Ahoy There.......Muawiya?

National Security is an important issue. Obviously. And in the aftermath of 9/11 border and internal security has become quite an issue. Given all of that, the proposal in this article is just outrageous. It appears that there are plans to turn over control of 6 of America's most important ports to Duabi Ports World, a United Arab Emirates company. That's right, the same U.A.E where much of the operational planning for the 9/11 attacks took place.

Wow, talk about a stupid decision. American Ports have already been declared as one of the most vulnerable and likely next targets for terrorism in the USA. But the Department of Treasury (which is what controls the committee that authorized this deal) clearly missed that memo. As the article points out, key security information about the ports will be given to these Emirations (assuming that's what they're called), which of course just makes all kinds of sense. For the terrorists.

I don't really need to add much to what is mentioned in the article other than the fact that this is an utter atrocity. All I can think of is that this is some sort of 'globalization' or 'outsourcing' deal gone terribly wrong.

Operation 'Back-To-The-Stone-Age'

It seems to me that the President of Iran gets loonier and loonier every day. Which, unfortunately, means the threat of Iran getting and, more importantly, using nukes grows as well. However, so as not to sound like another one of the crowd randomly shouting that 'Iran is a threat,' I thought I would distinguish myself with a few minor suggestions on how to actually deal with this threat without the use of a serious ground offensive.

To perform such an operation we need to have good relations with Jerusalem and that wonderfully sane place in the Middle East known as Israel. This, of course, isn't a problem: Israeli's are a bit more understanding of National Security matters than Europeans and even most Americans.

The key to any sort of offensive against Iran would have to center around strategic bombing: lots of strategic bombing. In other words, every site in Iran that is even thought to be even remotely related to nuclear production would have to be destroyed. Cruise Missiles, Patriot Missiles - whatever it takes. The launching of these Missiles would need to be done simultaneously from bases in Israel (assuming they have the long range capability), Navy Ships in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, and American Bases on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The strategic command base for this operation could be either on Naval Ships stationed in the Arabian Sea, the American Naval base at Bahrain, or the US Military Base in Incirlik, Turkey. (I'd recommend the second)

Furthermore, the operation would need to have three key elements. The First is secrecy. In order to be effective this operation would have to be launched suddenly, without warning, and without any sort of public approval. That means no UN. That means no debates in the media. That means no Congressional hearings. The reason is simple: we can't afford to hash this thing out in the court of public opinion for 8 months like we did with Iraq. Giving the Iranians a heads up means giving them time to prepare for the bombs and to protect their nuclear program.

The Second key component is that the strikes from Afghanistan and Iraq will need to be conducted with the added element of Air Force bombing. This Air-bombing would be an attempt to destroy other non-nuclear military facilities and cripple any potential counter-strike measures from Iran. The use of Stealth Bombers etc. would obviously be crucial in this regard. Furthermore, it would be an added bonus if, say, one of the Air Force's bombs were to fall on the Presidential House in Tehran and perhaps kill the maniac in charge of that country.

The Third element, which has been alluded to, is the utter need for an overwhelming, unexpected, preemptive strike. The attack would need to happen so fast and with so much force that the Iranian nuclear program would be utterly crippled before Tehran ever knew what was going on. No half-assed attempts at 'limited bombing' or at 'avoiding civilian casualties.' If you're going to bomb it; take it out. (Think George Patton style)

In the aftermath of such an attack, it would need to be made clear to Iran that we would not hesitate to bomb again, were they to re-start the program. Perhaps we might even try to hint at a potential nuclear attack. (And no, we wouldn't actually have to use an H-bomb, but immediately after a massive bombardment it would hardly be an empty threat.) While bombardment probably won't make Iran completely sane, it would, at the very least, set them back over 20 years in their long desired attempt to attack Israel or America.

So in a nutshell: A preemptive, secret overpowering strike, coupled with Arial bombing would seem to be a logical way to destroy Iranian nuclear capacity. However, in the aftermath of such an attack, we should remember that they are hardly likely to turn a complete 180 in policy and thus, we should still maintain a hard-line stance. It's not much, since I obviously am no military expert, but that to me appears to be a solid starting point for dealing with Iran.

The Cartoon Prophet

Recently, as you must know, a Danish newspaper has come under fire for drawing cartoons of Islam's most sacred prophet: Muhammad. These cartoons depict Muhammad and his religion as violent and evil. One has Muhammad with a bomb for a turban, another suggests that Muhammad's religion has managed to suppress women, and another shows Muhammad at the gates of heaven telling Muslims to stop dying in jihad because he has "run out of virgins."

In the view of the Muslim world, these cartoons are blasphemous, and present an erroneous picture of their prophet and their religion. This distant observer finds that concerning Muhammad these cartoons are perhaps incorrect. In these cartoons we are not able to see the thousands of victims that Muhammad murdered in order to 'peacefully' spread his religion. We are not able to see the Arabian gangsters that Muhammad had to persuade to join his cause in order to create an army with which to conquer Arabia. We are not able to see the hundreds of women that Muhammad and his closest followers raped, nor are we able to see the excessive 'toleration' that Muhammad showed to Arabian Jews by killing or evicting every last one from Medina, Mecca, and elsewhere.

As for the mischaracterization of Islam; in response to these cartoons that suggest Islam is a violent religion instead of a peaceful one, the pacifist, honorable followers of the Religion of Peace have done the following in an attempt to prove their point:

- Burned the Danish Embassy in Damascus
- Hurled Stones at a European Commission building
- Smashed windows and doors while storming a German Cultural Center
- 'Peacefully' called for the execution of those who both drew and published the cartoons
(these are cartoons, mind you)
- Thrown rocks and glass bottles at Danish police
- Burned Danish and German flags
- Burned the Norwegian Embassy in Damascus
- Arrested Jordanian Newspaper editors who published the cartoons (One has been fired, already)
(Once again, these are cartoons we're talking about)
- Accidentally torched the Swedish and Chilean embassies in Damascus (they were in the same building as the Danish, and thus just kindda got burned with it)
- Attempted to storm (and presumably burn) the French Embassy (but were stopped by Police)
- And, of course, blame it all on the Jews

*Note* The blogger feels that no special analysis is need for this last part. If, after reading the last paragraph and the ensuing bullets of information, you have not been able to detect the irony and determine the obvious conclusion, the blogger recommends locating the nearest copy of 'Sherlock Holmes' and reading it, in order to get a crash course in deductive reasoning

"In God Is Our Trust"

You're probably expecting this blog to be my take on the President's State of the Union Address last night, unfortunately, it's not. I didn't even watch it (I was watching My Deacs lose another ACC game.....). However, I found out something new today that I thought was rather interesting.
As you all (should) know, our National Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, was written by Francis Scott Key during the War of 1812. It became the offical Anthem under Herbert Hoover. Contrarily, what you may not know is that nowadays, we only sing the first verse, and omit the last 3. If you wish to see all 3 verses you can check out this link here. I will however, reprint the 4th verse here, as I find it to be of extreme interest:

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Bles't with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Well that's quite a verse for everyone from James Madison to Herbert Hoover to be getting excited about isn't it? All that stuff about God, and all those references to Christian ideas. Geez, can you imagine what toady's liberals, who insist on omitting prayer, the Christian religion, and the J-word (Jesus for those of you in the dark) from public schools, would think if we sung that "In God is our trust" line every time we sang the National Anthem? Ted Kennedy's head would explode just listening to it!

As you can tell, here we have further proof that this is a Nation founded in Christian principles. They want us to omit 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance, yet "In God is our trust" is part of the official National Anthem of our country. And this reference has been around since the Madison administration. Yet no one complained about it or held protests about this 'religious' reference, even the 'Father of the Constitution' seemed to give it his stamp of approval!

Furthermore, when it was adopted in 1931 as the official Anthem, there weren't complaints about how our new Anthem had Christian overtones. In fact, the reason it was adopted was because it had been continually gaining in popularity ever since it had first been performed. So, if all these Americans, from all these different eras, took so fondly to this obviously religious song that they adopted it as the National Anthem, why are we constantly told to ban Christianity from public places?

This Nation was founded on Christian principles, and it was hoped that future generations of Americans would follow these same ideals. That's why we don't need 'Under God' removed from the Pledge, or (non-Muslim) prayer banned in public schools, or 'In God We Trust' taken off our money or out of the National Anthem. The Founding Fathers intended for the United States to be one nation under God, complete with a people steeped in Judeo-Christian values.

To be perfectly honest, these atheistic lefties had better stop thier assult on this Nation's 'God' references or we might not have any patriotic songs left. The Star-Spangled Banner, Battle Hymn of the Republic, The Halls of Montezuma, My Country Tis of Thee, The Army Goes Rolling On........wow, every American song I can think of has some reference to God in it! Interestingly, this phenomenon of Heavenly overtones in National Anthems is not unique to the United States. For example, the Canadians ask God to keep their 'land glorious and free,' The Italians ask to have 'The way of the Lord' revealed to them, hell, the British have been asking God to 'Save the Queen' for centuries.

It is my most sincere hope that, to put a spin on a line from the Battle Hymn of the Republic, despite these atheistic liberals, in America, 'God Keeps Marching On.'

Words to Consider....

As I was doing some reading today, I encountered the following prayer. It was written by Sir William Stephenson, a Canadian who worked for British Intelligence here in the US. It is thought to have been carried around by Elanor Roosevelt in her purse during the War. It goes like this:

Dear Lord,
Lest I continue my complacent way
Help me to remember, somewhere out there,
A man died for me today.
As long as there be war
I then must ask and answer:
Am I worth dying for?

As soon as I read it, I was reminded of the line from the end of Saving Private Ryan: "Earn this." In any case, remember this prayer not only when you think of the War today, but when you think of World War II as well.

Just something to ponder as you go about your day.

The Great Beacon of Academia: Postmodernism

As you can perhaps tell by the title, I have once again had the great pleasure of running into one of the great fallacies of modern liberalism: the philosophy of postmodernism. This idea flourishes on college campuses due mainly to the fact that a college campus is one of the few places were a group of people can be far enough removed from reality, for an extended period of time, to not see the absurdity inherent with it.

Many people buy into this idea believing that it represents honest questioning and research; i.e that we are trying to truly evaluate and understand both sides and be as reasonable as possible. Unfortunately, the true problem with this philosophy lies in the fact that, in an attempt to refrain from 'bias' or 'prejudice,' it omits judging and opinion-forming altogether. Furthermore, it also comes with the inevitable invoking of multiculturalism, and the standard lines that 'we don't really know right and wrong,' or that there are 'several' truths.

Today, I encountered it in history class where the discussion concerned various philosophies of and teaching methods of history. The postmodern idea of history contends that we can never 'know' historical truth because our viewpoint from the present is so diluted. Many in the class, indeed, gave responses that sounded like they were taken directly from Michael Moore or someone of the like. I even heard the contention that there probably were multiple historical truths.

So apparently, when I say that "on July 4th, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed" I'm not stating a historical truth. What? Was it signed again on the 8th? I mean come on, of course there's only one historical truth, a day or a moment only happens once, so two different things aren't happening at once. The founders didn't sign and not sign the Declaration on July 4th. They couldn't. Not unless they had a secret, evil time machine to go back and live through the day twice.

Look, I'm not saying it's not a good thing to look at evidence, and study an issue from all sides, walk a mile in someone else's shoes, if you will, but that doesn’t mean when you've walked that mile that you can't say their road just sucks. Making judgments is a good and necessary thing to do. That is where postmodernism falls apart in the real world. You can't just walk around saying I think that's wrong but that's just my opinion. What if, for instance, in my culture it's 'right' to pull out a shotgun and shoot postmodernists? Under those circumstances a postmodernist has no moral argument to prevent me from killing them. In fact, if they allowed themselves to live, based on their rules, they would be demonstrating 'intolerance' of my culture. The bottom line, however, is that if my culture pulls shotguns on postmodernists for no reason; my culture is just plain wrong.

Of course, as far as a history class is concerned, postmodernism is directly aimed at the old 'Eurocentric' model of teaching history. You know, the one where we teach kids American History and focus on the Western World. Postmodernists dislike this because it makes a judgment, a judgment that western culture is, by and large, better and superior to everyone else's. And that is, by and large, a true assessment. It was the Greeks, Romans and then Americans who first adopted this idea of a 'Republic'. It was out of the Enlightenment that we got this concept of 'unalienable' human rights. Heck, it was America that really began the total elimination of slavery. These, and many more, are the reasons why we teach from this perspective; because in the real world, it makes more sense for Americans to know a bit more about the history of Republicanism (in case they ever decide to vote) than of African tribal cultures.

Certainly, we should include lessons about the rest of the world, perhaps a mandatory 'World History' class would be a good idea, but let's not forget to emphasize Eurocentricity. We should not be afraid to draw the conclusion that Eurocentric values, traditions, etc are not just better, but right. After all, that's why we've stuck with them for so long and, interestingly enough, why the postmodernists, or the postmodernist's ancestors, came here in the first place.

The French Come To Iraq!

*Sigh* It seems that us Conservatives can no longer make fun of the French Army. After 2 strong years of holding out, they have finally decided to come support the War in Iraq, and display to the world the true might of their Armed Forces. In fact, you can see live video footage of their landings on Iraqi beaches HERE!

The N.A.I.S?

Yesterday, I was shown a rather interesting article; it seems that the animal rights activists are up to their old tricks again. Unbeknownst to me, and probably most people, many months ago the US Department of Agriculture instituted a National Animal Identification System (NAIS). At this point, the system is voluntary, but you can bet the goal is to make it mandatory in the future. The basics of the system are simple: you, as an animal owner, register your pet, farm animal etc, and then the governemnt can monitor the health of the animals, any potential diseases they carry, the breeding of the animals, do 'recordkeeping' on the animals, and probably some other things as well.

The main point of this is to help monitor diseases spread by animals here in the US (or at least that seems to be the main selling point). Of course, this hardly makes any sense because first of all the logistics of managing a system that can monitor all of the livestock in this country are mind-boggling and would render the system extremely inefficient; and second because the system does not deal with wild animals, which are, in fact, more deadly to humans.

Furthermore, the system is a complete waste of money (14.5 million was granted last summer), and a completely needless invasion of privacy. That the governemnt should be able to keep tabs on my dog or a farmer's chickens makes no sense. I mean, imagine the hassle that it would take for a farmer to have to throw in a bunch of NAIS paperwork, in order that the government might know every detail about his cattle.

Indeed, a better question would seem to be why the government would really want to keep tabs on these sorts of things, especially since the 'disease' reason makes no sense. Now, this is purely speculation, but I'm guessing it might be the desires of animal rights activists to have a legal 'gottcha' available. Imagine, if this NAIS gets passed into law, PETA can now go to a farm and instead of just yelling like idiots at how 'mean' the farmer is being to the cows, they can prosecute him under the new laws that will complement this system. So basically, this could be a way to get stricter animal cruelty laws on the books under the guise of something else.

*******Update*******

For anyone interested in finding out more about the fallacy of the NAIS, or in trying to stop the program, please check out Walter Jeffries' site: noNAIS.org

An Iranian Nutjob

Iran's new President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, really is off-the-charts insane. Just to give you an idea, so far, although at this point he is still only the President-elect, he has described the Holocaust as a "myth," threatened to "[wipe Israel] off the map", decided that the state of Israel should be in Europe not the Middle East, and, most recently, openly hoped that the "criminal" Ariel Sharon will "[join] his ancestors" (a.k.a die) as a result of his illness.

Honestly, this guy must really have mental health issues. But that aside, he is also incredibly dangerous. He leads a Nation that is developing nuclear weapons, and that has some 68 million people, many of whom are either gullible or stupid (or maybe both) enough to believe and agree with each of the above quotations.

Interestingly enough, the potentially dangerous nature of the latest President of Iran, makes our our work in Iraq all the more important. The presence of a stable Republic of Iraq will make negotiating with Iran easier. One way that Iraq's rise will help us with Iran is simply by voiding the need for Iranian oil. The combination of Saudi Arabia and a stable Iraq in the Middle East will make it easy for us to simply place an embargo on Iran, which could be deadly to their economy. Additionally, having another steadying presence in the Middle East besides just Israel will facilitate economic, political and other operations in the region; a tremendous benefit when trying to deal with Rogue States, such as Iran.

The problem of course is the fact that Iran seems to be fairly close to building a nuclear weapon. The question then becomes, what would they do with a nuke? Well, since they are developing a nuclear weapon and not an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, hitting the US, Japan, or continental Europe won't be possible. That, of course, leaves the Middle East and the tiny little Nation that Iran feels should be "wiped off the map": Israel. Just one small problem, Israel also has the bomb (more than one bomb, I might add), and they are certainly not afraid to use them if Iran presses the right buttons.

So, am I saying that a nuclear war resulting (most likely) in the destruction of Iran will occur within 15 years? No. Or at least I hope not. But this complete moron who is now President in Iran is all the more reason to quickly move the Iranian issue into our playing field. The EU has tried and failed, and they will gladly continue to try and fail (over and over again), unless the United States steps in. Does this mean troops? Extremely unlikely (and not very plausible at this point), although threatening to use them might be the place for Bush to start.

The question of what to do with Iran, as you can perhaps tell from this post, is at the very least a murky one, but it is one of great concern. It needs to be addressed not only for our own sake but for the sake of our Middle Eastern ally Israel, and for the sake of the newly emerging Iraq.

Spying at the NSA

Obviously, I'm a few days late on this topic but I still felt like writing a bit about Bush's newly discovered spying techniques. Let me start out by saying that I don't mind NSA spying on certain people's phone calls. Suspicious Americans, a.k.a Muslims and/or those with Middle Eastern connections, deserve to be watched and monitered, especially in this post-9/11 world.

The President has every right to do this, as it is in the interest of National Security and helping to protect American Citizens. You might say, but 'what if the President is snooping in on your phone calls and listening to your conversations. How would you feel about that?' Well the honest answer is if he was listening to ordinary Americans phone calls there would be cause for worry, but I seriously doubt he is, and allow me to tell you why. First, this was done as a National Security measure, and while your local airport baggage screener can't tell a terror suspect from Grandma, you can bet the NSA can. Second, the NSA doesn't have a limitless supply of cash, and it would hardly make sense for them to waste thier money listening to the phone conversations of an 18 year-old white dude, who doesn't even own a gun.

And finally, if they really are listening in on ordinary Americans phone calls, well, I would have to laugh. It would be a classic example of the inefficency of Governmental Beaurocracy. C'mon, think about some super smart government guy at NSA. He probably has an advanced degree from some Ivy League school, has access to all kinds of top secret material, can do things with technology that most people can't even dream of, and he's listening to you talk with your friend about last nights dinner or what not. (Or perhaps it's two 13 year-old girls discussing the latest gossip.) I mean really. What exactly would they be trying to accomplish?? Hopefully, you can see the downright absurdity of that picture.

Now, it might be possible that you just don't see the absurdity in that last little bit. Maybe you're thinking hard, and your comparing this spying to what Nixon did back during his Presidency to his political enemies. Okay, I'll play along. First, let me note that Bush is nowhere near the paranoid wreck that Nixon was. Further, if Bush was using this to hurt his enemies, why do so many people hate his guts now? If the current image of Bush is the one he got from blackmailing political enemies, then, wow, the people at NSA really suck at their jobs. Additionally, Bush has no motive to eliminate political enemies anymore, because he can't be re-elected. So let's dismiss the foolish Nixon comparisons.

In the end there is absolutely nothing wrong with spying on and discriminating against, known and perceived threats to National Security, even if the threats are American citizens. In fact, preventing these people from doing what they want to do (harm America and some of it's citizens) is part of W's job as President.

The Eye of the Media

As I briefly mentioned in my last post, the role of the media in warfare has changed dramatically with the advances of technology. Media outlets such as CNN and FOX are able to report on the spot, without delay. In 2003 we were able to watch live pictures of Baghdad being bombed. From the First Gulf War to the conflict in Kosovo, all military movements in the 1990's were closely monitored by the mainstream media and, as the decade progressed, cable news. Perhaps most importantly, the media is able to bring us up-close and personal with the suffering that war entails. Specifically that felt by civilians, soldiers and their families.

The value of this coverage, however, is another story. Does it do us, as a Nation at war, any good to hear about all of these things so personally and so soon? In her book Statecraft, Margaret Thatcher notes that "by dramatising even more the grieving of the families of servicemen who are lost, [the media undermine] national resolve to fight and risk casualties." And I couldn't agree more.

In the past, part of what made Nations or peoples willing to fight and support wars was the fact that they were rarely confronted with the true tragedies of the war. Sure, you might have to drive your car less, or conserve more food, but the actual suffering never hit home unless you were one of the few who knew someone that died. On top of that, the Government usually did a pretty good job of propagandizing its citizens, or at least keeping them up to date with the good news. And this was for good reason. Most people just don't have the stomach to witness a war up-close and personal, the way the modern media likes to give it to them.

Most people have a sort of 'pity complex' built in to them that prevents them from pursuing the ultimate objective when they find death in the way. They want to find a way to come up with a 'safer plan,' or one 'that will cost fewer lives.' The only problem is that in war, time is blood. Or, as George Patton once put it, "A good plan implemented now, is better than a perfect plan implemented next week." Most politicians, and any good General, understand this; the majority of the public usually doesn't.

For example, D-Day in World War II came at an immense cost of life, but no one would be foolish enough to deny its importance. Conservatives often joke about how the modern media would portray the D-Day invasion - with a sensationalized importance on the cost of life, and only a passing mention of the grand achievements of that day. However, underlying the sarcasm of that remark is a hard truth. And that is simply that the modern media gives the public too much of the bad, and not enough of the good. The modern media hurts war efforts. The exposure that people get to a War nowadays, is simply too much for them to handle.

Now, this is not to say that human life is trivial and unimportant. Please don't try use that naive argument, I understand the 'cost of war.' The thing is, that in trying to find the most efficient outcome, with, interestingly enough, the lowest cost of human life in the long run, moves have to be made that don't usually set well in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, any modern war, thanks to the media, will have most of these moves put out in the open. As such, fighting a war in modern times, and maintaining support for that war, will be much, much more difficult.

The Passing of Time

As this 64th Anniversary of Pearl Harbor comes to a close, I reflect on the passing of time. As the soldiers from one War in a bygone era die off, those of a new era, and a new War, come of age. Such, unfortunately, is the state of the World. And as we face enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan today, I am compelled to examine the similarities and differences between this War and the War that embroiled the globe just over 60 years ago.

Both Wars began in the same way, with devastating, unexpected attacks on our own soil. In both cases the enemy who directly attacked us, in a way, played 'second fiddle' to another enemy. In World War II, Roosevelt felt it equally as important to pursue the Nazi's, who had never actually attacked us, in the same way Bush has become equally as focused on Iraq as he has on Afghanistan. Both leaders had good, justifiable reasons to include these other nations into the scope of their respective War.

In both cases the non-attacker who was pursued was a mass-murdering dictator. Both were fascists. Hitler, however, did his murder on a much grander scale and in a much more methodical way than Saddam, although both used religion as a means of determining their victims.

Then, as now, and perhaps always, Americans found an ally 'across the pond' in England. Of course, she no longer controls a quarter of the world's territory, yet, England still answers the call by sending Her Majesty's Soldiers. Unfortunately, no matter how highly you regard Tony Blair, he is no Churchill; and in the same way, Bush has not the leadership talents of Roosevelt.

In modern times, liberals decry the Bush relationship with Saudi Arabia, yet in World War II we allied ourselves with the most ruthless man of all time: Joseph Stalin. In the same way the alliance with the USSR was necessary to defeat Hitler, the help of the Saudi's will be required for success in the Middle East. Once again, both are justifiable actions. On a different note, let us hope that the way we ignored the Soviet threat in the aftermath of World War II will not resemble our future policy towards Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran.

Both FDR and Bush racked up massive wartime debts and, as a result of the Military spending, both had amazing Economic production and results. As awful as it may seem, War is good for the economy, and that's the bottom line. In fact, the lowest unemployment rate in our Nation's history was in 1942-3: a staggering less-than 1%.

In the aftermath of 9/11 the hatred of Muslims much resembled the distrust of Japanese-Americans in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Of course, the Muslims of today had it far easier, as all they have to endure are scowls and a few extra minutes in the airport security line. This, in stark contrast to the Japanese internment camps of the early 1940's.

Nonetheless, we find the media, and its role, has changed much since the Second World War. The cries to be accepting of Muslim's are a far cry from the cartoon-like ridicules of Hirohito and Tojo that were seen in World War II era newspapers. The footage of the War presented to Americans in World War II consisted mainly of the newsreels shown in movie theaters, nowadays CNN is live in Baghdad before our own troops even get there.

After Pearl Harbor Americans were united as never before. However, within weeks of Bush declaring War on Afghanistan, the protesters had hit the streets demanding that action against the Taliban be halted. And then came Iraq, and the children of the protest-happy Vietnam era reared their collective, ugly head.

President Bush could not ever dream of using propaganda for the War today, but "I Want You" is one of the most enduring images from World War II. The debacle of the United Nations, was, thankfully, not present to hinder and disturb FDR, yet it has manifested itself in all kinds of ways in the War on Terror.

Prior to Pearl Harbor our reason for remaining peaceful was isolationism; pre-9/11, a combination of our collective ignorance and the look-the-other-way strategy of the Clinton Administration caused us to ignore that which we now fight.

Perhaps, the most obvious difference lies with the fighting styles. The Greatest Generation combated the Armies of Nation's; the soldiers of today are fighting guerillas who appear in a variety of outfits.

The passing of time changes many things, yet one thing remains constant, the evil we see in the World. Yes, evil, that's the right word. Conservatives usually catch a lot of crap for saying that word, but that's okay. The other thing that seems to remain constant is that American Soldiers are the ones fighting that evil. Whether you agree or disagree with the War in Iraq, one thing must be admitted: the spirit of the American G.I remains unchanged by time. He still selflessly fights for good and truth, with courage and strength, just as he did in World War II.

December 7th, 2005 has now faded to December 8th and my reflection has come to an end. However, in honor of those who perished on that Date of Infamy, I leave with this quote from Ronald Reagan:

"We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free."

Is Discrimination Against Christians Ok?

As you've probably seen on the news, there has been quite a lot of nitpicking about religion during this annual Christmas Season. The scenarios have included everything from Rep. Hastert renaming Capitol Hill's 'Holiday Tree' a Christmas Tree, to the ACLU threatening lawsuits against schools that have Christmas Carols as a part of their 'holiday' performances. If you haven't seen the pattern yet, allow me to state the obvious. It all involves discrimination against Christians.

Yes, that's right, all over the United States it is now Politically Incorrect to be a Christian on public property. You can't set up a Christmas tree, or a Manger scene, and God forbid you say the C-word (Christ). Of course, the problem here is the double standard. The ACLU is suing the same schools for inappropriate uses of 'Christmas' that it sued for not allowing Muslims a special place for prayer during Ramadan. And oddly enough, no one seems to mind it when Jews discuss Hanukah. But please, don't ever even mention 'Joy to the World'.

The worst thing about this is that these anti-Christians don't see the double standard that they have. They don't think of it as discrimination. Although it most certainly is. It's perfectly fine for anyone to criticize religion in schools: as long as it's Christianity that they're criticizing. However, once we cross that PC line and start discussing Judaism or Islam or any other religion, the multiculturalists come swooping down; 'Don't discriminate', 'It's just their culture', 'You have to respect their religion', and the list, of course, goes on. These are the same people who, despite not believing in a universal right and wrong or truth, find some way to make the claim that having a Christmas float in the town 'holiday' parade is 'wrong'.

When are we going to stop pretending we don't know the roots of our country? When is someone finally going to say that toleration specifically for Muslims just won't cut it? So far this month, the Christian populace in this country has shown signs that it will at least put up a fight; and that's good. The Christian establishment in this country has stood by and watched as one of its 2 most important holidays has taken a theoretical beating from the media and the multiculturalists. Hopefully, we can find a way to put a stop the blatant and unnecesary discrimination against Christmas.

A Good Old-Fashion..... Hindu Christmas?

Just yesterday, I attended the University's 'Lighting of the Quad' ceremony, where students gathered to celebrate the 'spirit of the season' and light up a tall fir tree with ornaments on it (certainly not a Christmas tree though). In the middle of the whole ceremony, amidst all the hymns about some strange 'Messiah' person, a senior female student got up and spoke about how she loved the 'spirit of the season' and the 'time of year'. Only problem was, she practiced the hajik religion or something or other; I couldn't even make out what she called her religion, much less tell you what it entailed. But that made me wonder, why was she there? If she loves the discounts and excessive shopping, well that may work for her, but that’s not exactly the 'spirit of the season'.

Unfortunately for this girl, and all the other agnostics, atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews present, the 'Spirit of the Season' pertains to something very specific. Something this, admittedly, non-Christian student couldn't quite put her finger on. Oh, there was a lot of talk about the 'feeling of peace' and the 'unity of mankind' that all these non-Christians feel, but no one seemed to wonder where all those feelings came from. The answer, of course, is extraordinarily simple: Jesus Christ. That's right, the 'Spirit of the Season' is all about celebrating the fact that God loved us enough to send his only Son, to save all mankind. That's powerful stuff, in fact, that’s powerful enough to induce all of those feelings of 'unity' and 'brotherhood' that everyone at the Lighting Ceremony was talking so much about.

But this brought me to a new question, the thing that was truly bugging me as I stood there and listened to this student drone on, how can non-Christians celebrate Christmas? The whole reason we have the 'Season' in the first place is because of traditions that started under the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope hundreds of years ago. And the reason that we have the Season and all these traditions, reasons non-Christians can never explain very precisely, is because of a baby that was born a little over 2,000 years ago.

If you want to celebrate Kwanza or Haunakah, that’s fine, but c'mon. When you have a Christmas tree, or are singing Christmas Carols, or are discussing Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men (hmmmm, I wonder where we got those quotes from....), its not the 'Holiday Season', it's Christmas! So please, spare me your phrases about good spirit and such, I’ve heard (read) them all before, in the New Testament. And please, if you don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the One true Son of God who came to save our sins, stop celebrating Christmas!! It's not your holiday! By not being Christian, you have admitted you don’t believe in Christmas!

So for all the Hindus, Pagans etc. out there, enjoy the time off from school or work, and have a happy New Year, but please, stop wishing me 'Happy Holidays'.

Fireside Chats on Iraq? Why Not?

Senator John Warner recently made a very interesting suggestion. He wants President Bush to give the American public frequent updates about how the War in Iraq is going; as he noted this would be very similar to FDR's 'fireside chats' during World War II. But would this really be a good idea? The honest answer is yes. What does the President have to lose?

It seems that people want to hear what he has to say, or at least need to, since they are begining to become more unsure and unsupportive of the War by the day. Furthermore, it would provide an antidote to all the biased mainstream media coverage in Iraq these days. Instead of stories focusing on the bad, Bush would be able to focus on the positive, and give the American Public a new perspective on the War that they don't get from CBS. In fact, a 'fireside chat' type deal would play to Bush's strengths by enabling him to be more personable and casual with ordinary folks. Indeed, the perception of Bush as the 'average guy' has always proved to be an advantage for him, and this would be a great opportunity to play that card.

Part of what FDR was so good at during his Presidency was creating the right P.R image, a task at which the Bush administration has failed miserably this past year. 'Chatting' with the electorate about what is going on in Iraq would be a great opportunity to re-create the image. And quite honestly, how could it possibly hurt the President? The media can't spin the War any worse than they already have, his support for the War won't diminish any farther, and his P.R image can't really get much worse.

George Patton once said that success is a measure of how high you bounce when you hit the bottom. Mr President, you've hit the bottom, and maybe this 'chat' idea will get the bounce going.