“No King” But Plenty of Fools? Civil Disobedience Then and Now

 

Growing up in the 1960’s and 70’s, I remember watching major historical social events such as Hispanic civil rights activist and labor leader Cesar Chavez leading his migrant field worker’s  on a “1000 Mile March” (or "Peregrination") from the farm fields of Southern California up along the coast educating farm laborers about their newly won rights, including the right to organize.

Then there was no looting or defacement of the Lincoln and Washington monuments. No one peed in the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool while listening to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr’s stirring “I have a Dream” speech (aka “March for Jobs and Freedom" speech, 1963).  

There were the famous protests for civil rights led by likes of Rev. King,  A. Phillip Randolph, Rev. Ralph Abernathy, such as the Montgomery Bus Protest (1965/66), the Birmingham campaign (1963), the Selma march (1965), or the Chicago Peace March (1967) or the March against the Vietnam War (1967). Then there was the “Poor Peoples Campaign in 1968 which was aimed at alleviating the economic poor and improving housing for all races, but where was the violence? There wasn't any.

 Chavez, King, Abernathy, and all the others never intentionally blocked traffic. They never looted or defaced property. They didn’t try and keep people from going to their jobs to earn money in order to put food on their table or keep a roof over their head. They didn’t try to keep ambulances from helping individuals in crisis.

No one blocked the fire department from trying to save someone’s home and their possessions, not to mention their lives? They didn’t loot, commit arson, deface public and private property, throw trash cans everywhere or set bonfires in the middle of road? None of that happened? They didn’t intentionally assault anyone? They didn’t even spit on anybody or scream in their ear? Once again, the answer is no. Leaders repeatedly reminded their followers to avoid violence at all costs. They were also encouraged to respect people’s personal space.

Vehicles weren’t attacked with rocks, bricks, chairs, or pummeled with boards and hammers.  Protest signs weapons. They simply conveyed a message.  What about protesters randomly attacking police officers or federal agents? That rarely happened, and when it came to assaults and law enforcement, protestors were just as often on the receiving end.

Didn’t  “social justice warriors” like King, Chavez, Wilkins, and Abernathy modelled their protests after the anarchist, Mahatma Gandhi? Afterall, aren’t you supposed to substitute yourself in place of the message?  Isn't ending dialogue the goal right?

Well, no. While they did model their protests on Gandhi, he was all about non-violence, passive resistance, and trying to create dialogue. Gandhi wasn't an anarchist although some try to portray him as such today. So, today’s protests and protestors (aka “social justice warriors”) are nothing like their Civil Rights movement counterparts. So, if not the Civil Rights Movement, what about other protests? Incidentally, while Caser Chavez was a major proponent of migrant rights and founder of the United Farm Workers, he opposed illegal immigration, believing it harmed those here legally and gave the impression that all Hispanics were criminals. 

There were the anti-war protests, often led by individuals like Tom Hayden, Jerry Rubin, and Abbe Hoffman.  in Lafayette Park, the National Mall, and the campuses at universities like Berkeley, Kent State, Chicago, and throughout the U.S., as well as the 1971 Mayday Protest. There was the protests by Native Americans, led by individuals like Dennis Means, Russell Means, and Clyde Bellecourt. They led a series of non-violent protests (known as the “Trail of Broken Treaties), including occupying the offices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but that too was non-violent.

Following a notoriously violent police raid in 1969 on a gay nightclub in New York’s Greenwich Village, gays, fronted by leaders like Phyllis Lyons and Frank Kameny, began openly (yet peacefully) protesting for a change in laws to decriminalize homosexuality. The “Women’s Liberation Movement” , whose leadership included Bella Abzug, Democratic presidential candidate, Shirley Chisholm, and Gloria Steinem, also started in the 1970’s over a number of issues ranging from equal pay and treatment at work, abortion, separate credit and financial rights, etc. None of these protests involved spitting on people, arson, or looting (although a few innocent bras were burned).

In Chicago, in 1968, there was the infamous “police riot”, ordered by Chicago political boss Mayor Richard Daley during the Democratic Party National Convention, on anti-war demonstrators.  The result was 11 deaths and nearly 800 injuries, which include 152 officers. The officers used nearly everything at their disposal. They were wildly swinging their batons and deploying voluminous amounts of tear gas, causing confusion and panic among the protestors and innocent bystanders. Many of the injuries were head and neck related or the result of being trampled.  

The following year, in 1970, on the relatively quiet campus of Kent State University in Ohio, just over 300 or so students had gathered to protest the expansion of the war in Vietnam into Laos and Cambodia. The Ohio National Guard was called in to maintain “control” over loud but otherwise well behaved students. For reasons still unclear, 28 members of the National Guard opened fire on the peaceful crowd.

By the time the shooting stopped some 13 seconds later, 67 rounds had been fired and four students lay dead. Two were 19 and two were 20. Nine students were badly injured. Although there was a hearing, not one of the 28 members of the National Guard or their officers, were found guilty. As a result, over four million students across the country staged a mass walk out and there was no looting. No arson. A friend of mine, who was a student journalist at Kent State at the time, told me that despite the anguish and anger, there was no talk of revenge on the National Guard members or the judge.

None of this is intended to imply that the 1960’s and ‘70’s lacked violence from the Left. They did, and lots of it, such as the Watts Riots in LA which spread across the nation or the riots following the murder of MLK in 1968. However, the majority of violence, as it pertains to protests, didn’t come from the protestors themselves. It came for the “Establishment” and those on the Far Right. So, what happened? What changed?

By the mid-1970’s, protesting was becoming organized and financed. There were individuals called "coordinators" who were considered “experts” at organizing a protest (Saul Alinsky is considered to be the "father" of modern protests). They would train or bring in certain individuals to be “squad leaders” to lead the direction of the protests, who continuously reported to the coordinators.

They would also work with coordinators and others to create local specific slogans for signs and banners which were produced out of state and shipped in to avoid being traced by law enforcement with other signs, more generic, were homemade. 

Seminars would be formed to help participants learn how to deal with police tactics, passive resistance, how to non-aggressively provoke the other side and law enforcement, and deescalate any anxiety participants might have. They would also practice ways to non-aggressively resist, rehearse their message, and gain the media’s attention in a way to make it appear that they have the moral high ground.

Links would be established with like-minded groups, organizations and legal aid societies, including a bail fund.  Key individuals would be given an 800 phone number which will connect them to a lawyer  on standby who will help with the bail and obtain their quick release from jail.

By the early 2000’s, tactics changed again. Protests became almost indistinguishable from riots. Violence, once shunned by earlier organizers (including Alinsky), became virtually “de rigueur”. The actions of the individuals took the forefront, often obscuring the message of the protest. 

Actions could include trying to block vehicles with your body (especially if the media was present), ignoring the other person’s personal space while over emphasizing yours, shouting (or screaming) the opposition down, spitting on someone to provoke a reaction,  exaggerated acting to an action, using certain words, phrases, or sounds to rally and surround a perceived “threat”, as well as protesting without a permit or illegally blocking traffic (even King obtained a permit).

Physical violence, with the aim to intimidate and demoralize the other side, has also found its way into modern “protests” in a way that would have appalled Dr. King, Cesar Chavez, or Shirley Chisolm. As an aside, some use protests today as a cover for looting, theft, arson, disfiguring or destroying public and private property (which is solely intended to create an added strain on local first responders).  If these wannabe “social justice warriors” truly want to change the system, they need broad public support across social, racial, and economic lines. What they are doing is not how you get it. Mayhem, rather than the message, seems more and more to be the objective. That only weakens the message and prevents the change you want. 

Many of today’s faux revolutionaries think they’re recreating the “social revolution” of their grandparents from the 1960’s and 70’s, when, in fact, they’re acting like spoiled or coddled children not getting their way in a toy store. They spend to much time in the world of make believe instead of reality. In the words of their ideological model, Vladimir Lenin, they are little more than “useful idiots”.  How can you be  an “anarchist” while living in mom and dad’s basement and off their parent's credit cards? The closest many will get to Marx is watching Harpo, Groucho, and Chico on late night TV. 

Personally, I’m not sure I’d even give them that. I prefer to think of them as cannon fodder and eventual statistics. Their ‘60’s and 70’s predecessors were mostly successful with their goals when based on non-violence. The actions of the current generation  will likely result in failure because of choice to use violence. Regardless, if they continue with their present strategy, the end result will be that they accomplish nothing with the exception of alienating people to their cause and enhancing the power of the surveillance state and the empire.  

 

Thank you for reading "Another Opinion", the Op/Ed blog page for the "militant middle".  Here at "A/O" we truly value our readers. At A/O we seek the facts as they exist, not partisan talking points.  We hope you find our articles informative and engaging. Comments are welcome, provided they are not vulgar, insulting or demeaning.  Another Opinion is offered without charge and is directed toward all independent and free-thinking individuals. We ask, however, that you "like" us on whatever platform you found us on in order to keep our articles available for free to others. Lastly, in order to keep costs down, we depend on passive marketing, and therefore, depend on our readers to please forward our posts along. Below you will find links to the sources we used in writing this article. Thank you. 

 An Organizers Guide To Protests and Political Change

How to Organize a Protest

APWU: Our Labor History: Cesar Chavez Leads “1000 Miles March”for Farm-Worker Rights in California

Cesar Chavez

Cesar’s Thousand Mile March: A 59 Day Trek

Martin Luther King Jr.: 8 peaceful protests that bolsteredcivil rights

Malcolm and the Civil Rights Movement

Speaking and Protesting In America: Protesting in the 1960’sand 1970’s

Leaders in the Struggle for Civil Rights

 

Anti-War Protests of the 1960-70’s

1968 Democratic National Convention Protests

The Whole World Was Watching…

Kent State Shootings

Watts Riots

 

 

Filling in the Blanks: The Balance of Biden's Cabinet Picks

Every President wants to make their mark. They look to standout; to make a statement. One way is their choices for Cabinet. After all, they reflect on the President and his policies. Last week's article gave you a good picture of what you can expect from President-elect Biden. This week, we will fill in the details.

Biden's choice for Secretary of the Interior is Deb Haaland, the first Native American (her father is of Norwegian ancestry and her mother is of the Jemez Pueblo tribe) to head that department. She will be responsible for not just federally owned parks and natural resources, but for tribal lands as well.

She supports AOC's "Green New Deal", Medicare for All, and abolishing ICE.  She has a law degree from New Mexico's School of Law with an emphasis in Indian Law. Rep. Haaland is Catholic and a single mom. She currently represents New Mexico in Washington. 

Pete Butteigieg is slated to head up the Department of Transportation. Butteigieg is the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana and former U.S. Naval Intelligence officer.  He attended Harvard (majoring in history and literature) and Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He will be the first gay Secretary of Transportation. His partner is Chasten Glezman, a teacher, writer, and LGBQT activist. He previously worked on John Kerry's presidential campaign and for several global management consulting firms.

Butteigieg identifies as a "democratic capitalist", which combines capitalism with a strong welfare state, emphasizing a reduction of "excessive" individualistic freedoms. It also supports expansion of collective bargaining and competition laws.

Jennifer Granholm has been picked to be the Secretary of Energy. Ms. Granholm is the former Attorney General and Governor of Michigan. She has been a political commentator for CNN. Born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, her family moved to the United States when she was four years old. She graduated UC Berkeley with a degree in Political Science and French. She then went on to attended Harvard Law School.

She served on a number of boards of directors, mainly involved with the automotive, financial services, and defense industries. She worked on Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential Campaign.  Ms. Granholm is married to Dan Mulhern, a graduate of Yale University's School of Theology.

Neera Tanden is Biden's choice for Director of the Office of Budget and Management (OMB). Neera is a political consultant and president of the left-center Center for American Progress, a influential Democrat think tank designed to counter conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the libertarian oriented Cato Institute.

Neera, who describes herself as a "Clinton loyalist", has worked extensively for the Clintons and the Obama Administration, where she helped draft the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare").  Previously she served in the Clinton Administration as a associate director of domestic policy and worked on energy and healthcare issues.  Ms. Tanden was the domestic policy advisor to First Lady Hillary Clinton.

Ms Tanden worked on Hillary Clinton's Senatorial campaign and stayed on as her legislative director. She worked on Hillary's 2016 primary and general campaigns.  A graduate of UC Los Angeles, she obtained her law degree from Yale University.  She is married Ben Edwards, who is an artist.

Next on the list is Brian Deese, nominee for White House Economic Advisor. Deese was the senior political and economic advisor to President Obama. He previously served as the deputy director of the OMB and National Economic Council. He is currently the Global Head of Sustainable Investing for BlackRock, a global investment management corporation. Deese also had worked on Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and then went to work for the Obama campaign.

Deese obtained a BA degree from Middlebury College in Vermont and then earned a law degree from Yale University.  After graduating, he went to work for the Center for American Progress as a senior economic policy analyst.  During his tenure with the Obama Administration, he was involved with the automotive industry bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. He is married.

The unenviable job of White House Press Secretary will fall to Jennifer Psaki. She was the White House Communications Director under President Obama and previously, a spokesperson for the Obama State Department.  She also served as the Deputy Press Secretary during the Obama Administration. Ms. Psaki appears as a political commentator on CNN.

Ms. Psaki graduated from William & Mary College with a degree in English. After graduating she worked as deputy press secretary for the John Kerry 2004 presidential campaign. She is married to Greg Mecher, the deputy finance director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The White House Domestic Policy Director will be Susan Rice. That name should be a name familiar. She was ambassador to the United Nations and National Security Advisor under President Obama. Most notably, she was caught up in the fiasco of Benghazi, triggered by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's illegal weapons sales. She was also a strong advocate for the invasion of Libya and the subsequent assassination of Gaddafi. 

Dr. Rice supported reopening relations with Cuba, the Paris Accords on Climate Change, and the Iranian Nuclear Deal. She is an advocate for anti-poverty policies as well as strengthening rights for LGBQT and people with disabilities. 

Dr. Rice attended Stanford University and Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar where she obtained her PhD in International Relations. She worked for the Clinton Administration on the National Security Council and assistant secretary on African Affairs. She joined the Brookings Institute, a non-partisan think tank, before working as a foreign policy advisor to John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, and Barack Obama.  

In addition to her long political career, Dr. Rice has served on the board of directors of Netflix, several global management consulting firms and the Council of Foreign Affairs. Dr. Rice is married to Ian Cameron, an executive producer at ABC.

America has long been losing the battle when it comes to education. Although we currently rank second (just behind the UK) in educational systems, we rank in the second tier when it comes to the basics---math, reading, and science. Domestically, our schools struggled with attendance, absentee parents, top heavy (and often overpaid) administrators, underpaid teachers, and inadequately funded classrooms. The result is often throwing more money at the problems without any serious accountability and higher taxes (as in Kentucky).

The individual heading up the Department of Education has a lot of work ahead of them if our schools are brought up to par with the rest of the world and we are to remain competitive.  Biden's choice for Secretary of Education is Dr. Miguel Cardona.

Miguel Cardona is Puerto Rican. He grew up in a housing project in Connecticut where Spanish was his first language. He graduated from Central Connecticut State University with BS in Education. He obtained a MA degree in Bilingual Education from the University of Connecticut (UConn), followed by a Education Specialist Certificate, and a Doctorate in Education.

In 2019, he was appointed by Connecticut Governor Ned Lemont as Commissioner of Education. It's worth nothing that he was brought to President-elect Biden's attention by Linda Darling-Hamilton, who is handling the transition team for Biden, which she also did for incoming President Barack Obama.

With the ongoing pandemic, the Office of the Surgeon General will play a much more visible role than usual. Dr. Vivek Murthy has been selected for that position.  Dr. Murthy will be the first Surgeon General of Indian heritage (both of his parents immigrated from India).  Dr. Murthy will co-chair Biden's COVID-19 Advisory Board along with David Kessler, the former Food and Drug Commissioner, and Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, a Yale public health professor.

Dr. Murthy was born in Yorkshire, England. When he was three years old, his parents moved to Miami Florida, where his father, a medical doctor, opened his practice. Dr. Murthy earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard and then a MBA and MD from Yale University. He is founder and president of Doctors for America, which promotes universal healthcare.

He was appointed by President Obama to several committees pertaining to medical and health policies within the Health and Human Services Department. Dr. Murthy is also active on issues pertaining to climate change and its effects on overall health. Dr. Murthy is married to Alice Chen, also a medical professional and current president of Doctors for America.

Closely tied to the Office of Surgeon General is the Office of Disease Control and Prevention. Biden has chosen Dr. Rochelle Walensky to be its new director.  Dr. Walensky is the Chief of Infectious Diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. A physician and medical scientist, she regarded as an expert in AIDS/HIV research. She is also considered a leading expert in COVID-19 research as well. Dr. Walensky is Jewish and married to Dr. Loren Walensky, a pediatric hematology and oncology specialist.   

The Chief Medical Advisor on COVID-19 will be Dr. Anthony Fauci. Dr. Fauci should be familiar to most Americans by now. He is often seen and heard on TV and radio, particularly political talk shows. He has also testified before several Congressional hearings on the virus. Dr. Fauci is immunologist and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. 

Dr. Fauci is the rare exception in Biden's Cabinet picks in that he's the only holdover from the Trump Administration. Perhaps that's because he's regarded as one of the top world authorities on infectious diseases, and in particular, the COVID-19 virus. He is also an expert on AIDS/HIV research. In addition, Dr. Fauci has served in every administration going back to President Ronald Reagan.

As one would expect, Dr. Fauci is of Italian ancestry; his father was a pharmacist. He attended Holy Cross College and obtained a degree in the classics. He went on to attend Cornell University's Medical College, graduating first in his class.  He is a former Catholic and identifies as a Humanist.

In 1968 he joined the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a clinical associate at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. His long career has focused on diseases such as Ebola, AIDS/HIV, SARS, MERS, and developing bio-defense drugs and vaccines. Dr. Fauci is married to Christine Grady, a nurse and Chief of Bioethics Department at the NIH Clinical Center. 

Taken with last week's article, this rounds out Biden's key Cabinet picks with the exception of Labor Secretary (I expect he will name Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI)). Many will require Senate approval before assuming their jobs. Typically, incoming presidents get great leeway, I expect most, if not all, to pass muster. All are pretty bright, but a few (like Susan Rice and Janet Yellen) aren't without controversy. Practically all attended Ivy league schools. A few are noteworthy for being the first this or that.

Nevertheless, Biden's choices are overwhelmingly retreads from Clinton and Obama administrations. But, if we look at them in the aggregate, what do they tell us? They seem to indicate that Biden sticks with the familiar. He wants a return to the status quo. He is cautious. He doesn't like taking chances or rocking the boat. This administration will seek to undo much that President Trump did and attempt to continue the Clinton/Obama legacy.  That is their "Great Reset" and it will affect all of us.

 

Here's who Joe Biden has selected for his Cabinet

Biden's Administration: Here's Who has Been Named So Far

 

 

 

 

Censoring Gender Pronouns: No Disrespect Intended

Sometimes I just have to sit back and marvel at the level of stupidity some people engage in. Take for instance a recent measure Berkeley City Councilmember Rigel Robinson and City Manager, Dee Williams-Riley, introduced on July 16th of this year. The Councilmember proposed eliminating all gender related terms and descriptions. That means no more "he", "she", "him" or "her" pronouns, but wait...there's more.

Also included with the proposal was a list of terms that he wants removed from all government documentation and usage. For instance, terms like "manhole", "policeman", "chairman", and "manpower" are now to become "maintenance cover", "police officer", "chairperson", and "human effort" or "human power". By the way, In some locales, there are proposals to fine you if you don't comply with these changes.

In addition, words like "salesman", "craftsman" and "journeyman" are to be replaced with "salesperson", "craftsperson", and "journeyperson". "Maiden" (as in maiden name) is now going to be "family name", which isn't too bad I suppose. However, "fraternity" and "sorority" are now going to "social group", but if it pertains to college clubs, then it will be "Collegiate Greek system residence". "Heirs" are going to become "beneficiaries" while "watchmen" become "guards", but there's more silliness to come!

"Men and women" are to be removed and replaced with "people". "Master" is now "Skipper", "Captain", or "central". The term "sportsmen" is out. In its place is "hunter" (in California, I'm sure the term "brute" or "animal abuser" can be substituted). Both "sister" and "brother" will become "sibling". Out too will be the use of phrases such as "sir" and "ma'am" which won't play here in the South.

You will be expected to ask beforehand how someone wants to be addresses such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Miss" or perhaps "Moon Visitor 12" since undoubtedly someone is not going to want to be limited to the mere two gender roles nature has bestowed on us (I believe we're up to 74 "genders" now). People will be identified by their non-gender specific roles in documents rather than "he" or "she".

I should point out that while this ordinance was introduced in a city council meeting, the notion of using non-gender related terms is spreading to businesses. Signs are being posted asking patrons not to refer to someone as "Sir" or "Miss" or using a gender specific pronoun in calling someone (I suppose adjectives such as "fat son of a bitch" which uses two gender defined terms while "damn bitch", or "lazy bastard", which use one each, are still perfectly acceptable).

Given how tied we are to the commercial world and all the products we buy, some items are going to have to change. For instance, Gordon's Seafood is going to have to lose the beaded fisherman while StarKist Tuna will have to change the name of its mascot, "Charlie" to something gender neutral. I suppose the same will hold for "Uncle Ben" and "Aunt Jemima". "Mr. Clean" will have to become "Gender Free Clean". Gone will be "Mr. Coffee" as well, along with a long list of other gender specific products.

Then there's the matter of entertainment. With today's recycled ideas, particularly comic book heroes, it looks like there needs to be a lot of changes starting with "He-Man", "She-Ra", "Batman", Batgirl", "Wonder Woman", "Superman" and "Supergirl", and "Hellboy". We need to do away with "Ant-man", "Aquaman", the "Scarlet Witch", the "Watchmen", "Ironman", and especially the "X-Men" which is quite gender specific.

However, to their credit, the folks over at Marvel must have seen this coming. They recently took the progressive step of taking one the most uber-macho Norse gods, Thor, who was also a super popular superhero, and turned him into a female. That's right. Odin's son was given a "gender reassignment" by the good folks at Marvel. How well this is going to play remains to be seen, but it's not expected to go over too well. No word yet on Dr. Jane Foster. Meanwhile, we await the introduction of gender neutral and transgendered super heroes.

Of course, if you haven't guessed by now, I'm joking, at least about some of this. However, what the Councilmember Robinson and others have done are very real, and it is spreading. We've seen where male athletes have entered women's sports as "transgendered" athletes and completely dominated their competition. There have been naturally born female athletes in MMA and wrestling who've not only be decisively beaten, but severely injured by their much more powerful "Y" chromosome carrying "female" opponents.

The situation has become so bad, that female athletes have started refusing to compete against these "transgendered" individuals, and rightly so. They have appealed to the various sanctioning bodies and demanded that "something" be done; perhaps create a separate league for these individuals or to require them to compete at heavier weight classes to even the odds a little. Meanwhile, female athletes are increasingly refusing to compete against transgendered competitors; not because they are transgendered mind you, but because they still have their masculine strength and speed, and that creates an unfair and often unsafe advantage.

In terms of businesses, the line between male and females has started to blur. In some places (such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco) it's not uncommon to see guys wear makeup or instead of cologne, using perfume. Guys getting manicure and pedicures aren't uncommon, nor are seeing guys at spas getting facials. It's not over unusual to see guys wearing styles traditionally identified with women (including certain fabrics and colors).

Certain television shows such as "Rue Paul's Drag Race", "Project Runway", "Under the Gunn", "Project Accessory" and many many others have essentially "normalized" homosexuality (one of the biggest icebreakers was "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" which was about how to teach straight males to dress well). I guess you could even say "gay is in". Today, it's seen as no big deal. In fact, in some cities being straight can actually hold you back professionally. Who would have thought?

We've read or heard about dozens of gay actors and actress from the "Golden Era of Hollywood" who would never in a million years come out; it would have instantly destroyed their careers. Same goes with musicians, writers, producers, directors and so on. Nowadays, some of the most popular and powerful individuals in Hollywood (and Broadway) are gay; individuals such as Jodie Foster, Zachary Quinto, Neil Patrick Harris, Robin Roberts, Jim Parsons, Elton John, Wanda Sykes, and countless more.

Personally, I have no particular issue with individuals who are gay. Unlike some, I don't think people "choose" to be gay, at least not per se. I think you are born with that tendency already there. Why that is I have no idea. Science has reported that testosterone levels throughout the world have been on the decline. Plus, we have to remember that with a increasingly old population, testosterone levels decrease at a rate of about 1% per year after age 30 (testosterone peaks at about 20 years of age). But testosterone levels may have nothing to do with it since it's only one part of the gender equation.

I think one of the main reasons is simply acceptance. It was kept in the "closet" for so long, and now it's out, and with it, a certain power in numbers. According to Gallup, around 4.5% of the US population is gay, that is, LGBTQ, which is less than what many American's think, especially if your opinion is based on the corporate media's projection of gay influence in America. Naturally, that figure doesn't include those who've "experimented" or with those who support gays in some way.

Nevertheless, we've become a much more open society, and with that, there has been a trend toward a more socially liberal society (this trend basically got started in the late 1950's and has continued since despite periodic---and brief---shifts to the Right socially). Given the Millennials are strongly trending Left socially while their younger siblings may be headed even further Left, we can expect this to continue for some time to come.

Socially conservative (including those who identify as religiously conservative) will remain a vocal opponent, however, their numbers are on the decline and expected to continue in that direction for the foreseeable future. Of course, there will be pockets around the country where conservatives will dominate the political and cultural landscape and all things gay will remain more or less suppressed.

As for me, while one's sexual orientation makes little difference to me, I will continue to address males and females accordingly (as an aside, I believe there are two genders--male and female. What you do with yours is your business, but that doesn't mean I have to go along with you). At the same time, don't attempt to force me to conform to something I disagree with. If you have a problem with that, then you have my apologies but not my sympathies. If you chose, for whatever reason, to openly live as someone of the opposite gender, I commend your courage.

However, I was brought up to say "please" and "thank you" as well as "no sir" and "yes ma'am". If I interact with someone who is obviously a female, I will treat them accordingly, which means opening doors, pulling out the chair, and all of the other things you'd expect from a Southern gentlemen. Obviously that means referring to you with the appropriate feminine pronouns. By the same token, if you are by all indications a male, then I will treat you accordingly, and includes using all the gender appropriate grammar. Where I come from, that's the proper thing to do. No disrespect intended.


Berkeley Municipal Code Revision Related to the Use of Gender Neutral Language

Berkeley City Council Votes to Ban Gender Specific Words

Berkeley Municipal Code Revision Related to the Use of Gender Neutral Language

Gay Hollywood: 41 Out and Proud LGBT Stars

Why modern men are losing their testosterone

Americans Still Greatly Overestimate US Gay Population

Who Are You? On Being An American in America

It was once a matter of some pride to declare one's citizenship. In fact, it was the hope and dream of nearly every immigrant coming to this country to become an American citizen. Many would do everything they could to learn about their new home. They would even try to pick up every bit of English they could, either before leaving the "Old Country" or on the ship over. Of course, those were the days when America was seen as a "melting pot"; where we left our past behind and adopted the traditions, values, and, of course, the language of the place which many called the "Land of Second Chances".

Of course, those days seem condemned to another time as distant as Colonial America, the Old West, or the Roaring Twenties. Today we've become a land of "Multiculturalism" where immigrants are encouraged (even expected) to bring their religion, values and traditions, prejudices, hatreds, and languages with them.

It now commonplace to go into any store like a Wal-Mart or Meijer's at certain times and barely hear any English at all. Of course, it's just as common to see individuals walking around in their native dress. Nearly every grocery store now caters to their dietary demands, often while sacrificing space to more traditional foods.

But perhaps in some ways this is to be expected every time you have a large influx of immigrants, however, never (or if so, very rarely) has grocers pushed aside more popular items in favor of someone else's. What's worse is the fact that an increasingly number immigrant communities are demanding that stores, restaurants, and grocery stores stop carrying certain items out of their religious requirements. In other words, if they can't have it, you won't have it either.

We're starting to see demands that stores stop carrying liquor, tobacco, or pork products because it "offends" them. At the same time, there is a slow but growing demand that women stop wearing certain attire or going to certain public places---especially unescorted---for the same reason. Why is that? I am something of a amateur historian. I'm pretty well versed in most cultures, religions, and so forth. Never have I read or heard of any group in the US demanding that others follow their traditions. Never, and yet it appears to be here.

I have, however, often heard of various groups going to other countries and being told that they have to conform to the laws and values of the native population (including learning the native language). In fact, that's quite common. They usually call it an invasion. Speaking of laws, since when does an immigrant population go to another country and demand that their laws be accept along side or in lieu of the host country's? But, in Europe that's exactly what has happened in numerous places such as the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, and Holland. It's also starting to show up in America with many on the Left actually supporting it, which, to be perfectly honest, I find to be both amusing and at the same time, rather naive. Why you ask?

Well, those on the Left who seem to support these infringements on our society in the name of solidarity or whatever would actually find themselves in a rather difficult (at best) position should their efforts succeed. For instance, take the gay community in this country. Many support the Muslim community in this country, which is perfectly fine. However, they also support the extremists within the Muslim community, which is the most active and vocal.

It is this a particularly virulent strain which is deeply opposed to everything about gays. In the Middle East, they routinely throw gays off rooftops, impale them, burn them at the stake, and all sorts of other nasty means of torture and murder of both gay men and lesbian women (bisexuals included). Meanwhile, women who've been raped are the ones punished and more often than not themselves murdered for committing the "crime" of being raped. At worse, the rapist may be expected to "marry" the individual he violently raped. Doesn't that bring up images of marital bliss?

Women, to them, are no better than second class citizens. They don't believe women should drive, vote, or have any other commonly accepted rights. That includes the ability to speak freely or openly, to dress as they please, to drink, smoke, or go anywhere they want when they want. Girls, as young as 9 years old, are sometimes made to marry men decades older then themselves. Why? Religious tradition. As an aside, this tradition also includes sexual relations with young boys too. But should we allow that "tradition", which is a form of pedophilia, to be practiced in this country? Not to do so could be seen as impinging on their 1st Amendment rights.

Want a career ladies? Forget it. Women aren't even supposed to attend school beyond an elementary level. Those who do often run the risk of being publicly beaten, scared, or even having acid thrown on their faces. Meanwhile, those who dare teach these young girls are beaten or even murdered while their school books are burned, sometimes along with the schools. Can you imagine what could happen if this strain should become the dominant force in this country the way it has elsewhere? Is that what "feminist" in this country want? Is any of this what the average American woman wants?

However, I want to make clear that this isn't all or even majority of Islam. Many have adopted much of Western Civilization, including full and equal rights for women, tolerance for homosexuality, and other standards, which is as it should be. However, these are the moderates who tend to be quiet and stay in the background. The few who support this backwards 9th century way of thinking, are also the ones most engaged in terrorism throughout the world, and they tend to be the most vocal and activist of the groups in the West.

While I generally don't care what any group says, does or believes, I draw the line at being told that I or anyone else has to comply lest they become "offended". I've never been known for kowtowing to any person, group, belief, or ideology. Nevertheless, no one should ever be forced to conform to another's traditions, values (including religious) or anything else. If someone wants to voluntarily and willingly conform adapt, or adopt some belief system, political ideology, or cultural traditions, that's their business. But to be compelled, bullied, or threaten into it, then there's a critical issue that we as nation need to address.

Personally, I have literally no problems with someone's race, sexual orientation, ethnic group, religion, or whatever. Frankly, I don't need to know nor do I really care. If they treat me and mine with respect and courtesy, then I'll do the same. I don't think I'm unique in that regard. I think most, perhaps the overwhelming majority, of people in this country feel the same way. However, to be told that we have restrict what we're doing, wearing, saying eating, or coerced into removing historical objects and symbols in order to make someone else feel better about themselves else be called a "bigot" or a "racist", I don't think so (not that name calling ever meant anything to me anyway). This is especially true when these restrictions work one way.

To be told that I can't go to the grocery and buy something only to find that it's been discontinued because someone or some group complained about it, then we have a problem. To be told by my waiter at a restaurant that I can't order a BLT and beer because they've been removed from the menu to avoid "offending" some group, there is going to be a problem. To be told I can't watch a certain TV show on a cable or satellite channel that I'm paying for because someone else "disapproves" of it, then we have a problem. If they don't like the show, then switch the channel. There are literally hundreds of other choices for them to pick from.

When I try to call some business I need to speak with and being told that I have to press "1" for English, they're likely to hear some words in English they weren't expecting. In fact, I flat out refuse to press anything. The call will be ran through automatically if you do nothing anyway! If someone wants to speak with someone in their native language, then let them press some number...or go to where that language is spoken. I don't care which.

To be told that there are 24 or 57 or whatever genders and I have to play along or I get sanctioned somehow, then we've got a problem. It's just like having to worry about using the proper pronoun when speaking to someone so you don't hurt their feelings (or worse, get fined in some places), then there's going to be a problem. The last time I worried about using the proper pronoun I was in the 4th grade (I've learned a few adjectives since then by the way).

When some individual or group tells my wife, sister, mother, niece, or whomever that they disapprove of what they're wearing or doing because it "offends" them, we're going to have words. When someone tells me that some Y chromosome carrying dude who has "chosen" to be a female is going into the restroom with my wife, my mother, or any of the other naturally born females in my family or who are friends, there is a very serious problem and I'm absolutely positive that I'm not the only one who feels the same way.

On a related issue, when people choose to come to this country, great. We, as Americans, welcome them with open arms, especially if they're bring some badly needed skill with them. However, all we ask is that they do so legally; that they respect our laws and do it the right way. It would be demanded of us if we wanted to immigrate to their native country right? Those who seek to enter this country illegally are first and foremost showing their contempt for our national sovereignty and to our laws.

Secondly, they are thumbing their noses at all those who are trying to come here the right way; the legal way. Think of it this way. You've been standing in line for hours to see a movie you've been waiting to see for weeks. Then a bunch of people come along and cut in line way ahead of you. Then get to go in without having to pay for a thing, while you have to pay full price, assuming they don't run out of tickets and tell you they're sold out and you'll have to come back tomorrow...or next week.

Then, after having to wait a few hours longer than you would have, you find out that these individuals got free drinks, snacks, and preferred seating. Worse yet, you're told that you have to pay a portion of their tickets, drinks, and everything else they get. Sound fair to you? But wait, there's more. Since they don't speak English (even though you took the time to at least learn some), the film will be shown in their native language. If you're lucky, you may get subtitles. Maybe.

Well, that's a pretty good example of how our current immigration system works, or at least how the Left would like to work. Meanwhile, they apply the same idea to these so-called "sanctuary" states and cities, then have the audacity to demand more federal funding to pay for the problems they've created. It doesn't seem exactly fair to me, especially when they aid these individuals with the ways and means to spread throughout the country, making them more difficult to apprehend. But then that's the idea isn't it? When you complain or speak out they call you a "xenophobe" or some other name they'd likely have to go look up to understand the meaning of.

Of course, we're not even touching on the consequences of these individuals coming into the country not just illegally, but without ever having been inoculated against diseases that we had eliminated from this country like TB, measles, whooping cough, mumps, and a whole range of other highly contagious diseases. The result could be catastrophic for this country. Perhaps causing thousands of preventable deaths. Who should be held responsible then?

Meanwhile, liberal churches and religious groups act as if they're exempt from our laws by encouraging, aiding, and protecting these individuals; showing them how to cheat taxpayers out of money by manipulating the system. Sleazy business owners take advantage of them by working them in substandard conditions for next to nothing. So, who's the real criminal here? The ones who knowingly broke the law or those who exploit them for god or profit?

America used to be a country where people came to shed their past; to start over. They were proud to become Americans. People were free to live out their lives, so long as they didn't try to impose their religions, values or hatred on others. We valued the individual, but we were always willing to offer a helping hand, but don't expect others to do it for you; don't expect to be given something for nothing. No one owes you anything.

We were created as a nation of laws, and we expect others to follow those same laws, regardless of origin, faith, income bracket or elected office. Period. There was and remains no room for competing legal systems. While people spoke the tongue of their past, often in private or within their communities, they strove to learn and speak the language of their adopted home---English.

A common language is the fabric which weaves a single nation. But those days appear to be fading. In its place are those who are planting the seeds to create a multicultural and divided nation; a nation with different values, traditions, languages, and even laws. Others who've experienced this have quickly fallen; splintered into dozens of separate and unique pieces; the ancient Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, not to mention Austro-Hungary, Spanish, French or British empires. Even as recently as Yugoslavia, the USSR, or Czechoslovakia in the 1980's and 90's. Do not expect that we will not share their fate if we continue along the same path.

Irish 'Ayes' are Smiling

Well, Pope Francis is in a dither. It seems that Ireland has just recently become the very first country to officially recognize gay marriage following a national referendum on May 23rd. Ireland has been staunch Catholic since the early 400's. Just 100 years ago, Ireland didn't permit divorces and still remains opposed to abortions. Nevertheless, it appears that pink is the new green on the Emerald Isle. To be honest, with all the commotion going on in the world, like wars, depleting food sources, energy shortages, troubles in the Middle East, terrorism, climate change, decreasing supplies of fresh water, an unsustainable population rate, jobs, pollution, America's loss of its democratic republic to a increasingly fascist oligarchy, a failing global economic system, I wouldn't think gay marriage in Ireland would even be on the radar for the Vatican.

So, how many people does this ruling affect? Well, apparently not that many. Approximately 4% of Ireland's population claim to be either gay or bisexual, though some surveys hint that the real number could be closer to 10% since many have refused to answer the question. What may have added to the Pope's ire is the report that church attendance dropped, not just in Ireland, but throughout all Europe and the Middle East (church attendance in Europe is down approximately 40% over recent years). Of course attendance in the Middle East could be partially attributed to the recent persecutions of Christians in general and the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church in particular throughout not just the Middle East, but in Africa and parts of Asia or anywhere else where there is a rising tide of radical Islam. An estimated 24,000 Christians have been murdered so far by ISIS while another 700,000+ Christians are in flux as they try to avoid ISIS and other extremist Moslems; Moslems, by the way, who have declared Christianity to be "enemy #1" while dozens, if not more, churches are destroyed along with ancient historical sites. It seems that only the Catholics in Latin America has been immune from persecution...so far. On the "bright side", President Obama is poised to bring thousands of Moslems to the United States rather than these Christians who are under threat and facing a very real holocaust of their own.

Here in the States, gay marriage has been largely unpopular, especially in more conservative States, but there are signs that resistance against gay marriage is weakening. 37 States have legislation upholding gay marriage while 13 States have legislation prohibiting it. Ultimately, it will come down to the Supreme Court, which brings me to the heart of this article. The more conservative Christian churches and seminaries openly condemn gay marriage while the moderate and liberal religious groups have been mostly accepting if not at least more open minded. Among Millennials, who are replacing the Babyboomers as the largest voting bloc, gay, bisexual, or transgendered lives are a non-issue. That's something that the conservatives will have to get past if they are to remain a viable political power, at least on the national level. Otherwise, Millennials will leave the conservatives in the dust. In fact, Millennials are already forming their own socio-political identities which certainly leans Left and preferably non-partisan. Survey after survey show these Millennials to favor democratic-socialism while also reflecting a streak of libertarianism. In voting patterns so far, Millennials have tended to vote Democrat and Independent most often with Republicans coming in a distant third. It's not that they have any specific loyalty to the Democratic Party or Indies, it's just that they don't like the GOP's vision of America, which brings us back to the topic gay marriage. Unless the Republican Party (as well as other conservative parties and political groups) make a course change, they will---to quote Trotsky---wind up in the "dustbin of history". No one says they have to like it, but they do have to accept the reality of it. To borrow another quote, this time from the "Iron Chancellor", Otto von Bismarck, "politics is the art of the possible".

As for my personal opinion (and my apologies in advance if I step on any toes), I can't say that I have a problem with those who are gay, bisexual, or transgendered. I've always been heterosexual (so sue me). I've always thought that marriage was a relationship between a man and woman. It has been the backbone of civilization through the ages and it served a practical function. Civilizations such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Sumerians accepted a form of bisexual relationships, though the opposing sex arrangement was considered the most acceptable. This was also true of the Greeks who never sanctioned any sort of same gender marriage. In Roman, it was much the same, though not overt publically and was generally frowned upon.

When I ran for Metro Council in 2001, I was endorsed by the Fairness Campaign (the Fairness Campaign was a predominately LGBT organization which was promoting the Fairness Ordinance prohibiting anyone regardless of their sexual orientation--straight, gay, bisexual, or transgendered---from be discriminated against). I was one of the very few who answered the questionnaire and was willing to sit for an interview. I was quite truthful in both the questionnaire and interview. Briefly, I stated that I didn't believe in discrimination of any sort based on their sexual preferences or self-identity, race, religion, gender, or place of origin. As a result, I also received the endorsement of several other LGBT organizations such as The Letter. My opponent, however, was strictly against it though admitted in a interview that he hadn't read the proposed ordinance. Individuals were encouraged to call, email, and send threatening messages because of my acceptance of the endorsements. I recall trying to educate them, but it was mostly hopeless. Nevertheless, the ordinance passed by a substantial margin.

When I ran for the State Legislature in 2004, I received a similar questionnaire from most of the same groups. I again answered their questions exactly the same way, though some withheld their endorsement this time because of their personal hang-ups with the political party and not me. There were a few in the party leadership who disapproved but that was their problem not mine. Besides, I've always been secure enough with my own masculinity not to feel threatened. All the same, I was supported by the nation's top conservative gay, bisexual and transgendered political organization. As I explained at the time, I am strictly heterosexual and I believe marriage as such should be a union between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, I would not support any legislation which promoted discrimination in any form. To be clear (and here is my obligatory disclaimer statement), I've had numerous gay, bisexual, and lesbian friends; still do. I lived in San Francisco during the 1970's, at a time when individuals were just coming "out of the closet". I even stood on the sidewalk to watch the second "Gay Pride" parade (actually I happened to be at a Kosher deli eating a sandwich and walked out to see what the hubbub was all about, but that muddles the point). I even knew Harvey Milk, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who was assassinated along with Mayor Moscone in 1978. Milk was the first openly gay politician ever to be elected in California. While in the service, I discretely "protected" a couple of Navy corpsmen who were in a same-sex relationship. Had it come out that I knew and didn't report it, I would have been in some pretty serious trouble too. Still, had they been found out, they would have literally been booted out with a General Discharge within 24 hours. These individuals were good corpsmen with exemplary military records and I wasn't going to let that happen. I've also worked with numerous individuals who weren't straight over the years. As with every group, there are always some who are nice and some who are jerks. I have no issues with that since I treat people the way I way I want to be treated. I also treat them as they treat me. As an aside, should I should ever run for office again, I hope I can count on their support
.

While I don't personally agree with non-straight relationships, I still must acknowledge that none of these relationships are, frankly, any of my business. I have enough problems living my life without managing someone else's. Each us exist in this time and space for a some reason which may or may not be entirely clear to us. We can say it's all a part of "God's plan" or part of some deity's grand design. We can attribute it to some random fluke in the universe, or simply claim that our existence is nothing more than a meaningless flip of the comic coin. Nevertheless, we are here for now. In our fleeting moment of existance, we are free to choose what sort of life we want to live within certain defined parameters set by society. Thus, we are free to choose to be with those who bring us happiness and fill whatever personal void we each have to the degree we allow. Accordingly, what innate right do we have to decide for someone else who can be a friend or lover. We can't decide what level of emotional or ever personal comfort and security someone brings to someone else. We can only make that decision for ourselves.

Historically, both governments and religious institutions (which for most of history, has been one and the same) have sought ways to control the population through its rules and dogma. Slowly, society has rolled much of that back, giving the individual power over themselves while both government and religious institutions continue to seek ways to reassert their authority. In this, Ireland's voter have acted in unison to reclaim personal responsibility over their lives much to the consternation of the Vatican and no doubt to conservatives in general. At what point should the government continue to exert its control over the lives of two adult individuals who freely choose to make a purely personal decision regarding their relationship? Do we really need the government's "permission" in the form of State sanctioned license? If we choose to seek to invoke the blessing of God or some other divinity, shouldn't that decision be between the two individuals and that religious institution? If a Church disapproves, fine. There may be others which will approve. Ultimately, churches and their like will grow or decline based on their ability to meet the needs of the community the same way businesses would prosper or close based on allowing or forbidding smoking (employees are, of course, free to work there or not, depending on their acceptance of the risk just as customers are free to eat there or somewhere else. The business which best meets the needs of the local market will succeed while the others either adapt or close). This really comes down to personal choice. Meanwhile, as far the State is concern, the religious institutions can still record and report the marriages for the government's tax records. As for the Irish, congratulations on having the moral certainty to made a bold statement to the world. Now, how about a pint?



How Many People in Ireland are Gay?
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-many-people-in-ireland-are-gay-1.2155679


37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same Sex Marriage Bans.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857


The New Exodus: Christians flee ISIS in the Middle East
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html


Vatican: Irish gay marriage vote a 'defeat for humanity'
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/27/vatican-irish-gay-marriage-vote-a-defeat-for-humanity/21187566/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-853854980

Remembrances on Memorial Day

Memorial Day. The day we're supposed to honor our military and especially those who gave their youth for the defense of this nation. Many more gave their arms, legs, eyes while others gave their very lives. Today, we've turned it into the unofficial start of Summer; a times for opening swimming pools and cut outs. Some use the day to start planning their vacations. Yet, few take the time to honor our active duty military personnel, the retired or disabled veterans, or to visit veterans in VA hospitals, and especially to visit cemeteries and help to put flags or flowers of the graves of those made all the above possible; these are the real heroes who deserve to be honored.

Thus far, I've have lived to see the last of the veterans from the Spanish American War pass away; the last participant of the Battle of Wounded Knee, the last of the WWI veterans, and will likely see the last the WWII veteran who are dying at a rate of 3400 a week. Many of us will likely see the last of those who served in Korea too pass away too. Nevertheless, I have had the honor to meet several WWI soldiers, plus numerous WWII veterans; many in their 90's. A few were Japanese POWs, captured in the Philippines and forced to participate in the notorious Bataan Death March. I've had the privilege to know individuals who fought in North Africa; who landed at Normandy on June 6th, 1944; British veterans who survived Arnhem during Operation Market Garden; who fought at Bastogne during the Battle of Bulge, as well as countless individuals who fought in Korea and Vietnam, including former POWs, "tunnel rats", snipers, along with others who were awarded the Purple Heart..I had the privilege of meeting Paul Tibbets, the aircraft commander of the "Enola Gay" and was a "Volunteer Crewman" for the day on the famous B-17 bomber, the "Memphis Belle" while on static display in Memphis, Tennessee. I have come to know survivors of Nazi concentration camps and simply marveled at the resilience of the human condition. I've been lucky enough to get the unique opportunity to meet individuals who fought in Rommel's vaulted Afrika Korp in North Africa; who served in the Kreigsmarine aboard the ill fated DKM Bismarck, fought on the Eastern Front and survived the Battle at Stalingrad, who fought in the Battle of Berlin, as well as those who risked all to fight for Israel's independence in 1948. Their brief moments on the stage of history were often as humble as they were humbling to listen to. Amazing individuals all.

While I was in the Navy and just afterwards, I got to know individuals from the British Marines, the Canadian Navy, the US Navy's SEALs, as well as Army Rangers and Green Berets. I became friends with several individuals serving in US Marine Force Reconnaissance. I got to spend time with some of those who are now considered our nation's enemies and some who remain our allies, including air crews from Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Egypt as well as the Israeli Mossad and Shin Beth. Perhaps the greatest honor was attending the retirement of a certain Master Chief. This individual was straight out of boot camp when he arrived at Pearl Harbor on December 6th. He had hoped to spend some leave time touring the islands, but that wasn't too be as we all know what happened the next morning. He went on to complete 30 years active duty before transferring to the Navy Reserves. I met him on the day he was finally retiring and got to spend an hour with him before his discharge ceremony. I even got to met a former member of the Russian special forces, the Spetsnaz.

While the countries and circumstances may differ, but their commitment and professionalism doesn't. Despite the stereotype, no one wants peace more than the ordinary soldier, sailor or airman. What most people aren't aware of is that in the heat of battle, few admit to fighting for any vague ideals. Most will tell you that they fought for each other---the person to their left or their right. Friendships forged in the military are usually deep lifelong bonds. There's nothing quite like danger and the possibility of death that puts your life in perspective; to see and experience what your made of. Some have the mettle. Some don't. Few if any think about being a "hero"; most of those are dead. Instead, they focus on surviving. War knows no race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. It knows only the living, the wounded and the dead.

Some people claim that war is Man's highest calling. We see Man's nature at its worse and at its most noble. Personally, I agree that war shows the depth and height of Man's duality. We are at once incredibly humane and caring while at the same butchers. Mankind is more often than not a cruel species. We are past masters in the arts of death. Even our holy books are full of bloodshed. Unlike most species, which kills to survive, we kill for the sport (and occasionally for food). We fight over the possession of land or mineral rights which ultimately returns to nature. We may fight over another individual's actions; actions that we have no control over and an individual whom we can never truly possess. We fight over possessions or money; both of which are only temporary given our limited life spans. We commit act of cruelty over religion without understanding the nature of God without even understanding the irony of our actions.

German Air Marshall Hermann Goring once said “Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” This is what concerns me the most. Wars of today are not fought for concepts such protecting home and hearth, justice or human rights. Today's military actions are fought over control of resources, not for the salvation of a people or nation, but to improve some transnational corporation's bottom line. We wage wars and "police actions" in order to gain access to economic markets. We install and remove governments with equal ease as it suits the agenda of the 1% ; usually it's a military junta or other fascist regime with little to no concern about the people in the nation or region.

Today's "friend" or ally may quickly be tomorrow's enemy, depending on their economic usefulness and cooperation. If you have any doubts, consider this---since 1898, the US has actively overthrown or helped to destabilize some 35+ countries, including Syria, Iraq, Iran Turkey, South Vietnam, Brazil, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Cuba, Venezuela, Congo, Guatemala, or the Dominican Republic. Most, if not all these, were at the behest of a transnational corporation, while others were removed because the people of these countries elected an individual or political party that the US Government (and its corporate handlers) didn't agree with (usually a popular elected Democratic Socialist or Communist government). In return, we installed or provided support to a right wing military junta which usually resulted in the suppression of freedoms, murders or disappearances of millions, and the systematic looting of national treasuries and misuse of American taxpayer provided aid). Is it little wonder that the American Government (though not necessary Americans) is so despised throughout the world today or that no country has chosen to emulate the American form of government? I think the answer is quite obvious.

This brings me back to reason for this article. Our Founding Fathers warned us about becoming entangled in the troubles and tribulations of Europe (and I'm sure they would agree that this included the rest of the world as well). Our military was only to be used to protect America and its interests from invasion or harassment. It was not to used to enforce the desires and interests of transnational corporations to enhance their control or access to various global markets. Memorial Day should be the day when Americans reflect on those who fought and died for our nation and the preservation of freedoms in a world that is more hostile than most can imagine. We must also remember those who were wounded; they are still fighting their own personal battles. Those are our among our greatest heroes too. Finally, we should remember those who served this nation, be it by result of the draft or those who volunteered. We should be on guard against those who desire to "entangle" us in wars, conflicts, or police actions for the sake of profit. They represent a threat not just our nation, but to the legacy of all those who served our nation in the past and of those who are currently serving and to those who will serve in the future.

Lastly, for those who are "offended" at the sight of the American flag, be it on a tee shirt or flying from someone's home or in a

classroom, I urge you to visit the military section of any cemetery and thank each and everyone lying there in neat rows under their white crosses and Stars of David; who give their lives in order to protect your right to criticized, trample, burn or spit on that very flag and its ideals. Don't like cemeteries? No problem. Go to any VA Hospital and thank all those men and women who sacrificed their bodies or who are permanently scared mentally in order to secure your right to spew the hatred you have for this country and its symbols.


Suicide Rate Among Veterans and Active Duty Military Jumps
http://www.forbes.com/sites/melaniehaiken/2013/02/05/22-the-number-of-veterans-who-now-commit-suicide-every-day/

Like Ancient Nimrud--Are We Consigned for Rubble Too?

As just about everyone knows, I love history, especially ancient history. In fact, I consider myself a amateur historian. Ancient history tells us so much about ourselves; our origins; what motivated us; how we adapted and survived. It reminds us of our greatness and our weakness. In history too we see great leaps of knowledge, from reading and writing, to the use of the wheel and development of chariots, ways to harness nature such as improved ways to farm or animal husbandry. When reading about an ancient culture, I occasionally wonder who was the first person to come up with some unique idea? Was he a leader or perhaps a warrior? Perhaps some outcast or misfit? Maybe it was a woman who came up with the idea. Certainly they had more "free time" while the guys were out hunting or warring. What provoked the idea? Was it a survival need which had to be met or was it while relaxing and laying around daydreaming? Was it some group brainstorming? Maybe it was something like today. The guy get home after a week to two on the road pillaging and plundering, and the wife says "hey we have to find a way to do this or fix that, here's what I came up with" and the man goes off to tinker with it. He gets some of his pals over for a few beers and between them, they come up with a solution. Maybe it's true that nothing really ever changes.

I think that if I had it to do all over again, I would have been an archeologist, focusing on my two favorite historical epochs,

Mycenaean Greece (think Trojan War and the legendary epics of the "Heroes" like Jason, Achilles, Odysseus and Hercules) and the corresponding early Biblical period (think Moses and the Exodus up to the split between Judah and Israel). Most historians will tell you these people or events were real, at least partially real. Every myth contains at least a kernel of truth to it. But history, especially ancient history tells us something else. It tells us who we are. It is a reflection of our collective souls. That's why it really bothered me when I recently read about ISIS destroying some ancient sites and museum pieces recently. I couldn't help but think about what all those places and things had witnessed down through the centuries; what they had endured; the people and events which passed by them, only to be erased from history by a bunch of religious psychopaths.

One of the places destroyed was the ancient city of Nimrud, named after the mythical hunter and king, Nimrod and located about 20 miles outside of modern Mosul. According to legend, Nimrod built the foundations of the city. The city was enlarged by the historical king Shalaneeser 1 (1274 BCE - 1245 BCE) during the Middle Assyrian Empire. It was to remain the capital and royal residence of the Assyrian Empire until around 700 BCE when the Assyrian capital was moved to Nineveh. Nevertheless, it remained a principal city for several more centuries. The ancient Israelites, Greeks, Romans, and many others wrote about Nimrud. The site contained some of the best known statutes and other Near Eastern artifacts, with many ending up (thankfully) in the most exclusive museums in the world. Today, it's a thriving city and the region is, or rather, was the home of many of Iraq's Christians.

On March 5th, the terrorist group ISIS blew several locations at Nimrud, and then bulldozed the rest. Among the sites also destroyed was the Mosque and burial site of Jonah (as in the whale), Mosque of the Prophet Seth, and the Mosque of the Prophet Jirjis, located in Mosul along with thousands of ancient manuscripts and rare one-of-a-kind books. Earlier, in February, ISIS attacked a museum in Mosul, and using sledgehammers, destroyed even more ancient artifacts belonging to the Akkadian Kingdom, the first known kingdom in the world along with other ancient Assyrian, Babylonian, and Hellenists artifacts. ISIS also announced that it would destroy the famed gates of Nineveh. Meanwhile ISIS went on to destroy the ancient Parthian city of Hatra.

Hatra is located about 180 miles northwest of Baghdad and about 68 miles southwest of Mosul. Most people would recognize some of the monuments of Hatra from the opening scenes from the 1973 movie "The Exorcist", however, its ancient structures can be seen in just about any decent book about the Near East. The city itself was founded around the latter half of the second century BCE by one of Alexander the Great's generals, Seleucis 1 Nicator, founder of the Seleucid Dynasty. It was later capture by the Parthians around the 1st Century ACE, where it became one of the great cities of antiquity, known as an important religious and trading center. The city withstood countless assaults down through the ages, including those by the Roman generals Trajan and Septimius Severus. In time, Hatra became known as the "Alexandra of the East" for its peaceful infusion of regional cultures and religions.

I wonder if it was this reputation, as ancient as it might be, for tolerance that lay at the core for ISIS destroying it. Nimrud

too became a city known for its infusion of cultures and religions. Perhaps there's something to that after all since tolerance is not a word to be found in their lexicon. However, I think it's best to hear what ISIS itself said about the destruction of all these site. They claim that their Prophet Mohammed order the destruction of all "idols", and that includes all places where they are to be found they say. One has to wonder if they gave any consideration to the fact that other Moslem figures, and those much closer in both time and relationship to Mohammed, visited many of these very same places and did nothing. In 2001, members of the Taliban destroyed two of the oldest and tallest statutes of Buddha. Not reported by the corporate media was the destruction of Hindu and Buddhists statutes and sites in the Maldives in 2012 by Moslem extremists. In October of the same year, 19 Buddhist temples were vandalized by Moslem mobs in Bangladesh not to the mention terror attack on Mumbai in 2008.

In June 2014, a Moslem Saudi student, visiting Japan vandalized a Buddhist Temple and destroyed many of its statutes. Dozens of Hindu temples and shops have been attacked and burned in recent years as well. From 2007 until recently, dozens of Christian religious sites have been looted, burned, and destroyed, with the promise that "all non-Moslem sites and idols will be destroyed". None of this includes the thousands of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, and others who have been murdered, robbed, raped, and kidnapped and forced to convert and then sold into slavery---yes slavery. Some girls, as young as nine, have been reportedly kidnapped and forced into so-called "marriages" with men as old as 60. Most end up dead or worse.

Let's not forget the promise of ISIS to do the same to the Vatican and eventually all churches and temples, or for that matter, even the White House. You may think they are just mouthing off, but recent history has shown that not to be true. They mean what they say. This brings me to another interesting point---where is the outcry from liberals in the US or anywhere else? After all, these extremists do not tolerate 'free thinkers", no "free speech", or smoking---of anything, nor do they accept booze, drugs, no going out alone...especially with guys, and no way will there be sex before marriage. Gay? Bi? Transgendered? How do you feel about being roasted alive on a stake or crucified? That's the punishment for not being strictly hetero. And women, you will be covered head to toe. No shorts, crop tops, no going topless and certainly, no bikinis! Think of how your movies, TV shows, sports, video games, and basically, your entire life will be fundamentally changed. Hell, no sausage, pork chops, hotdogs or bacon! If anyone should be at the forefront it is the liberals. If they think they're going to somehow be exempt, they may just get their heads handed to them...literally. And while I'm at it, where are voices and actions of those Moslems who condemn this perversion of their religion in private; in hush whispers? Are they afraid to act? If so, then who will save them because sooner or later, they will come for them too.

So, here's the rub everyone. ISIS has demonstrated its intent to deny the people of Syria, Iraq, and we might as well say the entire Near East, Africa, and Asia and eventually the West, their past as well as their future. By destroying their history, which in a way is also our history, it is attempting to cast civilization adrift; to alienate humanity from itself. They have promised us the same destruction they have imposed on others. All we have to do is nothing. Set back. Be silent. Practice a little "political correctness". Argue about whether they "really mean it" while they load their rifles, build their bombs, and prepare their suicide vests. I'm not saying Islam is evil. True Islam is not. It's a very peaceful religion, but what we're seeing is not Islam as it was intended to be. We're seeing a perverted version of it being allowed to run amuck. It destroys to gain attention and inspire fear for fear engenders obedience. It is purposefully threatening the World and each one of us individually. It is demanding Armageddon-- Ragnarok--because it loves death more than life. Tolerance is what it fears. Freedom in all its forms is what it hates. Strength of Will is to it what light is to cockroaches. So, what's it going to be folks? Forget about Washington. It's is hopelessly broken. What can we do as a united People--as Americans?



ISIS Has 'Bulldozed' Ancient Nimrud Archeological Site
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/iraq-says-isis-bulldozed-ancient-site-near-mosul-n318266

ISIS Militants Destroy Iraq's Ancient Hatra City
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/07/isis-destroy-hatra_n_6822106.html

ISIS militants destroy ancient statutes, relics in Iraq
http://rt.com/news/235859-isis-video-destroy-statues/

35 Invaluable Hindu and Buddhists Statutes Destroyed in Maldives
http://www.chakranews.com/invaluable-hindu-amd-buddhist-statues-destroyed-in-maldives-by-extremist-islamic-group/2224

Japan: Muslim Saudi university student vandalizes, destroys ancient Buddhist statutes
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/japan-muslim-saudi-university-student-vandalizes-destroys-ancient-buddhist-statues