Think of Lebanon today and immediately you envision war torn countryside, ravaged by the invasion of terrorist groups like Hezbollah. It has become another blob of country rammed into the conglomerate of a violent Middle East, impaled by Islamic fundamentalism and used as a shield for extreme terrorism. But that wasn’t always the case for this once free and prosperous nation.

Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese-American journalist, lived her first 10 years in a flourishing, open-bordered Lebanon, writhe with every kind of freedom, and full of international friendships from countries near and far. Lebanon was an empire of education, a haven for democracy, personal advancement, and opportunity—the Paris of the Middle East, some called it.

When a civil war erupted, Brigitte became a prisoner in her own country, residing in a bomb shelter for the next 10 years, evading the bullets and bombs of the first front in the worldwide jihad of militant Islam against the only Christian country in the Middle East. She survived to become a voice for Lebanon, Israel, and the West; a loud but lonesome cry against the terror now threatening to do to America what it did to her beloved Lebanon.

Islamic fundamentalism teaches followers to eradicate all other religions, by any means necessary. They rejoice in their own deaths more than we value our lives. Children are raised in submission to the absolutes of Islam’s righteousness, strangers to the notion of authentic freedom. The barbaric nature and hate education spreading rapidly through the Muslim world must be clearly revealed to those Westerners who refuse to find fault with another culture in a sentiment bursting with politically correct BS. It’s not about discriminating against another culture, it’s about healthy fear of an extremism. Many of you do not understand this war on terror, the intricacies of the enemy, who to believe. It’s simple: Believe the terrorists. If you believe no one else, believe them. They want to destroy Israel, then America, and strive for Islam to reign supremely. No barrier will cause re-evaluation of this goal.

Brigitte’s montage is this: “Evil prevails when good people to nothing.” Many Americans criticize those of us who condemn the evil aspects of radical Islam. The question is this: where are the voices of those Muslims who do not promote the brutalization of their religion? If this is not what Islam represents, why are they not abhorred by the mockery made of something so sacred? In the Middle East, it’s understandable. In America, there is nothing to be afraid of. You cannot separate the violence of the terrorist groups from the teachings of Islam, which calls to conquer the “infidels,” all those non-Muslim.

Peace talks, political correctness, elimination of racial profiling, no-torture policies, and benefit of the doubt when it comes to this intangible war against an undefined geography of people, are completely jaded ideas. Imagine identity tags, loudly displaying your religion when the terrorists have overtaken. Oh wait, does that sound familiar? Imagine clothing restrictions for women, severe punishments for simple religious mishaps. These are real possibilities. We may be a rationale, humanistic people. The extremists aren’t. Negotiation and passivity will calm no one. The idea that we have created more terrorists by fighting terrorism is absurd. It only seems that way because they are pissed that we are challenging them. They aren’t stupid and neither are we.

Some say they are sick of those on the right dramatizing, as if this were a threat to our way of life, as if it was actually possible that America won’t survive something like this. FINE. Get annoyed because someday needs to take this as seriously as it truly is. It’s so trendy to say Bush has failed and lied. Sure he’s made mistakes but he’s focused on the blatant reality of what could be 20-30 years from now and that is the war we are fighting right now. You can’t know all the good this administration has accomplished because there’s no footage of what’s been prevented by the, obviously effective, anti-terror policies.

A biased media doesn’t lend its citizens the truth to make a truly informed decision. Nobody noble in the Middle East can tell the truth, for fear of being killed. I’ll bet you didn’t know that terrorist cells reside in every major city in the United States, that radical Islam is spreading through American mosques weekly, that the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), heavily supported by the traitor-esque ACLU, has dozens of terrorist connections, that many American universities receive funding from foreign governments connected with terrorism. There’s a lot that no one is telling the American people.

Our civilization is at stake and we must be the eyes and ears of the government. America is so young that many don’t realize or naivety, the fragility of our foundation when it comes to these threats. While the UN is sitting around talking about sanctions, plans are being made to destroy Israel first and then America. The rest of the world is quietly sitting by and letting evil prevail. It’s ironic how people tell America to get out of Iraq and stop pushing their values on other countries, etc. but the next minute they want us in Sudan, or in North Korea to fix the next looming problem. When we get into those countries to try to start solving problems, we will soon be criticized again. Why? Because problems are not solved peacefully, this is not heavenly bliss and will never be. Wars have always been fought to overcome conflict; it’s just that now weapons are much more destructive. We can’t make any body do anything by pretending we’re all going to keep our promises. Obviously, North Korea didn’t.

Why is Islam itself so dangerous? More dangerous than Hitler or any other threat that has faced human existence? Because it is based truly on the spiritual, immortal calls of a twisted phenomenon. According to Gabriel, it is driven by the idealogy of bringing back the 12^th man and that 12^th man will come back when Islam reigns supremely. This means that Muslims can participate in the process of bringing back the savior. They live by an idealogy of death and that is something to which our nation simply cannot relate, but we MUST understand in order to combat it.

**I just added some of you to this blog update so please feel free to look over the other columns I have posted here. This particular piece of writing is old news but I never got around to posting it until now. It's more my general thoughts on the matter than a well formed argument. However, I did want to post in on my page so...here ya go** 

Bill Clinton and Condoleezza Rice were both interviewed on various programs last Sunday night. (Clinton on Fox News Sunday and Rice on 60 Minutes). I respect them both and wanted to hear what they had to say. Each interview was interesting - to say the least - but handling tough questions in the face of a skeptical public is difficult. In these instances, only Rice managed to keep composure and answer with respectful defense.

My casual viewing quickly turned to fascinated as I watched Clinton practically pummel the notes out of host Chris Wallace’s hands. The over-hyped reaction in response to some simple questions was mesmerizing. A red-faced rant accompanied the accusation that Wallace performed a “conservative hit job” on Clinton. I don’t blame Clinton for coming to the interview with his answers lined up in protection. He feels wrongly targeted with “The Path to 9/11,” which took some serious hits against his administration. He came to Fox believing they were ready to point the blame finger because it’s progressive-trendy to say Fox is conservatively biased. I highly doubt Clinton himself actually watches Fox on a regular basis but obviously, it is perfectly acceptable and actually, obligatory, to ask questions that require information about the events leading up to 9/11.

No one should doubt that Clinton feels terrible about the fact that he was in power for 8 years just before the attacks and perhaps something could have been done to prevent them. It’s understandable to be combatant against blame. However, a less aggressive and accusatory response towards Wallace and “right wingers” as a whole would have aided his retaliations significantly.

Wallace says his own so-called “smirk” was an expression of disbelief at the disproportionate actions of a man so on the defensive he was asking to be doubted. You must analyze history to clarify the present and the fact remains that, had the Clinton administration been more closely aligned with bin laden’s threats, maybe they could have done something. But only maybe. Mistakes were made, on his part and on the part of the Bush administration in the past six years. If Clinton could admit to mistakes (as Bush has many times and Rice echoes below), he’d look graciously less guilty. Everyone knows by now that ex-CIA bin laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer, under Clinton’s administration, has plainly told the American public that Clinton was lying about the chances he had to get bin laden.

Katie Couric interviewed Rice, no stranger to so-called liberal leaning questions. Rice was flanked with inquiries that doubted the actions of the Bush administration, questions many people want to know the answers to and rightly so. She exemplified how you should respond to such grilling. I did find it ridiculous when Couric asked, “To quote my daughter, ‘who made us the boss of them?’” First of all, how do you think her daughter got that idea? I’d be teaching my daughter that America is trying to spread liberty, and the hope of peace that will never come through inaction. And that peace truly is the ultimate goal, no matter what side you are on.

That’s exactly the message that Rice expounded, calmly upon, in her responses. Finding a generous humility in light of the world situation is the only way to go about it. Rice said that, “because the intelligence was wrong, we were misleading the American people…the administration was using the best available intelligence. Nobody can re-invent the past, things that look like brilliant policies turn out to have been really stupid and things that looked like mistakes at the time turned out to be brilliant policies, I’ll let history judge the mistakes.” And only history can do so.

Clinton should have understood that. Look at this country, have the decency to own up to mistakes you might have made preceding the worst attack on American soil in history. But, really, why are we blaming anyway? We should simply learn. Look what Clinton did or didn’t do and say hey, how can take pains to do it right from now on? These short interviews unveiled much significance on the part of both administrations. Only years from now will we truly be able to judge either.

 

The most I knew of The Crocodile Hunter were the dead-on impressions of his many admirers. His happy charisma seeped through the television screen, the unmistakable Australian accent commanding laughter and light-heartedness. Steven Irwin’s death seemed to pierce all of our lives, inexplicably, even those like me who never watched his show. As the media re-played hours of footage garnishing a soundtrack of “Crikey!”, Irwin’s energetic smile dazzled it’s teary-eyed audience. I’ve never been particularly sad about a celebrity or public figure’s death, in that I didn’t feel personally connected. However, something about the fire of life radiating from Steven Irwin in his every palpitated, abundant movement and cheerful voice instantly connected with me on a human level.

Happy people are the most attractive of all and the more I watch, I see that’s why the world loved Steve Irwin. Those with passion ignite our own and I thrive from the bubbling candor of other’s lives. It doesn’t matter if that passion is for something completely unrelated to your own life. I, for one, don’t even really like animals other than horses or an occasional dog. Certainly I have no interest in being near a crocodile or lurking through swampy waters in the Australian wilderness. But it doesn’t matter because people like Steve Irwin make you wonder what you have to love that much. They make you excited about things in a way that the drone of ordinary life can wash away if your not paying attention. They remind you not to fall away from freshness and spontaneity, fun and vigor.

I keep hearing the question, why did the world love Steve Irwin so much? And I had to answer that question. It was easy to piece it together after watching the 20/20 interview with his wife, Terri. There’s was a beautiful love story that seemed to carry its 14 years all the way through. Terri’s description of their meeting, romance, and marriage restored my hope in the possibility of such things still to come. It was clear he was a wonderful husband, father, son, and friend. Clips showed him speaking, almost in tears, about his own father as a personal hero. He respected wildlife and humanity to the upmost degree and lived his life with an urgency that required the energy only authentic passion can provide.

I believe strong people are drawn to one another and such was the case with Terri and Steve. She was flourishing in her career when they met, packed up and moved to Australia from Oregon and made her home with the crocodiles. The interview with Barbara Walters was touching and raw, sincerely honest as she spoke of taking it now one breath at a time. But this was quite obviously a strong lady, dedicated to the wildlife and preservation over which she and her husband first bonded. As they walked through Steve’s zoo and began speaking of a different way to hold animals captive in these kinds of places, her zeal for the topic emerged. She didn’t forget about Steve, but her speech was punctuated by his dream for this place now.

So the physical world has lost a breath of life in Steve Irwin. It is a rarity for the loss of one person to resonate so deeply in the hearts of strangers. Perhaps because he represented something without controversy that sparked our senses, made our hearts beat faster, and made us laugh. In an age teeming with turmoil, this was surely a welcomed escape. If nothing else, I’ve seen something of the human spirit that I admire, adore, and aspire to imitate. Thank you, Steve Irwin, for showing us what life should and can be.

 

In Washington, it’s impossible to escape the noisiness of today’s exaggerated political polarization. It ascends skeptically from bitter newsprint, relentless campaigning, and heartfelt lobbyists, on the cusp of the mid-term election. But most people don’t call DC home. We are mostly imports, hailing from politely trimmed suburbs, Southern backyards, or blacktopped cities of similar bustle. And we thrive from the differences, even in conflict.

I’ve learned valuable politics from my friend Tiffany, though our thinking is anything but aligned. Disagreement regarding affirmative action was a recent battle. Fortunately, we overcame this grievance, but not without a lesson in standards. We are black and white, literally and figuratively, a reality I used to my advantage in this particular disparity.

Though we differ on the issue for valid reasons, seeking sincere relevance from the other side of the spectrum lent a stable foundation for my own platform. I realized that I’d pawned off some major issues as purely political. From Tiffany, I learned that finding a personal element is essential in making a stance. If you can’t make the controversy personal, question the faith with which you back it. I began putting faces to the issue and discovered real people, not merely anonymous, coldly typed positions.

Author Tammy Bruce wrote, “I now realize that those who disagree with me also have good points. I hope they reflect on their position as often as I do on mine, because both camps are on the razor’s edge. We will have to agree to disagree, but only now do I consider those on that other side decent people – as decent as I, but with a different focus…” Bruce, openly gay and former California president of the National Organization for Women, embraces many aspects of political conservatism, to the abhorrence of most in her social circle. She is, therefore, criticized constantly by her peers but she and I are similar in this approach to understanding the other side.

As a black teacher of primarily Latino children in inner city Houston, Tiffany said, “For me, it isn't just politics, or theory… it is the reality that my parents and grandparents faced…and the reality that my (students) will face.” I have been to her classroom and seen the eyes of those kids, wide eyed with aspiration beyond their current situations. So I made it personal, through Tiffany’s plight, and that of her students.

However, it’s personal for me too. In light of affirmative action, a less qualified person may be hired over me simply because they aren’t white. That’s a fact that shouldn’t exist. Admission and hiring practices should be truly equal opportunity, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual preference. Yes, minorities have historically been oppressed in this country, hence the original need for AA. Presently, the program serves only as a reverse form of racism. I don’t pretend to feel sorry for white males, but how can you promote equality while taking pains to segregate?

America has progressed significantly in a short time, essentially eliminating the need to physically supply equal opportunity. This sentiment, in fact, does not accurately exist. For example, children of married parents perform statistically better in most areas than those of divorce. Is this to say that children of divorce should receive a step on the AA ladder? Numerous theoretical instances surface when you start counting the ways life is not fair. Everyone will not start out on a leveled playing field- red, yellow, black, or white- but individuals have the responsibility to make their own lives. Luck plays a hand but life is mostly opportunity taken advantage of without excuse.

Compassion isn’t necessarily about agreement. Politics certainly isn’t, but you should question yourself always because when that ceases, you lose the validity of your bearings. When you no longer hear the authenticity of the opposition’s struggle, you lose a crucial basis.

Since moving to DC, my world implodes with news and never-shy opinion splayed shamelessly. It’s difficult to form nonpartisan viewpoints in light of this wordy environment, so inept with self-righteous rambling. Articulate, respectful discussions about dissenting viewpoints on a regular basis are essential. Tiffany and I maintain separate ideals. Neither of us convinced the other, but we could still walk confident of one another’s sincerity for the cause.

Relying only on purely like-minded web sites, columnists, and programs doesn’t help your political standpoint. Knowing the opposition makes you wiser, more articulate, and less biased. You must be exposed to diverse opinion to balance your perspective, to be a valid voice in rationality. Constant reliance on similar rhetoric blindsides the reality of well grounded counter-arguments that can be used to strengthen and modify your own.

JFK said, “We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.” Such definitions may differ from one neighbor to the next, but believe that you should be scared of a land where a primary philosophy dominates the governmental landscape. Listen to the voices in the storm that you might find wisdom you hadn’t known.

I read a variety of publications; editorials from politically diverse sources, newspapers small and large, brazenly conservative magazines and loudly liberal newsletters plucked for a store’s corner rack. DC encompasses a go-getter energy incomparable to any other place in the world; people ardent about literally saving the world through the platforms they’ve chosen. Those with the endurance to sit on a street for 10 hours supporting a cause represents a dedicated attitude too rarely mimicked in America’s lazily careless, news-drenched pit of baseless opinion. The motivation to uphold morale aside from un-researched blabbering, is commendable in today’s lethargic blogospheres. Draw from the other side once in awhile, research your cause if you really want to make a statement, and make friends with the one it might actually affect. Then, the sheath of the hypothetical will not be your muse.

 NOTE: I wrote this in about 25 minutes this morning before work and will probably clean it up later but wanted to get it up for the 9/11 anniversery so bear with it if there are many mistakes......Thanks.

The morning sky is a generic shade of gray, resonating the memory of this history-changing anniversary day. News channels dedicate entire programming schedules toward events of remembrance, collecting interviews and story recaps reminiscent of 9/11’s most significant heroes, casualties, and evildoers.

Ironically, a videotape of al-Queda’s latest leader surfaces in surprisingly clear form, urging Muslims to strengthen their forces against America and accelerate the destruction of such democracy. The tape is thought to be very recent and included English subtitles. Make no mistake; the terrorists will never back down and they want us to know. The extremists envision victory at any cost, including world destruction and the loss of their souls; they mistakenly believe they are saving such an essence.

Recently I was able to meet one of the greatest supporters of the Bush administrations war on terror, Newt Gingerich. His words continue to ring powerfully: “If you can’t imagine New York or Washington D.C. being blown up today, then you aren’t taking this seriously enough.” Gingerich suggested that many Americans see Islamic terrorism as only a nuisance, rather than a grave threat to our entire world. If they recognized it for what it was, the pursuance of world domination, they might more readily thank those in power for taking the best steps they know how to conquer.

While many Americans complain about civil liberties, such as the government tapping in on in phone calls, extreme measures taken at airports, and other forms of governmental monitering, they are focusing on the minimal aspects of the larger picture of current humanity. I empathize the fear behind an imposition on our civil liberties, but in times as such, the government would not be doing its job to protect us minimally. In order to produce maximum defense and optimum safeguard for Americans, radical measures must be taken. Drastic times do call for drastic measures and whining about it only accentuates our division. Little league baseball teaches the lessons of teamwork and as the world’s most powerful democracy, we can overcome, but with teammates aiding the enemy, our chances of triumph decrease.

U.S. officials announced today that the trail connecting us to 9/11’s perpetrator, Osama Bin Laden, has gone cold. A capture of this evildoer would certainly be a victory, but the failure to do so thus far, does not mean our guys haven’t been doing their job. Be assured that when Bin Laden is killed, another leader is already in place and followers are just as eager to serve the next. We want to kill Bin Laden in revenge for the thousands that lost their lives in the world trade centers, pentagon, and airplanes, but that sweetness of that would melt quickly, as we realized how many of similar disposition are still brooding in underground caves, developing more innovative plans of destruction.

I sit here today in Washington D.C., a place where attacks may be more likely to occur again, in effort to destroy those that purpose the greatest ideas and threats against terrorism. It is a privelage and significance for me to be here in the nation’s capital this anniversary day. I hope the strength and focus of our mission is amplified because of today’s reality. Think about the authenticity of Islamic terrorism, the preciousness of life, and the future of our world today. Imagine the worst and believe it could happen. If you don’t, then you are not taking the evildoers seriously enough. I’m glad there are some Americans in power that do.

Baggy-bottomed adolescent boys reeling through store aisles donning anxious expressions signify alarm to employees. Said employee will then moniter movements, administer simple questions (like, “can I help you find something?”), and generally take special care to look out for this particular profile of person. This innocent tactic remains unquestioned because obvious sentiment proves that those with such traits are prone to theft. Certain facial expressions, items of clothing, particular ages, and familiar movements puzzle together the specifics of a thief.

Thus, the basis for the growing popularity of “behavior pattern recognition” in airports It is a method aimed at honing in on potential terrorists. Boston’s Logan International Airport launched the procedure in 2002 for the first time in the U.S. Surprisingly, only 12 airports in the country have adopted the tactic since. The latest joiner is Miami International Airport, whose spokesperson claims they plan to train all 35,0000 airport employees, so as to ensure maximum precaution.

Certain characteristics classify many make-ups of people and this includes those who plan to terrorize aircrafts or commit crime. Alarm signals develop from our innate gut reactions. Why not use such natural detection to weed out criminals? Common sense creates a base on which we can locate those behaviors that may warrant question. What are a few simple questions to the innocent seeking protection?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is playing the worn out race card again, as if this were about segregation in the 1960’s and not authentic evil in the 21^st century. Technically, this procedure targets behavior and therefore, is unrelated to race. But, really, how can you possibly rule out racial profiling? Obviously, our eyes wander toward the abnormal, and historical fear maintains a logically skeptical view of persons of Arab heritage. Everyone will be gauged for the behaviors, though, and that makes it fair. I don’t know why anyone in this country would object to this under-used procedure, which strives to guarantee optimum safety.

The dictionary defines pattern recognition as “aiming to classify data based on either a priori knowledge or on statistical information…” Simple. Obvious. Logical. As they say, the best predictor of the future is the past. Check out the videos of the 9/11 hijackers before they boarded the plane and tell me we shouldn’t be watching everyone with a critical justice. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) documents at least 95 arrests since it’s inception in 2002. None of these were deemed terrorist related, but there was no harm done in catching those involved in other crimes. If 95 arrests have been made with the policy in only 12 national airports, imagine the crime elimination that would surface if implanted in every airport.

Any qualified security guard should already be using this procedure naturally. The ultimate issue here is personal comfort. I’m certainly not comfortable with John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU chapter in Massachusetts, who was quoted in the Associated Press as follows: "The police officer can approach you, can ask you questions, can ask you for identification, but under the circumstances you're under no obligation to respond." Somehow this is his idea of rebellion against pattern behavior recognition but anyone who would not respond to security inquiries in an airport better be prepared to miss their plane.

 

After living in Bloomington, Indiana my entire life, I was pleasantly inoculated into the more patriotic environment of South Carolina last year. Though Indiana is a red state chock full of old- fashioned Mid-western values and team-playing traditionalists, Bloomington houses the increasingly liberal minded Indiana University. The Hoosiers I adore, but a left-wing sentiment saturates the campus like the moisture of each season’s grimey residue. Such classroom direction roots a tinted worldview at the forefront of many still-pliable young minds.

Relocating to the South jumpstarted my rolling recognition of the left lilt of a twilight zone that is Bloomington. Before leaving, I found it hard to believe there was enough support in any part of the country to elect a Republican administration. Cars were wall papered with Kerry bumper stickers, plastered on top of peeling Gore support and “My Body, My Choice” advocates. It was a step of social martyrdom to utter presidential support in class or, god forbid, mention you think it’s a bad idea to put children in daycare or don’t believe in handing out condoms in high school health class. I think people thought you had to be Amish if you really thought that.

In South Carolina, I couldn’t go anywhere without being bombarded by a sea of American flags or Support our Troops posters. I was relieved to feel bonded, linked to an attitude of simple spirited patriotism that transcended the ignorance of privileged bias so prevalent in the news media, Hollywood, and of course, public education. There was no sheath disguising national weakness with peace marches and cheers of governmental rebel. The option of dissent is certainly valued but the idea of it at IU was sometimes elevated to a position of importance that overshadowed more significant matters.

Another taboo policy to object at IU was affirmative action. To admit you didn’t support this prejudiced strategy, basically labeled you a racist. Hatred erupted when an activist group on campus hosted an “affirmative action” bake sale, pricing their cookies according to minority status. Heated arguments ensued but the point was made and interestingly, the bake sale shut down. Disagreeing with gay marriage, or mentioning you thought the “V-Monologues” was grossly outrageous resulted in cries of judgment, intolerance, and oppression. Opinion columns in the student newspaper about “idiot” Bush and his “lies” were overpopulated as well. South Carolina made me realize that the bubble of Bloomington was not representative of the proportionate country. The South city in which I resided may have been tilted slightly the other way, but it took moving to a different state to see that the spin zone of IU’s revelry was not, in fact, reality.

I come from a family background riveted with some political discussion, a black and white stance on social issues, and convoyed by bootstrap philosophies, straight from “the school of hard knocks.” A fine balance between formal and real world education should prevail for the maximum achievement of learning. Unfortunately, that critical vice is often lost in the 10-story library stacks and echo-ey lecture halls of uber-college pseudo world. Though I appreciate the volumes of knowledge rendered me during my 4 ½ years at this crimsoned alma mater, they perhaps unconsciously employ a staff of ideas crafted in generous favor of an extremely liberal mentality.

For example, as a part-time student at the school of education, I learned that minorities are priority in the classroom. They didn’t say it like that but it is quite obviously the dream. In my personal essays class, taken during the semester of the 2004 presidential election, I could have been hanged for expressing my vote. The commentary bouncing around that classroom had one believing we were in the midst of a Hollywood anti-Bush rally. I wrote my first essay in dedication to a fallen soldier, out of respect and gratitude, but the response was minimal, paired with averted eyes and obvious facial disgust. My professor, though a brilliant writer, who definitely inspired my creativity, was blatantly anti-war and encouraged the daily bolstered this mentality. Unless I was previously secure and healthily grounded in who I was already, IU could have sucked me clean and had me walking out with a diploma and a twisted mindset.

Luckily, I was able to keep a level head despite the imbalanced mal-nourishment of my university-drenched brain. Unexpected benefits did accompany the attendance of a big name, public university. I fashioned a more open, honest, and tolerant mind. This does not mean abandoning my values to rally for the equal rights of illegal minorities or accepting a religion of unity of course, but it helped me find stability. It meant deeper thought and stronger conviction of my traditional mind, crucial examining of unquestioned theories, and the ability to garner respectful disagreement on a wide spectrum of issues. And though if often caused frustrating arguments with my ultra-conservative mother, I felt enlightened, escorted into a wiser reality.

I end this entry with a postscript. I love Indiana University and the people, education, and excitement woven into its history. It is this campus that draws cellists from Korea, chemists from Indonesia, and linguists from Hungary. Their educational plights landed them here in the midst of America’s corn-fed heartland, huffing it along the ancient cobblestone streets, and studying against historical brick wound upward in green ivy’s lively anticipation for the stars. The dreaming rubber souls of shoes on many thousands of dreamers lift forth, squeaking atop these red brick carriers of the future. Some left behind families across the oceans for years at a time in effort to embrace this aspiration of something greater. This was surplus of learning, a buffet of knowledge garnished with sides of culture, music, drama, art, spirit, ambition, hope, and opportunity. Insomuch, I had a great college experience overall; I just see how easily some poison can be disguised as enlightened truth when presented as fact.

John Mark Karr’s bogus confession to killing Jonbenet Ramsey is one of the most annoying and unnecessarily over-hyped news stories in American television history. Endless inside scoops and hours of supposedly exclusive coverage left no news channel playing innocent in the gluttonous glamorization of this case. I awoke irritated this morning to a scrolling reel unveiling the latest jazz. Weeks of layered coverage and bold printed proclamations of “Solved!” splashing magazine covers are now obsolete and embarrassingly noted as pre-mature.

Since when did loud-mouthed possibility equal fact? Truth is now often lost in mirages of opinion and loosely based theories. Common sense and basic intuition might have prevented the media frenzy that rode out the public with clamoring for any stitch of connection to sate the ratings appetite. Karr was, with blatant obviousness, a sadistic sick puppy, beginning with the fact that his two wives were both young teens. Clearly he has a predator-like fascination with little girls. His behavior proves odd and erratic in all facets, though, not just pedophiliac regards. Reports confirm he’s been fired from several jobs and made more than a few co-workers and acquaintances uncomfortable, to say the least.

This bit of recap elicits that he should never have been taken so seriously. An inarguably mentally unstable person’s word cannot garner a respect worth such news uproar. Ignorance and irresponsibility catered to the lavish reports on this case which we now see, largely, wasted our time. The public audience may understandably accept the confession and go on, but for entire empires of journalism to print and cover the confession so ravenously is not tolerable. Look at the fame Karr acquired, however negatively, and recognize how easily another loony could take our attention off authentic concerns. It’s frightening how simply attention is lost on the ooze of gossip.

Because news has overgrown it’s place in society, even the juiciest lemon of a story is squeezed dry. The dilemma revolves around keeping news fresh and exciting 24 hours a day and frankly, that is impossible. Constant coverage of the same event, rarely expounding any new particularly relevant details, skews public perception. No longer do you read a print news story, discuss it and form an opinion. Now, you can’t even have an opinion because everyone is telling you what just is, grabbing quotes from whoever happens to e-mail a reply fastest. America is un-phased and thinking relatively less.

These news networks claw their way to the latest details first, while keeping pleasant composure on screen. But the reporting race leaves no room for error and that is seriously scary for the public. Deadlines, editing, re-writes, fact checks, research, confirmations and reliable sources; these have lost a grave significance in the fluster. It is not enough to hope you go it right. This is our constitutional right and you have a responsibility to get it right. Without accuracy, journalistic repute dies. Without good journalism, the country is lost in the chaos of information overload and misconception. You see, journalism is a fundamental necessity for the clarity of anything worth knowing in this great democracy.

It’s difficult to decipher hard news and editorial news these days, especially for the average American worker just trying to keep up at the end of the day. Too many people in the business do not grasp the serious consequences of irresponsible journalism. I’m not saying that the things reported on John Mark Karr were false, but they certainly overtook our television screens to an obnoxious extreme. That extreme pushed out other, seemingly less important news, news that might have been better placed. A story like the Karr case should have been reported, but tamed and properly prioritized.

I hope, for the sake of untarnished citizen perception, that news mediums take a situation like this and re-evaluate the way they demolish such stories with an untamed fervor. Change is difficult when the news monster has steadily increased but the roots of good journalism still exist at the heart of American news and they can prevail.

 

I guess I’m confused as to why American journalists find it necessary to lend fair air time to our greatest enemies. In my logical mind, interviewing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for an exclusive CBS broadcast could be interpreted as an effort to try and understand, or empathize with the mindset of our opposition. His feelings on our country and administration were touted clearly, if not wrought with vile threats and disgust. But such is the mindset of the liberal; catering towards the belief that everyone deserves a fair shot. True, we learned in Journalism 101 to present all factual sides of a story and deliver that news without favor towards one or the other. The difference here is that we are now dealing with nations who want to destroy us and take over the Middle East, if not the world. To even begin dealing a hand of fairness to all sides undermines the mission of the free world to conquer this mounting, evil-laced, terror-connected power trip.

Iran occupies the most dangerous position in the world right now, as they are fueling Hezbollah with funds and weapons, and plot to overtake whichever nation’s weakness will allow. In the interview with Mike Wallace, Ahmadinejad said of an 18-page foreign policy criticism he sent to President Bush, “Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate.” (CBS News) This is a thinly blanketed warning that we cannot ignore.

Sadly, it seems that some of our country remains ignorantly blinded by the reality of our fated world and warrior card that US must play consistently. Such ignorance is plainly illustrated by the loss of traditional Democrat Joe Lieberman to Ned Lamont in Connecticut’s primaries yesterday. Democrats abandoned a strong leader with a good record in favor of an inexperienced businessman. Pro-war. Anti-war. It’s so much more complicated than that and when we start electing people who drop the ball at “no war”, we slowly start losing ground, as if bogged down in a hardening river of sugar that will melt away before realizing the bitterness beneath it.

People choose to be blissfully unaware of the violence and necessity of war because they wish it didn’t exist. Therefore, they pick the guy who tells them it doesn’t have to and hope he will make that happen. Such is the mindset of shallow, un-investigative thinking that disregards essential realities for the future of humanity. Plenty of people live their daily lives and personal realities this way. Unfortunately, pretending is not an option when it comes to terrorism, dictatorship, religion, and democracy.

This is why I’m thankful for an administration that understands that, that doesn’t back down in the face of dwindling public opinion polls, that visualizes the ultimate goal, and rises up stronger when other supposed allies of “good” back down (France for example). Joe Lieberman stuck by his gut wisdom and got struck down. I hope the American people don’t continue on in those type of foolish moves. Bashing the government does nothing but hault our progress and the enemies see our disloyalty everyday, in protests, elections, editorials, and the traitor-esque stories unveiled in our country’s most well-known and wide-read newspaper, The New York Times.

Post-interview declarations by Wallace were of a questionable nature, causing this American to doubt the neutrality of the veteran newsman’s report. He said, “He’s actually, in a strange way, he’s a rather attractive man, very smart, savvy, self-assured, good-looking in a strange way…” (The Hollywood Reporter) Perhaps that odd comment was nothing more than just that, odd. But in light of the current world situation, Wallace might have quipped keeping his opinion of Ahmadinejad’s looks and intelligence to himself.

 

Dan Rather’s cry baby words on CBS leaving him in the dust reek of an expectant spoiled brat. He should have the dignity to accept this fate, substantially attributed to his careless commit of a pinnacle journalistic sin. When Rather gave confident, thoughtless report to false war documents received from an inadequate, unreliable source, he gave up any ability to garner trust in himself as a respectable journalist and reduced America’s trust in the media as a whole. Most people know to view the news media with a grain of salt. While it should always be as Fox News says, “We report, you decide,” that is usually not the case. Especially with CBS and reporters like Rather who have always pulled out hard knocks to those they dislike and soft taps those they do in interviews and reporting.

But now he expects to be treated like television royalty by CBS after this unethical reporting? I ask you, why would any sane person want to get their news from someone who said, “I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things.” (O'Reilly Factor May 15, 2001.) And this is just one of the many unbelievably ignorant comments he has made on national television. Rather violated public trust during a critical time in a way that could have altered the history of this country. Luckily, it was found out and only created good “what-not-to-do” learning material for J-school undergrads. Anyone taking Journalism 101 learns that fabricated or even sensationalized news is unacceptable.

A journalist’s integrity must triumph extraordinarily because they have a vital duty to fulfill, an authentic obligation to the American people. Call me crazy, but I think he should have been fired that day and charged with a crime. A colossal unethical decision calls for a colossal punishment and I think Rather got off pretty good because of his news celebrity status. Anyone can do something they regret, but an honorable person would humbly step back, not demand continued respect and more responsibility in the same arena. Rather should be embarrassed, but he has no shame and whines about not being treated as his apparently god-like journalistic status demands. A respectable champion of any profession requires some air of humility to sanctify that status. Rather is the opposite and his unattractive temper tantrums don’t make him any more popular amongst the rationale public.

Sadly, Dan Rather will be remembered as one of the greatest American journalists of all time. He may have, at one point, been a good reporter but he took that passion and talent and twisted it towards a political agenda that ultimately hacked his career ending to a sad pulp. “Rathergate” will certainly not be forgotten, and I suppose you can’t wholly discount the newsman he was for so many years, but sometimes a single decision can compromise everything. A man can live a supposedly good, moral life for 75 years but if at some point he decides to do something unforgiveably immoral, those good 75 years are no longer very valid. Seeing as how polls show that the media is overwhelmingly left-leaning and liberal mindset tends to oversight “petty” dishonesties (reference liberal god Bill Clinton), Dan Rather will still be an icon of great American journalism. Let’s hope the future of journalism doesn’t follow this beaten path.

 

There may be no new arguments to commence when it comes to the disgusting inhumanity of abortion but that does not mean I will stop repeating the old ones until the murdering is finally deemed illegal again. I am continually shocked with the lack of opinion, ignorance, and acceptance of my peers on behalf of this silent holocaust that has drenched our country in the past 30 years. I have lived amongst students and young professionals, most of who shrug their shoulders when asked if they voted in the last election, and come up speechless on major political and social issues. With a topic so debated and central to each of our lives, it disturbs me that more people aren’t giving it the thought it well deserves

“Well, my brother’s not going to be a Dad anymore,” said a female co-worker yesterday. I froze in hopes that the following explanation wasn’t what I thought it would be. Another co-worker responded, “They took care of it?” in a non-emotional questioning tone. “Yeah, she didn’t tell him,” said the first, “but it’s for the better.” So the casual conversation went and my heart literally tightened in anger, speed to a furious beat, and crimsoned fury on my cheeks. My body language uncontrollably reflected the horror at this relaxed talk of baby killing, but I was in a professional environment inappropriate for the seething argument that would surely instigate with my disdain. I bit my tongue as I had truly wanted to say, “How can you talk about it like its nothing? Like quitting a job or breaking up with your girlfriend?” It’s for the better? This woman’s brother may have been unprepared to be a father, but his baby is now dead, her niece or nephew strewn amongst used medical equipment and dumped beneath a heap of chemical garbage. I don’t need religion to validate my stance on abortion, but what a blasphemy of God’s creation.

We have to start somewhere and this safe, warm, nourishing womb is that pinnacle place of existence. It acclimates the safety of unconditional love, introduces the tenderness of absolute faith in another that only childhood can render. It is absolutely impossible to deny the reality of what abortion is. Even hardcore pro-choice advocates can’t help but fumble with abortion’s reality, like when NARAL President Kate Michelman called it “bad” and “tragic,” in a word slip. A Planned Parenthood web site based out of Waco, Texas, presented a lengthy page describing the day of your abortion, including the ironic detail that no children are permitted. It graphically explained the insertion of a suction tube and mentioned that the abortion procedure itself takes only a convenient 10 minutes. (At least then you’ll have time to pick up your dry cleaning!) Pricing information noted that babies under 13 weeks could be aborted for $360, while those up to 15 weeks will cost the heftier sum of $550 to get rid of. Well, the early bird gets the worm you know. Sick.

Whether we want to admit it or not, abortion can be connected to each of our God-given lives. I am a happy, healthy, well-adjusted, capable human being but I was a candidate for selective death at one point in my life. At 19, unmarried with a young relationship, and broke with no aspirations beyond finding her next dead-end job, my mother’s pregnancy was not glowing. In the half light of the situation, I am certain people encouraged abortion for this less than ideal circumstance. She might have regarded this as an option for me. Hopefully not. Gratefully not. It has become generic for pro-lifers to say, your lucky your mom didn’t have an abortion. There are a lot of people out there whose chance of survival before birth was dramatically lowered unnecessarily. I don’t know the details behind my controversial days in the womb, but I’m a survivor, I beat the percentage that said I might not make it.

A small dose of perspective, rationality, and common sense is all it takes to see that abortion is, obviously and physically, the ending of a life. Our physical lives go through a series of constant phases, beginning with conception and ending with death. The fact that I have to keep saying this is sad because it’s so clear to me that I am literally perplexed by the fact that it’s actually such a hot issue. Abortion stops a beating heart. Fact. I don’t want to hear the fluffy bull about it being the right choice for some, just not for me. Excluding the debates regarding rape and incest (though I still regard abortion wrong in those cases), unplanned pregnancies are the risk one takes when engaging in sexual intercourse. Married or not, old or young, ready or not, here the baby comes. Snap out of it people, you don’t need aborted babies flashed in your faces to admit the truth of it (even though blatant truths like evidentiary photographs somehow do not affect the beliefs of many.)

Consider a member of my family who miscarried in her third month. This was a baby, the essence of humanity in the little person surrounding those newly formed organs. We were devastated to learn that this child died and mourned that loss. This was a critical stage in development, a time when many abortions take place, when an emotional choice to sacrifice life for convenience, out of fear, or in haste results in tearing down the sacredness of life. All women considering abortion should be sent to mandatory counseling, encouraged to choose life, and forced to take real time and think about their decision. How many people have laid on that table not 100% okay with their decision but still went ahead? Abortion, always wrong and immoral, should be the last option for anyone if it must be a legal option at all. Why is America, with organizations like Planned Parenthood, NOW, and NARAL, pushing it? What kind of world are we coming to when any American political leader gives a second thought to legalizing partial-birth abortions, the most disgusting excuse for a choice I’ve ever heard of?

The vast majority of citizens do not agree with partial-birth abortion, but for those that limit their objection to only those minute cases, I ask truly how they are differentiate the levels of wrongness? At what stage in development do you draw the line? Today it’s a fetus, tomorrow it’s a baby? I don’t think so. In defense of the sanctity of human life and the moral pathway of American values, I extend my sword in the battle against unnecessary infant deaths. Like many other senseless killings, I cannot label this epidemic a tragedy because tragedies occur minus the help of lawmakers, activists, and unexpectedly expectant mothers. But I will call it what it is: sad and shameful, selfish and needless, heartbreaking and essentially evil prevailing over goodness.

 

I caught the last half of Air Force One today on television. I’m not typically an action/adventure movie type of girl, but the film captivated me and I simply couldn’t move as I rooted for the President and his Americans to prevail. I’ve seen it a couple of times before, and I know what happens, but I had to watch in earnest, hopeful anticipation.

Just like in many old cowboy movies and surrounding the premise of classic fairytales, this was elementary: a story of the good guys and the bad guys. Many familiar scenes mimicked real life and it came down to good versus evil, freedom versus terror. My heart warmed when Harrison Ford sees the American fighter planes coming to the rescue and says, “The good guys are here.” Pure evil resonated in the tongues, minds, and spirits of these terrorist hijackers controlling the plane. Unlike the instances of 9/11, these men weren’t in the mindset of martyrdom. But that makes reality all that more scary, in that just last week the Al-Qaeda leader second in command to Osama Bin Laden, released a statement encouraging members of this group to be martyrs for the cause and destroy.

Throughout the movie, those left at the White House must decide whether or not to negotiate with the terrorists, whether or not to trust the President, whether or not to trust their guts. Aboard the plane, the terrorist leader promises release when the President agrees to his demands. Once relinquished, he grins condescendingly and says, “Forgive me, I lied.” Remorseless and brimming with hatred, he has attained the goal of his fatal plight and cares nothing for the pitiful souls who dealt it him in trust he would deliver on his end of the bargain. But case in point: the bad guys really are bad and they can’t be delivered any consideration, respect or trust. They must be taught, fought, and overpowered and we have the obligatory duty to aggress per our abilities and innate, evil fighting moral senses. We are allies to the triumph of ultimate good.

This movie exemplifies, as world history also precedents, that negotiating with “the bad guys” simply doesn’t work. We, as bearers of honorable character, want to believe people stick to their word, but they are ruthless, de-sensitized killer who lie, deny and sacrifice their lives to promote their purpose. These people aren’t interested in peaceful regimes and harmonic world unity. That is irrational, unrealistic hope that anti-war protestors need to absorb fast. Many Americans and world citizens criticize our government, our national leaders, our soldiers even for the actions taken in Iraq and Afghanistan, for supporting Israel in their own battle against Hezbollah. Yet I know dozens who barely glance at the evening news, never pick up a newspaper and would have a hard time telling you which two countries are at the forefront of brutal war right now.

Just watch a clip of Al-Jazeera, read the press release statements from current Al-Qaeda leaders, listen to the violent protests in the Middle East. This is war. It requires brave men, people willing strength against the powers of physical and spiritual warfare. We have to ignore the opposition and complete the necessary tasks to prevent these superpower terrorists, confined with no absolution or in-party consequences, from taking over.

Lies and deception only surface on the part of the bad guys. America has made mistakes, not out of a sinister national heart, but in support of freedom, good intention, and the best of intelligence. We, a democracy, have to remember, whether or not you agree with America’s leaders, we’re on the same side! We are all against evil, that evil being Islamic terrorism, and you can’t fight this kind of evil with words. It isn’t that simple because it pervades the world, therefore we are forced to rise above it in the only way tangible, which is physically. Never having gone to Iraq? Pulling out soon? Not supporting Israel when they battle terrorists? God only knows where things might be had these crucial decisions not been made. You cannot hindsight what didn’t happen thanks to the actions we’ve taken thus far. It’s not pleasant or nice, it’s incredibly scary, inevitably sacrificial of innocents, and we wish it wasn’t here. But it is. It IS. We ARE. We MUST. It is our humanitarian responsibility because we CAN.

Everything in life can be equated this way. Like in Air Force One, it’s like the entire world is in a plane trying to be overtaken by the “bad guys”. Had Harrison Ford uncovered his identity at murder of one innocent, then the whole plane might have gone down. God forbid that person be your brother, your daughter, your friend, or your father. But it has to be someone’s somebody or we are doomed. It may not feel real, in the superficial, sheltered America so many people dwell in but, it sure is real across the ocean. On the front pages of the papers everyday, the numbers, and bombs, and passions raging, good and bad, on both ends. This isn’t ultra-conservatism in me, it is sense and wisdom birthed in my heart, literally imprinted on my soul, and I believe that innate sagacity lives somewhere in all lives which desire to overthrow evil.

 

Against the wishes of many party-split Americans, President Bush vetoed the possibility of experimenting with discarded embryonic stem cells for scientific research. Personal moral authority delegated this controversial decision, ultimately preventing a beneficial avenue towards medical research for degenerating diseases, and supplementation of other valuable knowledge.

The biggest argument presiding around this veto affirms that the aforementioned cells are lifelessly trashed anyway, therefore purposely wasting the inherent value stored in these frozen embryos. Why not expose possibility for the betterment of our actively breathing human lives? It seems only logical. But logic oft fails to surpass morality. Unlike chemical equations and mathematical certainties, ethics bears a deeper soul, less readily and sometimes impossibly defined within mortal minds. Is it quite safe to leave these minds playing with the maybes of our own kind?

Seriously fuzzy ethical scales are weighed when you begin toying with the sanctity and idea of what is and is not life. Already, the relevance of our heartbeats is demeaned with the legalization of abortion for any godforsaken reason. When it comes to issues of testing on potential human beings, you simply cannot separate the facts and reasons from abortion and reproductive freedom.

It’s easy to see why many Americans so easily favor stem cell research, since millions of healthy babies have been killed legally for the past 35 years. Not nearly the same process, but a similar stream of thought erupts. President Bush opposes abortion though he does not currently have the authority to reverse that decision. But he did have and utilize his right to eradicate potentially dangerous ethical repercussions in regards to an already unstable reproductive playground. Fact is, the majority of parents who have chosen the route of frozen embryos do not want them used for research anyway. Those genetic codes belong to somebody and perhaps a reminder is necessary.

Clearly, though, many Americans who oppose abortion still support stem cell research for a multitude of reasons. While abortion is often chosen hastily out of selfish, irresponsible reasons, this research purports the best of causes, supplies an abundance of crucial learning material, and generates hope for millions of people suffering from debilitating diseases. When the President vetoed the research, he vetoed hope in many hearts. Some view him as cold and uncaring for dashing dreams and halting medical advances in a day when people wonder how you could have something tangibly there yet not use it, “just because.”

This is the character-built morality often lost on today’s self-absorbed generations. Tough times and raging opposition coincide with this veto because even some loyal Bush supporters disagree. According to polls, the President’s numbers are down again but He is not easily swayed in light of ever changing public opinion. The President hasn’t always been right or always been wrong, but in reference to this issue, playing it on the safe side of humanity’s legacy cannot possibly be wrong.

If you start here with the embryos and the research, an endless well of scary scientific possibility enters the picture. We are not our own creators and so should we not be, therefore even dipping our little toe in the water of experimentation begs for fear of a genetic society so advanced it swirls out of control. In the wrong hands, such seething power could swell to lethal proportions and it could happen before our eyes like a near silent latch that can never be re-locked.

It seems as if I am way ahead of myself but we humans aren’t known for our perfection or humility or self-control when grasping limitless means. Once you’ve tried something, even a little, temptation to go one step further is that much more emboldened. What seems only a bit quickly becomes many small bites ballooned to a long stretch from appropriate morality, overstepping God’s intended boundaries for mankind.

Researching on these stem cells approaches the edge of an ethical frontier not meant for crossing. The moral margins defining survival laws for our species exist for exceptional reason. In the undeniably scary reality saturating our worldwide lands today, I am in agreement with President Bush’s notion to follow the wisdom of his heart on this one.