public denouncer of Al Qaida activities, it is still the home of two of the 9/11 hijackers and the source for illegal funds transfers by Al Qaida before 9/11. That they are now considered a partner in the War on Terror, both by their administration and ours, does nothing to cool my ardor. I simply do not trust them, yet. Let them continue to build bridges and things can change. My grandfather, a World War II veteran of the Burma-India campaign, did not live to see the immense friendship we developed with the Japanese. He would have been stunned to see US Army infantrymen being handed water and foodstuffs by Japanese support personnel, in a combat zone no less. In time maybe, just maybe, the UAE can become a friend and valued trading partner. I will go on record as saying I doubt it, but stranger things have happened. We did, after all, drop an atomic bomb on two cities in Japan.

The end result of the brouhaha has been twofold: true discussion of the deal on its merits has been stifled, and the Democrats in congress have been forced to admit that we are, indeed, fighting a war against a serious enemy. This is in direct contradiction to their previous positions. If they were consistent they would welcome this deal with open arms. After all, we are the ones creating terrorists in Iraq. We caused the majority of the world's ills. This deal would go a long way toward healing those wounds. That even the obstructionist Chuck Schumer, (D) New York, sees this deal as ill advised should gladden the hearts of many, but it does not gladden mine. What it does is sour my stomach to know that he, and those like him, through self-aggrandizement, will today rail against "selling our ports to foreign nations unfriendly to us," and tomorrow complain about unauthorized wiretaps, which actually do combat terrorism. In retrospect, my opinion of the whole mess is, to paraphrase Sun Tzu in The Art of War, when you cannot make your enemies your friends, kill them with bullets.

Taking Aim at the Vice President

It is a peculiar coincidence that sensational murderers seem to use all three of their names more often than the average American does. Think John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth. It's as if their mothers are perpetually castigating them for some transgression. It is then, only a matter of time before the Vice President will be publicly known as Richard Bruce Cheney. He has been roundly berated by the major media outlets for "nearly murdering" someone, when the truth is more benign. The Vice President erred, and had his error compounded by another's carelessness, which resulted in a friend of his being wounded by bird shot. Any injury by firearm is, by definition, serious, and the Vice President made the wrong choice when he neglected to inform the national press immediately. As Henry Kissinger once said, "What will come out eventually, must come out immediately," but that does not change the fact that nothing the Vice President could have done would have changed the mishap, nor the inevitable media excoriation.

In a New York Times article titled, "No End to Questions in Cheney Hunting Accident" it was reported that "The incident provided a wealth of material for Democrats, gun control activists and critics of the Bush administration, not to mention late night comedians." Apparently it escaped the attention of the self-proclaimed Newspaper of Record that those groups are all one in the same. John Dickerson, writing for the online magazine Slate reported, after poking fun at Texas, "Vice President Cheney shot a man in the head on Saturday, and 21 hours later you had to be looking at the web page of the Corpus Christi Caller Times to find out about it." Later in the article Dickerson ruminates, "When you nearly commit homicide as a public official shouldn't the honor of your office compel you to stand up and explain yourself in some fashion, at least say something in a press release and not just whisper it to a Texas rancher?" Evidently, monsieur Dickerson believes that offenses by public officials are to be judged by what the "honor of the office" demands. Lucky thing for President Clinton that Dickerson was not available to comment on his honor in office. There's also no escaping the fact that he is beside himself with glee that this occurred in the far away land of Texas. In neither of these things is he alone. No major outlet has missed the opportunity to zing the Vice President when reporting what happened.

In the county where the incident took place the Sheriff's Office released a statement that said, in part, "Sheriff Salinas was informed shortly after the incident by Secret Service Agents by phone due to incompatibility of radio equipment." So there was no attempt at a cover up, but rather a disregard for the always antagonistic press. The Kenedy County Sheriff's Office knew of the incident minutes after it happened, as did any number of staff at the hospital where Harry Whittington was flown for treatment. It seems then that the problem, as the press sees it, is not one of a cover up, but rather, as the venerable Washington Post put it, "Cheney waited 14 hours after the shooting to disclose it publicly." Therein lies the Vice President's true contravention: he neglected to inform the honorable members of the press in a fashion they deem timely.

Well, why should he? The major press sources have done nothing but ridicule the Vice President at every turn. Nothing has been off limits. Not even a major surgery escaped their scorn. More than one news source opined at the irony of a "heartless man" receiving cardiac care. His daughter's sexual orientation received scrutiny reserved only for those on the right. Can anyone imagine former President Clinton or Chelsea receiving this kind of attention? No, and that's why this story will not die. The story is not about the Vice President's mistake, nor his failure to issue a press release. The story is about the press feeling slighted. They hate the man, and the administration, and will not stop until their term has expired in 2008. All this from a supposedly impartial media.

In the opening paragraph of this article I stated that the Vice President erred by not disclosing the incident quicker, and I mean that. Not because I believe that wider, faster dissemination would have resulted in any sequence of events other than what happened. The press would have simply found something else about which to carp. The failure of the Vice President to purchase a $7.00 supplement to his hunting license has already been cited numerous times, in numerous places. No, it was a done deal the second the shotgun pellets hit Mr. Whittington. The reason Cheney should have had his office release a statement earlier is simply because that's what anyone of us should do when we screw up: own up to it. I am certain the Vice President is hurt more by the knowledge that he injured a friend, than by the jibes and barbs of a partisan press. He is many things, but thin-skinned is not one of them. He still should have owned up to it, and moved on to suffer his private penance. When this will all end I am uncertain, but one thing I do know: it is still much safer to hunt with Vice President Cheney, than it is to ride over bridges with Senator Kennedy.

The Behavior of Cartoons

Miscreants armed with the righteous wrath of Allah, that oh so peace-loving deity, burned the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus last week. This followed days of demonstrations where the flags of those countries were burned. Apparently one has to work oneself up to major acts of arson. In the event that you have been hiding under your bed for the last week the reason was thus: a series of political cartoons, printed last month in Denmark, depicted the Prophet Muhammad in a less than charitable light. Well, that is not quite accurate. Allegedly any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, or any other prophet for that matter, is blasphemous. We can, therefore, assume that it is only a matter of time before Rolling Stone's offices are burned due to Kanye West's recent cover appearance in the guise of Jesus Christ.

Now lest you begin to think that I am soon to be up in arms about Kanye, rest assured I care not. I am an avowed agnostic. No, what causes me angst is the disingenuous nature of the supposedly pious leaders of the Islamic faith. They complain bitterly of the defilement of the prophet's likeness, while turning a blind eye to the depiction of Jews, published all over the Middle East in ostensibly reputable journals, as cannibalistic blood-drinkers. Not one indignant voice was raised when the Bamiyan Buddhas were dynamited by that oh so pious group, the Taliban. No religious leader castigates Saudi Arabia for putting to death anyone who converts to a religion other than Islam. No fingers are wagged, in that inimitable Arab way, when women are forced to wear burkhas under penalty of death. Most tellingly, not one imam, mullah or self-appointed Islamic holy man stepped forward to publicly condemn the actions of 19 men who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Those actions were a direct response to a murderous call to kill infidels in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, and Islam was largely silent.

The cartoons, in case you could not actually see them, showed the prophet in various roles. One had his turban replaced by a fused bomb of the sort Natasha and Boris routinely threw at Bullwinkle. Another had his holiness in Heaven informing suicide bombers that he had temporarily run out of virgins. There were others, but you get the gist. The fact that these were political cartoons meant to stimulate dialogue, much like the Washington Post's depiction of a quad-amputee serviceman, was apparently lost on the Arab street. No, this was proof of the Western world's perfidy, righted only by profuse apologies from the heads of government, and changes in laws that would prevent future transgressions. Bridges from west to east, it seems, are in need of construction.

Why these bridges need to be constructed solely by the West remains a mystery. Apparently, Islam, having had the good fortune to arrive last amongst the world's major religions, has no room for improvement. Non-Arab women being forced to wear head coverings while in the Arab world, under penalty of assault, sexual and otherwise, is evidently what is meant by "Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace." Wild celebrations in Lebanon, Syria, and elsewhere on 9/12/01 were, I presume, nothing more than expressions of grief that the words of the prophet had been corrupted in such a detestable way. Yes, the poor, downtrodden adherents of a 6th century bloodthirsty, power-hungry brigand are doing nothing more than peacefully requesting their place at the world's table when they blow themselves up in Tel Aviv, while on a bus crowded with women and children.

Unfortunately, all too many will see these actions as just nothing more than the powerless using the only weapons at their disposal in order to call attention to their plight. We, as a nation, have already largely forgotten that all 19 hijackers on 9/11 shared a deep, abiding faith in a strict interpretation of the Qu'ran. We, as Americans, want to think that their actions were aberrations, not the actions or thoughts of the rank and file. We, desperately, want to believe that Islam is a noble religion of peace and tolerance. Actions speak louder than words though, and there have not even been words. Until the professed silent majority of the Muslim world rises up, shakes off the shackles of the murderous legions like Hamas, which was recently elected to office, and bin Laden, we can only conclude that either their silence is tacit complicity, or else they simply do not exist.

the beads

As we all know, it means the world to liberals that they not be offended. They cannot be called into question for making comments that, were they made by others, would be deemed racist, homophobic, misogynistic or downright crude. The reason for this is simple: liberals are all spirit and light. Anything they say has to be taken in the context of the wonderful things they have done for the downtrodden. It does not mean anything to them should they offend someone because, after all, anyone they offend deserves to be offended.

Well, I am offended. I am not, however, thin-skinned. So, when a member of the Pennsylvania state congress referred to his colleagues as "crackers," I was irritated, but not offended. When the Mayor of New Orleans promised that the city, in which I was born and raised, would once again, someday, be a "chocolate city" I was annoyed, but not offended. When anti-abortion protestors call me a "baby killer" and "racist bastard" and "Satan" as I volunteer my Saturday mornings to escort patients through their vitriolic phalanx, I am piqued, but not offended. I am offended, however, when liberal cartoonist Tom Toles uses a drawing of a wounded service member, sans arms and legs, to make his anti-war statement. I can only presume that is what is meant by "I support the troops, but not the mission."

Therein lies my offense. You cannot with good conscience support people who are doing something with which you disagree so strenuously. It is intellectually dishonest to say you do. I am not here to fight that particular battle though. If you do not support the war against Islamic facism, on whatever front, that is your right as an American. I support your dissent. I bled for it as a member of one of the most storied units in the United States Army. What I do not support is the reprehensible, foul use of the likeness of the wounded. Liberals have made great hay of the fact that President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are "draft dodgers" while John Kerry was a "war hero." Forget that he was a participant in a war in which they did not believe. Forget that the liberal messiah, former President Bill Clinton, was himself a "draft dodger." When President Clinton ran against a bona fide war hero, Bob Dole, there was no moratorium on casting aspersions on "war heroes." No, that particular caveat only came about when they finally had a veteran publicly support what they so cavalierly espouse.

The liberal left needs to be held accountable by all the rest of us. It is time that their hypocrisy be exposed. All those who profess to support the troops, while shouting about war crimes and lies need to admit what they have been thinking all along: the military is the problem. If the military would just go away, or, better yet, only be used as a response to natural disasters, the world would be a better place. If, while wearing your Birkenstocks and eating your granola, you truly believe that, stand up proudly and admit it. Of what are you afraid? Is it that all that noise about, "the majority of Americans support my position!" might be just that, noise. Are you afraid that people will turn against your point of view in droves once they see in what you truly believe? I, personally, have no qualms about revealing that I am a republican; a pro-choice, socially moderate, gay-rights fan, but a republican nonetheless. So, to all those liberals who hate the military, and everything for which it stands, stand up and simply say so, and quit picking on those who cannot, at present, defend themselves. The heroic combat wounded have given you the right to say any inane, disgraceful, ignoble thing that you can conjure up. Be honorable enough to recognize that truism, and leave them alone.

Who's Calling?

Usama Bin Laden is, by the best estimate, hiding in the region of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border known as Waziristan. The best estimate of American intelligence is, as we are all too well aware, not something on which we can bank unconditionally. Waziristan is a cold, rocky, barren region know for lawlessness and tribal rule. It has been inhospitable, both personally and physically, to outsiders for millennia. It is isolated, and Islamic. In other words, it is the perfect place for an Islamic sheik with millions, both on his head and in his pockets to hide. It is here that many believe Bin Laden is holed up in a cave, shaking his fist at the West, apparently reading books by miscreants, and plotting our demise through Islamic Jihad.

Waziristan cannot be taken by military force. Of that there is no disagreement. We cannot then, get at Bin Laden now. We must fight, and kill, his terrorist minions as they go about their murderous master's pursuits. Terrorists do not wear uniforms, and they announce their dissatisfaction with the way of the world via explosives, not government decrees. They alternately inhabit the sunlit expanses of the world, and the seedy, shadowy underbelly of criminal refuge. They are not, usually, as they seem. They walk among us plotting our violent demise. We must be able to eavesdrop on their conversations, casting ever widening nets if we are to catch them before they kill innocents. That is what has, as of late, been called into question by the leftist fringe. Specifically, the recently revealed NSA electronic eavesdropping program. "Intelligence agencies can't spy on citizens," they stammer, self-righteously; forget that we do not even know if citizens are involved. Quoting Ben Franklin they scream, "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither." A wonderful part of our history, to be sure, but a part that ignores 21st Century concerns. Simply put, if Al-Qaeda is calling someone in the United States it is crucial, inescapable, and obligatory that we know who they are calling, and why.

The same people who are currently decrying the electronic eavesdropping are the same one's who complain we have not found Bin Laden after four years. They ignore the fact that Eric Rudolph, the murderous right-wing fanatic, hid in North Carolina for five years, while every law enforcement agency in the U.S. searched fruitlessly for him. They want us to catch Bin Laden, but do not want us to do anything unseemly. Unseemly is what the NSA program is. Illegal it is not. The law so casually espoused was written in a different age, technologically speaking. That it needs to be addressed by Congress is not in doubt, that the program it seeks to cover should be stopped, is. We simply cannot move forward in this global war without every tool at our disposal.

Let me say that I do not believe the membership of the Democratic Party is unpatriotic. I believe that we, as a nation, are stronger for diversity and legitimate dissent. What we must not do though is allow ideological differences to prevent us from fighting a war against those who would destroy us specifically because of our freedom to dissent. I believe this war can be won, but only if we are united as a people. The Democratic Party must leave the lunatic fringe behind in the fight against the evil of Islamic Fundamentalism. If someone had been listening to overseas calls on 8/11/01, maybe, maybe, we could have prevented the attacks that occurred a month later. Balanced against the lives of 3,000 of our fellow Americans, isn't maybe enough?

Usama Speaks

It is a peculiar condition in the United States that when murderers speak in the media everyone is rapt with attention. No mass murderer conveys that notion better than Usama Bin Laden. After his latest vitriolic speech was released yesterday it seemed that everyone, from the postman to the girl behind the counter at the deli, had an opinion on what it meant. The substance of the speech could have been written by Michael Moore, MoveOn.org and the rest of the far left apologists here in the US, but the spirit was meant, I am sure, to warn us of an impending attack.

It is an historical maxim that Muslim warriors from Mohammed, to Salah-ah Din, to Bin Laden, have always offered these types of statements immediately before attacking. The statement sent to Constantinople right before its fall in 1453 mirrors Bin Laden's language. So, the offer of a truce is more than disingenuous, it is an established tactic of lies and deceit; a practice the Quran specifically allows when dealing with infidels. Funny how Bin Laden fails to mention that when he speaks of being, "a nation to which God has disallowed treachery and lying." Moreover, when Bin laden quotes polls in the US he is, in effect, talking to the far left, "Keep it up. Convince that thick-headed Bush to quit Iraq." This, too, has always been a tactic of the Muslim warrior. They believe in fanning the fires of dissent to tear apart confederations they could not otherwise dominate. That's exactly how they took parts of Europe in the 15th century; by fostering animus between the Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

I am certain the hand-wringing set of the fringe left will shortly take up the call to negotiate. "You see," they will say, "it's all our fault. He really wants peace." Well, his own words belie that notion in spirit, and deed. He leaves no doubt that he would consider it a win if we were to leave Iraq now. Bin Laden himself calls the war in Iraq, "a point of attraction and recruitment of qualified resources." Are we to believe that a pull-out now of American forces would send those resources back to the bazaars and date farms? He also mentions attacks that are currently in the planning stages here in the US. Would those resources pack up and leave if a truce was offered? If you did not have a reason to back the NSA program which was revealed to be tapping phone calls of foreigners here in the US, you should now. Some citizens may have had their phones tapped too, but only those calling persons of interest in other countries. Of course, reasonable discourse is impossible with those who believe that there is never, ever a reason to go to war. So, convincing them of this fact is not worth the air I would expend trying, but for those who truly understand that there is no way to negotiate with these monsters this speech should be the final piece of the puzzle. We cannot negotiate a truce with monsters. We must kill Bin Laden and his followers. Bin Laden is a murderer who, no matter what Michael Moore tells you, murdered 3,000 of my fellow Americans because they had the temerity to go to work on time one sunny Tuesday morning in September. Not that you should need a reason beyond that why we should not negotiate, but if you do, here it is: murderers do more than kill, they also lie.

the beads

I was planning to start this post by mentioning how difficult it has been lately for me to work up any outrage. The truth though, is that I have been inundated with outrage. The conduct of the honorable men of the US Senate during the Alito hearings nearly caused me to blow a vein. The self serving comments of John Murtha on 60 Minutes all but caused me to stroke out. Mayor Ray Nagin's racist, sanctimonious, rambling, Almighty-invoking statements almost caused the television to leave my apartment via the window. And those were just the highlights of the outrage that has caused me to recognize the general, appalling, illiteracy of the masses, and the propagation of the same by supposedly objective members of the press. Before any of you reading this consider dashing off a vitriolic diatribe know this: I am a Pro-Choice abortion clinic volunteer, US Army Infantry veteran who hails from New Orleans, so save the otherwise crayon written missives you feel are warranted for someone who does not have a vested interest in all the things mentioned.

I could dissect every one of the points I mentioned with calm, reasoned responses that would provoke dispassionate comments from those predisposed to such dialogue, but I know that no such animal exists any longer. 40% of people are wearing republican party jerseys, and anything not espoused by the party leaders is anathema to reason. 40% of people are wearing democrat party 100% hemp t-shirts, and anything not sanctioned by George Soros is, well, the byproduct of a maladjusted mind. That leaves 20% of us who have a foot in either camp, depending upon the issue. Well, dear friends that just does not make for any sort of genteel conduct.

A friend and I were teaching a combined class recently when he said something that perfectly encapsulates my thoughts on this subject. He related how, while watching one of the 345,912 episodes of Law and Order that are broadcast daily, one episode caught his attention in a profound way. The episode revolved around the death of a rather dour, mousy, high school teacher who apparently functioned as a dominatrix in her off hours. When one of the detectives questioned how these two things were even possible, a student of the victim responded candidly, "Hell, people ain't just one thing." That statement fuels my friend's teaching style, and, probably, his off hours too. Unfortunately too many people cannot, or will not, remember this, but prefer to get caught up in the rhetoric of whomever they currently fancy. Al Gore and Ted Kennedy rant about things they are personally complicate in, just not today, and DeLay and his boys circumvent the rules, albeit probably not illegally, to enrich themselves. Scooter Libby is indicted as a "leaker" and the NSA is revealed to be tapping phones by a "whistle-blower." I am personally just sick of it all. I am sick of the rhetoric and sick of the rank and file who popularize the demagoguery of the elected few. All I can say is, when I take over, things are going to change.

Baby's Blood, Sweat and Tears

My 15 month old daughter required a visit to the emergency room last night. She attempted to leap 3 feet from a kitchen chair to the kitchen table. She missed. In the split second my wife and I took our eyes off her, she fell to the floor with a resounding THUMP! This was followed immediately by high-pitched wails of pain and gushing fountains of blood, flowing over her lips, onto her, and me. I live less than three blocks from a hospital which bills itself as "One of the Nation's Best." So, wrapping my daughter in a blanket, with my wife in tow, I sprinted to the emergency room.

I would like to say that Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia, PA lives up to it's motto, but nothing could be further from the truth. As I entered the emergency room, bloody, with a bloody, swaddled baby in my arms I had to interrupt the person tasked with patient registration. A nurse directed me to the triage area, while my wife began the paperwork process. The triage nurse then took my daughter's pulse, while telling me, "She probably just bit her tongue. They tend to bleed a lot." I seethed. "Obviously she has a pulse. Check her out." After collecting the most perfunctory of information on her he sent me back to the waiting room. Ten to twelve agonizing, angst filled minutes later I approached the check-in desk. My bloody daughter and I once again interrupted a 'patient registration specialist,' this one reading a book, to question when my daughter would be seen. She visibly started at our appearance, and hastily retreated to find out her status. At this point I directed my attention to the other registration window where a uniformed security officer was surfing the web. Before I could utter a word he soundlessly slid the glass separating us closed, without once taking his eyes from the computer screen. Mercifully, for all involved, the door to the inner snactum opened and we were taken back to an exam room. You know the ones, hospital white walls, gurney, steel cabinet with medical supplies and the required "Biohazard" bin.

After some forty minutes of attempting to console a quietly sobbing, anxious baby, a nurse wandered by with two stickers, which she offered my daughter. At this point, nearly losing any semblance of composure, and with blood staining my shirt and hands, as well as boiling in my ears, I said, "I want a doctor in here now." She replied, "There aren't any available right now." Well, as I had just seen three MD emblazoned lab coats saunter by, I checked my Irish rage and said, "What about the three who just went to check their portfolios?" "Them. They're just interns." "Well Get One Of Them In Here To Do The Preliminary Exam. NOW." Seconds later a second nurse was plying my daughter with toys, and then, magically, an MD emblazoned lab coat materialized. She apologized for the absence of a "doctor" explaining that she was just a med student. She did, however, begin the first physical exam of my daughter some 80-90 minutes after I entered the hospital. Gritting my teeth I said, "Doc, I'm not upset with you per se, but this is unacceptable. I am furious that you would all leave a BABY to suffer. Unless there's a gunshot wound, or a heart attack there's no excuse for this delay, and there's no gunshot wound or heart attack. Since you are all educated people I know you can read. So my now bloody shirt probably hasn't escaped your notice." The shirt I was wearing was a, you guessed it, PENN medical tee. You see I am employed by the hospital system at another site.

Eventually, this well meaning intern, or med student, I do not remember which she identified herself as, got my daughter to suck on an ice-filled glove,while apologizing for the under staffing. Eventually, the attending did arrive, and after a slightly more than perfunctory exam she pronounced my daughter fit, albeit with a split tongue. Then, with no attempt to clean her off, we were told we could leave. A stop at the counter on the way out to ascertain the name of the offending security guard provided, no big surprise, responses of, "I don't know his name."

I should say that my calls to the hospital the next day were not all unpleasant. Three people, none of them doctors, were compassionate, empathetic and sincere in their apologies. From the medical staff I contacted, it was more of the same. Apathy and disdain apparently rule the day once you have gone to medical school. The mission statement of the executive director of the hospital, who was too busy to speak to me, states, "Another key area of focus is to ensure that all of our patients have a positive experience at our hospital." Well, those certainly are nice sentiments, but they are not backed up by practice. The next time I need a hospital, even though I work for the system, I will simply use the competition. After all, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital is only three blocks away.

Gay Cowboys

Brokeback Mountain is truly worth seeing. The hype is that the movie is about gay cowboys. While that may be technically true, it does not accurately define what the movie is about. The message of the movie is the oldest of messages, namely man's inhumanity to man; no pun intended. Ang Lee presents us with stunning visuals of endlessly blue skies and sweeping mountain vistas. He frames a nearly twenty year relationship within the confines of a small western town, and even smaller morals and values. It is an important movie specifically because it adds another dimension to everyday dialogue. It is important because it forces us to confront inhumanity, and decide exactly where we stand.

Unfortunately, the story is too thin to carry the assigned load. Otherwise poignant moments become, "ahh isn't that sad," as opposed to actual tear-jerkers. Mainly the problem seems to be a superficial approach to character development, which leads to an almost apathetic response to the character's plight. Better than average acting and dialogue, coupled with truly awe-inspiring visuals, isn't enough to move this movie from the good to great category. Sadly, it just falls short.

I am unabashedly liberal when it comes to gay matters. I have many gay friends, support gay marriage and gay rights, and hold a visceral hatred for gay bashing. None of which explains why it is important to see this movie. It is important because as a gay friend recently told me over dinner, "I don't feel safe holding *******'s hand walking down the street. I'm just afraid some thugs will pummel us for it." That anyone needs to have that particular worry in the U.S., in 2006, is just incomprehensible to me. That is why it is important to see this movie, and urge others to do likewise. Not because it furthers anybody's agenda, but because everybody deserves the right to hold hands in the sun.

Home for Christmas

Hurricane Katrina irrevocably altered my life. For most people in this part of the world the news footage of New Orleans after Katrina was an abstraction at best, and good television at worst. For me it was abject terror, and utter sorrow. Terror because for several days I had absolutely no idea where numerous members of my family were. My brother, two sisters, aunts and uncles, as well as their families, were all missing in action. Phone lines and cell towers were blown away, so for four stress ridden days I barely slept. I worried that one, or all of them, had perished. I scoured all the news channels hoping to see one, or more, of them, while dreading the possibility that I would. Add to this, the pictures of water flooding into my city unabated and you get the sorrow. It was if my entire youth was being washed away. Twenty-eight years of my life, from birth through college and beyond, were spent walking those streets. I loved, laughed, cried and despaired on the streets that just disappeared. My most cherished memories were swept away in the blink of an eye, and the reputation of the city I love above all others was tarnished forever.

I will not dwell on who was at fault for the catastrophe. There's more than enough blame to go around, but I will say I am sick of those who weren't there, telling me what happened. On the Thursday after the levees broke I finally heard from my brother. He had escaped to his in-laws in Mississippi. The next afternoon I loaded my wife and eleven month old daughter into my truck, which I packed to the gills with bottled water, diapers and baby food, and headed for the disaster zone. Twenty-two hard hours later I reached the edge of the wreckage, where I encountered the National Guard and the Red Cross. I gave them the supplies I had loaded, surveyed my world and then, with tears in my eyes, headed for my brother's sanctuary. By this point I had accounted for all the other family members. My sisters were also in Mississippi. My aunts and uncles were in Dallas. Seeing my brother and his family was relieving, but also strange. It had been five years since last we laid eyes on each other, and I am not really sure how long since last we spoke. There was no reason for this; no animus or schism. We had just gone different ways. I spent the better part of the week in West Point, Mississippi, population 1,500, give or take. We didn't really do anything. There wasn't anything to do, not really, and it was more about being close. They had nothing but what they had managed to squeeze into their vehicles before they ran from the storm. Their bank cards didn't even work because their bank had been washed away. To prevent fraud the cards were all cancelled, and new ones couldn't be mailed out. So, I hugged him and we both cried.

Fast forward to December 26th and I was standing at gate C-26 of the Philadelphia Airport. My brother, sister-in-law and 5 year old niece ran into my arms, and, once again, we cried. They spent three days living at my house. We ate out, visited New York, (where we paid our respects at Ground Zero, ice-skated in Central park, ransacked F.A.O. Schwartz, reveled in Times Square and oohed and ahhed at the Rockefeller Center Christmas tree), and finally, saw Philly via horse and carriage. This morning I dropped them off at the airport with tears in my eyes. In the end my family lost several houses, but all the people and pets were present and accounted for. They have all rebounded. Maybe not quite to where they were before Katrina, but they are all still striving. See, that's what I thought was washed away with the flood waters, but it's still there. As my niece walked into the airport she turned, ran back to me, and hugging me said, "Will you come and see us soon Uncle Chris? We can go eat beignets at Cafe du Monde." At that moment I was home for Christmas; home where Christmas means 68 degrees and outdoor seafood boils. So, once again, with tears in my eyes I said, "You just try and stop me." Too much time has been wasted worrying about my state of affairs, and I have new memories that need to be created. So, though there is much work to be done, it is time to do as the motto of New Orleans orders and laissez les bon temps rouler. That is the only thing that will ever bring the city I love back, and the only thing that will ever let me be truly home for Christmas.

the beads

"While it is good that there be a world full of peace, fraternity, justice and honesty, it is even more important that we be in it." That quote is from a letter written by David Ben-Gurion. At the time, Israel was a fledgling country fighting for its very existence. The surrounding Arab nations were aligning against Israel, with the stated intentions of pushing her citizens into the sea. Ben-Gurion was not advocating inhumanities, illegalities, or an absence of compassion, but rather that Israel must exist. Last week, the U.S. congress in two instances, and the press in one, proposed peace, fraternity, justice and honesty, with no regard for our well-being. The euphemistically named"torture bill," sponsored by Senator John McCain, sailed through congress, the Patriot Act was torpedoed, maybe indefinitely, and the The New York Times revealed the existence of a secret program conducted by the ultra-secret NSA. A program designed to catch those who would destroy us.

I recently met Senator McCain. He is witty, sincere and, I am sure, well meaning. What he is not, is an expert on terrorism. Being tortured does not make you an expert on terrorism, any more than having brain surgery makes you an neurosurgeon. Khalid Sheik Muhammad, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, reportedly broke after two and a half minutes of a technique known as water-boarding. Applied correctly, it works. While I am against using torture as a means of coercing confessions from drug dealers, or other reprobates here in the U.S., I have no such qualms with us using these techniques to garner intelligence from the people who murdered 3,000 of my fellow Americans on 9/11. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines cannot expect fair treatment from these animals, no matter what our official policy is. Why then should we hamstring our interrogators when torture is already against the law? This is nothing more than a concerted effort by defeatists to force us into a position from which we cannot fight, and McCain has been co-opted into the effort.

The Patriot Act, which has been shown to be effective in combating terrorism, was tabled. This when not one abuse by federal authorities has been reported. You can believe that The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times would have reported it ad nauseum had it occurred. What has happened is that a handful of local jurisdictions have used it inappropriately to prosecute drug dealers, and the like. In that instance, those jurisdictions should be dealt with harshly, and to the fullest extent of the law. Civil liberties have always been suspended during wartime, and quickly returned when the threat was vanquished. Lincoln did it during the Civil War and FDR, the hero of the Democratic party, did it during WWII. I am not suggesting we make the Patriot Act permanent. I applaud the "sunshine" clause. When the threat is removed so too should the Patriot Act be removed, but not before.

Finally, it was reported that the NSA, an agency so secret that its employees refer to it as No Such Agency or Nobody Says Anything, was revealed to have been tapping the phones of people in the U.S. who were talking to people with known ties to Al-Qaida. Multiple members of congress, both democrat and republican alike, as well as a judge specifically tasked with intelligence oversight knew of the program, had in fact, been consulted both before it began, and every six weeks thereafter. This fact though was curiously omitted from The Times report. No, it was reported as a secret move by the President. Curiously, it was released in time to coincide with the congressional vote on the Patriot Act, as well as the release of a book by a Times reporter. Personally, I do not care one bit what communication mode we tap when it comes to those who have publicly stated over and over again that their entire purpose for existing is our violent demise. Had this program been in effect in August of 2001 Muhammad Atta's calls could have been intercepted, and 9/11 averted. Ask the 9/11 victim's families if they would trade their loved ones lives for the perceived loss of civil liberties by those who are not citizens of this country.

On that clear Tuesday morning in September of 2001 we reacted as one in horror, and then with sadness and rage. We railed against those who had so cowardly attacked us. We were united in a way not seen since the dark days of World War II. We were prepared, as one people, to fight those who had bloodied us so reprehensibly. When we are thus aligned, no country, no organization, no concept even, can defeat us. Militarily we cannot be beaten, but we can lose. Here at home we can lose, and abroad be forced into retreat. The Islamists have repeatedly stated that first they will drive us from Iraq, then the Middle East. Then they will establish a caliphate, an Islamic theocracy that spans the Islamic world, before once again commencing attacks on Europe and us. World domination is their none-too-secret goal and it can only be achieved with our help. Honest critics of our actions are patriots, and have a place in the discussion, defeatists do not. That, is the only choice left.

Thank You America

I dyed my index finger a deep, purplish-blue yesterday. Why I did that will be evident to those of you reading this, but to the overwhelming majority of people I encountered yesterday it was foreign. Most asked how I hurt myself. I dyed my finger in recognition of the birth of democracy. Regardless of what you think about war in general, this war in particular and the hows and whys of our participation, yesterday was a momentous day in history. A new democracy joined the world's ranks. People stood up to be counted. Today's New York Times reported the statements of a 38 year old teacher, Emad Abdul Jabbar, "Before we had a dictator, and now we have freedom, this is democracy. This time, we have a real election, not just the sham elections we had under Saddam, and we Sunnis want to participate in the political process." Lest you think this was an aberration, his quotes were not alone. The very last paragraph quoted a Mr. Saleh, himself critical of the American troops, "they came as liberators, but stayed on as occupiers." When the reporter pressed others on the question of troop withdrawal, most seemed cautious, favoring a gradual drawdown. "Let's have stability, and then the Americans can go home," said Mr. Sattar, a shop owner. When he was told by the reporter that this sounded similar to President Bush's formula for troop withdrawal, he replied: "Then Bush said it correctly." An online video showed long lines of Sunnis literally braving death to vote. As the camera panned across one well-worn Iraqi he stood up a little straighter, put his hand over his heart and said, "Thank you America." Some have told me how cornball that moment is, but to me it perfectly encapsulates what yesterday was all about. Whatever you think about the war, yesterday's events were good and beneficial to us and them. On my lunch break I went to a lunch cart I am in the habit of patronizing. The owner and workers are Pakistanis. The newest worker noticed my dyed finger and, in broken English, with a large smile lighting his features said, "Is good democracy, yes?" Yes my friend. Is good democracy, is good.

Grin Like A Dog

"If you are not in this room, if you are outside those doors tonight, YOU DO NOT FUCKING EXIST!" That statement led off last night's ShineDown concert at the House of Blues in Atlantic City. The front man, Brent Smith, is a terribly brooding, angst-ridden kind of rock star. He also plays crazy a little bit too well. He waxes profoundly between each song on the ills of society. There are no macrocosmic events in Brent's life though. He remembers every slight ever committed against him, and wants nothing more than to get even. If this were purely spoken word it might wear thin, but the bands power chords and edgy, nearly dark lyrics provide the proper backdrop for the show. Think The Doors sans acid, plus bipolar disorder and a healthy dose of obsessive compulsive and you approximate ShineDown. 45 is their Black, with people yelling for it nearly before the band had taken the stage. The stage show has come a long way since I first saw them open for Default at the Stone Pony a couple years ago. Late '70s/ early '80s hard rock band light shows and loud, guitar riffs fill the space between the audience and the band in a way that makes the crowd's energy seem to propel the show. Most of the current song list is entertaining, even good, but without any true staying power. 45 though, has the power to be good twenty years from now, provided the band can manage to keep their synapsi from imploding. All in all, at $20 a ticket you cannot go wrong with a ShineDown performance. The last few times I have seen them Silvertide, of Northeast Philly, has been the preceding band. The boys from the Northeast are enjoying themselves being rock stars, which perfectly balances the "I'm so deep" aspect of ShineDown. Halestorm, a hard rocking band from York, PA, fronted by an ambitious female rocker, who growls and screams better than anybody I've heard lately but Chris Cornell, provided the opening salvo of the evening. After the show I approached Ms Hale and said, "You know my wife doesn't let me date, but when you screamed I fell in love." Leaning in, taking my hand in both hers she looked deeply into my eyes and said, "That's the sweetest thing anybody's ever said to me. I really appreciate that." The band needs a little polish, but get close to their lead singer and you'll be willing to see any bill their on.